Durney

Durney v. WAVECREST LABORATORIES, LLC

Good Law

441 F. Supp. 2d 1055·2005 WL 4438689·65 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 839·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42580

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 9, 2005C-05-3166 EMCCalifornia4,895 words

Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN PART AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims based on failure to state a claim. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions as well as the argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss in part and DENIES the motion to dismiss in part.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Mr. Durney asserts six causes of action: quantum meruit, misappropriation of ideas and work product, copyright infringement, correction of patent inventor-ship, causing harm to jointly-owned property, and breach of agreement.

Mr. Durney’s causes of action are based on the following factual allegations: he was hired by WaveCrest to do various work, including improving its patent portfolio. See FAC ¶ 5. Mr. Durney provided services to WaveCrest between March 2002 and December 2003. See id. Wave-Crest paid Mr. Durney more than $130,000 for services provided (and out-of-pocket expenses incurred) during the last six months of 2002. See id. ¶ 6. However, it did not pay Mr. Durney for all…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.