Toussaint-Hill v. McMillon

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TERENCE C. KERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court are (1) Defendants Robert Swan's and Brian Krzanich's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 36) and (2) Defendants Doug McMillon's and Walmart Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 37). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Swan's and Krzanich's motion is GRANTED as to dismissal and DENIED as to transfer. Defendants McMillon's and Walmart's motion is GRANTED.

         I. Background and Factual Allegations

         Plaintiff Victoria E. Toussaint-Hill filed this action on July 16, 2018, and filed an Amended Complaint on September 28, 2018. (Doc. 30.) She alleges that in 2015, she notified her supporters on Facebook and Twitter that she had conceived and created a concept for an automated self-lifting shopping cart. On June 24, 2016, she applied to be a contestant on the television show America's Greatest Makers, on which Defendant Krzanich (“Krzanich”) was a judge. On July 19, 2016, she submitted a Unilateral Nondisclosure Agreement (“NDA”) between herself and Olivia Stafford, Casting Producer for America's Greatest Makers and Intel. Despite this NDA, Defendant Intel Technologies (“Intel”) leaked information about her product to Defendant Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”), who applied for a patent for a similar product on September 16, 2016. Plaintiff also alleges that both Walmart and Intel have been “unduly enriched at Plaintiffs [sic] request” by this conduct. Finally, Plaintiff filed a provisional patent on her product on April 17, 2017.

         Plaintiff is a pro se litigant; accordingly, the Court will construe her allegations liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, if the Court can reasonably read the Amended Complaint to demonstrate a case of actual controversy within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act, standing, or personal jurisdiction, it should do so “despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authorities, [her] confusion of various legal theories, [her] poor syntax and sentence structure, or [her] unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” Id. However, the Court may not assume the role of advocate for pro se litigants. See id. Accordingly, the Court will not supply additional factual allegations to round out the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint or construct a legal theory on Plaintiff's behalf. Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).

         As a preliminary matter, the Court must determine who is named in the Amended Complaint. Rule 10 requires that “[t]he title of the Complaint must name all the Parties.” The Amended Complaint names “Doug McMillon, individually and CEO for Walmart; Bryan Krzanich, CFO and Interim CEO Intel Technologies; and Robert Swan, Former CEO Intel Technologies.” In light of Plaintiff's responsibilities under Rule 10 and the Court's obligation to construe a pro se Complaint liberally, the Court construes the Amended Complaint to name Robert Swan (“Swan”), Krzanich, and Doug McMillon (“McMillon”) individually, as well as naming both Walmart and Intel.

         Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court construes Plaintiff's causes of action as follows:

1. Common law Breach of Contract, against Swan, Krzanich, and Intel

2. Common law Unjust Enrichment, against Walmart and McMillon

3. Declaratory Judgment that Walmart's patent is invalid

4. Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff is the sole inventor of the product on which Walmart has sought a patent

         II. Declaratory Judgment

         A. “Case of Actual Controversy”

         McMillon and Walmart contend that Plaintiff does not satisfy the Declaratory Judgment Act's “case or controversy” requirement for a claim of a Declaration of Patent Invalidity. The Declaratory Judgment Act limits the Court's ability to declare the rights and other legal relations of interested parties seeking such a declaration to “a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Such an actual controversy exists where “the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007). As the party seeking a declaratory judgment, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that a case of actual controversy existed at the time the action was filed. See AIDS Healthcare Found., Inc. v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 890 F.3d 986, 990-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018).^[1] ...