KELLY A. BARNETT, Plaintiff,
v.
E:SPACE LABS LLC., at al, Defendants.
Case. No. 6:18-cv-00419-MC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
July 10, 2018
OPINION AND ORDER
MCSHANE, Judge:
Defendant E:Space Labs, LLC moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Ms. Barnett, proceeding pro se, alleges fourteen claims based on (1) an alleged theft of Plaintiff's computers and portable devices by an unknown person or persons not party to this suit, and (2) an alleged attempt to illicitly learn Plaintiff's trade secrets by one of the individually named defendants. Because the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, this Court GRANTS the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Page 2
A. Parties
E:Space Labs is a membership-based technology incubator dedicated to the advancement of the high tech electronic hardware device industry in Central Oregon. Compl. ¶ 5. To use their facilities, companies or individuals may contract directly with E:Space Labs, or apply to become an E:Space member. In addition, the Company has offered classes and workshops in the past as part of their goal to facilitate development of the electronic hardware industry. Id.; Def.'s Mot. 2-3, ECF No. 13.
E:Space Lab's physical offices and facilities are located within a business complex known as "The Bridge" in Bend, Oregon. Compl. ¶ 5. E:Space Labs does not own The Bridge, but is one of several tenants. Id. ¶¶ 32, 36, 37 and 42. E:Space Labs leases office space over which they have exclusive access and control. Additionally, The Bridge also provides common spaces, such as a lounge and conference rooms, that are accessible to all tenants in the building. Compl. at pg. 15 (Section "IV. Relief," ¶ 3).
The plaintiff, Ms. Barnett, had been permitted to utilize E:Space Labs facilities for about three year until E:Space Labs revoked her access in December of 2017. Compl. ¶¶ 30, 35. E:Space Labs revoked Plaintiff's access after receiving complaints from other tenants of The Bridge that Plaintiff was making them feel uncomfortable and unsafe, and had been carrying a weapon on the premises. Id. ¶¶ 39, 57.
In January 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint with Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). BOLI dismissed the complaint on March 1, 2018, citing lack of evidence. This lawsuit subsequent ensued.
B. Complaint
Page 3
Plaintiff's pro se complaint generally brings five types of claims: (1) negligence claims; (2) public accommodation claims; (3) misappropriation claims; (4) defamation claims; and finally (5) miscellaneous claims. These claims contain several causes of action located throughout the complaint:
| Type of claim | Purported Causes of Action (used in Plaintiff's Complaint) | Location in Complaint |
| The "Negligence Claims" | Theft by Negligence | Page 4 |
| Failure to Defend Trade Secrets | Page 4 | |
| The "Public Accommodation Claims" | Public Accommodation | Page 8 |
| Civil Rights | Page 8 | |
| Unequal Treatment | Page 12 | |
| Discrimination | Page 12 | |
| The "Misappropriation Claims" | Misappropriation of Trade Secrets | Page 4 |
| Failure to Defend Trade Secrets2 | Page 4 | |
| The "Defamation Claim" | Defamation | Page 12 |
| The "Miscellaneous Claims" | Conspiracy | Page 4 |
| US Constitution First Amendment | Page 8 | |
| Oregon Constitution "free expression" | Page 8 (see also ¶46) | |
| Oregon Constitution "victims' rights" | Page 8 (see also ¶46) | |
| Retaliation | Page 8 |
Factually, the complaint alleges that on March 10, 2016, Plaintiff brought into E:Space Labs her two laptops and other portable drives for back-up and system upgrades. Compl. ¶ 10. The next day, at the request of Defendant David Robson, Plaintiff moved her computers and portable drives to a conference room that is one of The Bridge's common spaces. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff left the computers and portable devices in the conference room overnight unattended. Id. ¶ 12. The following morning, she discovered "a physical loss of her computers, back-up drives, written patent drafts and handwritten continuation patent claim set." Id. ¶ 15. The computers contained data from clinical trials, survivability case studies and animal care and use
Page 4
records along with personal records. Id. Plaintiff contacted the Bend Police Department who arrived and conducted an investigation. Id.
21 months later, on December 13, 2017, Plaintiff obtained a stalking order against another E:Space Labs member, defendant Joshua Hill. Plaintiff accuses Mr. Hill of attempting to illicitly learn Plaintiff's trade secrets from September 2017 through December 11, 2017, and that Mr. Hill had been "caught trespassing, invading personal space, stealing farm equipment for joy rides causing nuisance and damage, harrying research animals leading to injury to the Plaintiff and searching the Plaintiff's premise on more than one occasion." Compl. ¶ 17.
On December 14, 2017 Plaintiff presented a copy of the stalking order to defendant David Robson, a manager of E:Space Labs. Compl. ¶ 26. Three days later, on December 17, Mr. Robson emailed Ms. Barnett asking her to turn in her building key. Id. 30. On December 19, Plaintiff received notification that she was not to enter The Bridge, to include the parking lot and all businesses located in the complex. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. During this time, defendant Mr. Hill continued to have unrestricted access to the E:Space Labs' facilities. Id. ¶ 56.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter that "state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the factual allegations allow the court to infer the defendant's liability based on the alleged conduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). The factual allegations must present more than "the mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 678.
When considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all allegations of material fact as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, Burget v.
Page 5
Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2000), but the court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. If the complaint is dismissed, leave to amend should be granted unless the court "determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995).
A. Negligence claims
The stated allegations of negligence rely on a theory that defendants had a duty of care towards the plaintiff for which they breached. See Compl. ¶¶ 6, 19; "IV. Relief" ¶ 3. Where a plaintiff purports to identify a legally cognizable duty, that duty must be the standard for the specific tort alleged. Collier v. Bidleman, 98 Or. App. 556, 559-60 (1989). In addition, there must be a recognized relationship between the parties which imposes a duty upon the defendant to...
