Uhlig LLC v. Corelogic, Inc.

1

UHLIG LLC, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, v. CORELOGIC, INC., et al., Defendants/Counter Claimants.

No. 21-2543-DDC

United States District Court, D. Kansas

June 6, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Daniel D. Crabtree, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Uhlig^[1] operates websites, where it sells information about “common interest communities.” Purchasers use Uhlig's information in real estate transactions. Uhlig alleges defendant CoreLogic^[2] purchased data from Uhlig's websites, then resold that data and stored the data to enrich CoreLogic's own products and services. Uhlig asserts that CoreLogic's use of the data is illegal and violates a variety of contractual obligations. Uhlig sues CoreLogic for: violating the Lanham Act, breach of contract fraud, tortious interference with business expectancy violating the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act misappropriation of trade secrets, and unjust enrichment. CoreLogic moves for summary judgment against all of Uhlig's claims except for its Lanham Act claim.

CoreLogic's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 288) argues Uhlig's claims are untimely. And it argues also that Uhlig knew about CoreLogic's use of Uhlig's data. So, CoreLogic contends, the parties modified their agreements through their course of conduct or, alternatively, Uhlig acquiesced to CoreLogic's practices. The court, as explained below, grants CoreLogic's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 288) against Uhlig's fraud, tortious interference, Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unjust enrichment claims. But the court concludes that a fact issue precludes granting summary judgment against Uhlig's breach of contract claims. The court thus grants CoreLogic's Motion for Summary Judgment in part and denies it in part.

Uhlig has filed its own Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 283). It seeks summary judgment in Uhlig's favor on Uhlig's breach of contract claims—a request the court denies, given the fact issue that inheres in the parties' course of dealing. Uhlig also seeks summary judgment against many of CoreLogic's affirmative defenses. This part of Uhlig's motion is granted in part and denied in part, as explained in full below.

CoreLogic asserts three counterclaims against Uhlig: breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with contractual relations. CoreLogic bases its claims on its view that Uhlig breached the parties' implied agreement by improperly—and pretextually—terminating CoreLogic's access to Uhlig's websites. Uhlig has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 283) against these counterclaims. The court grants this counterclaims part of Uhlig's motion because CoreLogic's counterclaims are barred by the contractually selected statute of limitations.

CoreLogic also has filed a Motion to Review (Doc. 302) that objects to the case's Pretrial Order (Doc. 279). The court overrules CoreLogic's Pretrial Order objections in part and sustains them in part.

The court explains these decisions, below.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Background 5

II. Legal Standard ............................................................................................................ 14

III. Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 16

A. Uhlig's Fraud Claim .......................................................................................................... 17

1. CoreLogic's objection to the Pretrial Order's statement of Uhlig's fraud claim is sustained. . ............................................................................................................................ 17

2. The statute of limitations bars Uhlig's fraud claim. . ...................................................... 23

a. Equitable Estoppel ...................................................................................................... 23

b. Fraud Statute of Limitations Analysis ........................................................................ 27

3. Uhlig's fraud claim fails to create triable issues of reliance and intent. . ....................... 29

B. Uhlig's Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim ............................................................. 31

1. In July 2016, CoreLogic's request to Uhlig raised a red flag. . ...................................... 32

2. Uhlig investigated this red flag—sort of. . ...................................................................... 33

3. Uhlig's misappropriation of trade secrets claim is untimely .......................................... 36

C. Uhlig's Unjust Enrichment Claim ..................................................................................... 40

D. Uhlig's Tortious Interference Claim .................................................................................. 44

E. Uhlig's Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act Claim ................................................... 46

F. Uhlig's Claim for Contractual Attorneys' Fees ................................................................. 47

G. Uhlig's Breach of Contract Claims .................................................................................... 49

1. Uhlig's breach of contract claims for contracts formed after November 21, 2016, are timely. . ................................................................................................................................. 50

2. CoreLogic hasn't shouldered its burden to show that the parties modified their agreements via their course of conduct. . ............................................................................. 51

a. CoreLogic and Uhlig's Relationship .......................................................................... 53

b. License Agreement ..................................................................................................... 56

c. GOAUA ...................................................................................................................... 59

d. Uhlig's Knowledge ..................................................................................................... 63

3. CoreLogic hasn't shouldered its burden to show that Uhlig acquiesced. . ..................... 68

4. Uhlig has adduced sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that CoreLogic executed thousands of contracts. . ...................................................................... 70

5. Uhlig isn't entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claims. . ................ 75

H. CoreLogic's Affirmative Defenses .................................................................................... 80

I. CoreLogic's Counterclaims ............................................................................................... 84

IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 91

I. Background

Uhlig is a national provider of information about common interest communities—i.e., homeowner associations, condominiums, co-ops, and the like. Doc. 279 at 3 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.iii.). A common interest community includes obligations that encumber property deeds within the community. Id. Uhlig sells information about common interest communities and their residents through WelcomeLink.com and CondoCerts.com. Id. at 4 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.iv.). Uhlig always has owned WelcomeLink. Id. (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.v.). In contrast, Uhlig acquired CondoCerts in 2017 from Mutual of Omaha. Id. (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.vi.).

Uhlig provides the information as a representative of its clients. Id. (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.vii.). Uhlig's clients include common interest communities and property management companies, who serve as managing agents for common interest communities. Id. The information Uhlig provides on behalf of its clients includes “estoppels, account histories, questionnaires, association documents, total association units and units sold, types of units and restrictions, commercial and residential mix, development phase information, association rental policies, association liens and lawsuits, budgets, and ownership information.” Doc. 284-2 at 2 (Uhlig Decl. ¶ 3). Uhlig refers to this information as “Community Information.” Id. Uhlig sells Community Information to retail purchasers, who use it for various purposes with a specific real estate transaction—i.e., selling, financing, refinancing, and transferring homes and condominium units.^[3] Id. at 3 (Uhlig Decl. ¶ 4).

CoreLogic operates a variety of businesses. See, e.g., Doc. 309-32 (Uhlig Ex. 144). One of those businesses was called CondoSafe. CoreLogic created CondoSafe to “provide lenders with the information they needed to underwrite condominium projects for mortgages that they were originating.” Doc. 290-9 at 4 (Doty Dep. 51:5-11). CoreLogic launched CondoSafe in 2014. Doc. 290-4 at 1 (Jensen Decl. ¶ 2). CoreLogic began placing orders on WelcomeLink in 2014. Doc. 279 at 4 (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.ix.). From 2014 through November 9, 2021, CoreLogic placed over 11,000 orders for Community Information from WelcomeLink and/or CondoCerts. Id. (Pretrial Order ¶ 2.a.x.).

Here's the crux of the parties' dispute: Uhlig asserts that CoreLogic, when it placed thousands of orders, repackaged Uhlig's Community Information into CoreLogic's CondoSafe product and sold it. Uhlig contends this re-use violated the parties' Customer Agreements. CoreLogic also represented Uhlig as the “Preparer” on the CondoSafe report, a tactic Uhlig calls fraud. And CoreLogic used Uhlig's...