UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No JERRA V. BOWDEN, Appellant DB SCHENKER

Similar documents
Mohammed Mekuns v. Capella Education Co

Harold Wilson v. City of Philadelphia

Christopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr.

Frank Dombroski v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

Follow this and additional works at:

Tony Mutschler v. Brenda Tritt

Joan Longenecker-Wells v. Benecard Services Inc

American Capital Acquisitions v. Fortigent LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

2013 PA Super 111. Appellees No WDA 2012

Reginella Construction Company v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co

Hampden Real Estate v. Metro Mgmt Grp

Valette Clark v. Kevin Clark

Jeffrey Podesta v. John Hanzel

Randall Winslow v. P. Stevens

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No ARVIND GUPTA, Appellant v.

2:16-cv SJM-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 08/31/17 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 349 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

E&R Enterprise LLC v. City of Rehoboth Beach

Case 4:12-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alson Alston v. Penn State University

Case 1:17-cv NMG Document 17 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Plaintiff, No.

Robert Harriott v. City of Wilkes Barre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-MARRA/HOPKINS OPINION AND ORDER

David Jankowski v. Robert Lellock

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Nos & JAY J. LIN, Appellant

Jay Lin v. Chase Card Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Jaret Wright v. Suntrust Bank Inc

Joseph Fessler v. Kirk Sauer

Cynthia Yoder v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

Bishop v. GNC Franchising LLC

Case 2:15-cv CDJ Document 31 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

New York Central Mutual Insura v. Margolis Edelstein

Case 1:14-cv FDS Document 24 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) ) Civil No. v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO: MACSPORTS, INC. AND ACADEMY, LTD. ORDER

Manuel Lampon-Paz v. Dept. of Homeland Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO OPINION. Slomsky, J.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. Nos. 21, 22) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE

Joseph Ollie v. James Brown

Santander Bank v. Steve HoSang

Melvin Lockett v. PA Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No

Case 3:12-cv ARC Document 34 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Plaintiff, Civil Action No (JBS-JS)

Follow this and additional works at:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Civil Action No (JMV) (Mf) Plaintiffs alleges that Defendant has wrongfully

Stephen Simcic v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Autho

Case 2:16-cv MSG Document 18 Filed 05/22/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No

US Bank NA v. Maury Rosenberg

Roger Kornegay v. David Ebbert

Jean Coulter v. Butler County Children

William Peake v. Pennsylvania State Police

Mardi Harrison v. Bernard Coker

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No

Kenneth Thornton v. Kathryn Hens-Greco

In Re: Asbestos Products

Bancroft Life Casualty ICC v. Intercontinental Management

Case 0:14-cv KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2015 Page 1 of 8

Walter Tormasi v. George Hayman

Earl Kean v. Kenneth Henry

Drew Bradford v. Joe Bolles

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW

Alder Run Land LP v. Northeast Natural Energy LLC

Edward Walker v. Attorney General United States

Arvind Gupta v. Secretary United States Depart

Monroe Merritt v. Alan Fogel

Henry Okpala v. John Lucian

Willie Walker v. State of Pennsylvania

Case 2:16-cv JS Document 25 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : :

Marcia Copeland v. DOJ

Catherine Beckwith v. Penn State University

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.

Case3:13-cv JD Document60 Filed09/22/14 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION

Case 3:12-cv ARC Document 20 Filed 05/09/13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOW COME Defendants Michael P. Daniel, M.D. and Daniel Urological Center, Inc.,

Vitold Gromek v. Philip Maenza

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thomas Greco v. Michael Senchak

Joyce Royster v. Laurel Highlands School Distri

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Follow this and additional works at:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).

Paul McArdle v. Verizon Communications Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Donna Lloyd s ( Plaintiff ) second request

Case 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10

Restituto Estacio v. Postmaster General

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No

Support. ECF No. 16. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM OPINION

Raphael Spearman v. Alan Morris

Dean Schomburg;v. Dow Jones & Co Inc

Joseph Fabics v. City of New Brunswick

Isaac Fullman v. Thomas Kistler

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DKT. NOS. 14, 21)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M. I. Introduction and Background

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER

Transcription:

Jerra Bowen v. DB Schenker Doc. 3012638438 Case: 16-3468 Document: 003112638438 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 AMBRO, Circuit Judge UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 16-3468 JERRA V. BOWDEN, Appellant v. DB SCHENKER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-16-cv-01272) District Judge: Honorable Mark A. Kearney Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May11, 2017 Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and COWEN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 31, 2017) OPINION * NOT PRECEDENTIAL * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 16-3468 Document: 003112638438 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 In 2013, Jerra Bowden was hired as an at-will employee by DB Schenker, a company that specialized in servicing, repairing, and refurbishing Apple products. Schenker hired Bowden because of her knowledge and familiarity with those products. She held the position of Line Lead Supervisor in the Repair and Reclaim division, managing ten to twelve of Schenker s Repair and Reclaim workers. Bowden alleges she introduced a process called Taylorism to her employer. In plain terms, however, the process she introduced was the use of an assembly line. Before using an assembly line, Schenker assigned one person to each product. Bowden suggested the company instead assign one task to each person. Schenker did not immediately implement proposed alternative of Bowden, but instead reviewed and tested the procedure. She claims Schenker has now implemented her proposal in other operating divisions and has used her ideas as a marketing tool in the Netherlands. Bowden filed suit, claiming misappropriation of ideas, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. The District Court granted Schenker s motion to dismiss all of these claims without leave to amend, finding Bowden had not provided a basis for relief. Because she has not sufficiently stated any of her claims, we affirm. 1 Because any further amendment of her Complaint would be futile, we also affirm the District Court s denial of leave to amend the Complaint. 1 Our review of the District Court s decision granting Schenker s motion to dismiss is plenary. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005). Courts presented with a motion to dismiss should accept all well-pleaded facts as true, and then determine whether, given the facts presented, the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-211 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). 2

Case: 16-3468 Document: 003112638438 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 I. Misappropriation To state a claim for misappropriation of ideas, a plaintiff must show (1) the plaintiff had an idea that was novel and concrete, and (2) his idea was misappropriated by the defendant. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602, 607 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (citing Sorbee Int l Ltd. v. Chubb Custom Ins. Co., 735 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999)). The District Court stated an assembly-line approach to a job is not a concrete or novel idea and cited Henry Ford and Ransom Olds as examples of originators of the assembly-line concept. See Bowden v. Schenker, 2016 WL 3981354, at *3 (E.D. Pa. 2016). We agree that Bowden cannot claim this process, born out of the Industrial Revolution, is a novel and concrete idea. An idea is novel and merits protection when it is truly innovative, inventive, and new. Blackmon, 324 F. Supp. 2d at 608. Because Bowden s idea of assigning one person to a task in an assembly-line fashion restates a much earlier innovation, her idea cannot be considered novel. Bowden s claim also fails because her idea cannot be considered concrete. To be so, courts must be able to identify it as having been created by one party and stolen by another. Bowden, 2016 WL 3981354, at *3 (internal citations omitted). Because the idea of creating an assembly line cannot be so cleanly traced back to Bowden, such that a court could say that it has, in fact, been stolen by another, it is not concrete. Even were we to assume that Bowden established novelty and concreteness, she has still failed to plead misappropriation. To establish that, a plaintiff must show she had substantially invested time, effort and money into creating the thing misappropriated such that the court can characterize it as a kind of property right, (2) the defendant has 3

Case: 16-3468 Document: 003112638438 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 appropriated it at little or no cost, thereby reaping where it has not sown, and (3) the defendant has injured the plaintiff by the misappropriation. See Sorbee, 735 A.2d at 716. First, Bowden has not stated facts showing she substantially invested time and effort into creating an assembly-line concept. Second, Schenker s actions cannot be characterized as reaping where it has not sown because it spent time reviewing and testing the proposed procedures before applying them. Third, Bowden has not pleaded facts showing Schenker s use of her idea has injured her. As a result, she has not sufficiently stated misappropriation of her ideas. Moreover, there was no promise or contract prohibiting Bowden s employer from using her ideas. They were an extension of the work she was already paid to do. We agree with the District Court s conclusion that public policy counsels against imposing potential liability upon an employer who adopts its employee s recommendation to adopt an assembly line approach to meet a client s demand. Bowden, 2016 WL 3981354, at *3. To impose liability in these circumstances would disincentivize collaboration between employers and employees on questions of how to improve the workplace. II. Unjust Enrichment We also agree with the District Court s conclusion that Bowden has not stated a plausible claim of unjust enrichment. To do this, a plaintiff must show benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value. Bowden, 2016 4

Case: 16-3468 Document: 003112638438 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 WL 3981354, at *5 (citing Styler v. Hugo, 619 A.2d 347, 350 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986)). Here, Bowden was performing the duties of her job and contributing to the improvement of her workplace. As in McGoldrick v. TruePosition, Inc., 623 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E.D. Pa. 2009), she was a salaried employee compensated for work such as this. Therefore, the District Court did not err in dismissing her claim. III. Quantum Meruit Nor has Bowden pled sufficient facts for a claim of quantum meruit. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must show that the party against whom recovery is sought either wrongfully secured or passively received a benefit that would be unconscionable for the party to retain without compensating the provider. McGoldrick, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 624 (internal citations omitted). Bowden was aptly compensated for her work during the term of her employment, and it is not unconscionable that Schenker benefits from the work of its employees such as Bowden. The assembly-line process was a product of her work during her term of employment and thus was not wrongfully secured. Bowden has not sufficiently pleaded facts supporting her quantum meruit claim, and the District Court rightfully dismissed this claim. IV. Leave to Amend Complaint Bowden further claims the District Court failed to apply properly the required analysis and leave to amend should be required. However, a court has discretion to deny a request to amend if it is apparent from the record that (1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice the other party. Frasier v. Nationwide 5

Case: 16-3468 Document: 003112638438 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2003). This denial of leave to amend the Complaint was proper because the District Court correctly noted that amending the Complaint would be futile, and leave to amend was properly denied. * * * * * Because Bowden s assembly line idea is not novel or concrete, she is unable to state a claim for misappropriation. Her idea was a product of her salaried work with Schenker that later tested the idea before implemention. Therefore, it was not unjust or wrongfully obtained for either an unjust enrichment or quantum meruit claim. Amending her Complaint would not cure these defects, the District Court properly denied Bowden s request to amend. We thus affirm. 6