Claims for relief:
1. PhoneDog alleged that Kravitz willfully and intentionally obtained and misppropriated confidential information from PhoneDog, primarily the passwords to its Twitter accounts.
2. Kravitz intentionally and negligently interfered with PhoneDog's prosepctive economic advantage by using the confidential information to disrupt PhoneDog's business with current and prospective users.
3. PhoneDog claimed that Kravitz unlawfully converted the Twitter account to his own use by changing the handle, even after PhoneDog requested that he relinquish the account.
• Kravitz moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under FRCP 12(b)(1), and failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6).
• Kravitz…show more content… The court denied the motion with respect to lack of jurisdiction, stating that the determination of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction is so tied up with PhoneDog's claims that it could not be resolved in this early stage. Turning to the substantive claims, the court granted Kravitz's motion with respect to the claims of intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, finding that PhoneDog failed to assert essential elements of the claim, including the existence of economic relationships and a duty of care. The court denied, however, the motion with respect to the misappropriation of trade secrets and conversion claims.
The court also granted PhoneDog leave to amend its complaint.
The amended complaint, filed on November 29, 2011, alleges that PhoneDog has economic relationships with its users, including CNBC and Fox News. The amended complaint also claimed that Kravitz owed a duty of care to PhoneDog as a former agent of the company.
Dr. Eagle sued her past employer for a long list of claims, winning on the following:
1. Unauthorized use of name
2. Intrusion upon seclusion by appropriation of…show more content… Eagle, arguing that her LinkedIn connections belonged to the company.
The bittersweet twist in this case is that while Dr. Eagle successfully proved her first three claims, the court held that she had not established any monetary damages, and was therefore awarded $0. Although she did prove her point that the company misbehaved very badly, it is a rather hallow victory.
I believe that in the Kravitz vs PhoneDog that Kravitz is the owner of the Twitter account. The twitter account was used for the promotion of the business. I believe once the name was changed it was no longer a business account. I think on a moral level that when the account name was changed he should have deleted all of his prior employer information.
I believe that the LinkedIn account did belong to Dr. Eagle. Dr eagle gave permission for staff to post information on her behalf. I think that it was her account because LinkedIn should be more for a person and their company not just for a company.
I would have suggested for the Twitter case that the domain should have been changed as part of the termination of his employment. I believe this could have prevented the