Court Opinion

ID: 9366267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 16:00:37.30206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.600590
License: Public Domain

22-942-cv
Whitaker v. On The Right Track Systems, Inc.

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                          SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed
on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a
document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an
electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order
must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

       At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 26th day of January, two thousand twenty-three.

PRESENT:           PIERRE N. LEVAL,
                   JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
                   WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
                                Circuit Judges.

JENNIFER L. WHITAKER.,

                             Plaintiff-Appellant,                  22-942-cv

                             v.

ON THE RIGHT TRACK SYSTEMS, INC.,

                             Defendant-Appellee.

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:                                ANDREW M. BURNS, Burns & Schultz
                                                        LLP, Pittsford, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:                                 PETER M. LEVINE, New York, NY.

     Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (P. Kevin Castel, Judge).

     UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is
AFFIRMED.

                                                    1
        Jennifer Whitaker (“Whitaker”) sued On The Right Track Systems, Inc. (“OTRTS”)
asserting contract and quasi contract claims related to a patent license agreement for a shower
curtain design. She seeks at least $155,010.56 from OTRTS in allegedly unpaid minimum royalties.

        In 2010, Whitaker obtained a patent for a shower curtain designed for people who sit when
showering. She assigned the patent to Curtain Cuts LLC (“Curtain Cuts”), a Virginia limited liability
company that she solely formed and owned. Curtain Cuts then entered into a patent license
agreement with OTRTS (“the Agreement”). The Agreement obligated OTRTS to pay Curtain Cuts
royalties based on sales, but, in no event, would royalties for any calendar year during the term of the
patent be less than certain minimum amounts. In 2012, OTRTS began to pay royalties directly to
Whitaker, at her request. The Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission later
issued a certificate “cancelling” Curtain Cuts. OTRTS continued to pay Whitaker personally, but
allegedly paid significantly less each year than the Agreement required OTRTS to pay Curtain Cuts.

       Whitaker subsequently brought claims against OTRTS for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and quantum meruit. The District Court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the additional
underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

         We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). See Shara v.
Maine-Endwell Cent. Sch. Dist., 46 F.4th 77, 82 (2d Cir. 2022). In doing so, we accept all factual
allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See id. “The ‘complaint
must [nonetheless] contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Dejesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 726 F.3d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)) (alteration in original). In this sense, “[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

        Having conducted an independent and de novo review, we find, for substantially the same
reasons as the District Court, that Whitaker has failed to state a claim for failure to pay minimum
royalties, unjust enrichment, or quantum meruit.

                                            CONCLUSION

       We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Whitaker on appeal and find them to be
without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the March 15, 2022 judgment of the District
Court.

                                                          FOR THE COURT:
                                                          Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

                                                      2