Reference no: EM133472731

Nigel, in addition to his CalRebuild business, is a creative engineer and has designed a new shoe to enhance the performance of athletes. Seeking advice and startup money, Nigel contacted an online company called IP Specialists to help him patent his new shoe and bring the product to market. IP advertised it services on the internet to anyone in the U.S. seeking help with patent and related licensing/marketing services. IP required Nigel to invest $100,000 of his own money in a new company they promised to create with additional investors specifically designed to product the new shoe. After the initial agreement, Ali, a representative from IP, visited Nigel's lab and copied his research materials and his personal files and background information "to avoid any surprises" that may arise from Nigel's research. However, after a few months, communication with IP stopped and Nigel cannot reach Ali or IP's offices in Hong Kong. IP does not have a physical office located in the U.S., but Ali spends time in the U.S. meeting with prospective clients. A shoe identical to the one Nigel created has recently been marketed in South America and Asia.

Sedona has been working as a sales rep for Nigel and is also a good friend of his wife, Karla. According to Karla, Nigel posted several negative comments about Sedona's character on an internal company blog accessible by all employees implying that she does not always tell the truth after she allegedly stated uncomplimentary facts about his lawsuit in California against eCar.com while having drinks with a co-worker. Several of Sedona's co-workers read the Nigel's comments on the blog and unfriended Sedona's Facebook page. They also avoided her at work and declined invitations for after work functions if she was included. She soon began to have bouts of depression, in addition to other physical and mental symptoms, from her work-related troubles. She consulted a physician who prescribed medication and advised her to stay at home and rest.

Sumarize the relevant facts of the case as they relate to each party. A fact is relevant if it had an impact on the case's outcome. Not all facts in the scenario are relevant. An effective method of summarizing relevant facts is to list them numerically in order as a separate sentence. For example, the first relevant fact might be: "Nigel is a resident of California". This fact is relevant because it establishes his state of residency.

list a summary of the issues as they relate to each party;

Identify and discuss the relevant law to be applied to each issue from the preceding paragraph;

Conclusion in an objective (not subjective) manner. Do not spend time writing about your personal opinions. Your conclusion describes the legal rationale supporting your decision. In summary, what are the legal principles you are applying to the facts of this case that support your conclusion?