Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Richard L. Degette v. The Mine Company Restaurant, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Trammell Crow, Individually and D/B/A Trammell Crow Company, Gary Shafer, Harlan R. Crow, Chandler, Formerly Known as Robert C. Chandler, Crow Handy Andy Houston Venture, a Texas Partnership, Thomas A. Lamb And, the Park Restaurant, Inc., a Texas Corporation
Citations: 751 F.2d 1143; 224 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 763; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 27603Docket: 83-1093
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; January 8, 1985; Federal Appellate Court
In the case of DeGette v. The Mine Company Restaurant, Inc., the plaintiff, Richard L. DeGette, a Colorado architect, sued the defendants for the unauthorized use of his architectural plans in constructing a restaurant in Houston, Texas. The trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, noting that the plaintiff became aware of the infringement only in 1979, which potentially falls within the statute of limitations. DeGette had developed plans for a restaurant in Colorado, which opened in 1971. The defendants, connected to the Houston restaurant, sought to create a similar establishment. Despite an agreement for assistance between defendant Scott and Chandler, Scott did not provide DeGette's plans to Chandler, who subsequently hired another designer to replicate the Colorado restaurant. DeGette filed his lawsuit in November 1979, alleging infringement of common law copyright, theft of trade secrets, and conspiracy. The defendants claimed the statute of limitations barred the action, but the district court acknowledged that Colorado adheres to the discovery rule, which means that the statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff knows or should have known about the infringement. The court indicated that more discovery was necessary to determine if the claims were indeed time-barred. Judge Moore dismissed the action after reassignment, stating that further discovery did not provide new relevant facts regarding the motion to dismiss. He found no concealment of the Houston restaurant and noted that similarities to the Colorado restaurant were evident. The case referenced City of Aurora, Colo. v. Bechtel Corp. was rejected as it pertained only to professionals whose actions are not immediately apparent to injured parties. The applicable Colorado statute of limitations for the tort claims, including copyright infringement and trade secret theft, is six years as per C.R.S.1973 Sec. 13-80-110. The critical issue was determining when the cause of action accrued. Citing Owens v. Brochner, the court established that for professional negligence, the cause accrues upon the plaintiff's discovery or reasonable diligence in discovering the negligence. The court also referenced City of Aurora v. Bechtel Corp. to support that the cause of action does not accrue until all material facts essential to the claim are known or should be known by the plaintiff. The court indicated that the discovery rule applies but did not assess the plaintiff's diligence, only commenting that any negligence was not latent and damages were visible. It noted that the plaintiff had no expectation of national dissemination of his plans, which raises factual issues regarding diligence, as well as defenses of laches and federal copyright preemption, to be determined on remand. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.