Wayne Orkin and Lisa Albert, siblings, operated a business called Boost Web SEO, Inc. without formal corporate governance or written agreements regarding roles or profit sharing. Orkin, working from the Dominican Republic, managed all day-to-day operations and generated the business, while Albert served as the nominal incorporator and registered agent in Florida. The business received 'residual' payments from a credit card processor, CardConnect, which were directed to Boost Web. When their relationship deteriorated in 2021, Albert cut Orkin off from company funds and accused him of fraud in an email to CardConnect. Orkin retaliated by redirecting future residuals to a company he controlled. The district court ruled in favor of Albert on defamation claims and found Orkin liable for conversion of both his personal expenses and the redirected residuals, while also issuing a contempt order and enjoining Orkin from pursuing a parallel state court action regarding ownership.
Circuit Judge Kayatta, writing for the panel, addressed several distinct legal issues. First, regarding defamation, the court applied Massachusetts law and determined that Albert's email, which stated the siblings were experiencing 'fraudulent activities' and that this was a 'criminal matter,' unambiguously imputed criminal conduct to Orkin. Under Massachusetts law, such an imputation is defamatory per se, meaning Orkin did not need to prove specific economic loss to maintain the claim. The district court had erred by treating the statement as merely an expression of intent to take legal action rather than an accusation of crime. Second, on the conversion claim regarding Orkin's personal expenses, the court found clear error in the district court's conclusion that no agreement existed. The record showed a consistent, decade-long practice where Orkin used company funds for personal expenses and Albert acquiesced, issuing W-2s for those amounts. The court held that these circumstances fairly raised an inference of an implied-in-fact contract to pay Orkin reasonable compensation for his services, vacating the finding that he had no authority to use any of the funds. Third, regarding the redirected residuals, the court affirmed the finding that Orkin lacked authority to redirect funds to his own benefit, as he admitted the move was retaliatory and not in Boost Web's interest. Finally, the court vacated the permanent injunction against the Florida state court action. The Anti-Injunction Act's relitigation exception only applies if the federal court has conclusively decided the issue. The district court's prior order had not definitively resolved who owned Boost Web, making the injunction an abuse of discretion. The contempt order was also vacated to the extent it relied on the Florida litigation, which was not clearly prohibited by the prior order.
The case is remanded to the District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lower court must now determine whether Albert's email was substantially true, which will decide the defamation claim. On the conversion claim, the court must calculate the reasonable compensation Orkin was entitled to under the implied contract and determine if any amount he took exceeded that compensation. The ownership of Boost Web remains an open question, which the district court is free to decide on remand or which may be litigated in the Florida state court. The permanent injunction against the Florida action is lifted, and the contempt sanctions are vacated pending a review of whether the remaining conduct (contacting CardConnect) constitutes contempt.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download