Karla played basketball for the University of Nevada and is now part-owner of a sports management company. Her major in college was sports physiology and she has a master in sports management. She represents several WNBA players who play for the Las Vegas team and one player for the Las Vegas Raiders. She has designed a new shoe to enhance the training performance of professional athletes. Seeking advice and startup money, Karla contacted an online company called IP Specialists to help her patent her new shoe and bring the product to market. IP advertised its services on the internet to anyone in the U.S. seeking help with patent and related licensing/marketing services. IP required Karla to invest $100,000 of her own money in the new company they promised to guide through the patent and licensing process.

After signing the agreement, Allison, a representative from IP, visited Karla's and copied her research materials "to avoid any surprises" during the patent and licensing process. However, after a few months, communication with IP stopped and Karla cannot reach Allison or IP's offices in St. Lucia. IP does not have a physical office in the U.S., but Allison spends time in the U.S. meeting with prospective clients. A shoe identical to the one Karla 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 with Karla. According to Sedona, an employee at Classic-Rebuild posted several negative comments about Karla's character on the internal company intranet accessible by all employees implying that she does not always tell the truth and that her dispute with IP was all her fault. Several of Sedona's co-workers read the comments and unfriended Sedona's Facebook page since she was a close friend of Karla. 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.

Assignment:Analyze the facts, discuss the applicable law, and reach a logical conclusion as to any violations of legal principles and the amount and type of damages applicable to the various parties. Make reasonable assumptions when necessary to complete your analysis.If you decide a party does not have a claim, or is not entitled to damages, discuss what additional facts must be shown to present a valid claim and/or damages.

First, summarize therelevant factsof 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.

Second, list asummary of the issuesas they relate to each party;

Third, identify and discuss therelevant lawto be applied to each issue from the preceding paragraph;

Finally, write your conclusion in anobjective(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?