A federal court recently ruled in favor of the Mason Harriman Group, Inc. (MHG) in a case involving a contract dispute with former independent contractor Duane Jenkins. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided to grant MHG's request for attorney fees and costs after finding that Jenkins submitted a declaration in bad faith. This ruling has implications for how similar disputes may be handled in the future.
The case, Jenkins v. Mason Harriman Group, Inc., was filed under Civil Action No. 2023-0629. The dispute arose after Jenkins claimed that MHG intended to use his proprietary cost-management methods without his permission. This decision affects not only the parties involved but also sets a precedent for how courts may interpret similar contracts and claims of intellectual property rights.
Background
Duane Jenkins began working with MHG as an independent contractor in 2021. During this time, Jenkins developed a cost-management method known as “Budget, Cost, Performance Integration” (BCPi) and a related method called “Technology Business Management extended” (TBMx). Jenkins argued that he had previously developed these methods while working with a company called CostPerform, although the former president of that company denied any involvement.
In 2023, Jenkins filed a lawsuit against MHG after he learned that the company planned to use his BCPi method without his approval. He alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment, claiming that MHG had no right to use his intellectual property. After a lengthy discovery process, the court granted MHG's Motion for Summary Judgment in November 2025, ruling that Jenkins had not established a protectable interest in the methods he claimed as his own.
The Ruling
Judge Royce C. Lamberth presided over the case and ultimately ruled in favor of MHG. The court found that Jenkins's agreement with MHG preserved his pre-existing rights but did not grant him ownership of the BCPi or TBMx methods. The court stated, “Jenkins had not raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether MHG was on notice of the content of his BCPi and TBMx methods.” This ruling was based on Jenkins's own deposition statements, where he admitted that he had not provided written notice of his proprietary information to MHG.
Following the summary judgment ruling, MHG sought an award for attorney fees and costs, alleging that Jenkins acted in bad faith by submitting contradictory statements in his declaration. The court agreed, stating, “The Court concludes that Jenkins submitted his declaration in bad faith.” As a result, MHG was awarded $20,054.75 in attorney fees and $3,836.10 in costs.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving independent contractors and intellectual property disputes. By affirming the award of attorney fees based on bad faith submissions, the court has established a precedent that may deter future plaintiffs from making contradictory statements in their declarations. It underscores the importance of honesty and consistency in legal proceedings, particularly in matters involving intellectual property rights.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how courts handle claims of unjust enrichment and breach of contract, especially in cases where the ownership of intellectual property is contested. It also highlights the need for clear communication and documentation between independent contractors and companies regarding the ownership of work products.
What's Next
Jenkins has the option to appeal the ruling, but details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may prompt further legal scrutiny of similar disputes in the future.