Strayfield Limited v. RF Biocidics, Inc., et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 01/18/12 ORDERING that defendants' 25 , 27 Motions to Dismiss causes of action for Constructive Trust and Accounting are GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint without the dismissed causes of action within 14 days. Defendants' remaining motions to dismiss are DENIED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10

STRAYFIELD LIMITED,
NO. CIV. S-11-2631 LKK/GGH

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.
O R D E R

13

RF BIOCIDICS, INC., and
ALLIED MINDS, INC.,

14
Defendants.
/

15
16

This case arises out of the alleged theft, by defendants

17

Allied Minds, Inc. and RF Biocidics, Inc., of plaintiff Strayfield

18

Limited’s trade secrets, and of plaintiff’s confidential and

19

proprietary information.

20

California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Cal. Civ. Code

21

§§

22

(iii) California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Civ. Code

23

§§ 17200 et seq. Defendants’ dismissal motions came on for hearing

24

on January 17, 2012.

25

////

26

////

3426

et

seq.;

(ii)

Plaintiff sues pursuant to: (i) the

common

law

misappropriation;

and

For the reasons set forth below, the motions

1

1

will be denied.1

2

I.

3

Defendant Allied moves to dismiss the complaint, asserting

4

that plaintiff lacks Article III standing.

5

alleges that it suffered concrete economic injury as the result of

6

the

7

Biocidics), and it seeks relief capable of redressing that injury.

8

No more is required to allege standing.

9

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (standing elements are injury

conduct

of

defendant

Allied

(as

In fact, plaintiff

well

as

defendant

RF

See Lujan v. Defenders of

10

in fact, causality and likelihood of redress).

Allied’s Fed. R.

11

Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing

12

is therefore DENIED.
II.

13
14

Defendants Allied and RF Biocidics move to dismiss plaintiff’s

15

state claims, for misappropriation and unfair competition, for

16

failure to state a claim, on the grounds that they are preempted

17

by the CUTSA.

18

California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) fully occupies the

19

area of state trade secrets law, they have not shown that CUTSA

20

preempts common law misappropriation claims and unfair competition

21

law claims that pertain to intellectual property other than trade

22

secrets.

23

69

Cal.

Even assuming that defendants are correct that the

See United States Golf Assn. v. Arroyo Software Corp.,
App.4th

607,

618

(3rd

Dist.

1999)

(discussing

24
25
26

1

Plaintiff does not oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss its
claims for Constructive Trust and for an Accounting. Those motions
will be granted.
2

1

misappropriation as a claim separate and apart from trade secret

2

claim) (citations omitted); City Solutions, Inc. v. Clear Channel

3

Communications, 365 F.3d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 2004) (treating unfair

4

competition claim as a claim separate and apart from trade secret

5

claim).

6

allegations

7

intellectual property, as that is a factual matter inappropriate

8

for resolution at this stage.2

9

are therefore DENIED.

10

At this stage, the court cannot disregard plaintiff’s
that

defendants

misappropriated

non-trade

secret

Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions

III.

11

Defendants Allied and RF Biocidics move to dismiss the CUTSA

12

and UCL claims on the grounds that the complaint does not specify

13

what conduct each defendant is alleged to have engaged in, thus

14

violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

15

not know which allegations apply to which defendant, and that they

16

do not know what plaintiff means by “Defendant” and what it means

17

by “Defendants.” Defendants’ confusion is difficult to understand.

18

The Complaint is a short and plain statement setting forth in

19

detail what conduct each defendant allegedly engaged in, and the

20

first paragraph of the complaint defines the terms “Defendant” and

21

“Defendants.” Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to comply

22

with Rule 8(a) are therefore DENIED.

23
24

Defendants complain they they do

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ dismissal motions (Dkt. No. 25) are resolved as

25
2

26

Plaintiff has specifically excluded from these claims, any
allegations that defendants stole their trade secrets.
3

1
2
3
4

follows:
1.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the causes of action for

Constructive Trust and Accounting are GRANTED.
2.

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint without the

5

dismissed causes of action, no later than fourteen (14) days from

6

the date of this order.

7

3.

Defendants’ remaining motions to dismiss are DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED:

January 18, 2012.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4