Exel North America, Incorporated v. Integrated Dispense Solutions LLC et al

Filing 27

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 14 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EXEL NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-12646
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
INTEGRATED DISPENSE
SOLUTIONS LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #14)
On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff Exel North America, Inc. (“Exel”) filed a multicount Complaint against Defendant Integrated Dispense Solutions LLC (“IDS”)
and nine individual Defendants. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that Defendants stole its trade secrets, violated the Lanham Act, and
breached various confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements. (See id.)

The

parties are now before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Motion, ECF #14.) The Court held
a hearing on Defendants’ motion on September 25, 2014.
As the Court explained to the parties at the beginning of the hearing, it is the
Court’s normal practice to draft a written opinion when granting any portion of a
defendant’s motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). However, due to the press of
1

time as a result of the fast approaching hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (ECF #6), the Court decided to provide its ruling orally
from the bench so that the parties could proceed with discovery and prepare for the
forthcoming preliminary injunction hearing as expeditiously as possible and
without any delay occasioned by the Court’s preparation of a written Opinion.
Therefore, for all of the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF #15) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
 As to Count I (“Violations of the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets
Act” against all Defendants), the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion
as to Defendants IDS, Andrew Hryckowian, and David Ritchie. The
Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses this count as to
Defendants Gary Hindall, Douglas Hosbeke, Ferdie Intig, Steve
Nolan, Richard Orallo, Michael Connell, and Joe Nagorka;
 As to Count II (“Violation of [the] Lanham Act” against all
Defendants), the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to Defendant
IDS with respect to the “diamond design” mark and the “I-STREAM
LITE” mark, and GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to Defendant IDS
with respect to the “IDS” Mark. The Court GRANTS Defendants’
motion and dismisses this count in full as to all other Defendants;
 As to Count III (“Violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act” against all Defendants), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion
and dismisses this count as to all Defendants;
 As to Count IV (“Breach of Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation, and
Non-Disclosure Agreement” against Defendant Steve Nolan), the
Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses this count;

2

 As to Count V (“Breach of Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation, and
Non-Disclosure Agreement” against Defendant Michael Connell), the
Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses this count;
 As to Count VI (“Breach of Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation, and
Non-Disclosure Agreement” against Defendant Richard Orallo), the
Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses this count;
 As to Count VII (“Breach of Fiduciary Duty” against Defendant
David Ritchie), the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion;
 As to Count VIII (“Breach of Confidentiality Agreement” against
Defendant David Ritchie), the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion;
 As to Count IX (“Breach of Confidentiality Agreement” against
Defendant Andrew Hryckowian), the Court DENIES Defendants’
motion;
 As to Count X (“Breach of Confidentiality Agreement” against
Defendant Douglas Hosbeke), the Court GRANTS Defendants’
motion and dismisses this count;
 As to Count XI (“Breach of Confidentiality Agreement” against
Defendant Joe Nagorka), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion
and dismisses this count;
 As to Count XII (“Civil Conspiracy” against all Defendants), the
Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to Defendants Andrew
Hryckowian and David Ritchie. The Court GRANTS Defendants’
motion and dismisses this count as to all other Defendants;
 As to Count XIII (“Interference with Contractual Relationships”
against all Defendants), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and
dismisses this count as to all Defendants; and
 As to Count XIV (“Unfair Competition” against all Defendants), the
Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to Defendants IDS, Andrew
Hryckowian, and David Ritchie. The Court GRANTS Defendants’
motion and dismisses this count as to all other Defendants.
3

As the Court indicated on the record, Plaintiff may continue to develop its
claims though discovery, and the Court will entertain a timely and properlysupported motion to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 29, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on September 29, 2014, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4