Lending Solutions, Inc. v. Jaenke et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to file an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its First Amended Complaint no later than May 15, 2015. Failure to so amend the complaint may result in dismissal of this action. ( Response to Court due by 5/15/2015). Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 4/29/15. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LENDING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TODD JAENKE, et al. ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV1718 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint
(ECF No. 22) and Plaintiffs alternative request to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 26). The
motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition. Upon thorough review of the Complaint, the
Motion to Dismiss, and the related memoranda, the Court will allow Plaintiff to file a First
Amended Complaint.
This case stems from the exodus of Plaintiff Lending Solutions, Inc.' s employees to
Defendant Bridgeview Mortgage Company. On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 41 count
Complaint against Defendant Bridgeview and Plaintiffs former employees. The Complaint
alleges civil conspiracy, breach of duty of loyalty, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade
secrets, breach of confidentiality agreements, breach of non-solicitation of employees
agreements, breach of non-solicitation of customers agreements, tortious interference with a
business expectancy, tortious interference with contracts, accounting, violation of the stored wire
and electronic communications act, violation of the computer fraud and abuse act, tampering
with computer data and equipment, and request for preliminary and permanent injunction.
(Comp!., ECF No. 1)

In response, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the 59-page Complaint
fails to allege facts sufficient to support its claims and contains conclusory and speculative
allegations. Defendants also assert that the employment agreements and restricted covenants
expired and were unenforceable. In its Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, Plaintiff contends that it has alleged sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss but
also requests that this Court allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to correct any
insufficient pleadings.
Upon review of the Complaint, Motion to Dismiss, and related memoranda, the Court
will grant Plaintiff leave to file its First Amended Complaint to address and remedy any
deficiencies raised in Defendants' motion to dismiss. "When a plaintiff moves to amend a
complaint after a motion to dismiss has been filed, the court must first address the motion to
amend." Swider v. Hologic, Inc., Civil No. 12-1547 (DSD/AJB), 2012 WL 6015558, at *1 (D.
Minn. Dec. 3, 2012). Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court
should freely grant leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. "[T]he court has broad
discretion and will only deny lea~e to amend in order to avoid undue delay, where there has been
bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, when amendment would be futile or when amendment
would result in unfair prejudice to the defendants." Id. at *2 (citation omitted). Defendants
argue that amendment would be futile because the employment agreements at issue expired prior
to the alleged breach of those agreements.
The parties appear to disagree on the applicable provisions in the agreement, as well as
the expiration dates of those provisions. The Court declines to engage in an intensive analysis of
the employment agreements at this time. The Court finds that, in the very early stages of
litigation, leave to file a First Amended Complaint is warranted. The Court has not yet held a

2

Rule 16 conference or entered a Case Management Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.
Further, Defendants have not filed an Answer to the Complaint and will not be prejudiced by
answering the First Amended Complaint.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint
(ECF No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to file an Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its First Amended Complaint no
later than May 15, 2015 . Failure to so amend the complaint may result in dismissal ofthis
action.
Dated this

29th

Day of April, 2015.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3