Filing 46

ORDER denying without prejudice 13 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/24/14. (dd, )

Download PDF
NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY STATE DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT COMPANY ZHONGLU FRUIT JUICE CO., LTD., Plaintiff, Civil No. 14-512 (NLH/AMD) ORDER v. HAISHENG INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. APPEARANCES: CRAIG R. TRACTENBERG NIXON PEABODY, LLP 437 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10022-7001 On behalf of plaintiff MATTHEW SEAN INGLES JAMES H. MCQUADE (pro hac vice) ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 WEST 52ND STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6142 On behalf of defendant HILLMAN, District Judge This matter having come before the Court on the motion of defendant Haisheng International, Inc. to dismiss the complaint filed against it by plaintiff State Development and Investment Company Zhonglu Fruit Juice Co., Ltd. (“SDICZL”); and SDICZL claiming that Haisheng has misappropriated its trade secrets and confidential business information regarding an illegal knock-off of SDICZL’s specially manufactured sweet potato juice concentrate that is a critical and key component of Campbell Soup’s V8 V-Fusion product; and Haisheng moving to dismiss SDICZL’s complaint on several bases; but During the pendency of Haisheng’s motion, SDICZL having filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint; and The Court finding that the sufficiency of SDICZL’s claims against Haisheng should be considered in the context of evaluating SDICZL’s proposed first amended complaint, see Massarsky v. General Motors Corp., 706 F.2d 111, 125 (3d Cir. 1983) (“The trial court may properly deny leave to amend where the amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss.”); Accordingly, IT IS on this 24th day of November 2014, ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint [13] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. s/ Noel L. Hillman NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. At Camden, New Jersey 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?