DeVere Company, Inc. v. McColley, Michael et al
Filing
38
ORDER: On or before 10/1/2014, plaintiff shall submit evidence to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and shall file a reply brief limited to the two issues described. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 9/17/14. (jat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DEVERE COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
14-cv-534-wmc
MICHAEL J. McCOLLEY and VER-TECH, INC.,
d/b/a VER-TECH LABORATORIES, INC. and
VER-TECH SOLUTIONS AND SERVICE, INC.,
Defendants.
In this civil action, plaintiff DeVere Company, Inc., alleges that defendant
Michael
J.
McColley,
DeVere’s
former
employer,
breached
post-employment,
employment agreement, as well as obligations of good faith and fair dealing. DeVere also
alleges that McColley and his current employer co-defendant Ver-Tech, Inc. (1) engaged
in a conspiracy pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 134.01, (2) tortuously interfered with DeVere’s
contracts and prospective business relations, and (3) misappropriated trade secrets
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 134.90. (Compl. (dkt. #1).)1 In addition to filing its complaint,
plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction which is now pending before this court.
(Dkt. #3.)
Before the court can reach the motion for preliminary injunction, it must first
determine whether this case is properly before the court. Because all of the claims sound
1
Defendants maintain that the proper corporate defendant is Ver-Tech Solutions and
Service, Inc., McColley’s employee, which is a separate corporate entity from Ver-Tech,
Inc., and Ver-Tech Laboratories, Inc. The court will await a motion from defendant or a
stipulation from the parties before addressing this issue.
in state law, plaintiff asserts, as it must, that this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a).
While the court is satisfied that there is complete diversity of
citizenship,2 plaintiff’s complaint contains seemingly contradictory allegations with
respect to whether the amount in controversy requirement is met.
While the complaint alleges that DeVere’s annual sales to customers of Iowa
distributors that McColley allegedly contacted in violation of his non-compete and nondisclosure agreement exceed $75,000 (Compl. (dkt. #1) ¶ 31), there is no basis for
determining what portion of those sales are or were threatened by McColley’s alleged
misconduct. Indeed, given that the contacts resulted in at most a few weeks “head start”
on the non-compete’s one-year life, it seems unlikely the resulting damages are large, if
any.
Moreover, in response to plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact submitted in
conjunction with its motion for preliminary injunction, defendants specifically dispute
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, noting that plaintiff “has not offered
any evidence” of this. (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s PFOFs (dkt. #30) ¶ 4; see also Ver-Tech’s
Answ. (dkt. #17) ¶ 6 (denying that the court has jurisdiction over this matter).)
“[A] proponent of federal jurisdiction must, if material factual allegations are
contested, prove those jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence.” LM Ins.
Corp. v. Spaulding Enters. Inc., 553 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Meridian
Security Ins. Co v. Sadowski, 441 F.4d 536, 543 (7th Cir. 2006)). Since plaintiff has not
yet had an opportunity to reply to defendants’ opposition to its motion for preliminary
2
Plaintiff is a citizen of Wisconsin; McColley is a citizen of Iowa; and Ver-Tech, Inc. is a
citizen of Minnesota.
2
injunction, it has yet to respond to this jurisdictional challenge. As such, the court will
now order plaintiff to submit proof that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
While the court typically does not allow a reply in support of a motion for
preliminary injunction, defendants’ response also raises two additional issues not briefed
in plaintiff’s motion and supporting materials.
Accordingly, the court will also allow
plaintiff to file a reply brief limited to (1) the factual and legal grounds that would justify
the court’s entry of an injunction in light of the fact that the one-year term on both the
noncompetition provision (Compl., Ex. A (dkt. #1-3) ¶ 5(a)) and the nondisclosure
provision (id. at ¶ 5(b)) lapsed before plaintiff’s filing of its motion for preliminary
injunction; and (2) defendants’ argument that the noncompetition and nondisclosure
provisions are void and unenforceable under Wis. Stat. § 103.465 (see Ver-Tech’s Opp’n
(dkt. #31) pp.6-11), including the court’s ability to “divide” the two provisions before
addressing objectionably language. See Wis. Stat. § 103.465; Star Direct Inc. v. Dal Pra,
2009 WI 76, ¶¶ 52, 75, 319 Wis. 2d 274, 767 N.W.2d 898 (addressing divisibility and
restrictions on customer contacts in covenant not to compete); Key R.R. Dev. LLC v.
Guido, 2012 WI App 106, ¶ 14, 2012 WL 3176422 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2012)
(unpublished) (discussing restrictions on customer contacts after Star Direct).
Upon receipt of these additional submissions, the court will then determine
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action; and if so, decide the motion
for preliminary injunction on the briefs or set a motion hearing, as necessary.
3
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that on or before October 1, 2014, plaintiff DeVere Company,
Inc. shall submit evidence to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000, and shall file a reply brief limited to the two issues described above.
Entered this 17th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
4
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?