You're viewing Docket Item 49 from the case Zero Manufacturing, Inc. v. Edak, Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 6:13-cv-00852-GAP-DAB Document 49 Filed 10/08/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 388



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION



Plaintiff,

ZERO MANUFACTURING, INC.,



v.

EDAK, INC., GREGG T. BENOIT,






Defendants.

Case No: 6:13-cv-852-Orl-31DAB





ORDER

This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 43)

filed by the Defendants, Edak, Inc. (“Edak”) and Gregg T. Benoit (“Benoit”), and the response

(Doc. 47) filed by the Plaintiff, Zero Manufacturing, Inc. (“Zero Manufacturing”). In its Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. 38), Zero Manufacturing asserts that Defendant Benoit – a former Zero

Manufacturing employee who now works for Edak – has misappropriated trade secrets (such as

customer lists and pricing information) and is using them to benefit Edak, particularly in

connection with a contract to be awarded by the United States Air Force. Zero Manufacturing has

asserted claims for misappropriation of trade secrets against both Defendants (Count I), breach of

contract against Benoit (Count II), and unjust enrichment as to both Defendants (Count III), as

well as seeking injunctive relief as to Benoit (Count IV) and Edak (Count V).

In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the threatened injury -- loss of the Air

Force contract due to Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s trade secrets – is insufficiently

Case 6:13-cv-00852-GAP-DAB Document 49 Filed 10/08/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 389






imminent to confer standing on the Plaintiff.1

The Defendants argue, based on personal

communications with a representative of the Air Force, that final specifications for the contract at

issue have not yet been issued, and therefore any potential negotiations/misappropriation in regard

to that contract are mere speculation. However, this information relies upon material outside the

four corners of the Second Amended Complaint, and is therefore improper at this stage of the

proceedings. In addition, the Plaintiff has alleged in the Second Amended Complaint that the

Defendants intend to compete with Zero Manufacturing for the Air Force contract, and that this

competition would involve trade secret misappropriation by the Defendants. These allegations are

sufficient to establish standing, regardless of whether final specifications have been issued or not.

The Defendants also argue that the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, arguing that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead threatened

misappropriation and bad faith. However, the Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants “have and

will continue to misappropriate and use Zero’s trade secret, proprietary and confidential

information.” (Doc. 38 at 6). The Defendants also complain that Zero Manufacturing has failed

to comply with Local Rule 4.05(b)(2), which governs motions for temporary restraining orders;

Zero Manufacturing is not seeking a temporary restraining order at this time.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 43) filed by the Defendants is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 8, 2013.



1 See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (holding that, to establish

standing, plaintiff must show, inter alia, that it has suffered an injury in fact that is either concrete
and particularized and actual or imminent).





- 2 -