Summary
This memorandum decision and order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah addresses Defendant Secure Bancard’s second motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court evaluates Nexio’s claims for tortious interference and misappropriation of trade secrets under the UTSA and DTSA. While the court finds Nexio failed to plausibly allege vicarious liability for tortious interference, it holds that the amended complaint sufficiently states claims for trade secret misappropriation based on allegations that Secure Bancard knowingly benefited from the defendants' misuse of confidential information. Consequently, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Nexio stated a plausible claim for vicarious liability/tortious interference against Secure Bancard.
- Whether Nexio stated a plausible claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the UTSA and DTSA against Secure Bancard.
Holdings
- The court held that Nexio failed to state a claim for vicarious liability/tortious interference because the complaint offered no factual allegations establishing an agency relationship or scope of employment sufficient to impute liability to Secure Bancard.
- The court held that Nexio adequately pleaded misappropriation of trade secrets claims because it alleged that Secure Bancard knew of the confidential information and benefited from its use.
Key quotations
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” (at 3)
“The court finds Nexio adequately pleaded claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the UTSA and DTSA.” (at 5)
Factual background
Nexio, a Utah payment‑processing company, alleges that former sales representatives Scott Davis, Sarven Canik and independent contractor Raffi Kayserian diverted Nexio customers to competitor Secure Bancard, using Nexio's confidential customer lists and pricing information. Secure Bancard is accused of knowing of the diversion and benefiting from the misappropriated trade secrets.
Procedural history
The court previously dismissed a related defendant and stayed the action against two former sales representatives while the parties arbitrated. Secure Bancard filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion; the court considered the amended complaint and ruled on the tortious interference and trade‑secret claims.