With respect to the 11 other claims, Power Home failed to properly allege facts showing it could potentially recover. Why? The court entered summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on the noncompete claim because it found the agreements unenforceable as a matter of law. Sounds scary, right? Yet all 12 counts were summarily dismissed or otherwise decided in the defendants’ favor. motion for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and. turnover of property to Power Home and for an accounting.misappropriation of trade secrets under Virginia’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“VUTSA”).aiding and abetting misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA.misappropriation of trade secrets under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”).aiding and abetting breach of restrictive covenants.breach of noncompete agreements by the two employees.Power Home alleged that two employees left Power Home to join Sigora and in doing so, absconded with its trade secrets at the behest of Sigora. Power Home sued Sigora in federal court on various grounds arising from the departure of two of its employees. Power Home and Sigora are solar energy companies that sell solar systems to homeowners and commercial businesses. To use a recent example of how this principle is applied by federal courts sitting in Virginia, let’s take a quick look at Power Home Solar, LLC v. And in a trade secrets case, the plaintiff can’t survive dismissal simply by alleging that the defendant used “improper means” to acquire its trade secrets the plaintiff must identify the supposed trade secrets and describe the means used to acquire them that were supposedly improper. In a conspiracy case, the plaintiff must allege facts showing the defendants acted with a common purpose to injure the plaintiff it’s not enough to just say, “the defendants conspired against me.” (See Brown v. In a defamation case, where a plaintiff must allege that a defamatory statement is “ of and concerning” him, it’s not enough to just allege that a statement was indeed “of and concerning” him he needs to include in his complaint the specific facts that would enable the trial judge to determine that the “of and concerning” characterization is indeed accurate. For example, a court wouldn’t have to accept a plaintiff’s allegation that she suffered “severe emotional distress” or “extreme emotional distress” without accompanying factual allegations demonstrating the specific forms of emotional distress experienced. This basically means that whatever conclusion the plaintiff wants the court to draw from the alleged facts, the plaintiff must allege not just the actual desired conclusion, but specific facts that, if true, would support the accuracy of that conclusion. When a plaintiff’s cause of action “is asserted in mere conclusory language” and supported only by “inferences that are not fairly and justly drawn from the facts alleged,” it is proper to sustain a defendant’s demurrer. When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts generally must accept the plaintiff’s allegations as true for purposes of ruling on the motion, as well as all reasonable inferences arising from those facts, but courts are not required to accept “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact,…unreasonable inferences” or “allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit.” (See Veney v. To meet this standard, though, a plaintiff must allege actual facts rather than conclusory assertions. Virginia is considered a “notice pleading” jurisdiction, which means that a complaint need only contain allegations of material facts sufficient to inform a defendant ( i.e., put the defendant on notice) of the true nature and character of the plaintiff’s claim.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |