GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, United States District Judge.
On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff MAPAL, Inc. filed a Complaint against Defendants Abdelatif Atarsia ("Atarsia") and YG-1 USA, Inc. ("YG-1"). Atarsia filed a motion to dismiss on August 20, 2015 [#17], but Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint ("FAC") on September 4, 2015.
As alleged in the FAC, Plaintiff is a "domestic for profit Michigan corporation" that is "a wholly owned subsidiary of MAPAL Fabrik fur Prazisionswerkzeuge Dr. Kress KG." See FAC ¶ 2. Plaintiff describes its line of business as follows:
Id.
Atarsia is a resident of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, who was employed by Plaintiff from February 2012 to April 10, 2015. FAC ¶ 3. At or near the time Atarsia began working for Plaintiff, the parties entered into an Employment Agreement (the "Agreement"). FAC, Ex. B. Atarsia, who holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, was hired as Plaintiff's "Aerospace Manager" for "business and market development for current and potential customers for the North America (Canada, United States and Mexico) aerospace and composite fiber industry in North America, as well as any other duties assigned or delegated to him by [Plaintiff]." FAC, Ex. B at ¶ 1. Atarsia's duties as Aerospace Manager included: (a) developing trading partners for Plaintiff for distribution in the aerospace market, (b) developing and implementing a training program for regional sales managers and executive staff on the aerospace market, (c) being responsible for the engineering and assessment of production tooling sales and customer service, (d) engineering development and implementation of sales strategies and plans to acquire new business for Plaintiff, and (e) providing an engineering level assessment of tools used for warranty issues. FAC ¶ 9. In furtherance of those duties, Atarsia: (1) worked with Plaintiff professionals and
The Agreement contained a confidentiality provision that states, in part:
FAC, Ex. B at ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges that Atarsia "did, in fact, become informed of, and had access to, Plaintiff's confidential, proprietary and trade secret information, including but not limited to its production capabilities, product design, quality parameters, cost and pricing methodologies, its customers and prospective customers, its sales strategies and its plans to acquire new business." FAC ¶ 12.
FAC, Ex. B at ¶ 6. Under the Agreement, Plaintiff could terminate Atarsia with or without cause at any time. Id. at ¶ 5. Atarsia was required to give Plaintiff three months notice if he elected to terminate his employment without cause. Id.
Atarsia resigned his employment with Plaintiff by submitting a resignation notice on March 25, 2015.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows the court to make an assessment as to whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only `a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to `give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Even though the complaint need not contain "detailed" factual allegations, its "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the allegations in the complaint are true." Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955).
The court must construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff, accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and determine whether plaintiff's factual allegations present plausible claims. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, plaintiff's pleading for relief must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (citations and quotations omitted). "[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders `naked assertion[s]' devoid of `further factual enhancement.'" Id. "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. The plausibility standard requires "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged — but it has not `show[n]' — `that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 1950.
The district court generally reviews only the allegations set forth in the complaint in determining whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, however "matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint, also may be taken into account." Amini v. Oberlin College, 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir.2001). Documents attached to a defendant's "motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim." Id.
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is based on Atarsia's alleged breach of the non-competition provision of the Agreement because Atarsia was "employed by and/or work[ed] for [Plaintiff's] competitors, YG-1 and Minicut" both before and after June 25, 2015. Atarsia argues that the non-compete provision, as written, is: (1) on its face, overly broad both geographically and as to the types of employment or lines of business that it covers, and (2) therefore, unreasonable and unenforceable under Michigan law, as written.
As Atarsia argues, non-competition agreements "`are disfavored as restraints of commerce and are only enforceable to the extent they are reasonable.'" Teachout Security Services, Inc. v. Thomas, 2010 WL 4104685, at *1 (Mich.Ct.App. Oct. 19, 2010) (quoting Coates v. Bastian Brothers, Inc., 276 Mich.App. 498, 507, 741 N.W.2d 539 (2007)). "The burden of demonstrating the validity of the agreement is on the party seeking enforcement" — in this case, Plaintiff. Coates, 276 Mich.App. at 507, 741 N.W.2d 539. Further, "`[b]ecause the prohibition on all competition is in restraint of trade, an employer's business interest justifying a restrictive covenant must be greater than merely preventing competition.'" Innovation Ventures, L.L.C. v. Liquid Mfg., L.L.C., 2014 WL 5408963, at *5 (Mich.Ct.App. Oct. 23, 2014), appeal granted, 865 N.W.2d 28 (Mich.2015) (quoting St. Clair Medical, P.C. v. Borgiel, 270 Mich.App. 260, 266, 715 N.W.2d 914 (2006)). "`To be reasonable in relation to an employer's competitive business interest, a restrictive covenant must protect against the employee's gaining some unfair advantage in competition with the employer, but not prohibit the employee from using general knowledge or skill.'" Capaldi v. LiftAid Transp., L.L.C., 2006 WL 3019799, at *4 (Mich.Ct.App. Oct. 24, 2006) (quoting St. Clair Medical, 270 Mich.App. at 266, 715 N.W.2d 914.) Thus, "Michigan law commands the courts to narrowly construe restrictive covenants." Whirlpool Corp. v. Burns, 457 F.Supp.2d 806, 812 (W.D.Mich. 2006).
As summarized in St. Clair Medical, a non-compete agreement is enforceable if it: (a) protects the employer's reasonable competitive business interests, and (b) is reasonable in duration, geographical scope, and type of employment or line of business. St. Clair Medical, 270 Mich.App. at 266, 715 N.W.2d 914. The employer's reasonable competitive business interests include "preventing the anticompetitive use of confidential information." Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, 276 Mich.App. 146, 158, 742 N.W.2d 409 (2007) (quotation marks omitted). Reasonable competitive business interests also include protecting "close contact with the employer's customers or customer lists, or cost factors and pricing." Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 547 (6th Cir.2007) (quotation marks omitted).
It is undisputed that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that it had a multitude of reasonable competitive interests it sought to protect by entering into a non-compete with Atarsia, namely that Atarsia was intimately familiar with, and in fact was the leader of, Plaintiff's aerospace and composite fiber business.
Atarsia's Motion to Dismiss, however, focuses on the lack of reasonableness of the non-compete in the Agreement, as written. Atarsia first contends that it is overbroad geographically in that it bars Atarsia from working for any company that is "in competition with the business of [Plaintiff]
Whirlpool Corp., 457 F.Supp.2d at 813 (citations omitted).
Plaintiff counters that the non-compete is reasonable in geographic area because, although it covers "the business of [Plaintiff] anywhere in the world," its aerospace market is solely North America and the FAC only requests that Atarsia be enjoined from competing in North America. FAC, at p. 20 (Prayer for Relief). Plaintiff states this is consistent with Atarsia's duties of leading all business and market development efforts for Plaintiff in "the North America (Canada, United States and Mexico) aerospace and composite fiber industry..." Plaintiff's argument that it is only seeking to have the non-compete apply to the aerospace industry in North America, however, only undermines Plaintiff's
Plaintiff also argue that it has alleged that "[w]ith MAPAL Fabrik, MAPAL is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of precision tools for metal machining," FAC ¶ 2. Atarsia did not enter into a non-compete with MAPAL Fabrik, however, as the Agreement was with Plaintiff, a separate corporate entity. FAC, Ex. B. Significantly, Plaintiff does not allege in the FAC that Plaintiff itself has global business interests that would justify a geographically unlimited non-compete in the aerospace industry. Finally, Plaintiff cites several cases that hold that preventing a former employee from competing in the geographical area in which they worked for the former employer is not per se unreasonable and is generally upheld.
For the reasons set forth above, specifically that Plaintiff's aerospace business — and Atarsia's duties pursuant to the Agreement — extended only to North America, the Court will find that the non-compete is unreasonable on its face based on its geographic overbreadth, and thus unenforceable, as written.
Atarsia also asserts that the non-compete is facially overbroad as to the lines of business and types of employment from which he would be barred. Atarsia argues that the non-compete precludes him from, on a worldwide basis, joining a "direct or indirect" competitor in any capacity, even as to industries with which he had no involvement while at Plaintiff. See New World Systems, 2009 WL 996954, at *12 (emphasis added) ("[a] limitation on working in any capacity for a competitor of a former employer is too broad to be enforceable."). As Atarsia notes, Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that it does business in the "automobile, aerospace, truck and manufacturing industries." FAC ¶ 2. Thus, based on the plain language of the non-compete, Atarsia would not only be barred from working in the aerospace and composite fiber industry, he would also be barred from working in the automobile, truck and manufacturing industries, i.e., lines of business and types of employment in which he did not work while employed by Plaintiff. Such overbreadth is impermissible under Michigan law. See, e.g., Gateway 2000, 9 F. Supp. 2d at 797 (a non-compete that "limited [the employee] from working as an `individual, partner, shareholder, director, officer, principal, agent,
Plaintiff counters that the line of business the non-compete applies to is limited to entities "engaged principally or significantly in a business that is, directly or indirectly ... in competition with the business of [Plaintiff]...." FAC ¶ 6. Plaintiff states that its business, "at least as it pertains to Atarsia, was further defined as the `aerospace and composite fiber industry..." FAC, Ex. B., ¶ 1. Plaintiff thus argues that "[t]aking these two limitations together, this Court could reasonably construe the non-compete as preventing Atarsia from becoming engaged in the aerospace and composite fiber industry with a business that competes for business with" Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that such a restriction on competition is "inherently considered reasonable." Citing Best Team Ever v. Prentice, 2015 Mich.App. LEXIS, at **11-12 (June 23, 2015) (a limitation to "the business of restaurants, catering and all related goods and services and other activities engaged in by Employer at the time Employee ceases to be employed" was reasonable). Once again, however, Plaintiff's argument focuses on language or provisions aside from the plain language of the non-compete. Thus, Plaintiff's argument actually undermines its contention that the non-compete, as written, is reasonable with respect to the line of business or type of employment it prohibits. In other words, Plaintiff's argument is again better suited to support a contention that the non-compete should be rewritten/revised by the Court (and perhaps how it should be rewritten/revised).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will find that the non-compete is overbroad as it relates to the line of business and type of employment it bars Atarsia from working in.
In sum, Plaintiff has not set forth allegations that sufficiently support the position that Plaintiff's legitimate business interests necessitated the far-reaching restrictions of the non-compete, nor did Plaintiff sufficiently allege how the non-compete was aimed at protecting the company from Atarsia gaining an unfair advantage in competition, rather it operates simply to prevent all competition. See Capaldi, 2006 WL 3019799, at *5 (citing St. Clair Medical, 270 Mich.App. at 266, 715 N.W.2d 914). Therefore, based on the geographic and line of business/type of employment overbreadth of the non-compete, the Court will hold that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted, to the extent Plaintiff seeks enforcement of the non-compete as written.
Neither the FAC nor Plaintiff's response to Atarsia's Motion to Dismiss focus on the enforceability of the non-compete as written. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that the Court has authority under M.C.L. § 445.774a(1) to limit any unreasonable aspect of the non-compete provision,
As Plaintiff states, "even if this Court finds any aspect of the non-compete to be unreasonable, it has the express power by statute to revise the non-compete to limit it to a reasonable duration." (Doc. No. 28, Pg ID 574 (emphasis in original)). Relying on Section 774a(1), Plaintiff contends that Atarsia's "all or nothing" proposition is erroneous and that the Court can and should limit any unreasonable aspect of the non-compete Atarsia signed "in light of the circumstances in which it was made." Plaintiff requests that the Court enforce the Agreement by limiting the line of business aspect of the non-compete to the "aerospace and composite fiber industry" and limiting the geographic scope of the non-compete to North America or such other region as the Court deems reasonable, e.g., the geographic area in which Atarsia marketed Plaintiff's aerospace products and services.
Atarsia acknowledges that the Court can rewrite the non-compete provision. Atarsia contends, however, that if Plaintiff wants to seek a more limited enforcement of the non-compete, Plaintiff "may seek such relief from the Court at an appropriate time." (Doc. No. 26, Pg ID 441). The Court, however, finds that the FAC, Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff's argument at the hearing demonstrate that Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit for purposes of enforcing the non-compete in a reasonable manner. Plaintiff's intentions are best evidenced in Plaintiff's prayer for relief in the FAC, wherein Plaintiff asks that the non-compete be limited to limiting Atarsia from being "a partner, director, officer, employee, consultant, representative or agent in any other capacity, in North America in the Aerospace precision cutting tool industry through and including June 25, 2016..." (Doc. No. 23, Pg ID 286).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court holds that Plaintiff's breach of contract claim at Count I of the FAC shall proceed, provided that the question of whether Atarsia breached the Agreement shall be considered based on the non-compete provision being revised as follows:
Finally, for the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Atarsia's motion to dismiss
In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Atarsia breached his fiduciary duties by working for or with YG-1 while he was still "employed" by Plaintiff, i.e., between April 10, 2015 and June 25, 2015. FAC ¶ 58. Plaintiff also alleges that Atarsia breached his fiduciary duties by "using information he obtained in MAPAL's employ to contact an Aerospace industry distributor on behalf of YG-1 USA and/or Minicut in order to compete with MAPAL." Id. at ¶ 59.
Atarsia argues that Plaintiff cannot bootstrap Atarsia's alleged contractual obligation pursuant to the non-compete and/or confidentiality provisions into a tort claim for breach of fiduciary duty because, under Michigan law, it is well-established that a tort action cannot be brought where it is based solely on an alleged breach of a contract. Citing Fultz v. Union-Commerce Assocs., 470 Mich. 460, 467, 683 N.W.2d 587 (2004) ("if no independent duty exists, no tort action based on contract will lie."). See also Hamilton v. Nochimson, 2010 WL 743111, at *3 (E.D.Mich. March 1, 2010) (dismissing breach of fiduciary duty and conversion claims where claims "[w]ere not separate and distinct from the duties imposed by the parties' agreement.").
Plaintiff acknowledges that a typical employee-employer relationship likely would not warrant the finding of a fiduciary relationship. Muglia v. Kaumagraph Corp., 64 F.3d 663 (6th Cir.1995). See also Edwards Publications, supra. Plaintiff contends, however, that the "separate and distinct `mode of analysis' upon which Atarsia relies was considerably `clarified' by" Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., L.L.C., 489 Mich. 157, 809 N.W.2d 553 (2011) (holding, in part, that the existence of a contractual relationship does not erase or distinguish an employee's common law duties to his employer).
The Loweke court stated:
Plaintiff's reliance on Loweke for the proposition that a contract does not erase or extinguish independent common law duties is misplaced. First, Loweke is irrelevant to the issues before the Court because if Atarsia was still an "employee" of Plaintiff between April 10 and June 25, 2015 (as Plaintiff claims), it was only by virtue of the fact that the three-month pre-termination notice period contained in the Agreement had not yet expired. In other words, if Atarsia was legally prohibited from going to work for YG-1 as of April 11, 2015, the source of that prohibition was the Agreement, not any independent source. Second, the facts and holding of Loweke are inapposite to this case, as that case involved a negligence claim as the result of physical harm to a third party. Id. at 172, 809 N.W.2d 553 ("a contracting party's assumption of contractual obligations does not extinguish or limit separate, preexisting common-law or statutory tort duties owed to noncontracting third parties in the performance of a contract.").
Atarsia also argues that the alleged wrongful use of "information" by Atarsia fails because Plaintiff does not allege that Atarsia improperly disclosed or otherwise used anything that could be considered a trade secret or confidential information of Plaintiff. Atarsia states that the closest Plaintiff comes is alleging that "Atarsia has utilized
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim at Count II of the FAC.
Plaintiff claims that Atarsia and YG-1 conspired to breach Atarsia's
Atarsia cites several cases where the court held that one party to a contract cannot assert a claim against another party to the contract for conspiring to breach the agreement, but only one of those cases applies Michigan law.
Plaintiff cites one Michigan case for the proposition that a civil conspiracy claim can proceed against a former employee and her new employer. Edwards Publications, 2009 Mich.App. 109, at *19 (holding that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim).
Id. In this case, Plaintiff has alleged that YG-1 hired and continued to employ Atarsia after having notice of the non-compete and that YG-1's agent, Shane Hollenbaugh, threatened to hire other Plaintiff employees in retaliation for Plaintiff insisting that YG-1 cease employing Atarsia. Plaintiff thus argues that the Court should find that such allegations are sufficient to establish an unlawful purpose and to enable Plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim of conspiracy involving Atarsia and YG-1.
As Atarsia argues, however, the Edwards Publications case is: (1) an unpublished case, which is not binding on this Court, and (2) more significantly, the quoted language from that court set forth above constituted the totality of that court's consideration of the issue, i.e., the Edwards Publications court did not cite to any other cases or authority, nor did it engage in any analysis of the issue. As such, the Court is not persuaded that it should follow the conclusory ruling of Edwards Publications. Instead, the Court will adhere to the overwhelming authority that stands for the proposition that a party to a contract cannot conspire to breach that contract.
Atarsia also contends that, to the extent Plaintiff can be found to have alleged an underlying tort because of the "YG-1 [representative] threatening to target MAPAL's employees for retaliatory hiring by YG-1 USA if MAPAL did not refrain from seeking to enforce its contractual rights as to Atarsia," Plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim fails because Plaintiff has suffered no injury. Specifically, Atarsia asserts that Plaintiff has failed to allege that Plaintiff suffered any harm, such as the loss of customers or business, as a result of these alleged threats, i.e., some harm, such as the loss of customers or business.
In Fenestra Inc. v. Gulf Am. Land Corp., 377 Mich. 565, 593-94, 141 N.W.2d 36 (1966) (emphasis added), the Michigan Supreme Court explained that:
See also Auto. Support Grp., LLC v. Hightower, 503 F. App'x 411, 419 (6th Cir.2012) ("[T]he core of an actionable civil conspiracy is a question of damages.") (citation omitted). Atarsia asserts that there is no allegation that YG-1 so much as contacted a single Plaintiff employee, let alone hired one away resulting in some cognizable damage to Plaintiff. Therefore, Atarsia asserts that YG-1's alleged "retaliatory hiring" threats cannot support a conspiracy claim.
Plaintiff argues that it has alleged it suffered damages as a result of the conspiracy, even though it has not itemized damages. Citing FAC ¶¶ 66 ("As a direct
Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's conspiracy claim at Count III of the FAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, the Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss filed by Atarsia with respect to Count I of the FAC and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss filed by Atarsia with respect to Counts II and III of the FAC.
SO ORDERED.
