United Data Technologies, Inc. v. Byers et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

M.D. Tenn.February 21, 2018

4828-5444-2846 2935819-000003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION UNITED DATA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00139 SCOTT BYERS, WRIGHTCORE, INC., ) MICHAEL HICKS, GARY STINSON, ) RANDALL MORSE, MICHAEL SELF, ) FRANK BRYANT, WILLIAM STOVALL, and ) FRED DAVIS, a/k/a Leon Davis ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________________ Defendants Scott Byers ("Byers"), Wrightcore, Inc. ("Wrightcore"), Michael Hicks ("Hicks"), Gary Stinson ("Stinson"), Randall Morse ("Morse"), Michael Self ("Self"), Frank Bryant ("Bryant"), William Stovall ("Stovall"), and Fred Davis, a/k/a Leon Davis ("Davis") (collectively "Defendants") hereby submit their Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, and as demonstrated by Defendants' contemporaneously filed Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Memorandum of Law, and also by Defendants Byers and Morse's Affidavits in Support of Summary Judgment, all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants, as alleged in its Amended Complaint, fail as a matter of law. Furthermore, Defendant Byers is entitled, as a matter of law, to a judgment in his favor on his Counterclaim against UDT for commissions owed. In support of this Motion, Defendants would show the Court as follows: 1. UDT's claim for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets (brought pursuant to Fl. Stat § 688.001, et seq. and Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1701 against all Defendants) fails because (a) Case 3:16-cv-00139 Document 73 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 644 4828-5444-2846 2935819-000003 none of the Defendants are subject to Florida law and (b) UDT cannot show the existence of any trade secrets or that any of the Defendants misappropriated same. 2. UDT's claim for Breach of Employee Duty of Loyalty (brought against Defendants Byers, Hicks, Stinson, Morse, and Self) fails because UDT cannot show that any of these Defendants breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty to UDT. 3. UDT's claim for Breach of Restrictive Covenant Agreements ("RCA") (brought against Defendants Hicks, Stinson, and Self) fails because UDT cannot show that any of these Defendants breached his RCA with UDT. 4. UDT's claim for Violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (brought against Defendants Byers, Wrightcore, Hicks, Stinson, Morse, and Self) fails because (a) none of the Defendants are subject to Florida law and (b) UDT cannot show that any of these Defendants engaged in any deceptive or unfair trade practices against UDT. 5. UDT's claim for Tortious Interference (brought against Defendants Byers and Wrightcore) fails because UDT cannot show that either of these Defendants tortiously interfered with UDT's rights under its RCAs with Defendants Hicks, Stinson, or Self. 6. UDT's claim for Conspiracy (brought against all Defendants) fails because UDT cannot show that any of these Defendants entered into, or took any actions to effectuate, a conspiracy, or that the Defendants set out to accomplish an unlawful or otherwise wrongful purpose. 7. UTD's claim for Inducement of Breach of Contract (brought against Defendants Byers and Wrightcore) fails because UDT cannot show that either of these Defendants induced Defendants Hicks, Stinson, or Self to Violate his RCA with UDT. Case 3:16-cv-00139 Document 73 Filed 02/21/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 645 4828-5444-2846 2935819-000003 8. UDT's claim for Breach of Tennessee Common Law of Unfair Competition (brought against Defendants Byers, Wrightcore, Hicks, Stinson, Morse, and Self) fails because UDT cannot show that any of these Defendant unfairly competed with UDT. 9. Defendant Byers is entitled, as a matter of law, pursuant to his employment contract with UDT, and alternatively to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114, to the $50,000 in commissions owed him by UDT, which fact UDT has admitted and further confirmed by depositing the value of said commissions in its attorney's escrow account. The record in this case demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that UDT's claims against Defendants all fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully submit that the Court should: A. Grant this Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 56; B. Award Defendant Byers treble damages of $150,000 for the commissions owed to him by UDT but not paid, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114; C. Award the Defendants their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending this action pursuant to (i) Section 24 of Defendants Hicks, Stinson, and Self's RCAs with UDT and (ii) Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-50-114; and D. Grant Defendants such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and appropriate under the circumstances. Case 3:16-cv-00139 Document 73 Filed 02/21/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 646 4828-5444-2846 2935819-000003 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Martha L. Boyd Martha L. Boyd (TN BPR No. 22029) Mark Baugh (TN BPR No. 15779) Charles C. McLaurin (TN BPR No. 34352) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, Tennessee 37201 Telephone: (615) 726-5652 Facsimile: (615) 744-5652 Email: mboyd@bakerdonelson.com mbaugh@bakerdonelson.com cmclaurin@bakerdonelson.com Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 21, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically. Notice was served on the parties listed below via the Court’s ECF systems and/or via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid: Timothy L. Warnock, Riley Warnock & Jacobson, PLC, 1906 West End Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee 37203 and Ronald M. Rosengarten, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400, Miami, Florida 33131. /s/ Martha L. Boyd Martha L. Boyd Case 3:16-cv-00139 Document 73 Filed 02/21/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 647