Boldstar Technical, LLC v. Home Depot, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 October 2007
• Docket Number: No. 07-80435-CIV.,07-80435-CIV.
• Citation: 517 F.Supp.2d 1283
• Parties: BOLDSTAR TECHNICAL, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The HOME DEPOT, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

517 F.Supp.2d 1283

BOLDSTAR TECHNICAL, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The HOME DEPOT, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. 07-80435-CIV.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

October 3, 2007,

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Alexander Daniel Brown, Peter Glen Herman, Edward Royce Curtis, Tripp Scott, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Eileen Tilghman Moss, Edward A. Moss, Heather Cohen Szkaradek, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Andrew William Ransom, David Andrew Gast, Malloy & Malloy, Miami, FL, B. Trent Webb, Bart Starr, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants.

OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTER-CLAIMS, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

DANIEL T.K. HURLEY, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the court upon four separate motions: defendant Industriaplex, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Counts El and IV of plaintiffs' complaint [DE # 11]; defendant The Home Depot, Inc.'s motion to dismiss counts IV and V of plaintiffs' complaint [DE # 8]; plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Home Depot's counter-claims [DE # 18]; and plaintiffs' motion to strike Home Depot's affirmative defenses [DE # 20]. For the reasons stated below, the court will grant both defendants' motions to dismiss, deny plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Home Depot's counterclaims, and grant in part and deny in part plaintiffs' motion to strike Home Depot's affirmative defenses.

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are taken from the plaintiffs' complaint [DE # 1] and the defendants' answers [DE # 7, 13]. In deciding each motion to dismiss, the court has construed the pleadings broadly in favor of the nonmovant, accepted all facts pled by the nonmovant as true, and viewed all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 309 F.3d 1333, 1334 (11th Cir.2002).

Plaintiff Michael Powell is a principal of plaintiff Boldstar Technical, LLC. Boldstar contracted with defendant Home Depot in 2003 to develop, supply, and install keypad systems for the industrial equipment used by Home Depot in its stores. In July 2004, Home Depot approached plaintiffs to discuss a new potential project. Home Depot' had decided that the radial arm saws used in its stores by its employees to cut lumber for customers were unnecessarily dangerous, and asked plaintiffs to develop a way to make the saws safer. Plaintiffs agreed and developed a prototype of a device called "Safe Hands", a safety top apparatus designed to increase the safety of the particular radial arm saws used by Home Depot. Powell filed a patent application for Safe Hands on August 31, 2004, and placed the words "Patent Pending" on the device itself.

Home Depot asked Powell to provide a demonstration of Safe Hands to Home Depot executives. After the demonstration, Home Depot purchased Safe Hands units for eight of its stores, and promised to issue purchase orders for all of its nationwide stores if the product performed successfully in the initial eight locations. Several weeks later, Home Depot contacted plaintiffs to purchase Safe Hands units to use in all of Home Depot's stores nationwide. Home Depot offered to pay $1,200 per unit. That price was rejected by plaintiffs as below their unit cost of production. At that point in the negotiation, according to the complaint, Home Depot began to discuss with defendant Industriaplex, Inc. the possibility of copying the Safe Hands product. Plaintiffs allege that a Home Depot representative admitted that Home Depot had made an agreement with Industriaplex to purchase copied versions of the Safe Hands units for its stores, and that plaintiffs traveled to Home Depot stores and saw the Industriaplex product in use. No further negotiations took place between plaintiffs and Home Depot.

Powell's patent application for Safe Hands was subsequently granted as Patent No. 7,044,039 on May 16, 2006. On May 17, 2007, plaintiffs filed the complaint in this court. The complaint alleges that Home Depot and Industriaplex infringed, and continue to infringe, plaintiffs' patent; that Industriaplex tortiously interfered with a business relationship between plaintiffs and Home Depot; that Home Depot and Industriaplex are liable for engaging in a civil conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their intellectual property rights;¹ and that Home Depot is liable for fraudulently inducing plaintiffs to produce the eight Safe Hands units for the product's initial trial run.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard on Motion to Dismiss

Granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate when a complaint contains simply "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.E d.2d 929 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain factual allegations that "raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" in support of the Claim and that plausibly suggest relief is appropriate. Id. On a motion to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all facts alleged by the plaintiff are accepted as true. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th Cir.1986). The threshold is "exceedingly low" for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th Cir.1985). Regardless of the alleged facts, a court may dismiss a complaint on a dispositive issue of law. See Marshall County Bd. Of Educ. v. Marshall County Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir.1993).

B. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss

1. Industriaplex's Motion to Dismiss

Defendant Industriaplex, Inc. moves to dismiss plaintiffs tortious interference claim. Industriaplex argues that plaintiffs have not properly alleged a business relationship with which Industriaplex could have tortiously interfered; that Industriaplex did not engage in any actionable interference; and that any tortious interference claim in this context is preempted by federal patent law.

To state a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship, the aggrieved party must show: (1) the existence of a business relationship; (2) the defendant's knowledge of that relationship; (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant; and (4) that the aggrieved party was damaged as a result of the defendant's interference.² Marquez v. PanAmerican Bank, 943 So.2d 284, 286 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.2006); Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So.2d 137, 139 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct. Ap.2006); Kreizinger v. Schlesinger, 925 So.2d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.2006). The business relationship, if not an actual contract, must be "evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which in all probability would have, been completed if the defendant had not interfered." Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812, 815 (Fla. 1994).

Industriaplex argues that plaintiffs and Home Depot had no business relationship with which Industriaplex could have' tortiously interfered. The court agrees. According to plaintiffs' allegations, the last contact between plaintiffs and Home Depot before Home Depot contacted Industriaplex was plaintiffs' rejection of Home Depot's offer to buy at $1,200 per unit. Plaintiffs have made no factual allegations tending to show that negotiations would have continued and that plaintiffs and Home Depot would have necessarily reached an agreement were it not for the alleged interference of Industriaplex. From the allegations in the complaint it appears just as likely that plaintiffs and Home Depot might never have come to an acceptable arrangement, even if Industriaplex had never appeared on the scene. So, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, it cannot be said that a deal between plaintiffs and Home Depot "in all probability would have been completed" but for the interference of Industriaplex. Thus, there was no business relationship between plaintiffs and Home Depot.

Plaintiffs argue that they can demonstrate an "ongoing business relationship" with Home Depot for the sale of keypads, and that Florida includes such relationships among those that can be tortiously interfered with. See Ethan Allen, 647 So.2d at 815 n. 1. However, the court finds this argument misplaced. The Florida Supreme Court described the "ongoing business relationship" as standing in distinction to relationships already concluded with past customers. See id. The properly-established business relationship must still be the one with which the defendant has allegedly interfered. See id. (referring to "[t]he ongoing relationship with which the tortfeasor interfered") (emphasis added). So a plaintiff cannot get around a failure to properly plead a business relationship in a claim for tortious interference simply by showing that the plaintiff was engaged in some other business relationship with the same third party. Here, plaintiffs themselves have acknowledged that their prior business relationship with Home Depot was unrelated to the events that gave rise to this litigation. Pls.' Compl. ¶ 13. Accordingly, the court finds no business relationship, and plaintiffs' tortious interference claim against Industriaplex must be-dismissed.

Even were there a business relationship between plaintiffs and Home Depot, the court would nonetheless grant Industriaplex's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' tortious interference claim because Industriaplex's alleged conduct is not "unjustified" so as to be actionable. Plaintiffs have made clear in their opposition to the motion that defendant's purportedly unjustified conduct underlying the tortious interference claim is not patent infringement itself or inducement to...