CRST Expedited, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 March 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17-CV-26-CJW,17-CV-26-CJW
• Parties: CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Plaintiff, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Plaintiff, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant.

No. 17-CV-26-CJW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

March 15, 2018

ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.Background ...................................................................................... 2

II.Applicable Law ................................................................................. 4

A.Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ......................................... 4

B.Motion for a More Definite Statement ................................................... 5

C.Venue .......................................................................................... 6

III.Discussion ....................................................................................... 7

A.Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ......................................... 8

B.Motion for a More Definite Statement .................................................. 13

C.Venue ......................................................................................... 14

IV.Conclusion ..................................................................................... 16

This matter is before the Court on J.B. Hunt Transport's ("defendant")Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), for a More Definite Statement Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e), and to Dismiss for Lack of Proper Venue Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(3).(Doc. 8).CRST Expedited ("plaintiff") filed its Complaint ("complaint") against defendant(Doc. 2), and defendant timely filed the instant motion as its first responsive pleading.(Doc. 8).Plaintiff timely resisted the motion (Doc. 12), and defendant timely filed a reply.(Doc. 15).For the following reasons, defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I.BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff alleges it is a trucking company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that provides "long-haul, expedited freight hauling services to its customers."(Doc. 2, at 1-2).To facilitate its business, plaintiff alleges that it has established a driver training program wherein plaintiff incurs substantial expense in training individuals to become licensed truck drivers.(Id., at 2).In return, plaintiff alleges that the participants of the program agree to a specific employment term with plaintiff, during which time the participants may not provide truck driving services to any of plaintiff's competitors.(Id., at 2-3).

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant is a transportation and logistics company based in Arkansas that does not operate a driver training program and is incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia, but is authorized to do business in Iowa and maintains offices in the State of Iowa.(Id., at 1, 4).Further, plaintiff states that defendant"actively recruits drivers nationwide, including the State of Iowa."(Id., at 4).

In 2004, plaintiff sued defendant in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma because defendant allegedly solicited and hired plaintiff's drivers, causing those drivers to breach their employment contracts with plaintiff.(Id.).That case ultimately settled and, as a condition of the settlement agreement, defendant allegedly "agreed that it would not solicit or hire any CRST driver" during the restrictive period of the driver's employment contract.(Id.).Plaintiff claims, however, that since September 2015, when the settlement agreement expired, defendant"has actively recruited CRST drivers who were within" the restrictive periods of their contracts.(Id.).Plaintiff alleges that the previous litigation in the Western District of Oklahoma vested defendant with "knowledge both of the existence of the Employment Contract and its terms, including CRST's investment in its Driver Training Program."(Id., at 5).

Plaintiff claims that in complying with Department of Transportation regulations requiring trucking companies to verify employment history prior to hiring drivers, defendant became aware that certain individuals it hired were still within the exclusivity period with plaintiff.(Id., at 5).Specifically, upon receipt of an employment verification request from defendant, plaintiff contends that it would send a letter to defendant stating that the individual that defendant was recruiting was still within the exclusivity period and that plaintiff was not releasing the individual from his or her contract with plaintiff.(Id.).Plaintiff, however, contends that defendant hired the subject individuals in spite of this notification.(Id.).As a result, plaintiff contends that it suffered damages, continues to suffer damages, and that defendant has been unjustly enriched by being permitted to benefit from plaintiff's driver training program.

Plaintiff brought a four-count complaint alleging: 1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; 2) unjust enrichment; 3) intentional interference with contract; and 4) requesting permanent injunctive relief.(Doc. 2).In response, defendant brought a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be grantedunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), and to dismiss for lack of venue under Rule 12(b)(3).(Doc. 8).With respect to defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, defendant alleges specific arguments for dismissal of the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional interference with contract claims, and brings an overarching argument for dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.(Doc. 8-2).

II.APPLICABLE LAW

A.Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . and a demand for the relief sought."Rule 12(b)(6) provides that a party may assert the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by motion and that "[a] motion asserting [this] defense[ ] must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed.""While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555(2007)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted)."Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," but "a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if its strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that recovery is very remote and unlikely."Id. at 555-56.Indeed, a theory asserted need only be plausible, which requires "enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the conduct alleged]."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 has not shown—that thepleader is entitled to relief."Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679(2009)(emphasis added)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)."When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."Id.Where a pleading contains no more than conclusions, however, those conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth.Id."While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations."Id."[T]here is no justification for dismissing a complaint for insufficiency of statement, except where it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim."Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co. of Worcester, Mass., 108 F.2d 302, 306(8th Cir.1940).

B.Motion for a More Definite Statement

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides:

A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired.

In granting a Rule 12(e) motion, a court"may insist that the plaintiff'put forward specific, nonconclusory factual allegations' that establish [the claims alleged] in order to survive a prediscovery motion for dismissal or summary judgment."Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598(1998)(quotingSiegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 236(1991)(Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment))."A motion under Rule 12(e) is designed to strike at unintelligibility in a pleading rather than want of detail."Cmty. Voiceline, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Commc'n Corp., No. C 12-4048-MWB, 2013 WL 417749, at *4(N.D. IowaFeb. 1, 2013)(internal quotations and citations omitted).Further, "a motion for more definite statement is only proper when a party is unable to determine the issueshe must meet."Innovative Dig. Equip., Inc. v. Quantum Tech., Inc., 597 F. Supp. 983, 988(N.D. Ohio1984)(citingFischer & Porter Co. v. Sheffield Corp., 31 F.R.D. 534(D. Del.1962)).A motion for a more definite statement is not to be used as a substitute for discovery.Betancourt v. Marine Cargo Mgmt., Inc., 930 F. Supp. 606, 608(S.D. Fla.1996).

"Rule 12(e) motions are generally disfavored '[b]ecause of the liberal notice-pleading standard governing federal pleadings and the availability of extensive discovery[.]'"Am. Cas. Co. of Reading v. Chang, No. 14-00494-CV-W-BP, 2014 WL 12535303, at *2(W.D....