Leitner v. Morsovillo
| Decision Date | 29 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 21-CV-3075-SRB |
| Parties | REBEKAH LEITNER, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD MORSOVILLO, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Before the Court is Defendant David Roark ("Roark") and Jennifer Griffin's ("Griffin") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Doc. #19.) For the reasons discussed below,1 the motion is denied.
This civil lawsuit arises from a complex web of business relationships between Plaintiff Rebekah Leitner ("Plaintiff") and Defendants.2 Briefly, the Court sets forth the relevant facts as taken from Plaintiff's amended complaint.
Plaintiff, an Ohio citizen, started her own marketing business in 2012, focusing initially on print marketing but later expanding into digital marketing and advertising, as well as website hosting and management. Over time, Plaintiff developed her own client list and entered various contracts with her clientele. During 2014, Plaintiff partnered with a company known as Mission Marketplace LLC, which assisted her by providing various marketing services such as internetadvertising, web design, and web hosting services. Plaintiff became connected to Defendants Morsovillo and Sneed through Mission Marketplace, who both became involved with Mission Marketplace over the course of 2014-2015.
Between 2016-2017, Plaintiff hired Roark and Griffin, who are both citizens of Indiana, as independent contractor sales representatives for her business. In 2018, Morsovillo formed a Missouri LLC named JumpSix Marketing LLC ("JumpSix"). In 2019, Morsovillo and Sneed informed Plaintiff that JumpSix had taken over Mission Marketplace and asked Plaintiff to carry on her prior business dealings with this new entity. Over the course of the next year, Plaintiff's business relationship with Morsovillo, Sneed, and JumpSix began to deteriorate. Plaintiff alleges a JumpSix sales manager, Drew Owen ("Owen"), began to deliberately mislead and misinform Roark and Griffin regarding the financial stability of Plaintiff's business and her ability to keep them employed, which purportedly created friction between her, Roark, and Griffin.
In September 2019, Plaintiff, Roark, and Griffin attended a three-day training seminar in Springfield, Missouri, hosted by JumpSix. At that seminar, JumpSix announced its plan to post photos of Plaintiff, Roark, and Griffin onto its website, along with a plan to increase its pricing costs the following year. After attempts by Plaintiff over the following months to improve her deteriorating relationship with JumpSix, on November 8, 2019, Sneed told Plaintiff "that Roark and Griffin were terminating their relationship with [her] and that JumpSix was hiring Roark and Griffin[.]" (Doc. #13, ¶ 59.) A few days later, Plaintiff asked Sneed for "Roark's and Griffin's access to [her] clients, including [her] electronic files and data and her clients' files and data, to be cut off and eliminated" and stated that "Roark and Griffin [are] to have no access to her prospects and clients or their data and files moving forward." (Doc. #13, ¶ 61.) On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff notified Roark and Griffin in writing that all of the "sales related work theyconducted for her business and all confidential information that they obtained . . . must remain confidential and are [her] property." (Doc. #13, ¶ 64.)
Despite her directives to JumpSix, Roark, and Griffin that they were not permitted to use or access her confidential client data or information, Plaintiff alleges that "JumpSix, Sneed, and Morsovillo allowed Roark and Griffin to tamper with the data and files of [Plaintiff] and her clients and actively encouraged Roark and Griffin to do so[.]" (Doc. #13, ¶ 66.) In addition to their alleged file- and data-tampering efforts, Plaintiff claims Roark and Griffin "sent messages using their JumpSix and BigPxl email accounts hosted in Springfield, Missouri to some of [her] clients, threatening to terminate the hosting of their websites unless they signed new contracts with JumpSix and BigPxl and/or paid JumpSix and BigPxl for the amounts allegedly owed by [Plaintiff.]"3 (Doc. #13, ¶ 83.) Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions interfered with and severely disrupted her business, causing significant monetary losses and reputational damage.
Plaintiff initiated suit pursuant to diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction, alleging Defendants' actions violate both state and federal law. Her amended complaint asserts the following claims against Defendants: (1) Count I: Tortious Interference with Contracts and/or Business Expectations; (2) Count II: Defamation; (3) Count III: Violation of the Stored Wire and Electronic Communications Act ("SCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.; (4) Count IV: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.; (5) Count V: Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.; (6) Count VI: Violation of the Missouri Computer Tampering Act ("Missouri CTA"), MO. REV. STAT.§ 569.095 et seq.; (7) Count VII: Conversion; (8) Count VIII: Civil Conspiracy; and (9) Count IX: Action for Accounting. Roark and Griffin seek dismissal of Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).
Before considering the merits of a claim, a court must first determine that it possesses personal jurisdiction over the defendants. See Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) (). "When personal jurisdiction is challenged by a defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden to show that jurisdiction exists." Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Techs. Corp., 760 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d at 591-92 (8th Cir. 2011)). To survive a motion to dismiss challenging personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must plead "sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the defendant can be subjected to jurisdiction within the state." Creative Calling Sols., Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., 799 F.3d 975, 979 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting K-V Pharm. Co., 648 F.3d 588, 591-92 (8th Cir. 2011); see Fastpath, Inc., 760 F.3d at 820 (). The Court "must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all factual conflicts in its favor in deciding whether the plaintiff made the requisite showing." K-V Pharm. Co., 648 F.3d at 592.
"Personal jurisdiction over a defendant represents the power of a court to enter a valid judgment imposing a personal obligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff." Viasystems, Inc. v.EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589, 592-93 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). "Personal jurisdiction can be specific or general." Id. at 593. Specific, or case-linked, personal jurisdiction over a defendant exists when a plaintiff's claim arises from or relates to the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum state. Creative Calling Sols., Inc., 799 F.3d at 979-80 (citing Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014)). In contrast, general personal jurisdiction over a defendant exists when that defendant's contacts with the forum State "are so continuous and systematic as to render [the defendant] essentially at home" in that state, regardless of how the plaintiff's claim arose. Daimler, 571 U.S. at 127, 136-39 (). "Both theories of personal jurisdiction require 'some act by which the defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'" Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1073 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).
Rule 12(b)(6) provides that a defendant may move to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "To survive a motion to dismiss [for failure to state a claim], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ash v. Anderson Merchs., LLC, 799 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). When considering a motion to dismiss, "[t]he factualallegations of a complaint are assumed true and construed in favor of the plaintiff, even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable." Data Mfg., Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 557 F.3d 849, 851 (8th Cir. 2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Roark and Griffin argue Plaintiff's amended complaint should be dismissed in its entirety due to lack of personal jurisdiction. In the alternative, Roark and Griffin ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims, specifically Counts III, IV, and V, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing the Court may properly exercise its specific jurisdiction over Roark and Griffin. Plaintiff additionally argues Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is unwarranted given the nature of the allegations she puts forth in her amended complaint. Each argument is...
To continue reading
Request your trial