CDW, LLC v. Netech Corp.

6 Citing cases

  1. Wagner-Meinert Eng'g v. TJW Indus.

    1:21-CV-313 DRL-SLC (N.D. Ind. Sep. 26, 2022)

    Of interest, the court in CDW permitted the same claim, earlier at the motion to dismiss stage, to proceed based on the allegation that the defendant “intentionally cut the price of goods and services offered to customers and prospective customers . . . to below the cost of those goods and service . . . for the sole purpose of causing economic injury.” CDW LLC v. NETech Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97388, 8-9 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 26, 2011). Today's case remains at the pleading stage, not summary judgment. There is no heightened pleading standard for unfair competition claims, and this pleading likewise plausibly alleges a predatory price cutting claim in the context of unfair competition.

  2. Inst. for Int'l Educ. of Students v. Qian Chen

    No. 1:18-cv-02229-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 5, 2020)

    Defendants further argue that summary judgment is warranted on Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with a business relationship because Plaintiff cannot prove an illegal act. "Indiana courts have not provided significant guidance regarding what actions are sufficiently 'illegal' to be actionable." CDW LLC v. NETech Corp., No. 1:10-cv-530, 2011 WL 3844160, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 26, 2011). However, federal courts applying Indiana law have held that inducing breach of fiduciary duty is enough.

  3. Inst. for Int'l Educ. of Students v. Qian Chen

    380 F. Supp. 3d 801 (S.D. Ind. 2019)   Cited 5 times

    IEF argues that Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with a business relationship fails because Plaintiff does not allege an illegal act. It is not clear what constitutes an "illegal act" under Indiana law. SeeSyndicate Sales , 192 F.3d at 641–42 (noting the lack of Indiana cases indicating that the predicate illegal act must be criminal); Zimmer, Inc. v. Stryker Corp. , No. 3:14-cv-152, 2014 WL 3866454 at *9 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 6, 2014) ("the Indiana courts have not defined ‘illegality’ in this context"); CDW LLC v. NETech Corp. , No. 1:10-cv-530, 2011 WL 3844160 at *5 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 26, 2011) ("Indiana courts have not provided significant guidance regarding what actions are sufficiently ‘illegal’ to be actionable."). Plaintiff's allegations include defamation and breach of contract, which courts have held do not amount to illegal conduct for purposes of tortious interference with a business relationship under Indiana law.

  4. Apex Colors, Inc. v. Chemworld Int'l Ltd.

    CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-273-PRC (N.D. Ind. Sep. 10, 2015)

    Defendants do not allege that Apex has done anything in this case that is procedurally improper, such as failing to give proper notice or noticing a hearing when it is known that Defendants are unavailable. Like the allegations in the case cited by Defendants in their response brief, CDW LLC v. NETech Corp., No. 1:10-cv-530, 2011 WL 3844160, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 26, 2011), Defendants' factual allegations relate only to the ulterior motive prong of the test but do not relate to the propriety of Apex's use of the judicial process-a distinct issue. As a result, Defendants have failed to state a claim for abuse of process.

  5. USI Ins. Servs., LLC v. Ryan

    CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-151 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2014)

    That is, Ryan's allegation does not "relate[] to the propriety of [USI's] use of the judicial process, as distinct from those relating to [USI's] ulterior motive." CDW, LLC v. NETech Corp., No. 1:10-cv-530, 2011 WL 3844160, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 26, 2011). "A party's intent is irrelevant where his acts are procedurally and substantively proper under the circumstances."

  6. Panwar v. Access Therapies, Inc.

    Case No. 1:12-cv-00619-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2013)

    However, RN Staff does not allege any facts that would demonstrate that the process itself was not proper, only that Mr. Panwar's motivation in attempting to circumvent the administrative procedures of the INA was not proper. See CDW LLC v. NETech Corp., No. 1:10-cv-0530-SEB-DML, 2011 WL 3844160, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 26, 2011) (allegations in counterclaim related only to alleged ulterior motive, not the propriety of plaintiff's use of the judicial process). Even assuming, for purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, that Mr. Panwar did file his Amended Complaint in an attempt to circumvent the administrative procedures of the INA, the filing of the Amended Complaint—the "process" in question—was used for its intended purpose, which was to initiate a lawsuit.