Opinion
Civil Action 21-10895
05-19-2022
Thomas L. Ludington, United States District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DEFENDANT BAKEMARK USA, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 52)
DAVID R. GRAND, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant BakeMark USA, LLC (“BakeMark”) on February 18, 2022. (ECF No. 52). On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff Dawn Food Products, Inc. (“Dawn”) timely filed a response to BakeMark's motion (ECF No. 56), and BakeMark filed a reply on March 25, 2022 (ECF No. 58).
On March 1, 2022, an Order of Reference was entered referring BakeMark's motion to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 55). Oral argument was held on May 18, 2022.
For the detailed reasons set forth on the record, IT IS RECOMMENDED that BakeMark's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 52) be DENIED. In sum, as the Court explained on the record, while the factual allegations contained in Counts IV, V, and VI of Dawn's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39) are quite thin in some respects, they suffice to state claims for relief that are plausible on their face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, (2009). Indeed, the Court highlighted various paragraphs of the operative complaint that provide sufficient factual details for BakeMark to understand the basis for Dawn's claims against it. For instance, Dawn alleges that BakeMark was aware of defendant Hill's noncompete agreement, but that “[d]uring his employment with BakeMark, Hill was asked by BakeMark representatives to provide proprietary information regarding Dawn and its customers,” and that Hill provided “detailed proprietary information” such as “pricing,” “price increases by Dawn over time,” and “the rebates applicable to the customer.” (ECF No. 39, PageID.320-21). Dawn also alleges that Hill provided “multiple rebate agreements” for another customer and that those agreements contained Dawn's proprietary information, such as “rebate terms,” and “per unit price of the rebates for a variety of products.” (Id., PageID.321). As such, dismissal of these claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is not appropriate.
The parties should complete discovery, and if BakeMark believes there is no dispute of material fact as to any particular claim, it will be free to file a motion for summary judgment within the applicable scheduling order deadline.
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. See Willis v. Sec'y of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this magistrate judge.