API Americas Inc. v. Miller
2:17-cv-02617
D. Kan.Jan 5, 2018Background
- API Americas sued former employee Paul W. Miller alleging breach of confidentiality, non-compete, and related torts after he resigned and allegedly sent proprietary information to himself and began working for a direct competitor.
- API sought and obtained a temporary restraining order after filing the suit.
- Miller filed an answer and a counterclaim asserting defamation based on statements allegedly made by API officers, agents, or employees and allegedly published more broadly (e.g., Kansas City Business Journal).
- API moved to dismiss Miller’s defamation counterclaim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Miller failed to plead defamatory statements with the specificity required and that the statements were privileged.
- Miller did not respond to the motion; the court treated the motion as uncontested and evaluated whether the counterclaim met pleading standards for defamation under Kansas law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller’s defamation counterclaim sufficiently pleads the allegedly defamatory statements | Miller’s claim lacks the requisite specificity and is deficient under Rule 12(b)(6) | Miller alleged API and its agents made false statements to third parties and the press | The claim is insufficiently specific and fails to put API on notice; dismissal granted |
| Whether Kansas defamation pleading requires particularity | Plaintiff: must identify the words, speaker, recipients, time and place | Defendant: alleged general publication and reporting (no specifics) | Court requires identification of the allegedly defamatory words, communicator, recipients, and time/place; general allegations fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for federal pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts disregard conclusory allegations; plausibility required)
- Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810 (10th Cir. 1984) (treat well-pleaded facts as true at pleading stage)
- Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2006) (construe reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor)
- In re Motor Fuel Temp. Sales Practices Litig., 534 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Kan. 2008) (labels and conclusions insufficient to plead entitlement to relief)
- Hall v. Kan. Farm Bureau, 50 P.3d 495 (Kan. 2002) (elements of defamation under Kansas law)