Bulldog New York LLC v. Pepsico, Inc.
8 F. Supp. 3d 152
D. Conn.2014Background
- Bulldog sought a Pepsi-branded Times Square experience; LOI governed by NY law; meetings at Pepsi locations; Xanadu Project arose; Bulldog alleges misappropriation and breach of LOI; NY law governs student choice-of-law disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for misappropriation (Counts 2,3) | Bulldog argues Connecticut law governs misappropriation. | Pepsi argues New York law governs due to LOI scope. | New York law applies; Count 2 preempted by NY law; Count 3 limited. |
| Choice of law for tortious interference (Count 4) | Bulldog argues Connecticut law should apply. | Pepsi advocates New York law. | New York law applies to Count 4. |
| CUTPA viability (Count 6) | Bulldog contends Connecticut law applies under CUTPA. | New York law should govern due to LOI. | Connecticut choice-of-law results in New York law applying; CUTPA dismissed. |
| Breach of LOI (Count 1) | Bulldog claims PCAM breached by not performing; seeks damages. | PCAM argues no breach or damages; termination issues unresolved. | Damages not shown; termination date dispute; summary judgment for PCAM on Count 1. |
| Misappropriation of trade secrets (Count 3) | Bulldog alleges protectable trade secrets were misused. | No protectable trade secrets; information marketed; no continued use. | No genuine issue; information not protectable trade secret; summary judgment for PCAM. |
| Confidentiality obligations and Type II preliminary agreement (Counts 1,4) | Bulldog asserts ongoing duties post-LOI. | Arguments about waiver and good faith negotiations. | Type II obligations exist; but post-120-day duties damages not proven; partial grants accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standards; genuine disputes must be material)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden of production and proof)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir.1994) (summary judgment; per se standard for nonmoving party evidence)
- Donahue v. Windsor Locks Bd. of Fire Comm’rs, 834 F.2d 54 (2d Cir.1987) (issues of material fact; jury trial prerequisite)
- Brown v. Cara, 420 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.2005) (Type I vs Type II preliminary agreements; binding under NY law)
- Adjustrite Sys., Inc. v. GAB Bus. Servs., Inc., 145 F.3d 543 (2d Cir.1998) (treatment of preliminary agreements and obligations to negotiate in good faith)
- Catskill Development, L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm’t Corp., 547 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.2008) (tortious interference; wrongful means; proximate cause standard)