History
  • No items yet
midpage
178 F. Supp. 3d 390
E.D. La.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • FABI (First American Bankcard, Inc.) contracted with Smart Business Technology, Inc. (SBT) beginning in 2009 for software and services (FABICash, FABITrack) used by casinos; officers Serafín Fuente and Carlos Romero are named defendants.
  • FABI alleges SBT failed to deliver promised products, provided inferior/unreliable systems, and concealed lack of system redundancy (single server vs. multiple) causing recurring failures 2010–2014 and lost customers.
  • SBT was acquired by Powa in 2014; Powa later was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
  • FABI sued under Louisiana law asserting claims for: LUTSA (trade secrets), fraudulent concealment, redhibition (defective sale), LUTPA (unfair trade practices), and conversion.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the Court granted dismissal of the LUTSA claim with prejudice, denied dismissal of the other claims but required FABI to amend several claims with greater specificity.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
LUTSA (trade secrets) Defendants withheld source code, config tables, customer lists and financial records — misappropriation by withholding suffices No allegation of improper acquisition, disclosure, or use; mere withholding does not show misappropriation Dismissed with prejudice — withholding alone, without use/disclosure or improper acquisition, fails under LUTSA
Fraudulent concealment (fraud by omission) Defendants concealed single-server architecture (2009–2014); parties had a relationship of trust so Defendants had duty to disclose Louisiana law requires duty to speak; plaintiff failed to plead duty and fraud with particularity Denied without prejudice; plaintiff must amend within 21 days to plead with particularity the duty to disclose and related facts
Redhibition (defective sale) Software/devices are subject to redhibition; defects began 2010; prescription and waiver do not bar claim because defects were reported and repairs attempted Contract not a sale, or claim is prescribed/waived by continued use and the 2012 agreement Denied — question of whether contract is sale, plaintiff’s knowledge, repairs, and waiver present factual issues; leave to amend to add facts
LUTPA (unfair trade practices) Defendants refused to cooperate during transition, threatened disabling systems, misrepresented materials, sought concessions, and withheld materials/trade secrets — caused ascertainable loss LUTPA is narrow and cannot be used to bootstrap a breach of contract claim; allegations are mere restatement of contract claims Denied — plaintiff has standing post-Cheramie; pleadings lack sufficient detail to show conduct rises to LUTPA but may be cured by amendment
Conversion (against officers) Officers personally participated in withholding FABI’s customer data and account information Corporate officers generally shielded from liability for corporate acts absent personal fraud or participation in wrongdoing Denied — claim survives as pleaded against SBT, but FABI must plead specific facts showing Fuente and Romero personally participated in conversion

Key Cases Cited

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards and reasonable inference requirement)
  • Reingold v. Swiftships, Inc., 126 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 1997) (elements of a trade secret misappropriation claim under LUTSA)
  • Omnitech Int’l v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316 (5th Cir. 1994) (misappropriation requires use/disclosure to gain an unfair advantage)
  • Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) (motions to dismiss viewed with disfavor)
  • Tubos de Acero de Mex. S.A. v. Am. Int’l Inv. Corp., 292 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2002) (officer liability for corporate conversion when personally participating)
  • Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) (LUTPA grants action to any person suffering ascertainable loss)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: First American Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Business Technology, Inc.
Court Name: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Date Published: Apr 12, 2016
Citations: 178 F. Supp. 3d 390; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48934; 2016 WL 1437165; CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-638
Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-638
Court Abbreviation: E.D. La.
Log In
    First American Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Business Technology, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 3d 390