757 F. Supp. 2d 904
W.D. Mo.2010Background
- Plaintiff Hallmark Cards, Inc. alleges Monitor provided confidential Hallmark information during consulting, with Clipper and related entities involved in investments and potential RPG acquisition.
- Monitor and Clipper share resources, and Clipper formed Fund II to acquire RPG, a Hallmark competitor; information was allegedly shared to aid this effort.
- Arbitration in 2006 found Monitor breached confidentiality and that Hallmark information was accessible to Clipper, prompting ongoing litigation and relief proceedings.
- Plaintiff filed suit in November 2008 against Clipper, Fund II, and RPG Holdings, later adding Doctoroff and others; the Amended Complaint asserts multiple claims including RICO and misappropriation.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the Clipper Defendants’ motion to dismiss, with personal jurisdiction decisions and several counts remaining for adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over defendants? | Hallmark asserts Missouri has jurisdiction due to targeted actions. | Clipper and others lack sufficient Missouri contacts. | Clipper subject to jurisdiction; others dismissed. |
| Whether RICO claims survive? | Plaintiff contends acts show pattern and conspiracy. | Insufficient predicate acts alleged; no pattern. | Counts I and VI dismissed; no viable RICO claims. |
| Preemption of unjust enrichment/conversion by Trade Secret Act? | If information isn’t a trade secret, claims survive; otherwise preempted. | Trade Secret Act preempts tort claims if information is trade secret. | Preemption undecided pending trade secret determination. |
| Trade secrets and civil conspiracy viability? | Trade secrets adequately alleged; conspiracy extends liability. | Conspiracy may be preempted; challenges to sufficiency. | Trade secrets adequately alleged; conspiracy viable; preemption not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Austad Co. v. Pennie & Edmonds, 823 F.2d 223 (8th Cir. 1987) (factors for minimum contacts analysis emphasize core considerations)
- Guinness Import Co. v. Mark VII Distributors, Inc., 153 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 1998) (minimum contacts require purposeful availment)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (laying out general approach to personal jurisdiction)