I Love Omni LLC v. Omnitrition International Inc
3:16-cv-02410
N.D. Tex.Apr 6, 2017Background
- Omnitrition sued former distributor Heidi Whitehair and added third-party defendants Jennifer Grace and Terry LaCore, alleging Whitehair formed a competing company (Innov8tive) after termination and solicited Omnitrition customers/IMAs in violation of a non‑compete.
- Grace and LaCore are directors/officers of Innov8tive and related supplier LaCore Labs; Omnitrition alleges they helped supply and operate the competing business.
- Omnitrition’s counterclaim asserts two claims against Grace and LaCore: civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting (based on alleged solicitation, product competition, and prior coordination with Whitehair/Tackett).
- Grace and LaCore moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).
- The court evaluated pleading sufficiency under Twombly/Iqbal standards and found Omnitrition’s factual allegations insufficient to plausibly plead a conspiracy or that Grace/LaCore acted with the unlawful intent required for aiding and abetting.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss both tort claims but denied the motion for a more definite statement and granted Omnitrition leave to amend by a set deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil conspiracy (Texas) | Grace/LaCore participated with Whitehair in a plan to raid Omnitrition customers/IMAs and compete, supporting a conspiracy claim | Allegations are conclusory; no pleaded time/place/meeting of minds or preconceived plan tying Grace/LaCore to Whitehair’s alleged torts | Dismissed for failure to plausibly allege a meeting of the minds/preconceived plan |
| Aiding and abetting (Texas) | Grace/LaCore substantially assisted Whitehair’s wrongful conduct in operating Innov8tive and supplying competing products | Omnitrition pleads assistance but not facts showing defendants acted with unlawful intent to encourage specific torts | Dismissed for failure to plead unlawful intent/substantial encouragement plausibly |
| Rule 12(e) more definite statement | Omnitrition’s counterclaim contains multiple alleged deficiencies | Defendants argue pleadings are too vague to frame a responsive pleading | Denied — pleadings are not so vague that a response is impossible |
| Leave to amend | Implicit request to cure pleading defects | Defendants opposed dismissal without prejudice | Court granted Omnitrition leave to amend and set a deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (pleading standard and acceptance of well‑pleaded facts on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard requiring more than labels and conclusions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (two‑pronged Iqbal framework for evaluating pleadings)
- Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Morris, 981 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. 1998) (elements of civil conspiracy under Texas law)
- Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley, 900 S.W.2d 716 (Tex. 1995) (civil conspiracy requires specific intent)
- Juhl v. Airington, 936 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) (intent element for aiding and abetting principles)
- West Fork Advisors, LLC v. SunGard Consulting Servs., LLC, 437 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (discussing unlawful intent/substantial assistance for aiding and abetting)
- Berry v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 608 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (concluding mere association/working together is insufficient to plead conspiracy)