International Paper Co. v. Goldschmidt
872 F. Supp. 2d 624
S.D. Ohio2012Background
- IPC is a New York corporation with principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee; Xpedx is a division of IPC with Ohio headquarters and operates nationally, including SPG as a brand acquired in 2007.
- Goldschmidt, a California resident, was employed by SPG/xpedx from 2000 and rose to Vice President of SPG in 2009, based in California but with Ohio-based supervision and access to confidential information.
- From mid-2011, Goldschmidt participated in xpedx’s Directed Buy team, communicating regularly with Ohio-based personnel and meeting in Ohio; he had access to password-protected xpedx materials.
- In Oct–Dec 2011, Goldschmidt purportedly discussed leaving for Midland Paper; he resigned on December 14, 2011, and multiple subordinates also left to join Midland.
- IPC asserts claims for breach of Confidentiality Agreement, Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act violations, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of loyalty against Goldschmidt; IPC seeks relief in the Southern District of Ohio.
- The court conducts personal jurisdiction, venue, transfer, and preemption analyses and ultimately denies the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue/transfer, while granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under Ohio long-arm statute and due process | IPC shows Goldschmidt’s Ohio-related contacts and access to confidential info | Goldschmidt’s ties to Ohio are minimal and not enough to transact business | Jurisdiction satisfied; motion to dismiss denied |
| Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) | Substantial part of events occurred in Ohio; venue proper there | Ohio not substantially connected | Venue proper in SD Ohio; motion to dismiss denied |
| Transfer of venue to California | Choice of forum favors IPC; transfer unnecessary | Transfer for convenience warranted | Transfer denied; keep case in SD Ohio |
| UTSA preemption of common-law claims (fiduciary/duty of loyalty) | Common-law claims grounded on misappropriation overlap UTSA claims | UTSA preempts those common-law theories | UTSA preempts those portions; fiduciary-duty claim based on soliciting subordinates survives to extent independent of UTSA; overall grant in part/deny in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Youn v. Track, Inc., 324 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2003) (burden on plaintiff to show jurisdiction; due process constraints)
- Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) (three-part Mohasco test for specific jurisdiction)
- Serras v. First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 875 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir. 1989) (prima facie jurisdiction standard in absence of hearing)
- CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) (causation connection between forum contacts and action)
- Aristech Chem. Int’l Ltd. v. Acrylic Fabricators Ltd., 138 F.3d 624 (6th Cir. 1998) (reasonableness analysis in Mohasco framework)
- Fortis Corporate Ins. v. Viken Ship Mgmt., 450 F.3d 214 (6th Cir. 2006) (three-factor reasonableness balancing for jurisdiction)