Let Us Claim Consultants Insurance, Inc. v. Cepeda
6:23-cv-02378
M.D. Fla.Aug 5, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Let Us Claim Consultants Insurance, Inc. and Ramon Rodriguez allege trademark infringement, breach of contract, and trade secrets violations against Defendants Cesar Cepeda and Let Us Adjust Consultant Insurance LLC.
- Rodriguez owns three registered trademarks related to "Let Us Claim," which formed the basis for the business’s branding and operations in insurance claims processing.
- Defendant Cepeda, a former agent and apprentice for Let Us Claim, resigned and subsequently formed Let Us Adjust Consultant Insurance LLC offering similar services and allegedly using similar branding, leading to client confusion.
- Plaintiffs allege that Defendants used Let Us Claim's client database post-termination and improperly solicited former clients and employees.
- Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (FAC) with eight counts, including Lanham Act claims, contract breach, FDUTPA, and trade secrets claims; Defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds including shotgun pleading and failure to state a claim.
- The motion was granted in part: the FAC was dismissed for shotgun pleading, and some substantive claims were dismissed without prejudice; leave was granted to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shotgun Pleading | FAC is sufficiently clear | FAC is a confusing, impermissible shotgun pleading | Dismissed as shotgun pleading |
| Standing under Lanham Act | Both Rodriguez and Let Us Claim have standing | Let Us Claim not a mark owner/exclusive licensee | Standing adequately alleged |
| Sufficient trademark infringement allegations | Defendants' use of similar marks causes confusion | No registration of “LET US CLAIM” standalone; no use | Plausible likelihood of confusion pled |
| Breach of contract claim | Defendant Cepeda breached non-solicit clauses | No plausible breach; clauses overbroad/unreasonable | Narrowly states a breach; enforceability lacks specificity |
| Enforceability of restrictive covenant (RCA) | RCA intended to protect business interests | Five-year term unreasonable; no legitimate interests | Not per se unenforceable, needs interests pled |
| FDUTPA claim | Defendants’ acts were deceptive/unfair | No causation or actual damages alleged | Dismissed for insufficient pleading |
| Trade secrets misappropriation | Client list is a protected trade secret | No facts pled re: secrecy or value of client list | Dismissed for inadequate allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (discussing the plausibility standard for federal pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (defining and condemning shotgun pleadings)
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 516 F.3d 955 (discussing prohibition of shotgun complaints in the 11th Circuit)
- John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 711 F.2d 966 (likelihood of confusion as fact question in Lanham Act claims)
- Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (three elements to a FDUTPA claim under Florida law)
- Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (elements to state a claim for breach of contract under Florida law)