TechINT Solutions Group, LLC v. Sasnett
5:18-cv-00037
W.D. Va.Jun 26, 2019Background
- TechINT sued former employee and part-owner Brandon Sasnett and Red Six CEO Scott Crino after Sasnett left TechINT and began performing substantially the same services for Red Six and TechINT clients, allegedly breaching a two-year restrictive Services Agreement (noncompete/non-solicit).
- TechINT alleges Red Six (through Crino) continued to engage Sasnett despite receiving notice and a copy of the Services Agreement, and that Sasnett solicited TechINT employee Archie Stafford to join Red Six.
- TechINT’s amended complaint asserts six counts; the motion to dismiss addresses four counts against Crino: Count II (tortious interference), Count IV (business conspiracy), Count V (aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty), and Count VI (injunctive relief).
- Crino moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing (inter alia) that he acted only as Red Six’s CEO (insulating him personally), that intracorporate immunity bars conspiracy, and that aiding-and-abetting is not recognized in Virginia and allegations are conclusory.
- The court evaluated plausibility under Twombly/Iqbal, considered Virginia law on agent liability and fiduciary duties of former employees, and denied Crino’s motion as to all four counts, permitting discovery to test the factual allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Count II: Tortious interference with contract/business expectancies | TechINT: Crino knowingly interfered with Sasnett’s Services Agreement and TechINT’s client relationships, causing damages. | Crino: Complaint alleges only that he acted as Red Six’s CEO, so no individual liability. | Denied dismissal — an agent can be personally liable for torts committed within scope of employment; allegations sufficiently plausible. |
| Count IV: Business conspiracy (Va. Code §§ 18.2‑499, 500) | TechINT: Crino conspired with Sasnett (and others) before and after hiring to divert business and cancel TechINT purchase orders. | Crino: Intracorporate immunity bars conspiracy among Red Six actors; allegations are conclusory and lack specifics. | Denied dismissal — intracorporate immunity does not cover alleged pre-hire agreement; allegations permit reasonable inference of concerted unlawful plan. |
| Count V: Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty / joint liability | TechINT: Even if not a separate tort, Crino aided Sasnett’s breach of fiduciary duties as former employee by employing and using him to usurp opportunities. | Crino: Virginia does not recognize aiding-and-abetting; complaint fails to allege Crino acted individually or knew of fiduciary duty/breach. | Denied dismissal — court treats the claim as an alternative theory of joint liability; factual allegations plausibly show Crino knew Sasnett was a former employee and participated in misconduct. |
| Count VI: Injunctive relief | TechINT: Seeks injunction enforcing Services Agreement and stopping unlawful conduct. | Crino: Moves to dismiss but offers no distinct argument beyond merits of other counts. | Denied dismissal — injunctive claim survives because underlying claims remain viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and averting mere labels/conclusions)
- VanBuren v. Grubb, 733 S.E.2d 919 (Va. 2012) (agent/employer joint liability for employee’s wrongful acts)
- ePlus Tech, Inc. v. Aboud, 313 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2002) (intracorporate conspiracy doctrine)
- Multi‑Channel TV Cable Co. v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Operating Co., 108 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 1997) (elements for business conspiracy under Virginia law)
- Frey & Son, Inc. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 256 U.S. 208 (1921) (conspiracy may be inferred from concerted actions)
- Robertson v. Sea Pines Real Estate Cos., 679 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2012) (inference of agreement where actions show concerted conduct)