The Ballard Grp. Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.
2014 Ark. 276
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Ballard sued King and BP for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contract and business expectancy, and civil conspiracy.
- First amended complaint attached 2008 and 2009 BP–Ballard contracts as Exhibits 4 and 5.
- Allegations allege King used Ballard’s trade secrets via sibling Jason Curtis to benefit Threads Production, Inc.
- Court dismissed all four claims under Rule 12(b)(6); later clarified dismissal without prejudice, then issued second amended order dismissing with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
- Ballard argues the remaining three claims (trade secrets, tortious interference, civil conspiracy) were sufficiently pleaded and should proceed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 41(b)’s two-dismissal rule apply to two Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals? | Ballard | King/BP | Yes; second 12(b)(6) dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) affirmed. |
| Was the breach-of-contract dismissal proper? | Ballard | King/BP | Yes; no valid 2010 contract pleaded, so dismissal affirmed. |
| Do the trade secrets allegations state a claim? | Ballard | King/BP | Yes; court abused in dismissing trade-secrets claim. |
| Do the tortious interference claims state a claim? | Ballard | King/BP | Yes; court abused in dismissing interference with contract and business expectancy. |
| Is civil conspiracy viable given the underlying claims? | Ballard | King/BP | Remanded along with underlying claims; conspiracy viable if underlying claims survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Tucker, 330 Ark. 435 (Ark. 1997) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; factual pleading required)
- Perry v. Baptist Health, 358 Ark. 238 (Ark. 2004) (fact pleading; non-conclusive on rights to relief)
- Bakker v. Ralston, 326 Ark. 575 (Ark. 1996) (Rule 41(b) – two-dismissal concept; involuntary vs voluntary dismissals)
- Middleton v. Lockhart, 344 Ark. 572 (Ark. 2001) (application limits of Rule 41(b) in multiple 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- J.B. Hunt, LLC v. Thornton, 2014 Ark. 62 (Ark. Supreme Court 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard; Rule 12(b)(6) proceedings)
- Jonesboro Healthcare Ctr., LLC v. Eaton-Moery Envtl. Servs., Inc., 2011 Ark. 501 (Ark. 2011) (de novo review when interpreting court rules)