Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Riffe
1:19-cv-00023
| S.D. Ohio | Mar 24, 2022Background:
- TQL employed William Riffe (2012–July 6, 2018) as a freight broker bound by a one‑year NCA prohibiting competition, solicitation of TQL customers, and disclosure/use of TQL confidential information; the NCA required return of TQL documents on termination.
- Riffe resigned, took numerous TQL‑marked confidential documents home, and immediately began working as a sales assistant for Del Mar Packing; he denies brokering freight for Del Mar Packing or Hustle.
- Brian Wright formed Hustle LLC (freight broker) in June 2018; Hustle brokered freight for Del Mar Packing and other customers soon after formation despite no prior brokerage experience by its employees.
- Hustle and Del Mar Packing shared address/phone, Hustle used some former TQL customers, and Riffe appears on internal Hustle/Del Mar email chains and contacted several carriers also used while he was at TQL.
- TQL sued (breach of contract — damages and injunctive relief; tortious interference; OUTSA; civil conspiracy). Cross motions for summary judgment followed; court denied plaintiff’s motion, granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Entity Defendants | Entity Defendants litigated on the merits; jurisdiction exists | No jurisdiction (motion originally asserted) | Waived by defendants through general appearance; jurisdiction exists |
| Breach of NCA — competition/transport services | Riffe performed transportation/brokerage for Del Mar/Hustle and solicited TQL customers | Riffe only worked as sales assistant and never brokered freight or worked for Hustle | Genuine issues of material fact; summary judgment denied for both sides |
| Misuse/misappropriation of trade secrets (OUTSA) | Documents Riffe took are trade secrets and were used/misappropriated to form/operate Hustle | No direct evidence Riffe disclosed TQL trade secrets | Defendants concede documents are trade secrets; but misappropriation is disputed — genuine factual issues preclude summary judgment |
| Tortious interference with contract | Del Mar/Hustle intentionally procured Riffe’s breach by hiring/retaining him | No intentional procurement; followed counsel’s advice; role limited to sales assistant | Genuine factual dispute whether hiring/procurement was substantially certain to cause breach; summary judgment denied |
| Civil conspiracy | Riffe + Del Mar/Hustle conspired to misappropriate trade secrets, form competitor, and solicit customers | Alleged conduct lawful or at most contract breach; conspiracy fails without unlawful act | Civil conspiracy claim premised on misappropriation is preempted by OUTSA; conspiracy claim based solely on breach of contract fails as a matter of law — summary judgment for defendants on conspiracy |
| Joinder/claims vs Del Mar Partners | Del Mar Partners not related to the conduct | Del Mar Partners unrelated | Claims against Del Mar Partners dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (nonmoving party must present significant probative evidence to survive summary judgment)
- Gerber v. Riordan, 649 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2011) (personal jurisdiction defense may be waived by appearance)
- Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Patel, 445 F.3d 899 (6th Cir. 2006) (personal jurisdiction waiver by submission)
- Stratienko v. Cordis Corp., 429 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2005) (circumstantial proof in trade‑secret cases often required)
- Stolle Mach. Co. v. RAM Precision Indus., [citation="605 F. App'x 473"] (6th Cir. 2015) (OUTSA preemption analysis)
- Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171 (1999) (elements of tortious interference under Ohio law)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Leahey Constr. Co., 219 F.3d 519 (6th Cir. 2000) (elements of civil conspiracy under Ohio law)
- Office Depot, Inc. v. Impact Office Prods., LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (OUTSA can preempt common‑law claims that rest on same operative facts)