Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 25, 2020

Navigation Holdings, LLC v. Molavi

Judge
Lucy Koh
Docket
5:19-cv-02644
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
11
Intellectual PropertyMotion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Navigation Holdings v. Molavi, Judge Koh denied dismissal for three companies, granted dismissal with prejudice for two individuals, and granted a motion to strike.

Who this affects

Primrose Alloys, Inc. and Navigation Holdings, LLC may continue their federal and California trade-secret claims against U.S. Metal Imports, LLC, TSA Tung Shin Industrial Co., Ltd., and TSA Metals, Inc. The trade-secret claims against Sean Liu and Larry Liao were dismissed with prejudice, and the challenged sentence in paragraph 81 was stricken.

What happened

Navigation Holdings, LLC and Primrose Alloys, Inc. accused Alex Molavi and others of misusing trade secrets and breaching agreements. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the trade-secret claims against several defendants and to strike a sentence from the complaint.

The court allowed the trade-secret claims against U.S. Metal Imports, LLC, TSA Tung Shin Industrial Co., Ltd., and TSA Metals, Inc. to continue because the complaint plausibly alleged that Molavi misused trade secrets to benefit those companies. The court dismissed the trade-secret claims against Sean Liu and Larry Liao with prejudice because the complaint did not adequately allege that they knew Molavi had misused the information. The court also struck the challenged sentence about the confidentiality agreement.

Judge Lucy Koh therefore granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss and granted the motion to strike. The court did not address the defendants’ personal-jurisdiction argument concerning Liu and Liao.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Navigation Holdings, LLC v. Molavi · No. 5:19-cv-02644
Judge
Lucy Koh
Date
Aug. 25, 2020

Background

Primrose Alloys, Inc. and Navigation Holdings, LLC, doing business as Xi Dong Partners, sued Alex Molavi; U.S. Metal Imports, LLC; TSA Tung Shin Industrial Co., Ltd.; TSA Metals, Inc.; Sean Liu; Larry Liao; and unknown defendants. The complaint asserted five claims: misappropriation of trade secrets under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of a confidentiality agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of an exclusive supply agreement.

The defendants moved to dismiss the trade-secret claims against all defendants other than Molavi. They also moved to strike a new sentence in paragraph 81 of the Second Amended Complaint, which stated that Primrose was Xi Dong’s corporate parent and that Molavi understood the confidentiality agreement applied to his role as Xi Dong’s president.

Trade-secret claims against the corporate defendants

The court denied the motion to dismiss the federal and California trade-secret claims against U.S. Metal Imports, TSA Tung Shin Industrial, and TSA Metals. Plaintiffs relied on respondeat superior, a doctrine that can make an employer legally responsible for an employee’s conduct within the scope of employment. The court explained that the complaint alleged specific conduct suggesting that Molavi used Plaintiffs’ proprietary client, pricing, and product information to benefit each company.

The allegations included that Molavi formed U.S. Metal and used proprietary information to place tubing orders; became involved in Tung Shin’s United States operations and allegedly diverted a $3 million order; and formed TSA Metals as a Tung Shin subsidiary to pursue Plaintiffs’ United States customers using allegedly misappropriated trade secrets. The court concluded that these allegations adequately pleaded that the companies could be vicariously liable for Molavi’s alleged conduct. The court noted that the defendants had not moved to dismiss the trade-secret claims against Molavi and, for purposes of this motion, assumed that Molavi misappropriated trade secrets from Plaintiffs.

Trade-secret claims against Liu and Liao

The court granted with prejudice the motion to dismiss the federal and California trade-secret claims against Liu and Liao. Plaintiffs relied on indirect misappropriation, but the court had previously required Plaintiffs to provide facts supporting Liu and Liao’s knowledge of Molavi’s alleged wrongdoing.

The court found that the Second Amended Complaint did not cure that deficiency. Knowing that Molavi had been Xi Dong’s president showed, at most, that Liu and Liao knew he had access to trade secrets. The supply agreement and its reference to confidential information did not establish that they knew Molavi had misappropriated anything. The allegation that Liu and Liao knew Molavi routed orders through U.S. Metal was also conclusory, and the complaint improperly treated Liu and Liao as a single group despite their different positions. Because the defects remained and amendment would be futile, cause undue delay, and unfairly prejudice Defendants, the court dismissed these claims with prejudice.

The court did not decide Defendants’ separate argument that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Liu and Liao because it dismissed the claims against them on pleading grounds.

Motion to strike

The court granted the motion to strike the second sentence of paragraph 81. It concluded that the sentence exceeded the scope of the court’s earlier permission to amend because it appeared to revive Xi Dong’s confidentiality-agreement claim. The court had previously ruled that Xi Dong lacked standing to assert that claim because the agreement named Primrose and Molavi, not Xi Dong.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss the first and second claims against U.S. Metal Imports, TSA Tung Shin Industrial, and TSA Metals. It granted with prejudice the motion to dismiss those claims against Liu and Liao. It also granted the motion to strike the second sentence of paragraph 81. Judge Lucy Koh entered the order on August 25, 2020.

The authoritative version

Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.