UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN ... - Nymag

Case 1:09-cv-21893-WMH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 17 of 24
Plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, a rebuttable presumption of laches exists and therefore
bars Plaintiffs’ trade secret claim. See S. Grouts & Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co., 2008 WL 4346798
(S.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2008) citing Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 837
(“[I]f the claim is filed after the analogous limitations period has expired, the presumption is that
laches is a bar to suit.”); Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 736 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1984)
(holding that a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets barred by laches).
VI. COUNT VII FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR MISAPPROPRIATION OF
TRADE SECRETS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6)
Even if Count VII was not barred as a matter of law pursuant to the applicable statute of
limitations and/or the doctrine of laches (which it is), Plaintiffs’ claim would nevertheless have
to be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
A trade secret is a formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which gives the
possessor of the information an advantage over a competitor. Ashland Mgmt. Inc. v. Janien, 82
N.Y.2d 395 (1993). In order to plead a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, the complaint
must describe the secret subject matter with sufficient particularity to separate the subject
matter from general knowledge in the trade:
The pleadings must allow the defendant to ascertain at least the
boundaries within which the trade secret lies. If the subject is a
manufacturing process, the plaintiff must identify the end product
and supply sufficient data about the process, without revealing
the details of the process. Such a pleading will give the court and
the defendant reasonable notice of the issues which must be
addressed at the time of trial and will provide reasonable guidance
to define the scope of discovery.
1 Trade Secrets Law § 5:28 (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiffs fail to allege with any specificity
the nature of their alleged “secrets.” Plaintiffs allege they have “specially developed methods,
processes, and techniques, which relate not only to the preparation and presentation of the food,
but to the control and function of the kitchen, the cooking, expediting and food delivery
processes, and the training of staff.” (Compl. 24.) Plaintiffs further allege that “these
processes, methods, and techniques constitute trade secrets of Mr. Chow and the MR CHOW
Restaurants.” (Compl. 24.) However, Plaintiffs leave Philippe to guess what “processes,
methods, and techniques” Plaintiffs claim as a trade secret. Plaintiffs operate Chinese food
restaurants featuring dishes served in China for hundreds of years. The processes and
-17-
RICHMAN GREER, P.A.
Miami • West Palm Beach