UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN ... - Nymag

Case 1:09-cv-21893-WMH Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 19 of 24
conclusions.” Id. The complaint, “without any factual allegations regarding the plaintiff’s effort
to maintain the confidentiality of the trade secret”, could not withstand a motion to dismiss. Id.
Here, Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead any factual allegations regarding Plaintiffs’
efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the alleged trade secrets. Plaintiffs merely allege that
“Mr. Chow and the MR CHOW Restaurants engaged in reasonable steps to protect the trade
secrets used in operating the MR CHOW Restaurants though policies, procedures, training and
other measures designed and intended to protect them under the circumstances.” (Compl. 75.)
These bare legal conclusions merely repeat the necessary elements required under New York law
and do not constitute specific facts as to Plaintiffs’ efforts to implement reasonable safeguards to
protect the secrecy of their so-called trade secrets. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs have not
alleged that they took any specific steps to keep their alleged trade secrets confidential, Count
VII fails.
VII. COUNTS V AND VI FOR COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
AND COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM
FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
Counts V and VI attempt to allege claims for Common Law Trademark Infringement and
Common Law Unfair Competition, respectively. (Compl. 116-131.) In order to state a claim
for common law trademark or unfair competition, a plaintiff must identify under which State’s
law it is bringing suit. See Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d
1369 (M.D. Fla. 2008) citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (dismissing claim for common law unfair
competition where plaintiff failed to “indicate whether it is bringing suit under Florida or
Pennsylvania law of unfair competition.”)
Here, Plaintiffs fail to allege whether they are bringing suit under Florida, New York or
some other State’s trademark and unfair competition law. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allegations are
insufficient to state a claim for common law trademark infringement and common law unfair
competition, and therefore, Counts V and VI should be dismissed.
VIII. ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8 PLEADING
REQUIREMENTS AS PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS “LUMP” DEFENDANTS
TOGETHER
A district court may dismiss a case for failure to comply with the pleading rules.
Friedlander v. Nims, 755 F.2d 810, 813 (11th Cir. 1985). To satisfy Rule 8(a) and (b) of the
-19-
RICHMAN GREER, P.A.
Miami • West Palm Beach