ProductiveMD, LLC v. 4UMD, LLC et al
| ProductiveMD, LLC |
| 4UMD, LLC, David Becker, Bill Kottas, Jr., Scott Holmes and Matt MacIntyre |
| 3:2010cv01100 |
| November 18, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Williamson |
| Joe Brown |
| Todd J. Campbell |
| Copyrights |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 0101 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
65
ORDER:For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court hereby enters the following rulings: (1) Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 44) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED onl y insofar as ProductiveMD alleges in Count I that Defendant David Becker breached his duty of loyalty by misappropriating and conspiring with the other Defendants to misappropriate trade secrets, and only insofar as ProductiveMD alleges in Count V th at Defendants engaged in unfair competition by misappropriating and using trade secrets. The Motion is also GRANTED with respect to ProductiveMDs Civil Conspiracy claim as set forth in Count VII. In all other respects, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. (2) Defendants Motion to Ascertain Status (Docket No. 62) is deemed MOOT in light of the Courts ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/27/2011. (eh)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
