Skip to main content

Active Release Techniques, LLC v. Xtomic, LLC

COLOCTAPPFebruary 9, 2017No. 15CA1753Cited 9 times
SettlementXtomic, LLC
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Harassment

Excerpt

Temporary Restraining Order—Preliminary Injunction—Motion for Directed Verdict—Abuse of Process. Plaintiffs (collectively, ART) provided training, seminars, and business support software for healthcare professionals specializing in "active release techniques." ART's owner hired Xtomic, LLC to manage ART's information technology (IT) services and provide IT support. Years later, a co-owner of Xtomic and a former employee of ART, among others, formed Select Seminar Services, LLC to market seminar training for a different soft tissue technique than that offered by ART, using software programs that Xtomic had developed, including a program that ART also used. ART petitioned for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and asserted several claims. Xtomic asserted counterclaims, including, as relevant here, a claim for abuse of process. Xtomic argued that ART had an ulterior motive to use the lawsuit as a means to harass Xtomic and run it out of business. ART moved for a directed verdict, which the court denied, relying primarily on (1) ART's settlement with the former employee (2) ART's reputation for filing lawsuits to control the behavior of former associates and business partners and (3) letters that ART sent to numerous individuals who were not directly involved in the litigation to preserve various documents. A jury found in favor of Xtomic. On appeal, ART contended that the trial court erred by denying its motion for a directed verdict on Xtomic's abuse of process counterclaim. The abuse of process tort was developed as a remedy for the filing of what could be a meritorious action that is manipulated to obtain an improper advantage unrelated to the substance of the action. Abuse of process focuses not on the alleged wrongdoer's motivations or intentions, but on whether the legal system was used for its intended purpose. Here, ART's settlement with the former employee was not evidence of abuse of process because the settlement was used as intended, t

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a business dispute between Active Release Techniques (ART), a company that trains healthcare professionals, and Xtomic, an IT services company. ART hired Xtomic to handle their computer systems and technology support. However, problems arose when a co-owner of Xtomic and a former ART employee decided to start their own competing business called Select Seminar Services to market similar training seminars. ART claimed this created unfair competition and filed a lawsuit seeking a restraining order to stop the competing activities. The case also involved allegations of harassment and abuse of the legal process. The court case went through several procedural steps, including requests for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. The case ultimately ended in a settlement, meaning both sides reached an agreement outside of court rather than having a judge make a final ruling. No damages were reported as part of the settlement terms. For workers, this case highlights the importance of understanding any non-compete agreements or confidentiality requirements in employment contracts, especially when working for companies that provide services to competitors. It also shows how business relationships can become complicated when employees leave to start competing ventures.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Harassment cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.