Court Rulings

The plaintiff, G Co., a printing company, sought to recover damages from the defendants T Co., a rival printing company, and H, a former employee of G Co., in connection with H's alleged theft and use of G Co.'s trade secret information and other intellectual property for the benefit of T Co. H, as an employee of G Co., had access to confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information belonging to G Co. When H became an employee of T Co., while she was still employed by G Co., she allegedly brought documents belonging to G Co. to her office at T Co. and used the information therein to solicit and divert customers from G Co. to T Co. After G Co. commenced the action, T Co. filed a third-party complaint against the third-party defendants, R and L, both officers of G Co., for indemnification. T Co. alleged, inter alia, that R and L had a duty to preserve the confidentiality of G Co.'s assets, and that R and L breached their duties as officers of G Co. because they had authorized H to work from home and to have access to the sensitive information at issue. The trial court granted R and L's motion to strike T Co.'s third- party complaint, from which T. Co. appealed to this court. Held that the trial court properly granted R and L's motion to strike T Co.'s revised third-party complaint, as T Co. could not prevail on its claim that it was entitled to indemnification for T Co.'s alleged use of G Co.'s stolen confidential information because R and L did not undertake reasonable efforts to prevent H from stealing G Co.'s confidential information; moreover, to the extent that R and L owed G Co. a fiduciary duty to protect its confidential information, that duty was entirely different from H's duty not to steal G Co.'s confidential information, as well as T Co.'s duty not to use that confidential information once it became aware that such information had been stolen. Argued October 18, 2023—officially released June 11, 2024

Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his complaint with prejudice under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. Appellant's handwritten complaint alleges that respondents misrepresented the parties' work relationship by stating in an \employment contract\ that appellant was a \contractor\ who worked for an \employer\ and then later asserting that appellant was an \independent contractor.\ We conclude that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to state claims for misrepresentation of employment relationship, fraudulent misrepresentation, and whistleblower retaliation. But we also conclude that the complaint fails to state claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.