CompFox AI Summary
Plaintiff Wachter, Inc. sued former employees Brian Pitts and Josh Estes, along with Megan Pitts and Cabling Innovations, LLC, alleging various federal and state law violations, including under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), Electronic Communications Protection Act (ECPA), Stored Communications Act (SCA), breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil conspiracy. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied in part. It dismissed the federal claims (CFAA, ECPA, SCA) and several state law claims (breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, conversion), finding them either legally insufficient, not applicable to employees, or preempted by the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA). However, the court allowed the claims for breach of duty of loyalty (Count V) and civil conspiracy (Count IX) to proceed against the relevant defendants.
Wachter, Inc. v. Cabling Innovations, LLC is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, M.D. Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, M.D. Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Plaintiff Wachter, Inc. sued former employees Brian Pitts and Josh Estes, along with Megan Pitts and Cabling Innovations, LLC, alleging various federal and state law violations, including under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), Electronic Communications Protection Act (ECPA), Stored Communications Act (SCA), breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil conspiracy. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied in part. It dismissed the federal claims (CFAA, ECPA, SCA) and several state law claims (breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, conversion), finding them either legally insufficient, not applicable to employees, or preempted by the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA). However, the court allowed the claims for breach of duty of loyalty (Count V) and civil conspiracy (Count IX) to proceed against the relevant defendants.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.