ILNews

Appeals court: Civil RICO claims not preempted

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not preempt a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claim, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In an issue of first impression, the court was asked to decide in AGS Capital Corp., Inc., et al. v. Product Action International, LLC, No. 49A02-0702-CV-176, whether civil provisions for treble damages based on certain criminal acts are covered by the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act (IUTSA).

AGS Capital Corp., which owned Fast Tek Group and Superior Metal Technologies, was a direct competitor with Product Action International, which is in the business of quality control and most of whose customers are automotive industry manufacturers and suppliers. In order to gain an economic edge over Product Action, AGS owners Alan Symons and Scott Weaver decided to hire for Fast Tek employees of Product Action in order to gain access to confidential information in how Product Action operated. The company hired Anthony Roark and Chan Chanthaphone away from Product Action, and the two brought along confidential information regarding Product Action's systems, methods, and customer information. The company also had the secretary of Superior Metal contact Product Action to get a price quote sent to the company; Fast Tek used that information to set its prices.

Fast Tek copied the Product Action documents and replaced Product Action's name with their own.

Product Action filed a verified complaint for preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and damages against AGS, Fast Tek, Superior Metal, Symons, Weaver, Roark, and Chanthaphone in May 2006. Product Action hired a consultant in computer forensics to perform discovery on Fast Tek's computers. The discovery returned numerous documents showing Fast Tek converted Product Action's documents to say "Fast Tek."

The trial court ruled Fast Tek and AGS are alter egos, making AGS liable for Fast Tek's actions; the defendants violated the IUTSA, which entitled Product Action to injunctive relief; and Product Action proved the defendants violated Indiana's civil RICO statute. The preliminary injunction ordered AGS, Symons, Weaver, Fast Tek, Roark, Chanthaphone, and all the company's agents and employees from contacting or soliciting new business from certain entities for two years, and they are all enjoined from participating in the business of Fast Tek in any form for a year. The injunction also ordered the computer consultant to expunge any information from the computers that was taken from Product Action. Product Action was required to post a $2,000 bond.

AGS appealed, arguing several issues, including the IUTSA preempts Product Action's claims under the state's RICO statute, the preliminary injunction was overbroad, and the bond posted by Product Action was unreasonably low.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled civil RICO actions are not preempted under the IUTSA. Indiana's RICO statute allows for a civil remedy for criminal activity. The IUTSA preemption provision refers to areas of law as a whole as opposed to the national Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which deals in terms of remedies provided. Because of this, the IUTSA preemption provision exempts criminal law and its concomitant criminal remedies, Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote. The court believes permitting a RICO claim along with an IUTSA claim provides for greater protection for the integrity of Indiana businesses.

"Because the RICO statute was designed to address the more sinister forms of corruption and criminal activity, the preemption provision of IUTSA should not prohibit RICO from fulfilling its purpose where the form of corruption involves the systematic acquisition of economically valuable information through the artifice of competitors' employees in order to gain an unlawful economic advantage in the marketplace," Judge Bailey wrote.

The appellate court also affirmed most of the trial court's earlier ruling, including the preliminary injunction and amount of bond posted, except for the barring of participation of AGS and its employees in the business of Fast Tek for one year and the length of time AGS may not solicit customers or business from entities listed in Product Action's Exhibit A in the preliminary injunction hearing. The provision goes far beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect Product Action's interests, he wrote. The court concluded prohibiting the participation of AGS, Symons, and Weaver in the operation of Fast Tek for a year is overbroad.

The court also remanded the trial court to revise its two-year ban on contacting customers to be effective until there is a final adjudication on the merits.

The Court of Appeals also overturned the grant of attorney's fees to Product Action because there is no judgment or settlement by the parties yet and the prevailing party is yet to be determined.

In a separate opinion, Judge Nancy Vaidik concurred in part and dissented in part regarding the majority's conclusions regarding the duration of the preliminary injunction and whether the bond is unreasonably low.

Judge Vaidik wrote no one argued that the injunction should be made longer regarding how long AGS can't contact certain companies, so she believes the two years imposed by the trial court isn't unreasonable.

Also, she wrote the $2,000 bond is unreasonably low and was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. She would remand for a new determination of an appropriate preliminary injunction bond.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT