Miami-Dade County

(22) MARLITE, INC. vs. AMERICA CANAS, ALVIN ECKENROD, and MODULAR WOOD SYSTEMS, INC. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida)

 

County/Docket #/Judge: Miami-Dade / 09-22607 / Edwin G. Torres/Donald L. Graham

 

Plaintiff(s) Attorney(s): Brian M. McKell of Wilson, Elser, et al., LLP, Miami, FL; Peter A. Hessler, Christopher A. Holecek, and Angela M. Lavin of Wegman, Hessler, et al., Cleveland, OH

 

Defendant(s) Attorney(s): Andrew Barnard of Barnard Law Offices, LP, Miami, FL and Harry E. VanCamp of DeWitt, Ross, et al., Madison, WI for Eckenrod and Modular; America Canas – Pro Se

 

Age/Sex/Occupation Of Plaintiff: n/a

 

Cause Of Injury: Violation of Non-Compete Agreement/Misappropriation of Trade Secrets/Competitor Hiring Former Employee. Plaintiff Marlite, Inc., is an Ohio company in the business of designing, engineering, and manufacturing wall panel systems. Defendant America Canas was employed by Marlite as a Florida sales representative until she resigned from her position in May of 2009. Canas had allegedly signed a confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement in 2006. Defendant Alvin Eckenrod is the president of defendant Modular Wood Systems and, pursuant to an asset purchase agreement, was also allegedly a party to a non-compete agreement signed in 2006. Modular is also in the business of wall panel systems and a direct competitor of Marlite. Marlite alleged that Eckenrod solicited and hired Canas for a position with Modular in April of 2009, in direct violation of the non-compete agreement signed by Eckenrod, and that Canas solicited customers of Marlite in violation of her non-compete agreement. Marlite also alleged that Canas and Modular unlawfully misappropriated Marlite’s confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information and intentionally interfered with Marlite’s business relationships.

 

Modular and Eckenrod counterclaimed, alleging that Marlite violated the confidentiality agreement by using information given to it by Eckenrod to manufacture wall panels virtually identical to Modular’s panels. Eckenrod claimed that the information had only been given to Marlite for the purpose of investigating whether Marlite wished to purchase Interlam, a company owned by Eckenrod.

 

Nature Of Injury: Financial loss.

 

Expert Witnesses:

 

Plaintiff's:

Daniel Kandray, Gnadenhutten, OH

Sergio Negreira, Miami, FL

 

Defendant's:

Dennis Kleinheinz, C.P.A., Middleton, WI

 

Verdict: $398,977 for Plaintiff on July 1, 2010 ($355,584.50 – against Modular; $43,392.50 – against Eckenrod).

 

Judgment: $398,977 for Plaintiff on July 12, 2010.

 

Editor's Note: The jury found that Modular misappropriated Marlite’s trade secrets, damaging Marlite in the amount of $312,192; that Modular intentionally interfered with Marlite’s contract with Canas, damaging Marlite in the amount of $43,392.50; and that Marlite was damaged in the amount of $43,392.50 by Eckenrod’s breach of his agreement in hiring Canas. As to Modular’s counterclaim, the jury found that Modular failed to show that it shared confidential information with Marlite.

 

Marlite’s claims against Canas were dismissed with prejudice on May 20, 2010.