United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LEONARD T. STRAND, CHIEF JUDGE.
case is before me on a motion (Doc. No. 20) to dismiss by
defendant Travis Hoekstra and a motion (Doc. No. 23) to
dismiss by defendant Michael Rozeboom. Plaintiff Ozone
Solutions, Inc. (Ozone) has filed resistances (Doc. Nos. 24,
25). I find that oral argument is not necessary. See
Local Rule 7(c).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
filed its complaint (Doc. No. 1) and a motion (Doc. No. 2)
for temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary
injunction on March 14, 2019. The complaint invokes federal
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
alleging claims arising under the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act (CFAA) and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367 over state law claims. See Doc.
No. 1 at 1.
alleges that Hoekstra was employed by Ozone as an IT Network
Administrator and Ozone Application Specialist from
approximately January 2014 until January 10, 2019.
Id. at 2. He was responsible for managing and
maintaining Ozone's server systems and backups; planning
and building its computer network infrastructure; managing
and maintaining workstations, laptops, tablets and software;
engaged in sales and customer service; and worked with
customer installations of Ozone's equipment. Id.
alleges that its computers and networks utilize log-in
credentials and passwords to protect information contained on
its computers and servers. Employee access to confidential
and proprietary information is limited by virtue of the
permissions that are associated with their log-in
credentials. Id. As IT Network Administrator,
Hoekstra had access to the entirety of Ozone's computer
network, computers and servers. Id. at 3.
was employed by Ozone as a Sales Application Engineer from
approximately 2008 through November 2018. Id. He
signed a Noncompete, Nonsolicitation and Confidentiality
Agreement (Agreement) with Ozone. Ozone has records reflecting
ongoing communications an Nonsolicitationd solicitations
between Rozeboom and Ozone customers. Id.
days leading up to Hoekstra's final day of employment,
Ozone alleges that Hoekstra downloaded numerous files and
sent himself numerous emails containing confidential and
proprietary customer information, product plans and
specifications, product cost and pricing information and
vendor information. Id. On his final day of
employment, Ozone alleges Hoekstra took a laptop computer
belonging to Ozone, which is believed to contain files
downloaded from Ozone's network and server. Id.
later obtained employment with Global Aquaculture Supply
Company, LLC (Global). Global manufactures and provides
various aquacultural products, including, but not limited to,
ozone equipment with application relating to aquaculture.
Id. Ozone alleges that Hoekstra has disclosed to
employees of Ozone that he and Rozeboom have met with
customers of Ozone with the intention of diverting business
to entities other than Ozone. Id. at 4.
alleges the following claims:
. Count I - Violation of Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act (against Hoekstra)
. Count II - Breach of Contract (against
. Count III - Misappropriation of Trade
Secrets (against Hoekstra and Rozeboom)
. Count IV - Conversion (against Hoekstra
. Count V - Breach of Fiduciary Duties
. Count VI - Tortious Interference with
Contract (against Hoekstra and Rozeboom)
See Doc No. 1.
a hearing on the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction on
March 21, 2019. I orally granted Ozone's motion for a TRO
at the hearing and memorialized it in an order (Doc. No. 14)
the following day. I reserved ruling on the preliminary
injunction. See Doc. No. 14. The parties later
agreed to extend the term of the TRO and continue the hearing
on the motion for preliminary injunction to a later date if
necessary. See Doc. No. 22.