Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06124/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAMPION DANIEL MUTHLE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAP.IO, SAP GLOBAL, SAP NORTH

AMERICA, ATLAS.IO, RYAN VAN

DYK, and JUN MENG,

Defendants. /

No. C 19-06124 WHA

ORDER CONVERTING MOTION

TO DISMISS INTO MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this misappropriation of trade secrets action, defendants move to dismiss pro se

plaintiff’s complaint. For the reasons set forth below, this order converts the motion to dismiss

into a motion for summary judgment and will require expedited discovery.

STATEMENT

Pro se plaintiff Champion Daniel Muthle (otherwise known as Daniel Maree) founded

and owns Adheat, Incorporated. Adheat developed a proprietary and confidential geospatial

analytics technology platform. In April 2017, defendants Ryan Van Dyk and Jun Meng,

representing SAP.io Fund, L.P. (erroneously referred to as SAP.io) had a conference call

with plaintiff to discuss a possible investment in Adheat. Plaintiff then submitted a pitch deck

detailing Adheat’s technology to defendants. A few months after the call with SAP, plaintiff

alleged in his complaint that “a virtually identical, mirror-image platform was released into the

Case 3:19-cv-06124-WHA Document 42 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

marketplace by Atlas.io” which is “clearly based on Adheat’s MVP schematics, business model,

and cross industry (horizontal SaaS) approach” (First Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 4–7). Nearly a year later,

both parties signed a settlement and release agreement. In the agreement, plaintiff agreed to

“irrevocably and forever settle, release, and absolutely discharge SAP and its current affiliates

and related entities from any and all claims that could have been brought, whether known or

unknown” (Dkt. No. 12 at 2–3).

In June 2019, however, plaintiff commenced this action against defendants Sap.io, SAP

Global, SAP North America, Atlas.io, Ryan Van Dyk, and Jun Meng in the Superior Court of

California for the County of Santa Clara (Dkt. No. 12 at 2). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that

defendants misappropriated “confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information” (First Amd.

Compl. ¶ 14). Plaintiff brings seven claims against defendants: (1) violation of Defend Trade

Secrets Act; (2) violation of California Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (3) patent infringement;

(4) violation of California Business and Professional Code Section 17200; (5) intentional

interference with advantageous economic relationships; (6) intentional infliction of emotional

distress; (7) breach of contract (id. ¶¶ 16–22).

In September 2019, defendants removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California (Dkt. No. 1). SAP, as the only named and served

defendant, consented to the removal (ibid.). Plaintiff opposes (Dkt. No. 15). The following

month, plaintiff filed a motion in limine asking the court to dismiss the agreement (Dkt. No. 20). 

Defendants now move to dismiss the claims pursuant to 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 12).

ANALYSIS 

Defendants should know better than to append supplementary documents to their motion

to dismiss. Defendants request judicial notice of the settlement and release agreement (Dkt. No.

12 at 5). Plaintiff’s complaint, however, contains no reference to the agreement. It is improper

to take judicial notice of the document in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Rather, it is

appropriate for this Court to consider documents outside the complaint in a motion for summary

judgment.

Case 3:19-cv-06124-WHA Document 42 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Because the motion to dismiss turns upon facts outside the corners of the complaint,

Rule 12(d) provides that the motion should be converted to a motion for summary judgment. 

Therefore, this motion will be treated as a motion for summary judgment. Under Rule 56(d),

this order will give plaintiff the opportunity to take discovery from defendants, if plaintiff so

wishes, to test the impacts of the agreement. In addition, plaintiff may submit his own

declaration under oath to contest the validity of the settlement agreement, subject to being

deposed by defendants. Both sides are expected to participate in the expedited discovery. 

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is DENIED. Because defendants’ motion to

dismiss relies on evidence outside the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(d), the motion is converted

into summary judgment under Rule 56. Expedited discovery is ordered. Plaintiff’s opposition

will be due on DECEMBER 2, 2019. Defendants’ reply will be due within SEVEN CALENDAR

DAYS thereafter. The hearing scheduled for November 7th is VACATED. 

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is advised that helpful information is available

online at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants and also in person at the legal help center. 

An appointment with the legal help center may be made by calling 415-782-9000, extension

8657. The Court encourages plaintiff to pursue legal help.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-06124-WHA Document 42 Filed 10/31/19 Page 3 of 3