Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-01728/USCOURTS-ca6-15-01728-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bemas Enterprises LLC
Appellant
Koninklijke Nedschroef Holding B.V.
Appellee
Bernard E. Lepage
Appellant
Nedschroef Detroit Corporation
Appellee
Nedschroef Herentals N.V.
Appellee
Marc A. Rigole
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0220n.06

Case No. 15-1728

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

NEDSCHROEF DETROIT CORPORATION,

NEDSCHROEF HERENTALS N.V., and 

KONINKLIJKE NEDSCHROEF HOLDING 

B.V.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

BEMAS ENTERPRISES LLC, MARC A. 

RIGOLE, and BERNARD E. LEPAGE,

Defendants-Appellants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: BOGGS and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; STAFFORD, District Judge.

*

PER CURIAM. Marc A. Rigole and Bernard E. LePage had been long-time employees 

of Nedschroef Detroit Corporation when they formed—under their wives’ names—Bemas 

Enterprises LLC (“Bemas”). Nedschroef Detroit is a Michigan corporation that was formed in or 

about 1991 to service and provide replacement parts for fastener machines that were 

manufactured by Nedschroef Herentals H.V.1in Europe but used in North America. Without 

Nedschroef’s knowledge, Rigole and LePage formed Bemas in 2011 to also service and provide 

 

*

The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of 

Florida, sitting by designation.

1

Nedschroef Detroit Corporation and Nedschroef Herentals N.V. (a Dutch affiliate of Nedschroef Detroit) 

are subsidiaries of Nedschroef Holding B.V. (hereinafter, collectively “Nedschroef”).

 Case: 15-1728 Document: 29-1 Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 1
Case No. 15-1728, Nedschroef Detroit Corp. v. Bemas Enterprises LLC

2

replacement parts for Nedschroef machines in North America. During all times material to this 

case, Rigole was the manager of Nedschroef Detroit, the highest ranking Nedschroef employee 

in North America. LePage was a project and service engineer. Both had the authority to issue 

quotations, order replacement parts from suppliers, enter into contracts, and access Nedschroef’s 

passcode-protected trade secrets.

Nedschroef fired Rigole and LePage in 2013, after learning about the competing 

operations of Bemas. Nedschroef thereafter filed suit against Bemas, Rigole, and LePage 

(collectively “Defendants”), seeking damages and injunctive relief. The district court granted 

summary judgment in Nedschroef’s favor on nine counts: breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of 

fiduciary duty and misappropriation of corporate opportunities, violation of the Michigan 

Uniform Trade Secrets Act, conversion, statutory conversion, unfair competition, tortious 

interference, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. The district court awarded Nedschroef 

$3,680,344.18 in damages and permanently enjoined Defendants from providing replacement 

parts or services for Nedschroef machines in North America. This appeal followed.

I

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. United Rentals 

(N. Am.), Inc. v. Keizer, 355 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2004). Because the parties and their counsel 

are familiar with the facts of this case, those facts need not be recounted at length in this 

unpublished opinion.

II

The district court entered summary judgment on the nine counts after finding no genuine 

issues of material fact. Defendants assert on appeal that there were at least two disputed issues of 

fact, making summary judgment as to all claims inappropriate.

 Case: 15-1728 Document: 29-1 Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 2
Case No. 15-1728, Nedschroef Detroit Corp. v. Bemas Enterprises LLC

3

Defendants first point to what they say is the “crux of much of the case”—whether 

Rigole and LePage, while employed by Nedschroef, formed and operated Bemas as a competing 

business. According to Defendants, Bemas was not competing with Nedschroef but was rather 

“filling a gap” for customers “who were not going to use Nedschroef.” In Defendants’ words: 

“[There was testimony in the record] that Bemas would only provide parts and/or services to 

Nedschroef machines if customers previously requested a quote for the same part or service from 

Nedschroef and the quote was rejected by the customer.” Defendants thus suggest that, contrary 

to the finding of the district court, there was a dispute of fact as to whether Bemas and 

Nedschroef were true competitors. Defendants do not dispute, however, that: (1) prior to the 

formation of Bemas, Nedschroef was the exclusive supplier of replacement parts to North 

American owners of Nedschroef machines; (2) Bemas and Nedschroef sold the same 

replacement parts and offered the same services for Nedschroef machines; and (3) virtually all of 

Bemas’s customers who purchased goods and services for Nedschroef machines were originally 

customers of Nedschroef. To suggest that Bemas was not directly competing with Nedschroef is 

to ignore both common sense and the undisputed evidence in the case. The district court did not 

err in finding, as an undisputed fact, that Rigole and LePage formed and operated Bemas as a 

competitor of Nedschroef while they remained employees of Nedschroef.

Defendants also challenge the district court’s finding that Defendants misappropriated 

Nedschroef’s proprietary secrets, including Nedschroef’s drawings of replacement parts, access 

to which was limited and which contained the following warning language: “These drawings are 

property of Nedschroef and Machienefabriek Herentals. No reproductions without written 

permission.” Defendants claim that there was a question of fact regarding whether they obtained 

drawings from Nedschroef for use in manufacturing parts for Bemas. While Rigole and LePage 

 Case: 15-1728 Document: 29-1 Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 3
Case No. 15-1728, Nedschroef Detroit Corp. v. Bemas Enterprises LLC

4

conceded that they had passcode-protected access to Nedschroef’s drawings while they were 

employed at Nedschroef, they denied that they obtained any drawings from Nedschroef for use 

in manufacturing and selling parts for Bemas. They instead explained that Bemas’s customers 

sent them drawings that were then sent to Bemas’s suppliers for “reverse engineering” of parts 

for use on Nedschroef machines. Nedschroef’s expert, on the other hand, testified (without 

rebuttal) that:

[I]t is clearly evident that the Bemas drawings were copied directly from the 

Nedschroef drawings. This conclusion is supported by the comparison or drawing 

schemes (projection and views), dimensions and tolerances, surface finish 

specifications, and hardness/heat treatment specifications. The fact that there are 

virtually no differences between the drawings (and in many case, they are 

photocopies) eliminates any possibility that the Bemas drawings were created 

through reverse engineering or any other legitimate means.

Document production from Bemas’s suppliers, moreover, showed that these suppliers received 

photocopies of Nedschroef drawings from Bemas, with all references to Nedschroef removed, 

including the warning not to reproduce the drawings. Steve Woloszyk, a Nedschroef employee 

until 2013, testified that while he worked at Nedschroef, his boss, Marc Rigole, gave him 

original Nedschroef drawings and instructed him to reproduce the drawings as “Bemas” part 

drawings, despite the text on the drawings forbidding reproduction. 

The district judge recognized the factual issue presented by the parties’ opposing 

submissions and accepted as true Defendants’ assertion that Bemas obtained some of 

Nedschroef’s proprietary drawings from Bemas’s customers (i.e., former Nedschroef customers). 

Rigole admitted that, while employed by Nedschroef, both he and LePage on occasion gave 

Nedschroef suppliers Nedschroef’s confidential, passcode-protected drawings. The district judge 

concluded, however, that regardless of the source from which Defendants obtained the drawings, 

Defendants in fact acquired Nedschroef’s confidential drawings through breach of a duty to 

 Case: 15-1728 Document: 29-1 Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 4
Case No. 15-1728, Nedschroef Detroit Corp. v. Bemas Enterprises LLC

5

maintain their secrecy, then used those drawings to manufacture and sell parts in direct 

competition with Nedschroef. The district court did not err in this regard.

Defendants state in the conclusion to their appellate brief that “numerous, significant, and 

key questions of fact are in dispute which should have precluded summary judgment.” Other 

than the two purported disputes of fact already mentioned, we find nothing else addressed in the 

brief that requires discussion. 

III

After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we are satisfied 

that the district court properly granted summary judgment as well as a permanent injunction in 

favor of Nedschroef. We AFFIRM.

 Case: 15-1728 Document: 29-1 Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 5