1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

EXEL NORTH AMERICA, INC., 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-12646 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

INTEGRATED DISPENSE 

SOLUTIONS LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #14) 

 On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff Exel North America, Inc. (“Exel”) filed a multicount Complaint against Defendant Integrated Dispense Solutions LLC (“IDS”) 

and nine individual Defendants. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Plaintiff alleges, among 

other things, that Defendants stole its trade secrets, violated the Lanham Act, and 

breached various confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements. (See id.) The 

parties are now before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Motion, ECF #14.) The Court held 

a hearing on Defendants’ motion on September 25, 2014. 

 As the Court explained to the parties at the beginning of the hearing, it is the 

Court’s normal practice to draft a written opinion when granting any portion of a 

defendant’s motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). However, due to the press of 

2:14-cv-12646-MFL-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 09/29/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 254
2 

time as a result of the fast approaching hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction (ECF #6), the Court decided to provide its ruling orally 

from the bench so that the parties could proceed with discovery and prepare for the 

forthcoming preliminary injunction hearing as expeditiously as possible and 

without any delay occasioned by the Court’s preparation of a written Opinion. 

Therefore, for all of the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF #15) is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 

 As to Count I (“Violations of the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets 

Act” against all Defendants), the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion 

as to Defendants IDS, Andrew Hryckowian, and David Ritchie. The 

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses this count as to 

Defendants Gary Hindall, Douglas Hosbeke, Ferdie Intig, Steve 

Nolan, Richard Orallo, Michael Connell, and Joe Nagorka; 

 As to Count II (“Violation of [the] Lanham Act” against all 

Defendants), the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to Defendant 

IDS with respect to the “diamond design” mark and the “I-STREAM 

LITE” mark, and GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to Defendant IDS 

with respect to the “IDS” Mark. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ 

motion and dismisses this count in full as to all other Defendants;

 As to Count III (“Violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection 

Act” against all Defendants), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion 

and dismisses this count as to all Defendants;

 As to Count IV (“Breach of Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation, and 

Non-Disclosure Agreement” against Defendant Steve Nolan), the 

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses this count;

2:14-cv-12646-MFL-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 09/29/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 255
3 

 As to Count V (“Breach of Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation, and 

Non-Disclosure Agreement” against Defendant Michael Connell), the 

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses this count;

 As to Count VI (“Breach of Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation, and 

Non-Disclosure Agreement” against Defendant Richard Orallo), the 

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses this count;

 As to Count VII (“Breach of Fiduciary Duty” against Defendant 

David Ritchie), the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion;

 As to Count VIII (“Breach of Confidentiality Agreement” against 

Defendant David Ritchie), the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion;

 As to Count IX (“Breach of Confidentiality Agreement” against 

Defendant Andrew Hryckowian), the Court DENIES Defendants’ 

motion;

 As to Count X (“Breach of Confidentiality Agreement” against 

Defendant Douglas Hosbeke), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 

motion and dismisses this count;

 As to Count XI (“Breach of Confidentiality Agreement” against 

Defendant Joe Nagorka), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion 

and dismisses this count;

 As to Count XII (“Civil Conspiracy” against all Defendants), the 

Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to Defendants Andrew 

Hryckowian and David Ritchie. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ 

motion and dismisses this count as to all other Defendants;

 As to Count XIII (“Interference with Contractual Relationships” 

against all Defendants), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and 

dismisses this count as to all Defendants; and

 As to Count XIV (“Unfair Competition” against all Defendants), the 

Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to Defendants IDS, Andrew 

Hryckowian, and David Ritchie. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ 

motion and dismisses this count as to all other Defendants.

2:14-cv-12646-MFL-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 09/29/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 256
4 

 As the Court indicated on the record, Plaintiff may continue to develop its 

claims though discovery, and the Court will entertain a timely and properlysupported motion to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 29, 2014 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on September 29, 2014, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-12646-MFL-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 09/29/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 257