Opinion ID: 1867603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The pleading of civil law claims

Text: ¶ 41 We begin by examining Burbank's civil law claims against Sokolowski, United Grease and United Liquid that are not based on a statutorily-defined trade secret, to determine if all facts pleaded were proved true whether Burbank would be entitled to relief. Westphal, 266 Wis.2d 569, ¶ 9, 669 N.W.2d 166. The remaining claims are: (1) Sokolowski breached the duty of loyalty he owed to Burbank as its agent; (2) United Grease and United Liquid knowingly aided and abetted Sokolowski's breach of his duty of loyalty; (3) all defendants unlawfully interfered with Burbank's business relationships; and (4) all defendants conspired to unlawfully interfere with Burbank's business relationships. ¶ 42 A claim for the breach of an agent's duty of loyalty may sound both in tort and in contract. See Aon, ___ Wis.2d ___, ¶ 8, 710 N.W.2d 175, 2006 WI App 4; Harman v. La Crosse Tribune, 117 Wis.2d 448, 454-55, 344 N.W.2d 536 (Ct. App.1984). When such a claim is made against an employee, the first question is whether the agent has a fiduciary relationship with the employer. Burg v. Miniature Precision Components, Inc., 111 Wis.2d 1, 7-8, 330 N.W.2d 192 (1983). If the employee is a key employee, then a fiduciary duty of loyalty will exist. Aon, 289 Wis.2d 127, ¶ 26, 710 N.W.2d 175, 2006 WI App 4 (citing Burg, 111 Wis.2d at 4-7, 330 N.W.2d 192). Whether an employee is a key employee depends on the precise nature of his or her employment duties, which determination requires a factual inquiry. Aon, 289 Wis.2d 127, ¶ 28, 710 N.W.2d 175, 2006 WI App 4. ¶ 43 If a duty of loyalty exists, and a third party encourages and profits from a breach of the duty of loyalty, a claim for aiding and abetting the breach will lie. St. Francis Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Hearthside Homes, Inc., 65 Wis.2d 74, 80, 221 N.W.2d 840 (1974). This, again, is a fact specific inquiry. Id. ¶ 44 Interference with a present or prospective contractual relationship requires proof of the following five elements: (1) the plaintiff had a contract or prospective contractual relationship with a third party; (2) the defendant interfered with the relationship; (3) the interference was intentional; (4) a causal connection exists between the interference and the damages; and (5) the defendant was not justified or privileged to interfere. Hoey Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Ricci, 2002 WI App 231, ¶ 27, 256 Wis.2d 347, 653 N.W.2d 763. All of these elements require full factual development. ¶ 45 However, a civil pleading need not define issues or state detailed facts; only `fair notice' . . . of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests are required. State ex rel. Adell v. Smith, 2001 WI App 168, ¶¶ 5-6, 247 Wis.2d 260, 633 N.W.2d 231. It is also true that when a court analyzes a complaint to determine whether it states a particular claim for relief, the label given the claim in the complaint is not dispositive. Jost v. Dairyland Power Coop., 45 Wis.2d 164, 169-70, 172 N.W.2d 647 (1969). ¶ 46 We conclude that Burbank has sufficiently stated claims against the defendants. For example, regarding Burbank's claim that Sokolowski breached the duty of loyalty he owed Burbank as its agent, Burbank alleged: 9 . . . . prior to his departure from Burbank, Sokolowski obtained a computer generated report from Burbank's computer system, containing valuable and confidential information about the business relationships Burbank had with its customers . . . . ... 18. As Procurement/Territory Manager at Burbank, Sokolowski owed Burbank certain duties of an agent to a principal, including, a duty of loyalty and a duty not to disclose information material to his agency. Sokolowski stood in a confidential relationship to Burbank regarding the trade secrets and other confidential data provided to him as Procurement/Territory Manager at Burbank. Complaint (Dane County Cir. Ct. July 30, 2002). In regard to United Liquid and United Grease, as well as Sokolowski, Burbank alleged: 10. Sokolowski took information he received from Burbank's customer database and entered or directed someone to enter that information into United Grease's computer database. 11. Sokolowski and United Grease are using the valuable and confidential information obtained from Burbank to solicit customers of Burbank to do business with United Grease. 12. As a result of the illegal and unauthorized use of confidential information belonging to Burbank, Sokolowski and United Grease have succeeded in diverting substantial customer relationships away from Burbank, resulting in loss of profits to Burbank. . . . 25. United Grease and United Liquid Waste were aware of the agency and other duties owed by Sokolowski to Burbank. 26. United Grease and United Liquid Waste intentionally and wrongfully lent substantial assistance to aid Sokolowski in breaching his agency and other duties to Burbank. ... 40.... Burbank had contractual or other ongoing business relationships with businesses in the food industry in the Upper Midwest. Burbank had a reasonable expectation that absent improper interference by a third party, these business relationships would continue for the indefinite future. ... 42.... Sokolowski and United Grease intentionally and improperly interfered with Burbank's business relationships with its customers by inducing or otherwise causing its customers to discontinue their business relationships with Burbank. Id. These allegations are sufficient pleadings to support the remaining civil claims. ¶ 47 All defendants entered general denials to the material facts Burbank asserted, so we now move to the affidavits in support of dismissing Burbank's complaint to see if they make a prima facie case for dismissal. Westphal, 266 Wis.2d 569, ¶ 9, 669 N.W.2d 166.