Court trims trade‑secrets suit but upholds tailored non‑solicitation clauses

A North Carolina Business Court judge dismissed plaintiff’s misappropriation‑of‑trade‑secrets claim but allowed portions of its contract claim to proceed, finding the employment agreements’ non‑solicitation language narrowly targeted to safeguard legitimate business interests. Plaintiff, a roofing‑services company, alleged that two former employees and their new employer stole confidential customer data to lure business, asserting statutory and common‑law unfair competition, trade‑secret theft, tortious interference, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the trade‑secrets count against all defendants and the contract claim against the two former employees. The court agreed that the complaint failed to identify any protectable trade secret under the state’s Trade Secrets Protection Act. Paragraph 66, which referenced “detailed lists of customers” with inspection dates, contact information, and deal stages, was too generic, and additional paragraphs describing free roof inspections and cultivated customer relationships did not remedy the deficiency. Because plaintiff also inadequately pleaded misappropriation, the trade‑secrets claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Turning to the breach‑of‑contract allegations, the court evaluated separate non‑competition, non‑solicitation, and non‑disclosure provisions in the employment agreements. Defendants argued the restrictions were overbroad, but the judge found subparts (a) and (b) of the non‑solicitation clause—targeting customers serviced or prospected by plaintiff during the employees’ tenure—were reasonably limited in scope and duration. Those subparts thus survived Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny. By contrast, subpart (c), which barred solicitation of any roofing opportunities within a broad geographic radius, was deemed overly expansive and was struck. The motion was otherwise denied as to the contract claim, leaving plaintiff free to pursue damages for breaches of the enforceable subparts. Claims for unfair competition and tortious interference remain pending, subject to defendants’ answers and potential discovery.

The 22 page opinion is Plaintiff Advantage Inc. v. Square One Storm Restoration LLC, Lawyers’ Weekly No. 020‑014‑25.