Acton Academy, a Texas nonprofit corporation, sued Colorado-based Apogee Summit Colorado LLC and individuals Tim Kennedy and Matt Beaudreau in state court, alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to confidential materials the academy developed for its educational business and brand. The lawsuit, filed in September 2025, includes claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith, trade secret misappropriation under Colorado law, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.
The defendants removed the case to federal court in November 2025, arguing that federal trademark law under the Lanham Act provided jurisdiction. Judge Brimmer flatly rejected this theory, emphasizing that 'the plaintiff is the master of the claim and may prevent removal by choosing not to plead a federal claim even if one is available.' The court noted that while Acton Academy had filed similar Lanham Act claims against Kennedy in a separate Texas federal case, 'what matters is that plaintiff did not bring a Lanham Act claim here.'
Judge Brimmer delivered particularly sharp language about defendants' jurisdictional theory, writing that 'it is irrelevant that plaintiff alleged facts which could support a cause of action under the Lanham Act' when the academy deliberately chose to avoid federal jurisdiction. 'Here, the complaint does not bring a federal cause of action and nowhere refers to the Lanham Act,' the court observed, adding that the plaintiff 'has the right to avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.'
Defendants had served the academy on October 11, 2025, and filed their removal notice on November 3, 2025. The academy moved to remand in December, arguing that no federal question existed since it had deliberately crafted its complaint to avoid federal claims. The dispute centers on allegations that the defendants breached agreements and misused proprietary educational materials developed by Acton Academy.
The defendants also argued that federal trademark issues were substantial questions necessarily raised by the state law claims, but Judge Brimmer rejected this fallback theory as well. The court found that the breach of contract claim 'can be resolved without resolving a federal question' because it was 'based in part on the unauthorized use of plaintiff's trademark' but 'also based on the misappropriation of trade secrets, among other things.' Even defendants acknowledged that the contract claim 'lists other non-trademark issues as other reasons for the breach.'
Judge Brimmer noted that the Tenth Circuit has warned that the 'substantial question' branch of federal jurisdiction is 'exceedingly narrow' and requires that federal issues be necessarily raised, actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution without disrupting the federal-state balance. The court refused to 'pre-try issues of liability on a motion to remand' when defendants pointed to deposition testimony from the Texas case, emphasizing that such factual disputes belonged in state court.
The remand order also disposed of several other pending motions, with Judge Brimmer denying defendants' motion to dismiss, motion to stay, and motion to consolidate as moot. The case returns to the District Court of El Paso County for further proceedings on the underlying trade secrets and contract claims.