First Circuit Revives Trade Secrets Claims Against Former Employee's Wife, Affirms Dismissal of Out-of-State Defendants

The dispute centers on allegations that Shonn Monday, a former salesman for T.H. Glennon Co., Inc., breached a non-disclosure agreement by stealing confidential corporate information and launching a competitor in the mulch coloring and landscaping equipment industry.

Glennon sued Shonn, his wife Debra, their company TMG Green, and the New York-based H.U.R.B. Landscaping and its president, Ulderic Boisvert. The district court bifurcated the case, holding a bench trial solely against Shonn and finding him liable to Glennon for several claims.

The district court then dismissed the remaining claims against Debra, TMG Green, H.U.R.B., and Boisvert without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Glennon appealed those dismissals.

The appellate panel held that the district court erred in dismissing claims against Debra Monday. As a Massachusetts resident served at her home, she was subject to general jurisdiction in the Massachusetts federal district court. The court reversed that dismissal, noting Debra did not file a brief or appear for argument.

The court declined to revive claims against TMG Green, Shonn and Debra's shared company, because Glennon's briefs did not mention it, even though it was lumped in with Debra.

Regarding H.U.R.B. Landscaping and Boisvert, the court affirmed the dismissal. Glennon argued that a civil RICO claim conferred nationwide personal jurisdiction, but the district court had previously dismissed that claim on the pleadings for failing to allege sufficient predicate acts.

Glennon failed to adequately explain on appeal why the district court erred in dismissing the RICO claim, offering only a summary of the complaint without specifying how the pleadings met heightened particularity requirements for fraud allegations. The court noted Glennon cited no RICO case law, waiving the argument.

Glennon also failed to demonstrate specific personal jurisdiction over the New York defendants. The court found Glennon's appellate brief lacked the necessary caselaw and reasoned analysis to show relatedness, purposeful availment, and reasonableness, and omitted any discussion of the reasonableness inquiry entirely.