Nationwide Contractor Audit Service, Inc. v. National Compliance Management Services, Inc

622 F.Supp.2d 276 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D assist oil and gas pipeline companies in complying with certain regulations established by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA.) Companies must establish an anti-drug and alcohol abuse prevention program for their employees who directly work on the pipelines. They must also periodically test those employees for evidence of drug or alcohol abuse and provide certifications that they have complied with these requirements. Companies often join a consortium with others and engage a third-party administrator to implement the programs. P and D also serve their customers by maintaining lists of Contractors who have pre-qualified under the DOT/PHMSA regulations or with requirements established by a specific Operator. Rippert was employed by D and included a non-compete agreement. The agreement was terminated by mutual consent. P alleges that 'Rippert's name and reputation are valuable to compete in the business.' Rippert resigned from D and, together with Pennsylvania residents Eugene Miklaucic and Pamela Siegert formed P on May 16, 2007. P's principal place of business is located in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania. P sent postcards to over 400 Operators announcing the formation of the new company. D had sent an e-mail message to many of its clients announcing Mr. Rippert's departure within a few days of his resignation. Frankhouser manages the drug and alcohol compliance program for Equitable Resources, Inc. whose office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, oversees the company's oil and gas pipelines in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Rippert contacted Mr. Frankhouser, informing him about his new venture and offering to set up a specialized database for the Equitable monitoring program. The two worked together for several months and, P alleges, Mr. Frankhouser was prepared to move Equitable's business to P when the company's contract with D expired. During a telephone call, D allegedly told Mr. Frankhouser that Mr. Rippert was still subject to a non-compete agreement which would be violated if Equitable became a customer of P. D also offered to reduce Equitable's annual service fee from $ 20,000 to $ 2,000. Mr. Frankhouser decided Equitable would continue as a customer of D for the upcoming year. D knew the statement about Rippert was false. D also made similar false and misleading statements to other potential customers of P. P sued D in Pennsylvania in Allegheny County for tortious interference with prospective contracts, unfair competition, and violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a). D filed a timely notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, based on the original jurisdiction provided to federal district courts for Lanham Act claims. P did not object to removal. D then motioned to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.