A decide within the Northern District of Texas not too long ago declined to dismiss a lawsuit, CiCi Enterprises LP et al. v. Mucho Pizza, LLC et al., alleging a pizza franchisee failed to keep up the confidentiality of Texas pizza chain CiCi Enterprises LP’s commerce secrets and techniques after two associates inked a growth take care of competitor, Papa John’s. This case highlights the significance of complete agreements and the discount of settlement modifications to writing.
Starting in 2010, CiCi Enterprises[1] and Mucho Pizza, LLC[2] entered into 17 franchise agreements, which supplied Mucho Pizza entry to CiCi Enterprises’ commerce secrets and techniques and different confidential data, together with confidential monetary and retailer efficiency data, pricing, provider contacts, strategic advertising analysis, and gross sales strategies. Every settlement required Mucho Pizza to decide to not speaking, divulging, or in any other case utilizing for an additional occasion’s profit these commerce secrets and techniques and confidential data. The settlement additionally requires Mucho Pizza to not immediately or not directly maintain an curiosity in a aggressive pizza restaurant throughout or instantly after the settlement’s phrases. These agreements had been signed by Mucho Pizza and Mucho Pizza’s private guarantor, Guillermo Perales. CiCi Enterprises asserts each had been sure by the agreements’ phrases.
Mucho Pizza associates – Solar Holdings Inc. and Papa Texas LLC – entered right into a growth take care of Papa John’s and started buying pizza franchises in early 2021. The Papa Texas affiliate was owned by Mr. Perales, and he started actively selling his possession of CiCis and Papa John’s franchises shortly thereafter. Mr. Perales claimed his relationship with Papa John’s didn’t violate his commitments to CiCi Enterprises primarily based on an unmemorialized 2018 modification.[3] The topic litigation adopted, with Cici Enterprises claiming Mucho Pizza and Mr. Perales’ entry to and use of confidential, aggressive data to immediately compete with its CiCis eating places violates the federal Defend Commerce Secrets and techniques Act and the Texas Uniform Commerce Secrets and techniques Act.[4]
Whereas this litigation is simply heating up, and discovery will present additional taste, the details at hand function a reminder that cautious, inclusive settlement drafting is vital to defending mental property rights and a low-cost deterrent to authorized motion. When drafting agreements, contemplate not solely the events at hand, but in addition their subsidiaries, associates, successors, brokers and assignments. Likewise, placing pen to paper and memorializing amendments to agreements (or the shortage thereof) will take away potential she stated, he stated spats and crystallize the events’ intent on the time of an settlement’s drafting or modification. Clear and complete agreements are sometimes the primary line of protection to firms’ commerce secrets and techniques and different mental property.
The case is CiCi Enterprises LP et al. v. Mucho Pizza, LLC et al., No. 3:22-cv-00033 (ND Tex.)
[1] Plaintiffs CiCi Enterprises LP and Sure Caps, LLC are collectively known as “Cici Enterprises.” CiCi Enterprises is a buffet-style pizza restaurant franchisor.
[2] Mucho Pizza turned CiCi Enterprises’ largest franchisee; working 17 CiCis restaurant franchises all through Texas.
[3] CiCi Enterprises asserts the situations for the “propos[ed]”The amendments weren’t met and the agreements had been due to this fact by no means modified.
[4] Along with its federal and state commerce secret claims, CiCi Enterprises alleged a breach of contract.
