Ahern Rentals, Inc. v. Equipmentshare.com, Inc. ( 2024 )

nen nee en ee EE EN I I UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: AHERN RENTALS, INC., TRADE SECRET LITIGATION MDL No. 2945 (SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), is appropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s). IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the Western District of Missouri with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded. FOR THE PANEL: SRE) Taney Lobe May 15, 2024 chaten ermres Tiffaney D. Pete MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Clerk of the Panel enn nnn een en ne nnn nn NE EN I I IN RE: AHERN RENTALS, INC., TRADE SECRET LITIGATION MDL No. 2945 SCHEDULE FOR CRO TRANSFEREE TRANSFEROR DIST DIV. C.A.INO. DISTDIV. C.A.NNO. CASE CAPTION MOW 2. 20-04140 AZ 2. 20-00705 nner Rentals Incorporated v. EquipmentShare.com ncorporated et al MOW 2. 20-04141 CAE 2. 19-01788 anern Rentals, Inc. v. Equipmentshare.com, Inc. et IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION IN RE: AHERN RENTALS, INC., ) MDL No. 2945 TRADE SECRET LITIGATION. ) Master Case No. 20-02945-MD-C-BP ) Member Case No. 20-04140-CV-C-BP ______________________________________________________________________________ AHERN RENTALS, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) District of Arizona Number ) 2:20-CV-00705-DJH EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM INC., ) DANIEL MARTINEZ, and ) JANE DOE MARTINEZ, ) ) Defendants. ) SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER This suit is part of a multidistrict litigation proceeding (“MDL”) involving a multitude of business disputes between Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) and EquipmentShare.com Inc. (“EquipmentShare”). Most of the suits—including this one—have been brought by Ahern and revolve around its assertion that EquipmentShare induced Ahern employees (the “Individual Defendants”) to (1) leave their jobs with Ahern to begin working for EquipmentShare and (2) bring Ahern’s trade secrets or confidential information to advance EquipmentShare’s business at Ahern’s expense. In the typical member cases, Ahern has brought a myriad of statutory, contractual, and common law claims against both EquipmentShare and one or two Individual Defendants. However, proceedings have reached the point where continued consolidation or coordination for some cases is not beneficial, so remand and transfer to the Transferor Court is recommended.1 1 This Order addresses only this member case; the other cases will be addressed separately and individually. I. SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF REMAND The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) has directed that, when a case is ready to be remanded, the transferee judge must submit a suggestion to that effect to the Panel: If and when the transferee judge determines that any action or claim is, in fact, ready for trial, or otherwise ready for remand because the common pretrial proceedings pertaining to that action or claim have been completed and the action or claim would no longer benefit from inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, the transferee judge may suggest to the Panel that the Panel remand the action or claim to its transferor district. In re Multi-Piece Rim Prod. Liab. Litig., 464 F. Supp. 969, 975 (J.P.M.L. 1979); see also J.P.M.L. Rule 10.1(b). During the MDL’s pendency, all relevant discovery, including case-specific discovery for each of the member cases, has been completed.2 The parties briefed motions related to the admissibility of expert testimony, and this Court (the “MDL Court”) has issued indicative rulings on those matters. The parties are also separately briefing summary judgment motions for each of the member cases, and the briefing has been completed for this member case. The MDL Court has not issued rulings on the summary judgment motions, and, in these circumstances, the MDL Court does not believe it should do so. The facts in the member cases are very distinct from each other—more so than is usually the case in an MDL—and there are few (if any) common issues to be addressed. The dispositive motions for each member case will not depend on common facts, but rather the facts regarding each Individual Defendant’s actions. The claims asserted in the cases are not the same; moreover, even to the extent the claims are the same, the governing law may not be. Consequently, it is not efficient for a single court to rule on all the 2 There is one member case for which discovery is continuing; that case is on a different schedule because it had been dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed on appeal. That case is also atypical in several other respects, including the issues involved. Its continuation has no bearing on the rest of the member cases. dispositive motions; it is more efficient for the labor to be divided so that each case can be assessed individually. Accordingly, this is the appropriate time to remand the cases to the Transferor Court. II. PERTINENT FILINGS3 This member case was originally removed to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on April 8, 2020. The Complaint—which has not been amended—names EquipmentShare, Daniel Martinez, and Jane Doe Martinez as defendants. Daniel Martinez is an Individual Defendant; that is, he is a former Ahern employee who went to work for EquipmentShare. Jane Doe Martinez is Daniel Martinez’s wife and is named solely for community property purposes; subsequent filings (including the Martinez’s Answer) indicate her name is Reina Martinez, but there has been no formal attempt to substitute her as a party. On April 22, 2020, EquipmentShare and the Martinezes filed their separate Answers. Neither Ahern’s Complaint nor Defendants’ Answers have been amended. The Panel transferred the case to the MDL Court in August 2020. A. After transfer, the following relevant rulings were made:4 Doc. 1268 Order issuing (on page 12) a restriction on the use of certain evidence. The MDL Court does not know if any such evidence exists or will be offered in connection with this member case, but the Transferor Court should know this ruling has been made. Doc. 1802 Order striking the Supplemental Report from Ahern’s damages expert, David Hoffman 3 The MDL Court believes it has identified all the relevant documents for this member case, but there is always the possibility the parties will suggest others are also important. 4 All Document Numbers are from this Court’s Master MDL Docket. B. As stated earlier, the parties filed motions challenging the admissibility of expert testimony based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), its progeny, and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 through 705. The MDL Court issued rulings on those motions, but repeats a caveat expressed in its Orders. The MDL Court acknowledges decisions regarding the admission of expert testimony are discretionary, e.g., Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999), and different judges may exercise their discretion in different ways despite being presented with the same or similar circumstance. Therefore, the Orders reflect how the MDL Court would rule and are not intended to bind the Transferor Courts; they are offered only to assist the Transferor Courts in resolving these issues.5 With that caveat in mind, the MDL Court issued the following Orders relating to expert testimony: Doc. 1798 Order addressing testimony of Richard Wallace (Ahern’s expert) Doc. 1799 Order addressing testimony of Mark Hamilton (EquipmentShare’s expert) Doc. 1800 Order addressing testimony of Bruce Hartley (EquipmentShare’s expert) Doc. 1801 Order addressing testimony of David Hoffman (Ahern’s expert) and John Hansen (EquipmentShare’s expert) 5 This caveat does not apply to Doc. 1802, the Order striking the Supplemental Report from Ahern’s damages expert, David Hoffman. That ruling was not based on evidentiary grounds, but rather on the Supplemental Report’s untimely disclosure. C. The Martinezes and EquipmentShare have filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment. Some of the filings (or exhibits thereto) may be sealed, but they should be accessible by the Transferor Court. Also, and as indicated below, while the Martinezes and EquipmentShare typically made separate submissions, they opted to jointly file a single reply addressing Ahern’s statements of facts. To aid the Transferor Court, the MDL Court will identify the relevant filings. The Martinezes’ Motion Doc. 1855 The Martinezes’ Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. 1856 The Martinezes’ legal arguments Doc. 1857 The Martinezes’ Statement of Facts Doc. 1899 Ahern’s response to The Martinezes’ statement of facts (and Ahern’s counter-facts) Doc. 1921 Ahern’s response to The Martinezes’ legal arguments Doc. 1971 The Martinezes’ Reply Suggestions Doc. 1972 The Martinezes’ and EquipmentShare’s joint response to Ahern’s facts EquipmentShare’s Motion Doc. 1846 EquipmentShare’s Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. 1848 EquipmentShare’s factual and legal arguments Doc. 1902 Ahern’s response to EquipmentShare’s statement of facts (and Ahern’s counter- facts) Doc. 1922 Ahern’s legal argument Doc. 1972 The Martinezes’ and EquipmentShare’s joint response to Ahern’s facts Doc. 1973 EquipmentShare’s reply argument Ill. PROCEEDINGS ON REMAND Given the unique nature of this MDL, practically all the discovery that was conducted in the MDL Court related to the individual member cases. All such discovery has been completed and the MDL Court is not aware of any reason why additional discovery should be allowed. Once the summary judgment motions are ruled and the Transferor Court determines the extent to which it will adopt the MDL Court’s rulings on the Daubert motions, the case should be ready for trial. IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to J.P.M.L. Rule 10.1(b), the MDL Court suggests that the Panel remand this member case to the District of Arizona for further proceedings. The Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this Order to the Panel. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Beth Phillips BETH PHILLIPS, CHIEF JUDGE DATE: May 2, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ECF DOCUMENT I hereby attest and certify this is a printed copy of a document which was electronically filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Date Filed: 5/2/2024 Paige A. Wymore-Wynn, Clerk By: Warren ———S——SC@D erty Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION IN RE: AHERN RENTALS, INC., ) MDL No. 2945 TRADE SECRET LITIGATION. ) Master Case No. 20-02945-MD-C-BP ) Member Case No. 20-04141-CV-C-BP ______________________________________________________________________________ AHERN RENTALS, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Eastern District of California No. ) 2:19-CV-01788-MCE-KJN EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM, INC. and ) MATTHEW ALLEN, ) ) Defendants. ) SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER This suit is part of a multidistrict litigation proceeding (“MDL”) involving a multitude of business disputes between Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) and EquipmentShare.com Inc. (“EquipmentShare”). Most of the suits have been brought by Ahern and revolve around its assertion that EquipmentShare induced Ahern employees (the “Individual Defendants”) to (1) leave his or her job with Ahern to begin working for EquipmentShare and (2) bring Ahern’s trade secrets or confidential information to advance EquipmentShare’s business at Ahern’s expense. In the typical member cases, Ahern has brought a myriad of statutory, contractual, and common law claims against both EquipmentShare and one or more Individual Defendants. Proceedings have reached the point where continued consolidation or coordination is not beneficial, so remand and transfer to the Transferor Court is recommended.1 1 This Order addresses only this member case; the other cases will be addressed separately and individually. I. SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF REMAND The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) has directed that, when a case is ready to be remanded, the transferee judge must submit a suggestion to that effect to the Panel: If and when the transferee judge determines that any action or claim is, in fact, ready for trial, or otherwise ready for remand because the common pretrial proceedings pertaining to that action or claim have been completed and the action or claim would no longer benefit from inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, the transferee judge may suggest to the Panel that the Panel remand the action or claim to its transferor district. In re Multi-Piece Rim Prod. Liab. Litig., 464 F. Supp. 969, 975 (J.P.M.L. 1979); see also J.P.M.L. Rule 10.1(b). During the MDL’s pendency, all relevant discovery, including case-specific discovery for each of the member cases, has been completed.2 The parties briefed motions related to the admissibility of expert testimony, and this Court (the “MDL Court”) has issued indicative rulings on those matters. The parties are also separately briefing summary judgment motions for each of the member cases; each member case has been placed in one of five separate groups, with each group having a different briefing schedule. The briefing has been completed for this member case. The MDL Court has not issued rulings on the summary judgment motions, and, in these circumstances, the MDL Court does not believe it should do so. The facts in the member cases are very distinct from each other—more so than is usually the case in an MDL—and there are few (if any) common issues to be addressed. The dispositive motions for each member case will not depend on common facts, but rather the facts regarding each Individual Defendant’s actions. The claims asserted in the cases are not the same; moreover, even to the extent the claims are the same, the governing law may not be. Consequently, it is not efficient for a single court to rule on all the 2 There is one member case for which discovery is continuing; that case is on a different schedule because it had been dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed on appeal. That case is also atypical in several other respects, including the issues involved. Its continuation has no bearing on the rest of the member cases. dispositive motions; it is more efficient for the labor to be divided so that each case can be assessed individually. Accordingly, this is the appropriate time to remand the cases to the Transferor Court. II. PERTINENT FILINGS3 This member case was originally filed this case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on September 9, 2020, against EquipmentShare and two Individual Defendants—Matthew Allen and Derrick Torres (although, as will be seen, Torres has since been dismissed). Approximately three weeks after filing suit, Ahern filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On June 29, 2020, the Transferor Court (the Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.) dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Ahern filed a First Amended Complaint, and Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss. These Motions were not fully briefed before the Panel transferred the case to the MDL Court on February 11, 2021. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction had been briefed but had not been ruled. A. After transfer, the following relevant documents were filed, and the following relevant rulings were made: Doc. 25 Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Doc. 26 Order denying Ahern’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Doc. 75 EquipmentShare’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint Doc. 87 Allen’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint Doc. 88 Torres’s Answer to the First Amended Complaint 3 The MDL Court believes it has identified all the relevant documents for this member case, but the parties may suggest others are also important. All Document Numbers are from this Court’s Master MDL Docket. Doc. 238 Second Amended Complaint Doc. 344 Order dismissing Counts II and III from the Second Amended Complaint Doc. 366 Allen’s Answer to the Second Amended Complaint Doc. 367 Torres’s Answer to the Second Amended Complaint Doc. 412 Order denying EquipmentShare’s Motion to Strike Doc. 413 Order denying EquipmentShare’s Motion for Attorney Fees Doc. 428 EquipmentShare’s Answer to the Second Amended Complaint Doc. 538 Order allowing Ahern to file a Third Amended Complaint Doc. 546 Third Amended Complaint Doc. 576 EquipmentShare’s Answer to the Third Amended Complaint Doc. 580 Allen’s Answer to the Third Amended Complaint Doc. 581 Torres’s Answer to Third Amended Complaint Doc. 849 Order addressing a discovery dispute regarding forensic examination of cellphones Doc. 1030 Order denying Ahern leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint Doc. 1225 Order addressing a discovery dispute regarding the scope of Cynthia Sanchez’s deposition Doc. 1251 Order denying Ahern’s second request for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint Doc. 1366 Order dismissing Derrick Torres with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulation Doc. 1525 Order addressing the Errata Sheet from Cynthia Sanchez’s deposition Doc. 1554 Order denying Ahern’s Motion for Sanctions Doc. 1802 Order striking David Hoffman’s Supplemental Expert Report B. Motions challenging the admissibility of expert testimony based on Daubert v. Merrelll Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), its progeny, and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 through 705 were filed. The MDL Court issued rulings on those motions, but repeats a caveat expressed in its Orders. The MDL Court acknowledges decisions regarding the admission of expert testimony are discretionary, e.g., Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999), and different judges may exercise their discretion in different ways despite being presented with the same or similar circumstance. Therefore, the Orders reflect how the MDL Court would rule and are not intended to bind the Transferor Courts; they are offered only to assist the Transferor Courts in resolving these issues.4 With that caveat in mind, the MDL Court issued the following Orders relating to expert testimony: Doc. 1798 Order addressing testimony of Richard Wallace Doc. 1799 Order addressing testimony of Mark Hamilton Doc. 1800 Order addressing testimony of Bruce Hartley Doc. 1801 Order addressing testimony of David Hoffman and John Hansen C. EquipmentShare and Allen have filed Motions for Summary Judgment. Some of the filings (or exhibits thereto) may be sealed, but they should be accessible by the Transferor Court. To aid the Transferor Court, the MDL Court will identify the relevant filings. 4 This caveat does not apply to Doc. 1802, the Order striking the Supplemental Report from Ahern’s damages expert, David Hoffman. That ruling was not based on evidentiary grounds, but rather on the Supplemental Report’s untimely disclosure. EquipmentShare’s Motion Doc. 1874 EquipmentShare’s Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. 1875 EquipmentShare’s Suggestions in Support Doc. 1930 Ahern’s argument opposing EquipmentShare’s Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. 1931 Ahern’s response to EquipmentShare’s statement of facts Doc. 1962 EquipmentShare’s and Allen’s Joint Responsive Facts Doc. 1963 EquipmentShare’s Reply Suggestions Allen’s Motion Doc. 1872 Allen’s Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. 1873 Allen’s Suggestions in Support Doc. 1933 Ahern’s legal argument opposing Allen’s Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. 1934 Ahern’s response to Allen’s Statement of Facts Doc. 1962 EquipmentShare’s and Allen’s Joint Responsive Facts Doc. 1964 Allen’s Reply Suggestions III. PROCEEDINGS ON REMAND Given the unique nature of this MDL, practically all the discovery that was conducted in the MDL Court related to the individual member cases. All such discovery has been completed and the MDL Court is not aware of any reason why additional discovery should be allowed. Once the summary judgment motions are ruled and the Transferor Court determines the extent to which it will adopt the MDL Court’s rulings on the Daubert motions, the case should be ready for trial. IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to J.P.M.L. Rule 10.1(b), the MDL Court suggests that the Panel remand this member case to the Northern District of California for further proceedings. The Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this Order to the Panel. IT ISSO ORDERED. /s/ Beth Phillips BETH PHILLIPS, CHIEF JUDGE DATE: April 24, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ECF DOCUMENT I hereby attest and certify this is a printed copy of a document which was electronically filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Date Filed: x 24/ 2024 Paige A. Wymore-Wynn, Clerk By: . arren. Deputy Clerk