Beluca Ventures LLC v. Einride Aktiebolag

INTRODUCTION

15 Almost eighteen months after Beluca Ventures LLC and Christian Lagerling (collectively 16 “Beluca”) filed suit over an alleged oral contract gone wrong, Einride Aketiebolag counterclaimed 17 based on Beluca’s alleged misappropriation of Einride’s trade secrets. See Einride’s First 18 Amended Answer and Counterclaims (“FAAC”) [Dkt. 85]. Beluca moved to dismiss five claims 19 in the FAAC, arguing that Einride failed to plead the two trade secret claims with sufficient 20 particularity; the breach of implied covenant claim was superfluous; and the California Uniform 21 Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) supersedes the breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, and 22 breach of fiduciary duty claims. 23 Beluca is partly right. The breach of implied covenant claim is superfluous of the breach 24 of contract claim and CUTSA supersedes the breach of fiduciary duty claim; these claims will be DISMISSED with leave to amend. The other claims are sufficiently pleaded and will survive.1 26 27 BACKGROUND The FAAC makes the following allegations, which I accept as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss. Einride AB…