Fast Food Gourmet, Inc. v. Little Lady Foods, Inc., No. 05 C 6022, 2007 WL 1175577 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2007) (Aspen, J.).
Judge Aspen denied defendant Little Lady Foods, Inc.’s ("LLF") Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Fast Food Gourmet, Inc.’s ("FFGI") breach of contract claim. FFGI alleged that FFGI entered a "co-packing" relationship with LLF, essentially that LLF was to manufacture FFGI’s product. Based upon that relationship, FFGI provided LLF with its various trade secrets relating to producing "a unique stone hearth oven thin crust frozen pizza." In addition to its formulas, recipes, methods and techniques, FFGI also provided LLF its equipment. FFGI alleged that, in addition to making pizzas for FFGI, LLG worked with defendant Kraft Foods Global, Inc. ("Kraft") to develop a line of pizzas using FFGI’s trade secrets, with substantially the same crusts as the FFGI pizzas. FFGI brought claims for misappropriation of trade secrets against both defendants, breach of contract against LLF and unjust enrichment against Kraft. LLF sought to dismiss FFGI’s breach of contract claim to the extent it was based upon allegations that the agreement was breached by production of pizzas for Kraft with crusts nearly identical to FFGI’s crusts. LLF first argued that the agreement could not be breached because the agreement prohibits LLF from producing "pizzas with specification which are identical or . . . substantially identical to" the FFGI pizzas. Because FFGI only pled that the crusts were identical or substantially identical, LLF argued the claim should be dismissed. But the Court held that FFGI was only required to provide notice pleading of claims, not facts. Because FFGI identified the parties, stated the nature of its dispute and provided "a few tidbits" LLF was sufficiently on notice.
LLF also argued that the claim should be dismissed because the FFGI and Kraft pizzas are substantially different because Kraft’s sauce and/or toppings are very different than FFGI’s. But the Court refused to make factual determinations in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and denied LLF’s motion.