A commercial shrimp breeding company was dismissed as a plaintiff in a lawsuit over farming agreements after a court ruled that its co-plaintiff, TB Food, was the only plaintiff with interest in the outcome.
Senior U.S. District Judge John E. Steele of the Middle District of Florida's Fort Myer Division ruled on defendant American Mariculture, Inc.'s (AMI) motion for final summary judgment by first dismissing plaintiff PB Legacy, Inc. from the case, and keeping TB Food USA, before denying AMI's motion. PB sued AMI for nine counts including conversion amid its three-year shrimp farming agreement with AMI.
TB came into the picture when it was assigned Ningbo-Tech Bank Co.'s interest in the Asset Purchase Agreement. In that contract, Ningbo said it would buy nearly all of Primo's Broodstock business assets. TB was later added as a plaintiff, but Judge Steele has ruled that it's now the only viable plaintiff.
Judge Steele said that PB had signed over its rights and interests concerning its connection with AMI when TB was assigned in its role.
"While Texas law allows an assignee to file in its own name or in the name of the assignor, it is the assignee who is the real party in interest," Judge Steele wrote. "Given TB Food's ability to prosecute the case in its own name, there is no need for PB Legacy to remain a named plaintiff. Based on the assignment, as of Oct. 24, 2019, TB Food became the real party in interest and the only plaintiff with constitutional standing."
Judge Steele also denied AMI's attempt to dismiss Count I, which was an allegation that AMI broke the confidential agreement. AMI argues that it didn't have to comply with the NDA because of its Grow-Out agreement with PBI. But Judge Steele said the NDA doesn't overrule the agreement.
The defendants' request for summary judgment on TB Food's defamation claims were also denied because they didn't show they were owed ruling in its favor.
Judge Steele denied the motion concerning trade secret and unfair competition claims, as well as the Lanham Act allegation, ruling, "The court is aware of no legal basis - and defendants cite to none - supporting defendants' assertion that they are immune from Lanham Act liability for the alleged trade secret misappropriation."