In MM Steel LP v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. et al., Southern District of Texas Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt, denied a motion to dismiss a suit filed by MM Steel LP, a steel distributor, accusing a group of steel distributors and producers of conspiring to boycott MM Steel and drive it from the market. In its suit, MM Steel claims that steel distributors American Alloy and Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. agreed with Nucor Corp. and other steel producers to refuse to sell steel to MM Steel or its partner companies.
Defendants Reliance and Chapel Steel Group filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Mike Hume and Matt Schultz, founders of MM Steel, who had worked at Chapel for 12 years, abruptly left the company and secretly worked to set up MM Steel as a rival. Defendants further argued that Chapel previously sued MM Steel for wrongfully taking advantage of its resources and won a temporary restraining order, limiting MM Steel’s ability to conduct business. According to the defendants, a month after certain restrictions in the restraining order had expired; MM Steel brought the present suit against Chapel and other defendants, claiming that its business difficulties were a result of a conspiracy and not its flawed business model or the TRO.
The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that MM Steel had provided enough details about the alleged conspiracy and made specific enough allegations about the conduct of the defendants to move the suit forward. That the plaintiff’s pleadings and proffers do not involve the same claims of conduct and particulars as to all the defendants does not defeat the claim. According to the court, the plaintiff’s pleadings set forth sufficient details and allegations to apprise the defendants of whom the plaintiff claims engaged in the alleged conduct, when the conduct occurred, and what conduct constitutes the common law or statutory violation.