Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Senderra Rx Partners LLC v. Loftin

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

December 8, 2016

SENDERRA RX PARTNERS, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Plaintiff,



         I. Introduction

         This is an employment dispute. Plaintiff Senderra RX Partners, LLC (Senderra) is suing two former employees Denay R. Loftin (Loftin) and Elizabeth Naylor (Naylor), collectively “defendants” where appropriate.[1] The complaint essentially boils down to the allegation that defendants took confidential business information and protected patient health information by diverting all of their work emails to third-party email accounts. Senderra says this conduct violates several state and federal laws. The complaint asserts nine (9) claims:

Count I - violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq
Count II - violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2707
Count III - violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2510
Count IV - violation of Michigan's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, M.C.L. § 445.1901, et seq.
Count V - breach of fiduciary duty/duty of loyalty
Count VI - common law and statutory, M.C.L. 600.2919(A) conversion
Count VII - tortious interference with buisness relationships and expectancies
Count VIII - civil conspiracy
Count IX - negligence

         Before the Court is defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, contending that all of the claims should be dismissed.[2] For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. Senderra's federal claims under Counts I, II, and III will be dismissed for failure to state plausible claims for relief. The remaining counts will be dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

         II. Background

         Following are the relevant facts alleged in the complaint.

         Senderra is a Texas limited liability company based in Richardson, Texas. It has offices and operations in Flint, Michigan and is authorized to do business in Michigan. Senderra is a specialty pharmacy serving patients with ailments such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, osteoporosis, and multiple sclerosis. Senderra's staff assists patients with all aspects of their specialty medications, and coordinates with physicians, insurance providers, and other resources to provide patients with care.

         Loftin is a resident of Waterford, Michigan and is a licensed practical nurse (“LPN”), licensed by the State of Michigan. Loftin was employed with Senderra in Flint, Michigan from on or about April 22, 2014, until January 15, 2015.

         Naylor is also a resident of Waterford, Michigan and Loftin's sister. She began her employment with Senderra in Flint on or about May 19, 2014, as a receptionist, later moving to the position of Prior Authorization Specialist. She was employed with Senderra from about May 19, 2014, to October 2, 2015.

         As an LPN Nurse Consultant and a Prior Authorization Specialist, Loftin and Naylor, respectively, beginning with their training and ongoing throughout their employment, were exposed regularly, in the course of their duties, to proprietary and confidential information, processes, and procedures of Senderra. As part of this exposure and training, Loftin and Naylor also received protected health information, including, but not limited to, medical records and other documents or information that reflect patient names, home addresses, dates of birth, medical diagnoses, prescriptions from doctors, refill orders, specific brands or types of prescription medication, including amounts of same, physician recommendations, and the identities of physicians with whom Senderra has established relationships. They also received training and became familiar with Senderra's highly confidential processes and procedures related to workflow. Senderra also has formal policies governing the protection of confidential and protected patient health information.

         During the course of her employment, Loftin set up an auto-forwarding command, rule or feature on her Senderra e-mail account, which directed all e-mails sent to her Senderra e-mail account to be immediately and contemporaneously forwarded to one or more personal e-mail addresses she owned and/or to which she had access. Loftin says this was done with assistance from Senderra's information technology department in order to enable her to work from home. Senderra says that Loftin may have continued to receive emails sent ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.