Mechanical Services v. Collins

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedMarch 8, 2023
DocketCUMcv-22-203
StatusUnpublished

This text of Mechanical Services v. Collins (Mechanical Services v. Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mechanical Services v. Collins, (Me. Super. Ct. 2023).

Opinion

( (

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-22-203

MECHANICAL SERVICES, d/b/a MAINE CONTROLS, Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION v. TO DISMISS STATE OF MAINE Cumberland, ss, Clerk's Office JEREMY COLLINS, CRAIG KIRBY, and COLLINS AUTOMATION, Defendants MAR O8 2023 /: 2§PivJ RECEIVED Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss brought Defendant Collins Automation. Collins

Automation, a company formed by the other Defendants Craig Kirby and Jeremy Collins, argues

under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b) that Count II of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to

aiticulate a sufficient claim for fraudulent misrepresentation as to Collins Automation and

therefore, that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed as to Collins Automation. The

remaining counts do not involve Collins Automation as a Defendant. For the following reasons,

the Court denies the Motion.

Background

The following facts are alleged in the Amended Complaint:

Mechanical Services is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ("HV AC") contractor

based in Portland with four other locations in Maine. PL's Amend. Comp!.~ 6. Maine Controls is

a division of Mechanical Services that specializes in sales, installation, and maintenance of

automatic digital temperature control components and systems. Id. Maine Controls serves

Plaintiff-A Robert Ruesch, Esq. I Defendant Collins Auto-Robert Cummins, Esq. Deis Jeremy Collins & Craig Kirby-David Goldman, Esq. commercial facilities and educational institutions in Maine, and it supplies products to and

subcontracts with other HVAC entities in Maine. Id. I! For about 40 years, Maine Controls has had a business relationship with Schneider

Electric Buildings America ("Schneider"), which manufactures HV AC components and systems, I wherein Maine Contmls would purchase software and matel'ials from Schneider. n 7-8. The relationship was mutually beneficial for both companies. 'if 9.

Kirby was employed by Maine Controls for about 15 years and was a project programmer

and manager. 'if 13. He gave notice of his intent to leave Maine Controls in February 2021 and

resigned officially on April 30, 2021. 'i['i[ 14-15. Collins was employed at Maine Controls for four

years, as a service technician and later a project manager. 1115. He resigned on May 7, 2021. Jd.

Collins and Kirby had acknowledg~d receipt of the Mechanical Services Employee

Handbook ("Handbook"), which states that "employees are expected to understand and embrace

the mission and goals of Mechanical Services, Inc. and contribute in the dedicated effo1ts and

work to fulfill the purpose of this organization." 'i['i[ 16-17. It also prohibits solicitation of

Mechanical Services employees for any reason on Mechanical Services Prope1ty 01· work time

and prohibits solicitation of customers for non-related service of goods." 'i['i[ 18-19. It requires

employees to take an active interest in promoting the best relationship between Mechanical

Services and its customers. 'i['i[ 19-20. The conflict of interest policy in the Handbook states that

employees cannot perform any work for customers of or compete with Mechanical Services, 11

22.

Collins and Kirby worked closely together, and Collins worked directly with Maine

Controls customers. 'if 24. Collins was responsible for managing customer and vendor

relationships. 'if 25, In 2015 and 2016 Schneider announced it would phase out its "IIA'' products,

2 ( (

and Kirby, in his role evaluating technology and product development, expressed a resulting

concem about continuing to install them. 1129-30. Kirby expressed in the months and years

prior to his depa1ture from Maine Controls that he had concerns about the quality of Schneider's

products and services. n 27-28. Based on Kirby's advising, Maine Controls developed a relationship with another

manufacturer and installed systems from other vendors, in addition to purchasing Schneider

products and systems to maintain Schneider systems for existing customers, 1131-34. Some

Schneider systems can only be maintained and updated through Schneider proprietary software

and equipment. 11 11-12. In late 2020 or early 2021, Kirby and Collins began planning to form a

competitor company, and through Collins's father, they reserved a business name "Collins

Automation LLC" in February 2021. 1136, 38. They filed for formation of a limited liability

company of the same name in March 2021. 140. Also in early 2021, Collins and Kirby

deactivated a Schneider subscription Maine Controls had used to stay informed about Schneider

products, 1 37.

In spring 2021, Maine Controls learned Schneider would no longer sell software or

control devices to it. 135. Meanwhile, Kirby and Collins were in conversations with Schneider

on behalf of Collins Automation, and on April 20, 2021 Schneider informed Collins and Kirby

that Collins Automation would be its designated controls vendor in Maine. 1 41. Collins was

aware that Collins Automation's agreement with Schneider meant that Schneider would refuse to

sell to Maine Controls, and he represented to Steve Lizotte, a Maine Controls employee, that the

reason Lizotte could not obtain a software license from Schneider was Schneider's agreement

with Collins Automation. 11 42-44. Still, Maine Controls cannot purchase necessary products

from Schneider. 145.

3 I I l l

While Collins and Kirby were working for Maine Controls, they were working on a

project for a long-standiug customer ("Customer #1 "), and due in part to their pace, they were

behind on completion ,i,i 46-47. Completion was fu1ther delayed by their departures from Maine

Controls. ,i 50. Kirby and Collins have used information obtained through employment with

Maine Controls to solicit Customer#1's business and have hired multiple employees of Maine

Controls. 11il 51-52. One Maine Controls employee now working at Collins Automation was

involved in a pricing proposal with another long-standing Maine Controls customer ("Customer

#2"). After being persuaded to make the change by the former Maine Controls employee,

Customer #2, whose system is made of Schneider components, switched its specifications so that

Maine Controls was replaced by Collins Automation as the only acceptable contractor for its

system. ,i,i 53-58. Despite not being able to purchase Schneider products, Maine Controls is

capable of servicing Customer #2's system. ,i 59.

Until spring 2021, Schneider had never prevented Maine Controls from purchasing any

necessary products. ,i 60. After Maine Controls and its counsel attempted to reach a compromise

with Schneider, Schneider issued a Notice of Default and Termination on May 25, 2022 to

Maine Controls, which alleged a "failure to maintain sales goals/objectives" and asked Maine

Controls to co11ect the failures or risk termination of its account with Schneider. ,i,i 61-63.

Schneider explained that after termination, Maine Controls would still be able to serve its

existing customer base for 18 months by buying Schneider parts for repair and service. ,i 64.

Even though Maine Controls has ordered parts from Schneider since then, Schneider has told

Maine Controls it is on a "credit hold" and refused to ship anything. ,i,i 66-68. Schneider's

representative in the finance depattment has been instructed by the sales depattment not to

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States Ex Rel. Rost v. Pfizer, Inc.
507 F.3d 720 (First Circuit, 2007)
United States Ex Rel. Gagne v. City of Worcester
565 F.3d 40 (First Circuit, 2009)
Glynn v. Atlantic Seaboard Corp.
1999 ME 53 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1999)
Bean v. Cummings
2008 ME 18 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2008)
Barnes v. Zappia
658 A.2d 1086 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1995)
United Fish Co. v. Barnes
627 F. Supp. 732 (D. Maine, 1986)
Rutland v. Mullen
2002 ME 98 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2002)
Currie v. Industrial Security, Inc.
2007 ME 12 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2007)
Dragomir v. Spring Harbor Hospital
2009 ME 51 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2009)
Binette v. Dyer Library Ass'n
688 A.2d 898 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1996)
Stevens v. Bouchard
532 A.2d 1028 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1987)
TD Banknorth, N.A. v. Hawkins
2010 ME 104 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2010)
Dawn M. Harlor v. Amica Mutual Insurance COmpany
2016 ME 161 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mechanical Services v. Collins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mechanical-services-v-collins-mesuperct-2023.