Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—D. Ariz.: Building assessment services provider's trade-secret lawsuit against competitor partly survives dismissal, (Jul 20, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The competitor escaped direct liability for alleged trade-secret misappropriation but remained in the lawsuit under a vicarious liability theory based on a former employee's alleged misconduct.

A federal district court in Arizona has partially dismissed trade-secret, tortious interference, and unfair competition claims brought by building assessment services providers against a rival company accused of exploiting confidential information allegedly taken by a former employee. The court held that the amended complaint failed to plausibly allege the rival directly misappropriated the asserted trade secrets, but sufficiently alleged that it could be held vicariously liable for its employee's conduct. It also allowed portions of the tortious interference and unfair competition claims to proceed and granted leave to amend the dismissed claims (Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC v. Brosa, No. 2:25-cv-02339-JJT (D. Ariz. Jul. 14, 2026)).

Background. Plaintiffs, Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC and its affiliated companies, provide building assessment, property condition, environmental, engineering, and related technical consulting services. Defendant Apex Imaging Services, Inc., provides similar technical assessment services and competes for the same customers. Blake Brosa worked for the plaintiffs as a sales executive for several years before joining Apex in December 2024 as Director of Business Development for Multi-Site Retail.

The dispute arose after Brosa retained his company-issued laptop following his departure. A court-appointed forensic consultant allegedly determined that Brosa copied 6,339 files from the laptop to an external drive before and after his employment ended, modified at least 63 confidential or trade-secret documents while employed by Apex, and repeatedly accessed those files. The materials allegedly included client contact and project information, pricing data, project revenue information, emails, quarterly sales plans, key account reports, request-for-proposal submissions, and customer contracts. Plaintiffs further alleged that Apex later submitted a competing proposal to a national retailer that undercut plaintiffs' bid and caused them to lose the customer's business. The amended complaint asserted claims for trade-secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act (AUTSA), tortious interference with contractual relations or business expectancy, and unfair competition.

Direct liability. Addressing the DTSA and AUTSA claims, the district court first concluded that the amended complaint adequately identified trade secrets, particularly the key account reports, request-for-proposal submissions, and customer contracts, as required by InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Global Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2020). Nevertheless, it found no plausible factual allegations that Apex itself acquired, disclosed, or used those trade secrets through improper means.

The plaintiffs also failed to show that Apex knew, or should have known, that Brosa had misappropriated trade secrets merely because he joined the company or because it had received a letter outlining his post-employment obligations. The letter did not identify any trade secrets or state that confidential information had been taken. Relying on Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019), the district court held that such generalized notice could not support a direct misappropriation claim against Apex.

Vicarious liability. The amended complaint, however, cured deficiencies identified in the earlier pleading by alleging that Brosa repeatedly accessed, modified, and copied confidential files while already employed by Apex and while performing duties within the scope of his employment. Those allegations sufficiently established the causal nexus required for respondeat superior liability.

The district court distinguished Apple Inc. v. Rivos, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-02637-EJD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140628 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2023), where the alleged copying occurred before the employees joined the competitor. Here, by contrast, the alleged misconduct continued during Brosa's employment with Apex. Accordingly, the DTSA and AUTSA claims survived against Apex under a theory of vicarious liability.

Interference. The district court likewise allowed portions of the tortious interference claim to proceed. According to the complaint, Brosa used his Apex email account to coordinate another employee's travel shortly before she resigned and joined Apex, despite being contractually prohibited from recruiting plaintiffs' employees. Because Apex allegedly received notice of Brosa's contractual restrictions months earlier, the complaint plausibly alleged that Apex induced breaches of the non-recruitment and confidentiality provisions.

The claims alleging interference with customer relationships and inducement of breaches of the non-solicitation covenant were dismissed after plaintiffs effectively abandoned those theories. The court also rejected Apex's reliance on Arizona's competitive privilege, explaining that NCWC Inc. v. CarGuard Administration Inc., 635 F. Supp. 3d 815 (D. Ariz. 2022), recognized no privilege for intentionally inducing breaches of time-limited contractual obligations.

Unfair competition. The unfair competition claim survived only insofar as it relied on vicarious liability. Rejecting Apex's preemption argument, the district court relied on Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder, 337 P.3d 545 (Ariz. 2014), to conclude that discovery would determine whether the disputed materials ultimately qualified as trade secrets or merely confidential information outside AUTSA's scope.

Amendment. Finally, the district court dismissed the direct-liability portions of the DTSA, AUTSA, and unfair competition claims against Apex but granted plaintiffs leave to amend if they could allege additional facts showing Apex's direct involvement in the alleged misappropriation. The remaining trade-secret, tortious interference, and unfair competition claims based on vicarious liability will proceed.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-02339-JJT.

Judge: Tuchi, J.

Attorneys: James J. Halligan (Duane Morris LLP) for Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC. David Geoffrey Bray (Dickinson Wright PLLC) for Blake Brosa.

Companies: Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC

Cases: TortClaims ContractClaims ArizonaNews