United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MISSISSIPPI LAUNDRY SERVICES, LLC, and XANITOS, INC. PLAINTIFFS
BRYCE EVANS and JOHN DOES 1-15 DEFENDANTS
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEFENDANT'S RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO
DISMISS , DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
STRIKE EXHIBITS , AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 
SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Bryce Evans'
Motion to Dismiss  and Motion to Strike , and
Plaintiffs Mississippi Laundry Services, LLC, and Xanitos,
Inc.'s, Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint .
Having considered the parties' submissions, the record,
and relevant legal authority, the Court is of the opinion
that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be denied
without prejudice to Defendant's right to re-urge, and
Defendant's Motion to Strike should be denied as moot.
Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their Complaint
should be granted and Plaintiffs are granted leave until
Friday, January 20, 2017, to file any Amended Complaint.
case arises out of an employment dispute. Defendant Bryce
Evans (“Defendant”) acknowledges that on
September 29, 2014, he entered into an Employment Agreement
with Plaintiff Xanitos, Inc. (“Xanitos”), that
contained noncompetition and confidentiality clauses. Mot. to
Dismiss  at 1. Defendant subsequently left his employment
with Xanitos and began working for Gulf Coast Laundry
Services of Mississippi, Inc., a “chief
competitor” of Plaintiff Mississippi Laundry Services,
LLC (“Mississippi Laundry”), in December 2015.
Compl.  at 2-7.
February 24, 2016, Plaintiffs Mississippi Laundry Services,
LLC (“Mississippi Laundry”), and Xanitos
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed a Complaint
 asserting claims against Defendant Bryce Evans
(“Evans” or “Defendant”) for:
Count I Preliminary and Permanent Injunction;
Count II Conversion of Plaintiffs' Documents;
Count III Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference with
Actual and Prospective Advantageous Business Relations;
Count IV Misappropriation of Trade Secrets;
Count V Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; and
Count VI Breach of Contract.
Compl.  at 7-11.
April 1, 2016, Evans filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
 asserting that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state
a claim. Mot. to Dismiss  at 1. Evans contends that
Mississippi Laundry is not a party to his Employment
Agreement with Xanitos and thus lacks standing to raise
claims against Evans arising out of the Employment Agreement.
Id. Evans maintains that the Complaint fails to
state a claim because it relates to Mississippi Laundry's
business and not Xanitos' business. Id.
have filed a Response  in Opposition to Defendant's
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, or, in the
Alternative, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs argue that the Complaint does state a
claim in that Mississippi Laundry “is an intended third
party beneficiary of the Employment Agreement.” Resp.