Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. et al v. Kimmel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LOTHAMER TAX RESOLUTION, INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PAUL KIMMEL,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-579
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER
In accordance with the opinion issued this date:
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s objections (ECF No. 173) to the Report and
Recommendation (R&R) (ECF No. 168) are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN
PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ objections (ECF No. 174) to the R&R (ECF
No. 168) are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 168) is APPROVED IN PART
and REJECTED IN PART as set out in the accompanying opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 44) is
GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and HELD IN ABEYANCE IN PART. The Court
dismisses Lothamer’s claims for (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, (2) violation
of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, (3) violation of the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act,
(4) breach of the Employment Agreement’s non-disclosure provision, (5) breach of the
Employment Agreement’s non-disparagement provision as to the April 29, 2025, LinkedIn post
Case 1:25-cv-00579-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 181, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page
1 of 2

2
and the letter, and (6) fraud in the inducement. The Court holds in abeyance the motion to dismiss
as to Lothamer’s common law and statutory conversion claims. Lothamer’s other surviving claims
are those for (1) violation of the Stored Communications Act, (2) breach of the Employment
Agreement’s non-retention provision, and (3) breach of the Employment Agreement’s non-
disparagement provision as to the April 21, 2025, LinkedIn post.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ DTSA claim
(ECF No. 118) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ partial motion to dismiss Defendant’s
counterclaims (ECF No. 131) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court
dismisses Defendant’s counterclaims for (1) violation of the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection
Act, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) conversion, (4) abuse of process, (5) violation of the False Claims
Act, (6) defamation, (7) false light invasion of privacy, and (8) intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Kimmel’s surviving claims are those for (1) termination in violation of public policy,
(2) fraudulent inducement related to pre-hiring representations, and (3) fraudulent inducement
related to post-hiring representations (pled as constructive fraud).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of this Order both Plaintiffs
and Defendant may file motions to dismiss the conversion claims and counterclaim, addressing
whether preemption applies and (if so) whether the opposing party has stated a federal Copyright
Act claim. Each party will then have 14 days to file a response brief, and 7 days thereafter to file
a reply.
Dated: November 26, 2025 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00579-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 181, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/26/25 Page
2 of 2