ShiftKey, LLC v. NurseIO, LLC et al

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
SHIFTKEY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NURSEIO, LLC, NURSEIO, INC.,
STAFF U LLC, CHRISTIAN
MCNAMEE, and YULIA MCKINNEY,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-00521
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is NurseIO’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #88). Having
considered the Motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the Motion should be
DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from allegations by Plaintiff that two former employees, Christian
McNamee and Yulia McKinney (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), misappropriated
Plaintiff’s confidential information and violated post-employment restrictive covenants by joining
a competitor, Defendant NurseIO (Dkt. #1 at pp. 1–3). Plaintiff is a healthcare technology company
that operates a platform connecting healthcare professionals with healthcare facilities to fill open
shifts across numerous states (Dkt. #1 at pp. 4–6). According to Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants
each signed Employee Invention Assignment and Confidentiality Agreements (the “Agreements”)
containing confidentiality, non-compete, and non-solicitation provisions (Dkt. #1 at p. 7).
Plaintiff alleges Defendant McNamee joined Defendant NurseIO as Vice President of
Strategy in April 2024 and used Plaintiff’s proprietary data to solicit key employees and clients in
Case 4:25-cv-00521-ALM Document 174 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
violation of his contractual and common law duties (Dkt. #1 at pp. 12–13). In May 2025, Defendant
McKinney resigned to work for Defendant NurseIO, allegedly after emailing thousands of pages of
Plaintiff’s internal documents—including client lists and pricing information—to her personal
account, which she later attempted to conceal by deleting the emails (Dkt. #1 at p. 15).
Plaintiff contends that Defendant NurseIO knowingly induced the Individual Defendants
to breach their Agreements and engaged in a coordinated effort to misappropriate Plaintiff’s
confidential information and trade secrets to unfairly compete in overlapping markets (Dkt. #1 at
pp. 22–23).
On July 28, 2025, the Court denied Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant NurseIO, LLC,
and Counter-Defendant Shiftkey, LLC (Dkt. #55; Dkt. #56). On March 30, 2026, NurseIO, LLC
NurseIO, Inc. and Staff U LLC (collectively, “NurseIO”) filed their First Counterclaim against
ShiftKey, LLLC (Dkt. #92). Also on March 30, 2026, NurseIO filed this Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. #88). On April 21, 2026, Plaintiff responded (Dkt. #106). On April 28, 2026,
NurseIO filed a reply in support of its motion (Dkt. #112). On May 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed a sur-
reply (Dkt. #117). On July 15, 2026, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants McKinney and
McNamee were dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. #144; Dkt. #145). The Motion is now ripe for
adjudication.
LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims
or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986). Summary judgment is proper
under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Case 4:25-cv-00521-ALM Document 174 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
F ED. R. CIV . P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. The trial court “must
resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion [for summary judgment].”
Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of its
motion and identifying “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials” that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. F ED. R. CIV . P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant bears the burden
of proof on a claim or defense for which it is moving for summary judgment, it must come forward
with evidence that establishes “beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or
defense.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the nonmovant bears
the burden of proof, the movant may discharge the burden by showing that there is an absence of
evidence to support the nonmovant’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v. Dall. Morning News,
Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000).
Once the movant has carried its burden, the nonmovant must “respond to the motion for
summary judgment by setting forth particular facts indicating that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248–49). A nonmovant must present affirmative
evidence to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257.
Mere denials of material facts, unsworn allegations, or arguments and assertions in briefs or legal
memoranda will not suffice to carry this burden. See Solomon v. Hou. Corrugated Box Co., 526 F.2d
Case 4:25-cv-00521-ALM Document 174 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
389, 396–97 (5th Cir. 1976). Rather, the Court requires “significant probative evidence” from the
nonmovant to dismiss a request for summary judgment. In re Mun. Bond Reporting Antitrust Litig.,
672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982) (citation modified). The Court must consider all of the evidence
but “refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Turner v. Baylor
Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)).
ANALYSIS
After careful review of the record and the arguments, the Court is not convinced that
NurseIO has met its burden demonstrating that there is no material issue of fact as to ShiftKey’s
claims entitling NurseIO to judgment as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that NurseIO’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #88) is
hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 4:25-cv-00521-ALM Document 174 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>