BORDER STATES INDUSTRY INC v. BRADFORD et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
BORDER STATES INDUSTRIES, INC,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
ERIC NISEWONGER
also known as
BO NISEWONGER, and
GATEWAY ELECTRICAL SUPPLY LLC,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff Border States Industries, Inc. has filed a Verified Complaint alleging
trade secret misappropriation claims against a former employee, Defendant Eric
Nisewonger, and his current employer, Defendant Gateway Electrical Supply LLC,
under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq., and Florida law, Fla.
Stat. § 688.002, et seq. ECF No. 9. Border States moved for a temporary restraining
order, which the Court has indicated it will construe as a motion for a preliminary
injunction, ECF No. 10. In opposition to the motion, Defendants advised the Court
that Border States filed a closely related case in the Southern District of Alabama
four days after this case was filed, see Border States Indus. Inc. v. Jeffrey Bradford,
Jr., Glenn Ford, and Gateway Elec. Supply, LLC, Case No. 1:25cv468-JB-MU (S.D.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 25 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 8	Case 3:26-cv-00325-MCR-HTC Document 32 Filed 01/19/26 Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8
CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Ala.), also seeking a restraining order. 	This case remains pending. 	Defendants
request that this Court defer ruling until the issue of consolidation is considered,
advising that the Alabama defendants had moved in that court to transfer or dismiss
in favor of this first-filed action. Chief Judge Jeffrey Beaverstock of the Southern
District of Alabama has stayed the Alabama case pending resolution of the “first
filed rule” issues by this Court. 	To that end, Border States has now filed on this
docket a Motion to Confirm Forum Selection, ECF No. 22, which Defendants
oppose and argue instead for transfer and consolidation, ECF No. 24. 	Before
scheduling 	a 	hearing 	on 	the 	injunction 	motion, 	the 	Court 	will 	resolve 	this
preliminary issue. Having fully considered the Parties’ arguments and the law, the
Court concludes that the first-filed rule applies and transfer of the second-filed suit
to this District for consolidation is appropriate.
Under the “first filed rule,” when parties institute parallel or competing suits
in separate courts, the court in which the first case was filed should hear the matter.
Collegiate Licensing Co. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 713 F.3d 71, 78 (11th Cir.
2013) (citing Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675 F.2d 1169,
1174 (11th Cir. 1982)). The rule is discretionary and “rests on principles of comity
and sound judicial administration.” 	Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174
F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999). 	When the cases involve “overlapping issues and
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 25 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 8	Case 3:26-cv-00325-MCR-HTC Document 32 Filed 01/19/26 Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8
CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
parties,” there is “a strong presumption” favoring proceeding in the forum of the
first-filed suit. 	Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2005);
see also Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller & Lux, 218 U.S. 258, 262 (1910) (stating
the opinion “that there was concurrent jurisdiction in the two courts, and that the
substantive issues in the . . . suits were so far the same that the court first seised
should proceed to the determination without interference”). The “first-filed analysis
looks to the character of the suits and the parties” as well as the nature of the rights
asserted to determine whether there is substantial overlap, Collegiate Licensing, 713
F.3d at 79, and consequently, the parties and issues need not be identical. If there is
substantial overlap, it is the objecting party’s burden to prove “‘compelling
circumstances’ to warrant an exception to the first-filed rule.” Manuel, 430 F.3d at
1135; see also Merrill Lynch, 675 F.2d at 1174 (“In the absence of compelling
circumstances, the court initially seized of the controversy should be the one to
decide the case.”). Thus, “[t]he first-filed rule not only determines which court may
decide the merits of substantially similar cases, but also generally establishes which
court may decide whether the second filed suit must be dismissed, stayed, or
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 25 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 8	Case 3:26-cv-00325-MCR-HTC Document 32 Filed 01/19/26 Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8
CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
transferred and consolidated.” 	Collegiate Licensing, 713 F.3d at 78; Mann Mfg.,
Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 408 (5th Cir. 1971).1
There is no dispute that the Court has jurisdiction over this case, and because
the case was filed before the Alabama suit, the undersigned is obligated to decide
whether the first-filed rule applies. In this case, Border States sues Nisewonger and
Gateway for misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and Florida law (Counts
I and II). 	The Complaint alleges that Nisewonger worked for Border States, an
electrical distributor, in its Pensacola, Florida, branch until August 5, 2025. In July
2025, his wife founded a new competing electrical supply company, Gateway, along
with Jeffrey Bradford and Glenn Ford, who still worked for Border States in its
Foley, Alabama, branch.2 The Complaint alleges that Nisewonger began to covertly
work on behalf of Gateway, with Bradford and Ford, and that on his way out in
August 2025, he misappropriated Border States’ trade secrets by copying customer
lists, pricing strategies, inventory data and plans, and implementation strategies and
using them to help launch Gateway. 	ECF No. 9 ¶¶ 4–5, 51–55. 	Border States
engaged a third-party forensic analysis expert “to assess the extent to which
1 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting the
case law of the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981, as precedent in this Circuit).
2 It is alleged that Ford resigned on July 14, 2025; Nisewonger resigned on August 5, 2025; and
Border States terminated Bradford on August 18, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 25 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 8	Case 3:26-cv-00325-MCR-HTC Document 32 Filed 01/19/26 Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8
CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Nisewonger, Bradford, and Ford misappropriated Border States trade secrets to jump
start Gateway’s technical expertise prior to their departures.” Id. ¶ 54. Border States
thereby discovered files accessed and potentially copied to an external storage
device by Nisewonger and Bradford and sent cease and desist letters to both of them
on August 29, 2025.
The Alabama suit alleges precisely the same scheme. 	See ECF No. 22–2.
Border 	States 	alleges 	that, 	over 	the 	same 	summer, 	Bradford 	and 	Gateway
misappropriated Border States’ trade secrets under federal and Alabama law (Counts
I and II), and Bradford and Ford engaged in a civil conspiracy to misappropriate
Border States’ trade secrets (Count III). The Alabama Complaint also alleges that
Bradford became a consultant for Gateway while still working at Border States, that
in the summer of 2025, that Bradford and Ford began scheming to deprive Border
States of its trade secrets, and that they were working with Nisewonger in June 2025
when they began to misappropriate Border States’ trade secrets and to arm Gateway
with that sensitive information. ECF No. 22–2 ¶¶ 7–8. 	The Alabama Complaint
references Nisewonger as having been involved in the misappropriation of Border
States’s trade secrets along with Bradford and Ford; notes that the same forensic
expert’s review uncovered illicit file access by Nisewonger and Bradford; and states
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 25 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 8	Case 3:26-cv-00325-MCR-HTC Document 32 Filed 01/19/26 Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8
CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
that on August 29, 2025, Border States served individual cease and desist letters on
Ford, Bradford, and Gateway (through Nisewonger). ECF No. 22–2 ¶¶ 62, 79–89.
A simple comparison of these complaints demonstrates substantial overlap of
the facts, the claims, and the law. 	Despite Border States’ arguments that the
Alabama suit involves different employee defendants, an additional conspiracy
claim, misappropriation under Alabama law instead of Florida law, and that the
alleged misappropriation involved separate downloads at different times, the overall
scheme undeniably includes the same singular goal of all three employees to take
Border States’ trade secrets for use at Gateway. The alleged misconduct took place
within a span of two months, and Nisewonger, Bradford, and Ford all worked within
30 miles of each other.3 Nisewonger, while only named as a defendant in the Florida
misappropriation suit, is expressly referenced repeatedly in both suits as working
together with Bradford and Ford to misappropriate Border States’ trade secrets
(sensitive information of the same general nature in each case) for the benefit of his
wife’s company––clearly, Nisewonger is an unnamed co-conspirator in the Alabama
case. Moreover, six of the exhibits attached to the complaints are identical, including
the same employee handbook, the same documents relating to Gateway, and the
3 Pensacola, Florida, and Foley, Alabama, are located in separate states but only 30 miles apart.
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 25 Filed 01/16/26 Page 6 of 8	Case 3:26-cv-00325-MCR-HTC Document 32 Filed 01/19/26 Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8
CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
same expert forensic declaration about the downloads. 	The actions were filed in
separate states within four days of one another.
Given the facts alleged, there is a real danger of inconsistency should one
court conclude that the conspiracy as alleged existed and another conclude that there
was no wrongdoing by these employees. Also, it is disingenuous of Border States
to argue that the misconduct of its former employees involved independent thefts
when the Alabama complaint describes in detail a coordinated conspiracy between
all three. The parties’ alleged conduct as well as the substantive issues substantially
overlap, justifying application of the first-filed rule, and Border States has offered
no compelling circumstances that would warrant an exception from the first-filed
rule. Bradford and Ford consent to personal jurisdiction in this District, eliminating
any 	jurisdictional 	barrier, 	and 	the 	interests 	of 	economy, 	sound 	judicial
administration, and the avoidance of inconsistent rulings favor transfer to this first-
filed forum and consolidation into one action.
Accordingly, Border States’ Motion to Confirm Forum Selection, ECF No.
22, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: The Court confirms that Border
States’ selection of this forum for the first-filed case is appropriate but that, under
the first-filed rule, the chosen forum for the second-filed suit is not appropriate. The
Court respectfully directs that the case of Border States Indus. Inc. v. Jeffrey
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 25 Filed 01/16/26 Page 7 of 8	Case 3:26-cv-00325-MCR-HTC Document 32 Filed 01/19/26 Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8
CASE NO. 3:25cv2260-MCR-HTC
Bradford, Jr., Glenn Ford, and Gateway Elec. Supply, LLC, Case No. 1:25cv468-
JB-MU (S.D. Ala.), be transferred to this District, assigned to the undersigned, and
referred to chambers for an order of consolidation. The Defendants’ request to defer
ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction until the cases are consolidated,
ECF No. 16, is GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the Clerk of Court for
the Southern District of Alabama, to be referred to Chief Judge Jeffrey Beaverstock,
and to refer the matter to the undersigned’s chambers once the transfer to this District
is complete.
DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of January 2026.
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02260-MCR-HTC Document 25 Filed 01/16/26 Page 8 of 8	Case 3:26-cv-00325-MCR-HTC Document 32 Filed 01/19/26 Page 8 of 8