Former Marsh exec says brokerage’s counterclaims lack merit
A former Marsh USA LLC executive said Friday that the brokerage’s counterclaims in a lawsuit over the enforceability of a nonsolicitation agreement should be dismissed as inadequately pleaded.
Manpreet Gill said in a brief filed in federal court in San Francisco that he did not owe a fiduciary duty to his former employer and that Marsh is not entitled to an inference that he actively solicited clients away from the brokerage before leaving to join Lockton Cos. LLC on March 26.
Mr. Gill filed his lawsuit, Gill v. Marsh USA LLC, in California state court on March 20, seeking an injunction declaring a nonsolicitation agreement he signed when joining Marsh was null and void under California Business & Professions Code Section 16600. Marsh removed the lawsuit to federal court in April, saying damages had likely exceeded the $75,000 threshold for allowing the case to continue in state court.
Marsh later asserted counterclaims, accusing Mr. Gill of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of loyalty, and tortious interference with business relations and/or prospective business advantage, court records show.
Mr. Gill moved to dismiss Marsh’s counterclaims and strike its defenses.
In his reply brief filed Friday, Mr. Gill said Marsh did not sufficiently allege that he actively solicited clients before he left Marsh to join Lockton.
“Marsh takes what it has been told by numerous clients – that Gill announced his departure, without more – adds the fact that some of these clients followed Gill to Lockton after his departure, and ‘deduces’ that Gill must have improperly solicited these clients before leaving,” Mr. Gill said in his reply brief.
Mr. Gill also argued that Marsh’s allegations that he did not work as diligently as it would have liked cannot form the basis for a counterclaim.
“Such allegations belong in a performance review, not a federal courthouse,” he said.
A hearing on the motion is scheduled for July 18.
A spokesperson for Marsh declined comment.
Representatives for Mr. Gill did not respond to requests for comment.
