A high-stakes legal battle has emerged in the Northern District of Ohio, where a company is accusing a former executive of breaching restrictive covenants and misappropriating trade secrets. On January 7, 2026, LeafFilter North, LLC, along with its affiliates Leaf Home, LLC and LeafFilter Management Aggregator, LLC (collectively known as the “Leaf Entities”), filed a complaint against Curtis Marshall in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuit accuses Marshall of accessing and downloading confidential information before resigning to join a competitor.
The Leaf Entities allege that Curtis Marshall violated multiple agreements by accessing hundreds of files containing sensitive business information from their internal systems between December 23 and December 30, 2025. These actions occurred just days before he submitted his resignation on December 29, 2025, effective January 2, 2026. The complaint highlights that Marshall failed to provide the contractually required 60-day notice period. The Leaf Entities further discovered that Marshall intended to join Premier Home Pros, LLC (“Premier”), a direct competitor, as Chief Sales Officer on or before January 5, 2026.
Marshall’s employment agreements with the Leaf Entities included non-disclosure and non-competition clauses designed to protect their trade secrets and customer relationships. The plaintiffs argue that by joining Premier and allegedly taking proprietary information with him, Marshall breached these contractual obligations. They claim his actions constitute violations under both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) and the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
The plaintiffs are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent further harm to their business interests. They aim to protect their trade secrets, customer relationships, goodwill, and competitive advantage from being compromised. Additionally, they seek monetary damages exceeding $75,000 due to the nature of Marshall’s conduct.
Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys whose names were not disclosed in the document provided. The case is under Case No. 5:26-cv-00044.
