Balmuccino LLC v. Starbucks Corp – Act Three

Balmuccino sued Starbucks for the third time in a new court on the 16^th of August 2024 for allegedly stealing its idea for coffee-flavoured lip gloss and lipstick. The case of Balmuccino is built upon the fact that New York law allows extending the statute of limitations when plaintiffs sue in the wrong forum.

Balmuccino accuses Starbucks of stealing its concept for coffee-flavoured lip gloss and lipstick and maintains it had been developing this idea since 2016. The case follows two earlier cases on the topic. In an order of dismissal of the preceding case it is explained that Balmuccino states they pitched the idea to Starbucks in 2017 and they requested an NDA after the meeting on the pitch. However, in this order of dismissal it is said that Balmuccino claims the NDA was refused by the Starbucks Head of Product Development and Senior Vice President of that time on the basis of confidentiality derived from a personal relationship between certain parties involved. Later on, according to Balmuccino, Starbucks followed through with the idea without involving or compensating them.

The first Balmuccino LLC v. Starbucks Corp. – case was filed in 2019, in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. It was dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction. This dismissal was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals in 2022. Balmuccino then moved to file in the District Court of Washington in 2023, but this case was also dismissed on procedural grounds. The Court concluded that the statute of limitations had expired for all of Balmuccino’s claims.

In the current case Balmuccino is calling upon an exception in New York law that allows ”extending” the statute of limitations in certain situations, when plaintiffs sue in the wrong forum. Balmuccino’s cause of actions against Starbucks is trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1836.

The original news articles can be found here and here.

The three cases in question are:

Balmuccino LLC v. Starbucks Corp., No. 19STCV37444, 2020 Cal. Super. LEXIS 2811 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 23, 2020).

Balmuccino LLC v. Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 2:22-cv-01501.

Balmuccino LLC v. Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 24-06214.

Photo: iStock / Alla Naumenco