Case Intel
- Mezcalito Apex Inc. has secured cooperation from former co-defendant Habaneros, significantly strengthening their trade secrets case against ex-employee Oscar Fernando Murillo
- Former business partner fired Murillo and revoked his 25% ownership stake after admitting menu copying in sworn affidavit
- Case now moves to specialized North Carolina Business Court where trade secrets violations carry substantial financial penalties
NORTH CAROLINA – The legal battle brewing in North Carolina Business Court between Mezcalito Apex Inc. and former employee Oscar Fernando Murillo illustrates exactly why airtight confidentiality agreements serve as the first line of defense against corporate espionage. What began as a routine employment relationship has evolved into a cautionary tale about the devastating consequences when trade secret protections are breached.
Mezcalito, which operates at least eight Tex-Mex restaurants, has accused Murillo of systematically stealing proprietary recipes, menu designs, and distinctive decor elements to benefit a competitor in Missouri. The allegations center on Murillo’s alleged breach of a confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement he signed as a senior employee who had access to the company’s most sensitive business information.
The strength of Mezcalito’s legal position became apparent when Habaneros Mexican + Cantina, initially named as a co-defendant, quickly settled the dispute and agreed to a permanent injunction. More damaging for Murillo, Habaneros has since terminated his employment, revoked his 25% ownership interest, and emerged as a cooperating witness against him.
“The food and drink menus that Murillo created for … Habaneros were substantially identical to the food and drink menus of Mezcalito, including even the photographs and depictions of the food and drink presentations and drink cantaritos,” stated Habaneros President Juana Delia Valencia Jimenez in a July 9 affidavit that could prove devastating to Murillo’s defense.
This admission from his former business partner fundamentally transforms the case dynamics. In trade secret litigation, proving access and use of confidential information often presents the greatest challenge for plaintiffs. With Jimenez’s sworn testimony confirming substantial copying, Mezcalito has cleared a significant evidentiary hurdle.
The legal language embedded in Murillo’s confidentiality agreement will likely determine his financial fate. Well-crafted NDAs typically include specific provisions defining trade secrets, outlining prohibited uses, establishing liquidated damages, and creating presumptions of irreparable harm. Given Mezcalito’s sophisticated approach to protecting their intellectual property through rigorous training programs and profit-sharing arrangements for senior employees, their legal counsel likely anticipated precisely this scenario when drafting the agreement’s enforcement mechanisms.
Murillo’s compensation history further strengthens Mezcalito’s position. Court filings reveal he received more than $118,000 in wages and profit sharing, “far in excess” of his financial contributions to the profit-sharing plan. This compensation structure demonstrates the value Mezcalito placed on maintaining his loyalty and protecting their trade secrets. It also establishes substantial damages flowing from his alleged betrayal.
The company has requested the court impose a constructive trust on Murillo’s assets to satisfy any judgment, a remedy typically reserved for cases involving significant wrongdoing. This aggressive legal strategy suggests Mezcalito’s attorneys anticipate substantial monetary damages, potentially including disgorgement of profits Murillo earned through his alleged misuse of trade secrets.
Trade secret law provides powerful remedies for businesses that properly protect their confidential information. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, adopted by most states including North Carolina, successful plaintiffs can recover actual damages, unjust enrichment, and in cases of willful misappropriation, attorney fees and punitive damages. The availability of injunctive relief allows courts to prevent ongoing harm while litigation proceeds.
Mezcalito’s brand differentiation strategy, featuring unique preparations like their “Salsa Chip” and drinks served in distinctive clay cantaritos, created valuable trade secrets worth protecting. Their investment in proprietary recipes, supplier relationships, and distinctive aesthetic elements generated competitive advantages that Murillo allegedly exploited.
“We allege that Mr. Murillo crossed the line between fair competition and corporate theft and look forward to showing this in the business court. While we’re flattered by the imitation of our restaurants, we encourage those who are jealous of our success to come up with their own new ideas,” stated Jose Jimenez, Mezcalito’s president, through his attorney.
The case’s transfer to North Carolina Business Court, which specializes in complex commercial disputes, signals the substantial stakes involved. Business court judges possess enhanced expertise in trade secret law and typically move cases more efficiently than general superior court.
With Habaneros cooperating as a witness and providing documentary evidence of the alleged copying, Murillo faces an increasingly difficult defense. His legal team at Williams Mullen will need to challenge either the validity of the confidentiality agreement or argue that the information used was publicly available rather than protected trade secrets.
The outcome will likely hinge on the specific language in Murillo’s NDA and the strength of evidence demonstrating his access to and use of Mezcalito’s proprietary information. For restaurant industry employers, this case underscores the critical importance of comprehensive confidentiality agreements and robust trade secret protection programs.
Mezcalito Apex Inc. has retained James C. Cunningham III of Cunningham Law PLLC.
Oscar Fernando Murillo is represented by Michael C. Lord and Lewis H. Hallowell of Williams Mullen.
Habaneros Mexican + Cantina is represented by Brandon A. Robinson of his firm, Brandon A. Robinson Attorney at Law PLLC.
The case is In re: Mezcalito Apex Inc. v. Murillo, case number 2025CVS3825, pending before the North Carolina Business Court.
🛑 It should be noted that the assertions in this lawsuit are merely allegations and have not been proven in a court of law.
