Several former Stockton Mortgage Corp. employees have denied allegations that they misappropriated trade secrets and interfered with the company’s business after leaving to join competitor Ixonia Bancshares, operating as Novus Home Mortgage, according to court filings.

Eighteen defendants filed their answers Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, responding to a third amended complaint filed by Stockton Mortgage on June 22.

The suit, initially filed by Stockton in October 2025, accuses 18 former employees and Novus of orchestrating the departure of employees and “defecting en masse,” as well as violations of their nonsolicitation and confidentiality agreements.

The amended complaint called the case a “nefarious conspiracy” and a “months-long covert scheme to divert active and prospective borrowers of SMC to Novus.”

“In the course of their illicit actions, Defendants stole SMC’s intellectual property, as well as confidential and proprietary borrower data, resulting in the tortious interference with SMC’s actual and expected business relationships,” the amended complaint stated.

In the July 6 filings, defendants admitted that they resigned from Stockton Mortgage and later accepted employment with Novus in the same or similar roles. They denied, however, that they engaged in wrongdoing, including claims of breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference and civil conspiracy.

The defendants also denied allegations that they improperly interfered with Stockton Mortgage’s business relationships or business expectancies, and they disputed the company’s request for damages and other relief. Novus also denied any wrongdoing.

The filings argue that Stockton Mortgage failed to state valid legal claims, suffered no compensable damages and failed to adequately identify any protectable trade secrets.

In addition, the defendants denied using or disclosing any trade secrets belonging to Stockton Mortgage. They argued that any information the company claims as confidential was either publicly available, lacked independent economic value or was not adequately protected to qualify for trade secret status.

Each defendant asked the court to dismiss the claims against them, award their attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, and grant a jury trial on all issues eligible for one. All of the filings, aside from Novus’s, were made by Daniel J. Wisniewski, the counsel for the individual defendants.

Neither Stockton, Novus’s legal team nor Wisniewski returned HousingWire‘s requests for comment at the time of publication.

The filings represent each defendant’s response to the allegations and do not constitute a ruling on the merits of the case. The litigation remains pending.