in the united states district court northern district … › view › img › 11347437 ›...

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

Benjamin F. Joel,

Defendant.

CASE NO. ____________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (hereinafter “Morgan

Stanley” or “Plaintiff”), brings this complaint seeking injunctive relief to preserve

the status quo ante pending arbitration against its former employee, Defendant

Benjamin F. Joel (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Joel”).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Joel is a former Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor who was assigned roughly

$177 million worth of client assets to service on behalf of Morgan Stanley. Joel

recently resigned his employment with Morgan Stanley, but not before absconding

with numerous forms of documentation containing Morgan Stanley’s confidential

and trade secret information related to its clients. Joel has already begun employment

Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 of 26

2

with a direct competitor RBC Wealth Management, a division of RBC Capital

Markets, LLC (hereinafter “RBC”), and both before and after his resignation from

Morgan Stanley, Joel wrongfully solicited—and continues to solicit—several

Morgan Stanley customers. The type of information Joel took with him, and the

circumstances under which he took the information, lead to only one conclusion: in a

blatant attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage, Joel took the information for

the improper purpose of soliciting Morgan Stanley’s clients to transfer their business

to his new employer RBC. Joel’s conduct not only violates his contractual obligations

not to remove Morgan Stanley’s confidential information, but it also constitutes a

misappropriation of Morgan Stanley’s trade secret property.

Similarly, Joel’s solicitations violate his enduring contractual obligations, and

the very same contract provides for injunctive relief as the sole remedy for these

violations. Accordingly, Morgan Stanley needs immediate injunctive relief to secure

the return of this highly proprietary information and prevent Joel from further

soliciting Morgan Stanley clients so that the status quo ante may be preserved pending

arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and to

protect its confidential and trade secret information.


3

I. THE PARTIES

1. Morgan Stanley is a full service securities firm organized and existing

under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in

Purchase, New York. At all times relevant hereto, Morgan Stanley operated and

maintained an office located at 5565 Glenridge Connector, Atlanta, GA (the

“Glenridge branch office”).

2. Joel is a former employee and Financial Advisor of Morgan Stanley in

its Glenridge Branch. Joel resides in Atlanta, Georgia.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

because the parties are diverse and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or

value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Joel’s conduct threatens

hundreds of Morgan Stanley client households, representing roughly $177 million

in client assets held in accounts at Morgan Stanley. These clients’ accounts generate

hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual revenues, and have generated hundreds

of thousands of dollars in profits for Morgan Stanley.

4. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and

(2) because Joel lives and worked for Morgan Stanley in this judicial District, and


4

most or all of the conduct alleged in this Complaint occurred within this judicial

District.

5. Venue is proper in this division under L.R. 3.1, N.D. Ga., because the

facts and circumstances giving rise to this action occurred in Fulton County, Atlanta,

Georgia.

III. THE FACTS

Joel’s Role at Morgan Stanley and Agreement with Morgan Stanley

6. Joel is a former Morgan Stanley employee. At the time he resigned from

Morgan Stanley, Joel was employed as a Financial Advisor.

7. In connection with his employment as a Financial Advisor at Morgan

Stanley, Joel was assigned roughly $177 million worth of client assets to service on

behalf of Morgan Stanley. Each year, the assets held at Morgan Stanley by these

clients generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenues and profits.

8. Morgan Stanley is a broker/dealer that offers investment services and

products, and has approximately 9.7 million client brokerage accounts nationwide.

Some of these clients have asset levels and needs extending beyond basic brokerage

services. Many of these types of clients were assigned to Joel for servicing.


5

9. Financial Advisors, like Joel, work with Morgan Stanley’s clients to

help them set goals, conduct financial planning, and determine their financial

strategies. Financial Advisors can also help clients arrange to receive a personal

financial plan, which is a comprehensive analysis of their financial situation. They

also partner with other Morgan Stanley employees to provide clients with services

ranging from estate planning, to fixed income planning, to education and retirement

planning.

10. To enable Joel to service its clients, Morgan Stanley provided him with

access to Morgan Stanley’s extensive client records and information, including

clients’ transactional histories, account types, account balances, asset allocations,

income, liquid and total net worth, tax status, tax information, investment objectives,

and other personal financial information. Morgan Stanley paid Joel and provided

him with an opportunity to develop, cultivate, and maintain relationships with its

clients.

11. There is no public source available from which Joel (or anyone else)

could ascertain the identities and contact information of Morgan Stanley’s clients,

much less the high net worth clients he serviced. The identities of the clients assigned


6

to Joel at Morgan Stanley are not generally known to third parties, such as competitor

financial services firms.

12. The identities and contact information of Morgan Stanley’s clients

would be very valuable to competitors because this information would identify high

net worth clients who generate significant revenues and who have demonstrated a

need and desire for a heightened level of financial service. Morgan Stanley’s

competitors can unfairly benefit from this information because it would enable them

to target their financial products, services, and marketing efforts to a pre-selected

elite group of clients without the need to spend the significant amount of time,

money, and resources Morgan Stanley has spent to identify and develop such clients.

13. As a condition of initial employment at Morgan Stanley, all employees

who interact with clients are required to sign a confidentiality and non-solicitation

agreement. Like all such employees, Joel executed a confidentiality and non-

solicitation agreement when he began employment with Morgan Stanley, and from

time-to-time, he renewed his commitment by signing subsequent versions of those

agreements. As such, over the course of his employment with Morgan Stanley, on

numerous occasions, Joel signed the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Joint


7

Production Arrangement Policy (the “JP Policy”) and Joint Production

Memorandum Agreement (the “JP Agreement”).

14. A true and correct copy of the JP Policy most recently executed by Joel

as maintained by Morgan Stanley in its files is attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated

herein by reference. The JP Policy is supported by consideration and is fully

enforceable. Joel executed the JP Policy in exchange for continued at-will

employment with Morgan Stanley and the compensation and other benefits he

received from Morgan Stanley, including the opportunity to participate in formal

teams and partnerships that allowed Joel to split revenue and receive additional

compensation from other advisor’s production.

15. In signing the JP Policy, Joel made two key promises, both of which he

subsequently breached in connection with his departure from Morgan Stanley. First,

he promised that he would not solicit Morgan Stanley’s customers, which includes

“initiation of any contact with clients for the purpose of conducting business with or

transferring accounts to any other person or firm that does business in any line of

business in which Morgan Stanley or any of its affiliates is engaged.” See id. at ¶ IV.

16. Moreover, Joel agreed that he would not solicit customers for a period

of 12 months after his employment ended with Morgan Stanley, for any reason. Id.


8

17. Second, Joel agreed not to take or retain Morgan Stanley’s customer

information, which includes but is not limited to a “list of Morgan Stanley client

names and/or client contact information.” Id.

17. Additionally, as another condition of his employment, Joel certified his

agreement to abide by the terms of the Morgan Stanley Code of Conduct, a relevant

portion of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Code of Conduct defines

“confidential information” as information “that is not generally known to the public”,

including the “identity of our clients. . .” See Exhibit B, at 36. The Code of Conduct

further states, “[y]ou must protect all confidential information, regardless of its form

or format” and “only access confidential information that you need and are authorized

to see. . . .” Id. In addition, the Code of Conduct states: “[y]our obligation to protect

our confidential information continues even after your employment at Morgan Stanley

ends.” Id. at 37.

18. Morgan Stanley takes important action to preserve the confidentiality of

its client information. In addition to requiring that employees sign agreements such as

those described above, these steps include implementation of various policies and

procedures to preserve and safeguard confidential client information. For example,

Morgan Stanley trains its employees concerning their obligations to protect client


9

information. Morgan Stanley also has enacted a centralized management operation

that includes managers who are expressly responsible for monitoring outgoing

correspondence in order to protect against wrongful dissemination of its proprietary

information. Morgan Stanley also has an online system that is designed to detect and

flag outgoing emails that contain client information.

20. Despite these obligations, Joel not only removed and misappropriated

confidential Morgan Stanley information, including but not limited to Morgan Stanley

customer names, contact information, and account numbers, but also solicited clients

in an attempt to move their business away from Morgan Stanley before and after his

resignation from Morgan Stanley.

21. The restrictive covenants in Joel’s Agreement are reasonable and

necessary to protect Morgan Stanley’s legitimate interests. These legitimate interests

include (a) “trade secrets” as defined by the Georgia Trade Secrets Act of 1990 and

the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq. (“DTSA”)), and; (b)

valuable confidential business information that otherwise does not qualify as trade

secrets; (c) substantial relationships with Morgan Stanley’s customers; and (d) client

goodwill associated with Morgan Stanley’s ongoing business.


10

Joel Breached His Contractual Obligations To Morgan Stanley Both Before And After Resigning, And Threatens To Continue Breaching

Those Obligations

28. Joel resigned from Morgan Stanley on May 24, 2019. See Exhibit C,

Joel’s resignation letter.

29. Following Joel’s last day of work, Morgan Stanley continues to

discover evidence indicating that Joel has not only removed client information in

violation of his contractual and trade secret obligations but also solicited numerous

Morgan Stanley customers.

30. Jonathan Linder, one of Joel’s partners at Morgan Stanley, spoke with

client V.B. at approximately 6:40 PM on May 24, 2019, the evening of Joel’s

resignation. Exhibit D, Declaration of Jonathan M. Linder, at ¶ 8. During that call,

V.B. informed Mr. Linder that Joel had told her the previous night (May 23, 2019)

that he, Joel, was leaving Morgan Stanley. Id.

31. Further, it is also clear that Joel has been soliciting many Morgan

Stanley customers after his resignation. Another advisor who worked with Joel at

Morgan Stanley, Candice Smith, has indicated that she has spoken to a number of

customers who have informed her that Joel had contacted them multiple times after


11

he resigned from Morgan Stanley. See Exhibit E, Declaration of Candice G. Smith,

at ¶ 15.

32. Several customers have informed Ms. Smith that Joel is making them

feel uncomfortable by continuously contacting them. Id. at ¶ 16. Clients have even

asked Ms. Smith for advice on the best method for the client to get Joel to stop

contacting her. Id. at ¶ 17. Additionally, at least one customer even told Ms. Smith

that Joel discouraged her from contacting Ms. Smith at Morgan Stanley, even after

the customer informed Joel that was her preferred course of action. Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.

33. Contacting clients multiple times and/or through multiple methods of

communication can amount to a solicitation. See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer,

Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 522 (9th Cir. 1993).

34. Joel has removed and misappropriated confidential Morgan Stanley

information, including but not limited to Morgan Stanley customer names, contact

information, and account numbers. Joel’s business was almost entirely paper-based,

and Joel did not generally use his computer or electronic calendar for his daily

business needs. Id. at ¶ 6. Instead, Joel used—almost exclusively—a rolodex for

client contact information and a wall calendar for appointments. Id. Upon Joel’s

resignation, members of the branch, including Candice Smith, inspected his office.


12

Id. at 12. After a thorough search, the employees who inspected the office

determined that Joel must have taken the rolodex and wall calendar with him when

he resigned as those items were no longer in the office and the employees were

unable to locate them. Id. at ¶ 12.

35. Opposing counsel may attempt to direct the Court’s attention to the fact

that there is still a rolodex in Joel’s office, however, the rolodex that remains is a

much larger and older rolodex that Joel no longer used, and does not contain current

client information and is easily distinguishable from the missing rolodex by those

familiar with Joel’s office, such as Ms. Smith. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 12-13. Ms. Smith is

certain that the rolodex missing from the office contains most if not all of the Morgan

Stanley customers’ contact information Joel used to service the clients assigned to

him. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.

36. Similarly, Joel’s standard practice was to put all of his notes on “pink

slips” regarding client transactions and interactions in a box on his desk. Id. at ¶ 7;

Exhibit D, at ¶ 6. Joel used this box as his personal filing system, and would deposit

his notes into it and reference the notes in the box if anybody had questions about a

client transaction or integration. Id. These notes often contained action items for Ms.

Smith to handle, and they also included client names, account numbers, and


13

transaction details in addition to the action items. See Exhibit D, at ¶ 7. This box—

which was practically a fixture on Joel’s desk for years—is also missing from the

office. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8;

37. Not only was the box still on Joel’s desk the day before his resignation

from Morgan Stanley, but it was also full of notes. Id. Fortunately, Joel left one of

these pink slip notes that he would normally keep in the box in Ms. Smith’s

possession before he resigned, as his practice was to provide action items on the

notes for Ms. Smith to handle, and once Ms. Smith satisfied the action items, she

would return the notes to Joel who would promptly place them in his box. Id. at ¶

7. One such document is attached hereto for the Court’s review. See Exhibit F, pink

slip note. These notes contain not only around a dozen client names, but also several

account numbers for those clients and notes regarding account activity. See id.

38. Accordingly, Joel has removed and misappropriated a rolodex

comprised of current Morgan Stanley client contact information, a wall calendar

with appointments and client names, and a box replete with customer names, account

numbers, and transaction activity. These actions alone are serious breaches of Joel’s

continuing confidentiality obligations to Morgan Stanley that clearly entitle Morgan

Stanley to the injunctive relief agreed upon under such a circumstance in the


14

Agreements between Joel and Morgan Stanley. However, the pressing need for

immediate injunctive relief does not rest on the confidentiality breaches alone, but

is additionally buttressed by Joel’s numerous aforementioned solicitations of

Morgan Stanley customers both before and after his resignation on May 24, 2019.

Joel’s various and continuing violations have caused—and will continue to cause—

Morgan Stanley irreparable harm.

39. Recognizing that Joel’s conduct evidences several significant breaches

of his contractual obligations, that his conduct constitutes further threatened

contractual breaches and misappropriation of Morgan Stanley’s trade secrets, and

that he will not comply with his JP Policy unless he is ordered to do so, Morgan

Stanley seeks immediate injunctive relief, and contemporaneously with the filing of

this civil action, Morgan Stanley has commenced a FINRA arbitration seeking

permanent injunctive relief and damages. Pursuant to FINRA Rule 13804, Morgan

Stanley seeks interim injunctive relief in this civil action to preserve the status quo

ante pending arbitration.


15

COUNT I

APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

40. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated by

reference herein with the same force and effect as if set forth in full below.

41. By virtue of the foregoing, Morgan Stanley has demonstrated a

sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, and that a balancing of the equities

favors the issuance of an injunction against Joel.

42. Unless Joel is temporarily and/or preliminarily enjoined from retaining

and using Morgan Stanley ’s confidential and trade secret information, Morgan

Stanley will continue to be irreparably harmed by: (a) disclosure and misuse of trade

secrets, client lists, and/or other confidential information that are solely the property

of Morgan Stanley and its clients; (b) loss of confidentiality of the information

contained in clients’ records, loss of confidentiality of clients’ financial dealings,

loss of confidence and trust of clients, loss of goodwill, and loss of business

reputation; (c) damage to office stability, and a threat to the enforcement of

reasonable contracts; and (d) present economic loss, which is unascertainable at this

time, and future economic loss, which is presently incalculable.

43. Morgan Stanley otherwise has no adequate remedies at law.


16

COUNT II

BREACH OF CONTRACT

44. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated herein by

reference with the same force and effect as if set forth in full below.

45. Joel’s JP Policies are valid and enforceable contracts that are supported

by adequate consideration.

46. In the JP Policies and Morgan Stanley code of Conduct, Joel

acknowledged that as a consequence of his employment with Morgan Stanley, Joel

would be given access to Confidential Information about Morgan Stanley’s clients.

47. As described above, this information was provided to Joel not only at the

outset of his employment, but he also was provided with continuing access to an

evolving and constantly updating pool of information about the Morgan Stanley clients

he was assigned to service, all of which was essential to his ability to perform his duties

as a Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor.

48. Joel breached the Agreement by the above-described conduct.

49. Upon information and belief, Joel continues to violate his contractual

obligations, and will continue to violate these obligations in the future unless

restrained.


17

50. Upon information and belief, Joel’s misappropriated Morgan Stanley’s

confidential information because has solicited Morgan Stanley’s clients in violation

of his JP Policies, and intends to continue to do so.

51. Joel’s breach of the JP Policies is willful, premeditated, and malicious.

52. As a consequence of the foregoing, Morgan Stanley has suffered and

will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which it lacks any adequate remedy at

law, as well as present economic loss and other incalculable financial loss.

53. Unless Joel is enjoined from the foregoing conduct, Morgan Stanley

will be irreparably harmed by: (a) disclosure of Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client

information, and other confidential account information that is solely the property

of Morgan Stanley; (b) loss of goodwill; and (c) present economic loss, which is

unascertainable at this time, and future economic loss, which is presently

incalculable.

COUNT III

MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS




18

55. The above-alleged facts constitute actual and threatened

misappropriation of trade secrets by Joel under the Georgia Uniform Trade Secrets

Act, Ga. Code, § 10-1-760, et seq. and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §

1836, et seq.).

56. Morgan Stanley assigned clients to Joel so that he could service them

on Morgan Stanley’s behalf. Morgan Stanley provided him with confidential

information solely for the purpose of performing his job at Morgan Stanley, and

continually updated that information throughout the years that Joel was employed.

57. Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client information is not generally

known by third parties, and is not readily ascertainable by proper means by third

parties.

58. Morgan Stanley derives significant economic and competitive

advantage in the financial services industry from maintaining the secrecy and

confidentiality of its trade secret client information.

59. Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client information, including the names,

addresses, phone numbers, account information, and other information concerning the

practice assigned to Joel, is subject to reasonable efforts by Morgan Stanley to maintain


19

its secrecy, and its employees are required to maintain the secrecy and/or

confidentiality of that information.

60. In addition, the names, addresses and contact information of Morgan

Stanley clients are protected from disclosure as personally identifiable information

under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and its implementing federal regulations,

commonly referred to as Regulation S-P. See 17 C.F.R. § 248. Even the fact that an

individual is a client of a specific financial institution – here, Morgan Stanley – is

protected from disclosure under Regulation S-P. 17 C.F.R. § 248.3. These federal

regulations underscore the highly confidential nature of financial services client

information.

61. Joel has improperly and without authorization misappropriated,

retained, and/or exploited Morgan Stanley’s trade secrets, including Morgan

Stanley’s confidential client information. Upon information and belief, he has done

so for the purposes of aiding his solicitation of clients to transfer their accounts from

Morgan Stanley to a competing firm with which he will likely become associated in

the future.

62. Joel’s continued retention of Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client

information, as alleged herein, constitutes actual and threatened misappropriation of


20

trade secrets pursuant to the Georgia Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the DTSA, and

is willful and malicious.

63. Because Joel’s unlawful conduct is ongoing, Morgan Stanley faces an

immediate threat of continuing irreparable harm, for which Morgan Stanley lacks

any adequate remedies at law.

64. Unless Joel is enjoined from the foregoing conduct, Morgan Stanley

will be irreparably harmed by: (a) disclosure of Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client

information, and other confidential account information that is solely the property

of Morgan Stanley; (b) loss of goodwill; and (c) present economic loss, which is

unascertainable at this time, and future economic loss, which is presently

incalculable.

COUNT IV

BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING



66. The above-alleged facts constitute a breach of the Covenant of Good

Faith and Fair Dealing.


21

67. Georgia courts are consistent that “[e]very contract implies a covenant

of good faith and fair dealing in the contract's performance and enforcement.”

Secured Realty & Investments v. Bank of North Ga., 314 Ga.App. 628, 630(1)(b),

725 S.E.2d 336 (2012). Furthermore, the “implied covenant modifies and becomes

part of the provisions of the contract.” Layer v. Clipper Petroleum, Inc., 319 Ga.

App. 410, 419, 735 S.E.2d 65, 73 (2012) (quoting Myung Sung Presbyterian Church

v. North American Assoc. of Slavic Churches & Ministries, 291 Ga.App. 808,

810(2), 662 S.E.2d 745 (2008).

68. The cause of action of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing is “separate and distinct” from, and “may be pled simultaneously” with a

cause of action for breach of contract. Clark v. Aaron's, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 2d 1301,

1308 (N.D. Ga. 2012).

69. Joel has failed to perform his respective duties and obligations in good

faith under the contract, and therefore has breached his covenant of good faith and

fair dealing with Morgan Stanley.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, by virtue of the foregoing acts and conduct complained of

in Counts I through IV, Morgan Stanley respectfully requests entry of a temporary


22

restraining order against Joel pending the outcome of an arbitration hearing to be

held pursuant to Rule 13804 of the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure, and

respectfully requests:

(1) That the Court enjoin Joel, directly or indirectly, and whether alone

or in concert with others, from:

a. using, disclosing, or transmitting for any purpose, including the

solicitation or conducting of business with Morgan Stanley clients,

the information contained in the records of Morgan Stanley, or other

information pertaining to Morgan Stanley clients, including, but not

limited to, the names, addresses, email addresses, telephone

numbers, personal data and financial information of the clients

(excluding members of Defendant’s immediate families and any

customers who have signed account transfer forms); and

b. soliciting any business from any customer of Morgan Stanley whom

Defendant serviced at Morgan Stanley, and/or any customers whose

identities Defendant learned as a result of being a registered

representative with Morgan Stanley (the “Customers”), including

for the purpose of inviting, encouraging, or requesting the Customer


23

to divert business from Morgan Stanley (excluding members of

Defendant’s immediate families and any Customers who have

signed account transfer forms); and

c. destroying, erasing or otherwise making unavailable for further

proceedings in this matter, any records or documents (including data

or information maintained in computer files or other electronic

storage media) in Defendant’s possession or control which were

obtained from, or contain information derived from, any Morgan

Stanley records, which pertain to Morgan Stanley’s clients, or which

relate to any of the events alleged in the Complaint in this action

(2) That Defendant is compelled, directly or indirectly, and whether alone

or in concert with others, including any officer, agent, employee and/or representative

of Defendant’s new employer to provide to Morgan Stanley’s counsel any and all

records or information pertaining to Morgan Stanley’s clients or its business, and/or

which were obtained by Defendant as a result of being a registered representative with

Morgan Stanley, whether in original, copied, handwritten or any other form, and purge

any such records and information from his possession, custody, or control, within 24

hours of notice to Defendant or his counsel of the terms of the Court’s Order;


24

provided, however, that any records and information in computerized or electronic

form (including but not limited to personal computers, laptop computers, tablet

devices, iPhones, Android phones, mobile telephones and any other device in, or on,

which data can be electronically stored) shall be provided by Defendant to his counsel

within 24 hours of notice to Defendant or his counsel of the terms of the Court’s

Order, and that Defendant’s counsel shall preserve the integrity of such devices and

immediately make any and all such devices available for inspection and duplication

by Morgan Stanley’s counsel and/or computer forensic consultants.

(3) That the Court order the parties to proceed with an arbitration on the

merits: (a) before a duly appointed panel of arbitrators in accordance with Rule

13804 of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Code of Arbitration

Procedure; and (b) in accordance with the terms of paragraph V of Joel’s Agreement

with Morgan Stanley; and

(4) Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate and proper.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(D)

The undersigned hereby certifies that this Complaint conforms to Local Rule

5.1(C) and was prepared in Times New Roman 14 point font.


25

Dated this 11th day of June, 2019.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John L. Monroe, Jr. John L. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Georgia Bar No. 516190 [email protected] Katherine P. Siuta O’Shea Georgia Bar No. 548704 [email protected] Ford & Harrison LLP 271 17th Street, NW Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone : 404-888-3808 Facsimile: 404-832-8734

- And –

Michael S. Taaffe, Esq. [email protected] Michael D. Bressan, Esq. [email protected] Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP 240 S. Pineapple Ave., Tenth Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: 941-364-2717 Facsimile: 941-366-3999 Admission Pro Hac Vice Pending

Attorneys for Plaintiff Morgan Stanley


26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 11th day of June, 2019, I electronically filed the

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, using the electronic case filing system of the

Court. I also caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served

this day upon the following counsel for Defendant via United States Mail and email:

Thomas B. Lewis, Esq. Stevens & Lee PC Princeton Pike Corporate Center 100 Lenox Drive, Suite 200 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Email: [email protected]

/s/ John L. Monroe, Jr., Esq. John L. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Georgia Bar No. 516190 [email protected] Ford & Harrison LLP 271 17th Street, NW Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone : 404-888-3808 Facsimile: 404-832-8734

Attorney for Plaintiff Morgan Stanley


in the united states district court northern district … › view › img › 11347437 ›...

Documents