versa products v. stitch industries - cfaa trade secrets
DESCRIPTION
Plaintiff Versa Products sues ex-employees for violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and theft of trade secrets. The complaint alleges that defendants stole unreleased designs, engineering schematics, frame design, and fabric designs which were developed internally and kept secret from the public.TRANSCRIPT
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1
ANDREW V. JABLON (SBN 199083) E-Mail: [email protected] STACEY N. KNOX (SBN 192966) E-Mail: [email protected] RESCH POLSTER & BERGER LLP 1840 Century Park East, 17th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310-277-8300 Facsimile: 310-552-3209 Attorneys for Versa Products, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
VERSA PRODUCTS, INC., a California corporation
Plaintiff,
vs. STITCH INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as JOYBIRD FURNITURE; CHRISTOPHER STORMER, an individual; JOSHUA STELLIN, an individual; ALEJANDO ANDRES DEL TORO, an individual, aka ALEX DEL TORO; ANDRES HINOSTROZA, an individual; ROBERT MCGUIRE, an individual doing business as MCGUIRE DESIGN, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:14-cv-03855 COMPLAINT FOR: 1. Violation of the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030, et seq.);
2. Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq.);
3. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets;
4. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage;
5. Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus & Prof. 17200);
6. Aiding and Abetting Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus & Prof. 17200);
7. Conversion; 8. Breach of Contract (Stormer); 9. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(Stormer); 10. Breach of Contract (Stellin); 11. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(Stellin); 12. Breach of Contract (Del Toro); 13. Breach of Duty of Loyalty (Del
Toro); 14. Breach of Contract (Hinostroza); 15. Breach of Duty of Loyalty
(Hinostroza); /// /// ///
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 53 Page ID #:1
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 2
16. Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 17. Trademark Infringement; and 18. Unjust Enrichment
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Versa Products, Inc. (Versa or Plaintiff) hereby alleges as
follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action arises under, inter alia, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
(CFAA), Title 10 U.S.C. 1030, et seq.; the Electronic Communication Privacy
Act (ECPA), Title 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq.; and the Lanham Act, Title 15 U.S.C.
1051, et seq.
2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331,
and may properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367.
3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c).
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff is, and at all times herein relevant was, a California
corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California
and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Plaintiff
manufactures and sells furniture throughout the United States under various trade
names and trademarks, including, among other things, Thrive Home Furnishings
(Thrive). Under the Thrive trademark, Plaintiff manufactures and sells American
made, mid-century modern style furniture, primarily via its website
www.thrivefurniture.com (the Thrive Website).
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that
Defendant Stitch Industries, Inc. (Stitch) is, and at all times herein relevant was, a
corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware,
doing business as Joybird Furniture in the County of Los Angeles, State of
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 53 Page ID #:2
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 3
California. Stitch operates www.joybird.com (the Joybird Website), an on-line
retailer of mid-century modern furniture, which was launched on or about January,
2014. The Internet domain joybird.com was operated by a Korean pet store
(Parakeet World) until 2009, and then was dormant until approximately October,
2012 when it was acquired by the Individual Defendants (ownership of which was
subsequently transferred in February of 2014 to Stitch).
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that
Defendant Christopher Stormer (Stormer) is an individual who is, and at all time
mentioned herein was, a resident of, and doing business in, the County of Los
Angeles, State of California. From approximately May, 2001 to December 13,
2013, Stormer was an employee of Plaintiff, was its Chief Operating Officer, and
was an integral part of its management team.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that
Defendant Joshua Stellin (Stellin) is an individual who is, and at all time
mentioned herein was, a resident of, and doing business in, the County of Los
Angeles, State of California. From March 18, 2011 to approximately October,
2013, Stellin was an employee of Plaintiff, its Vice President of Marketing, and was
an integral part of its management team.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that
Defendant Alejandro Andres Alex Del Toro (Del Toro) is an individual who is,
and at all time mentioned herein was, a resident of, and doing business in, the
County of Los Angeles, State of California. From approximately July, 2011 to
November, 2013, Del Toro was an employee of Plaintiff in charge of Online
Marketing, reporting to Stellin.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that
Defendant Andres Hinostroza (Hinostroza) is an individual who is, and at all
time mentioned herein was, a resident of, and doing business in, the County of Los
Angeles, State of California. From approximately July 30, 2012 to November,
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 53 Page ID #:3
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 4
2013, Hinostroza was an employee of Plaintiff and in charge of its pay-per-click
marketing system, reporting to Del Toro.
10. Hereinafter Stormer, Stellin, Del Toro, and Hinostroza shall be referred
to as the Individual Defendants).
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that
Defendant Robert McGuire, dba McGuire Design (McGuire) is, and at all times
herein relevant was an individual who is, and at all time mentioned herein was, a
resident of San Antonio, Texas, but doing business in the County of Los Angeles,
State of California. McGuire is a graphic designer who, among other things,
helped create the Thrive Website as well as the other websites maintained by
Plaintiff.
12. The true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said
defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this
Complaint when the true names and capacities of said defendants have been
ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the
fictitiously named defendants is in some manner responsible or liable for the acts
and damages alleged herein. Hereinafter, Stitch, the Individual Defendants, and the
DOE Defendants will be collectively referred to as the Joybird Defendants.
ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS
13. Plaintiff is informed believes, and on that basis alleges, that there exists
a unity of interest and ownership between Stitch, on the one hand, and the Individual
Defendants, on the other hand, such that there was no individuality and separateness
between Stitch, on the one hand, and the Individual Defendants, on the other hand.
14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all
times herein mentioned Stitch was merely a shell and sham through which the
Individual Defendants carried on their business in a company name, and that Stitch
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 4 of 53 Page ID #:4
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 5
was conceived, intended and used by the Individual Defendants as a device to avoid
individual obligations and liabilities, both monetary and non-monetary.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all
times herein mentioned the Individual Defendants treated and used the assets of
Stitch as their own personal property, dominated, controlled and operated Stitch to
suit their personal convenience and for the purpose of evading duties and
obligations, both monetary and non-monetary, owed by the Individual Defendants to
others.
16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Stitch as an entity distinct from
the Individual Defendants would sanction fraud and promote injustice, in that the
Individual Defendants have used Stitch as a proxy to engage in the conduct alleged
herein on their behalf and for their personal enrichment, with the intention and for
the purpose of escaping personal liability for said conduct.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
I. The Individual Defendants Employment
17. The Individual Defendants each entered into an employment agreement
with Plaintiff (collectively the Employment Agreement), the terms of which are
reflected in the exemplar employment agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Each
Employment Agreement was substantially identical, and provided, among other
things, that:
A. the Individual Defendants shall refrain from engaging in any
business activities, pursued for gain, profit or other pecuniary
advantage that are directly competitive with the activities of
Employer. (Employment Agreement, 2)
B. all trade secrets disclosed to the Individual Defendants, or
developed by them in the course of their work for Plaintiff
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 5 of 53 Page ID #:5
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 6
belong to Plaintiff (Id., 5(C))
C. the Individual Defendants were prohibited from making any
private or personal record of Employers Trade Secrets or other
confidential or proprietary information, or otherwise take steps to
preserve or record Employers Trade Secrets or other confidential
and proprietary information for use outside the services being
rendered to Employer. (Id., 5(D)
D. the Individual Defendants were to not use Employers Trade
Secrets or any other confidential and proprietary information
belonging to Employer for any purpose other than work
performed by Employee for Employer. (Id., 5(E)
E. the Individual Defendants were not to directly or indirectly
solicit, during the term of their employment and for one year
thereafter, any of Plaintiffs customers, prospective customers, or
employees. (Id., 6 and 7)
F. any and all intellectual property developed by Stormer, Stellin,
Del Toro, and/or Hinostroza during the period of employment
was owned by Plaintiff. (Id., 8)
18. Further, the Individual Defendants each signed identical Confidentiality
Agreements, a true and correct copy of an exemplar is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
Among other things, the Confidentiality Agreements prohibited each of the
Individual Defendants from using for their own benefit Plaintiffs:
A. strategic, development and/or business plans;
B. financial information;
C. data;
D. business records;
E. customer lists;
F. project records; and
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 6 of 53 Page ID #:6
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 7
G. business procedures and processes.
19. In addition to their contractual obligations, Stormer and Stellin, as
officers of Plaintiff, owed fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff. All of the Individual
Defendants, however, owed a duty of loyalty to the Plaintiff.
II. While Employed by Plaintiff, The Individual Defendants Use Plaintiffs
Resources To Build Joybird
20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the
Individual Defendants, and each of them, beginning in 2012, while employed by
Plaintiff in positions of trust and responsibility, conspired to use Plaintiffs corporate
resources, including financial, to develop a competing business, including the
Joybird Website and products that would be offered for sale thereon.
21. Specifically, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon
alleges, that while employed by Plaintiff, at some point in 2012 the Individual
Defendants decided to form a competing company, which they formally
incorporated as Stitch on or about December 31, 2013. However, prior to leaving
Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants simply stole corporate resources to develop their
competing company.
22. By way of example, from mid 2012 through December, 2013, the
Joybird Defendants, through defendant Del Toro, caused approximately $90,700.50
of Plaintiffs money to be paid to McGuire for the creation of the Joybird Website.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all times
McGuire was aware that Plaintiffs funds were being diverted for the purpose of
helping the Individual Defendants surreptitiously create their competing website.
23. Further, in November, 2012, Del Toro, on behalf of the Individual
Defendants, purchased the Joybird logo from Arwan Sutanto, a graphic designer
located in Indonesia, through the Brandcrowds.com website. Concurrently
therewith, Del Toro, on behalf of the Individual Defendants, bought the
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 7 of 53 Page ID #:7
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 8
www.joybird.com domain name through Buydomains.com. Plaintiff is informed
and believes that the Individual Defendants used Plaintiffs funds to purchase the
logo and domain name.
24. Additionally, in or about August, 2013, while still working for Plaintiff,
the Joybird Defendants, purporting to act on behalf of Plaintiff, hired Video Sharks,
a Canadian animation advertising company, to create the Joybird promotional video
that was thereafter used extensively by the Joybird Defendants in the marketing of
their company on the Internet (e.g., as paid advertisements on YouTube videos).
25. By spring 2013, months before leaving Plaintiff, the Joybird Website
was already in advanced stages of development and being tested by the Individual
Defendants from their work computers. Further, by August, 2013, two months
before the first Individual Defendant left Plaintiff, the Joybird Website was nearing
completion.
III. Plaintiffs Design and Manufacturing Process
26. Plaintiff uses a project management system called Basecamp for the
development of its products. Basecamp is a multi-platform application (i.e., it can
be accessed by a PC, Mac, iPhone, Android device, etc.) that allows employees to
create projects. Each project is a unified location to discuss the project (as
opposed to over e-mail, where someone may inadvertently be excluded from a
discussion thread), have group to-do lists, and share files (e.g., digital renderings of
designs).
27. Basecamp provides its registered users with dedicated areas on a
cloud server that are password protected in order to prevent unauthorized access.
28. The Individual Defendants, and each of them, had access to the
Basecamp system as part of their employment and would regularly use it to develop
products for Plaintiff to manufacture and offer for sale.
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 8 of 53 Page ID #:8
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 9
29. For example, if Plaintiff was developing a desk for eventual sale, it
would have its 3-D Computer-Aided-Design (CAD) rendering artist create a three
dimensional digital reproduction of a desk concept (CAD Design). Certain of
Plaintiffs employees, including the Individual Defendants, would comment on the
design and suggest revisions which would then be incorporated by the artist. For
example, to visualize how the desk would look with different pull handles, the artist
could swap out the design of the handles. Through this discussion process, a design
would go from conception through development and completion.
30. Once a CAD Design was completed, the file was used to create Internet
based advertising as well as the design specifications for the manufacturing of the
product itself.
31. With respect to advertising, the CAD Design would be used by the
website developers to display images of furniture being offered for sale that could
be manipulated by the customer. For example, a customer could, with a click of her
mouse change a rendering of Plaintiffs Cleveland Sofa from Lucky Turquoise to
Omega Doeskin
32. As will be discussed below, CAD Designs created by Plaintiff are
being used by the Joybird Defendants to advertise products. For example, Plaintiffs
Cleveland sofa is being advertised at www.joybird.com as the Fitzgerald Sofa.
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 9 of 53 Page ID #:9
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 10
33. The completed CAD Designs are then used by Plaintiff to create
engineering designs for the framing and assembly of the furniture (the
Engineering Schematics), the relevant portions of which are then programmed
(the Frame Design) into specialized computer numerical control (known as
CNC) machines that cut wood for the frame to the precise measurements called
for in the Engineering Schematics.
34. Similarly, the CAD files are used to create detailed plans for how the
fabric will be cut from larger uniform rolls of fabric to create the upholstered
portions of the furniture. These fabric plans are programmed into a CNC fabric
cutting machine (the Fabric Designs) which cuts the fabric into the various pieces
necessary for the creation of the upholstered portions of the furniture.
35. After a CAD Design is finalized, it takes approximately 250 work
hours to create Engineering Schematics, a Frame Design, and a Fabric Design for
each individual furniture design.
36. The Fabric Designs are extremely important to a furniture maker as
they take into account both the design of the furniture (e.g., the size of the pieces
that need to be cut to form the padded area) and, as the pieces are of various
irregular shapes, how to maximize the amount of pieces that can be cut out of the
ordered fabric. Minimizing the waste portion of the fabric is critical to the financial
success of any furniture maker.
37. Basecamp is a secure platform, such that the product designs are not
generally known to the public or Plaintiffs competitors. By maintaining the
confidentiality of designs until such time as the final products are released to the
general public, Plaintiff maintains a competitive advantage.
38. Additionally, Plaintiffs Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs and
Fabric Designs are kept confidential and not generally known to the public. By
maintaining the confidentiality of the Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs and
Fabric Designs, Plaintiff maintains a competitive advantage because a competitor
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 10 of 53 Page ID #:10
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 11
would have to expend tens of thousands of man-hours replicating Plaintiffs
Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs, as well as tens of
thousands of dollars attempting to reverse engineer Plaintiffs products. Further, it
is not readily possible to reverse engineer the Fabric Designs to duplicate the cost
savings realized by way of Plaintiffs confidential Fabric Designs.
39. Additionally, the CAD Designs retain value, even after the designs are
released to the public by way of advertising the furniture for sale. If a competitor
wanted to offer the identical piece of furniture, it would have to expend time and
money attempting to reproduce the CAD Designs.
40. The final version of the CAD Designs, whether the products were
offered for sale or not, as well as the Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs and
Fabric Designs, were stored on Plaintiffs Basecamp account and/or its local servers.
Hard copies of Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs and Fabric Designs (the
Hardcopies) were also maintained by Plaintiff.
IV. Theft of Plaintiffs Unreleased Designs, Engineering Schematics, Frame
Design, and Fabric Designs.
41. Despite reasonable attempts by Plaintiff to maintain the secrecy of its
unreleased designs, the Joybird Website currently offers for sale products which
were developed on the Basecamp project management platform that had not yet
been offered for sale by Thrive (the Unreleased Products). A comparison of the
product images on the Joybird Website with the product images on Basecamp
evidence that, without authority, the Individual Defendants accessed Plaintiffs
local computer servers (which are connected to the Internet), Plaintiffs secure
Basecamp account, and/or Plaintiffs secure leased server space (collectively
Plaintiffs Computer Systems) and unlawfully made copies of the CAD Designs
for the Unreleased Products.
42. Additionally, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 11 of 53 Page ID #:11
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 12
alleges, that the Individual Defendants, and each of them, accessed Plaintiffs
Computer Systems to unlawfully make copies of completed digital renderings,
Fabric Designs, and Engineering Schematics of products already offered for sale on
Plaintiffs website (the Released Products). Although images of the Released
Products were publicly available, the CAD Designs, Engineering Schematics, Frame
Designs, and Fabric Designs, remain secured.
43. Additionally, in December, 2013, concurrently with the Individual
Defendants leaving Plaintiffs employ, Plaintiffs fabric CNC machine ceased
operations. In the course of getting it repaired, Plaintiff discovered that Plaintiffs
database of Fabric Designs had been removed from the system. Plaintiff is informed
and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Joybird Defendants stole and
duplicated the Fabric Designs and have been utilizing them in the manufacture of
furniture that is identical to Plaintiffs designs.
44. Plaintiff has also discovered that approximately 80% of the hardcopies
it maintains of its Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs have
been stolen.
45. Further, prior to leaving their employment at Plaintiff, the Joybird
Defendants changed the passwords to several of Plaintiffs vital systems and then
failed and refused to disclose those passwords to Plaintiff such that, after the
Individual Defendants left Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was prevented from accessing (and
in some case is still prevented from accessing) parts of Plaintiffs Computer
Systems.
46. Including the Unreleased Products, Released Products, and products
that are not offered by Thrive (the Joybird Only Products), there are
approximately twenty (20) different types of sofas (not including love seats and
sectionals), forty-seven (47) different chair types, twenty-eight (28) tables and desk
types, nineteen (19) credenza or storage units, five (5) beds, and one hundred fifty-
five (155) accessories. Even excluding the accessories, and figuring a
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 12 of 53 Page ID #:12
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 13
conservative 200 man-hours per product type, the Joybird Defendants would have
had to spend approximately twenty three thousand eight hundred (23,800) man-
hours to independently create the Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and
Fabric Designs. This is, of course, not including time spent to: (1) conceive and
create the CAD Designs; (2) develop the accessories; and (3) set up the
manufacturing facility for Joybird. As there were only approximately two thousand
(2,000) total hours between the time the first Individual Defendant (i.e., Stellin) left
Plaintiff until the Joybird Website was launched, there simply is no way that the
Joybird Defendants could have independently conceived of and created the CAD
Files, Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs necessary for the
products being offered for sale after they ceased working for Plaintiff.
IV. Theft of Customer Information and Solicitation of Employees
47. As part of its website, Plaintiff offers to send prospective customers, at
no charge, a swatch of every fabric (Fabric Packets) that can be used in the
manufacture of its furniture. This request form includes the customers name,
address, phone number, and e-mail address, and includes an opt-in for information
about sales and specials. This information is used to create a master database of
potential customers (the Fabric Database). This information of prospective
customers is maintained strictly confidential, and is never sold or given to any third
parties.
48. Based on an analysis of the Fabric Database and purchasing data, it is
estimated that each customer request is worth approximately $350. Further,
approximately 64% of individuals who request a Fabric Packet end up purchasing a
product from Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs average order is $1,638.
49. Prior to the Individual Defendants leaving Plaintiff, Plaintiff would
average approximately 80 Fabric Packet requests per week. Shortly after the
Individual Defendants left, however, although the traffic to Plaintiffs website
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 13 of 53 Page ID #:13
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 14
remained stable, requests for Fabric Packets dropped to approximately 10 per week.
50. Plaintiff began investigating, and found Fabric Packet requests literally
disappearing before its eyes. For example, on March 26, 2014 at 12:43 P.M., the
Fabric Database showed four unprocessed requests. Testing its theory, Plaintiff did
not change the requests from unprocessed to processed in its system, and less than
an hour later, at 1:30 p.m., two of the leads were deleted remotely. Less than one
hour later, at 2:17 p.m., another lead was deleted. By the next morning, the
remaining lead was deleted from the system.
51. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the
Individual Defendants, and each of them, have, either directly or through
instructions to third parties acting on their behalf, accessed and unlawfully made
copies of all or portions of the Fabric Database. Further, in an attempt to profit from
the Fabric Database and/or hide their activities, the Joybird Defendants deleted
customer information from the Fabric Database.
52. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
that the Individual Defendants, and each of them, have, either directly or through
instructions to third parties acting on their behalf, accessed and duplicated Plaintiffs
customer list which contains the names, contact information, and order details for all
of Plaintiffs customers.
53. Despite Plaintiffs efforts to block the Joybird Defendants continued
access to its system, the Joybird Defendants continue to access Plaintiffs Computer
system to steal and delete customer information. Based on the average order of
$1,638 and 64% sell-through rate, Plaintiff estimates that from January 1, 2014
through May 1, 2014, Plaintiff has lost at least approximately $83,865.60 in sales
per week i.e., in excess of $1.5 million dollars.
54. Although Plaintiff has moved its Fabric Database system to a new
server in the hopes that the Joybird Defendants efforts would be thwarted, Plaintiff
is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Joybird Defendants
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 14 of 53 Page ID #:14
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 15
continue to remotely access Plaintiffs computer network. Among other things,
Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Joybird
Defendants further installed on Plaintiffs Computer Systems a backdoor monitoring
system (the Backdoor) by which orders placed via Plaintiffs Website were
intentionally intercepted, duplicated, and sent to the Joybird Defendants.
55. Further, despite express contractual provisions whereby the Individual
Defendants agreed not to solicit Plaintiffs employees for a period of one (1) year,
the Joybird Defendants have repeatedly contacted Plaintiffs employees to solicit
them to come to work for the Joybird Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff is informed
and believes, and based thereon alleges, that several of Plaintiffs employees have,
in fact, accepted the Joybird Defendants solicitations for employment.
V. Theft of Materials and Destruction of Property
56. Separate and apart from the Joybird Defendants theft of Customer
Information, Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
that, prior to leaving Plaintiff, the Joybird Defendants, and each of them, have,
either directly or through instructions to third parties acting on their behalf, stolen
pre-packaged Fabric Packets that were then used by Stitch in fulfilling requests for
Fabric Packets received via the Joybird Website.
57. Further, a review of purchasing records confirms that during the
relevant time period, the Joybird Defendants, and in particular Stormer, would order
fabric far in excess of what was necessary or required to complete orders. Plaintiff
is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Joybird Defendants
stole the excess fabric (the Excess Fabric) for use in manufacturing their own
products sold through the Joybird website
58. In addition to changing passwords to Plaintiffs computer systems, as
alleged above in Paragraph 45, shortly before their employment terminated,
Stormer, Stellin, Del Toro and Hinostroza each took affirmative steps to both hide
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 15 of 53 Page ID #:15
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 16
their malfeasance and hinder Plaintiffs continued business operations by:
A. physically (and presumably destroying) the hard drives from the
company owned computers that they were issued;
B. attempting to delete the files contained on the hard drives on
company owned computers that they were issued; and/or
C. absconding with, and refusing to return company owned
computers that they were issued (the Stolen Computers).
59. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
physical files belonging to the Plaintiffs were also removed and/or destroyed by the
Joybird Defendants, and each of them.
60. Further, the Joybird Defendants simply embezzled funds which,
Plaintiff is informed and believes, were put towards the development of their
competing business. Two of the schemes discovered so far by which the Joybird
Defendants embezzled funds are:
A. The Individual Defendants would create false orders in
Plaintiffs system, wherein an order would be placed and they
would manually show that the product had been paid for by the
customer (although no such payment had actually been
received). Then, the Individual Defendants would credit back to
their own credit cards (or credit cards of unknown co-
conspirators) the cost of the Order.
B. The Individual Defendants created a mirror website(s)
whereby instead of redirecting a customer who misspelled the
Plaintiffs domain name to Plaintiffs actual website, a duplicate
website at the misspelled domain would allow customers to
purchase products from Plaintiff. The Individual Defendants,
however, changed the payment system on this mirrored website
such that payments were directed to their own accounts .
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 16 of 53 Page ID #:16
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 17
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030, et seq),
against the Joybird Defendants)
61. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
62. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the
Joybird Defendants, and each of them:
A. knowingly, and with intent, and without authorization (or,
alternatively, exceeding their authorization) accessed, and thereby obtained
information from Plaintiffs Computer Systems (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C));
B. knowingly, and with intent to defraud, and without authorization
(or, alternatively, exceeding their authorization) accessed, and thereby obtained
information and data of value in excess of $5,000.00 in any 1-year period from
Plaintiffs Computer Systems (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4)); and/or
C. knowingly, and with intent, and without authorization accessed,
and thereby caused damage resulting in an aggregate loss in excess of $5,000.00 in
value to Plaintiffs Computer Systems (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(A)(iii)).
63. Plaintiffs Computer Systems are used in interstate commerce and,
therefore, are protected computers (18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(2)).
64. In accessing Plaintiffs Computer Systems, the Joybird Defendants, and
each of them, copied, accessed, used, loaded, executed, distributed, and otherwise
exploited Plaintiffs trade secrets.
65. In addition to the above-alleged conduct, the Joybird Defendants, and
each of them, denied Plaintiff access to various components of Plaintiffs Computer
Systems, and have thereby further misappropriated Plaintiffs trade secrets and other
confidential information, obtained information of value, impaired the integrity of the
information stored on Plaintiffs Computer Systems, and caused damage.
66. The value of the use of the Plaintiffs trade secrets far exceeds the
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 17 of 53 Page ID #:17
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 18
statutory minimum of $5,000.
67. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Joybird Defendants
unauthorized access impaired the integrity of the information and data stored on
Plaintiffs Computer Systems.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Joybird Defendants,
and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered a loss resulting, inter alia, from the cost of
responding to the Joybird Defendants actions, conducting a damage assessment,
lost revenue, and other consequential damages and reasonable costs.
69. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Joybird Defendants,
and each of them, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount subject to proof at trial,
but estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
70. Plaintiff is further entitled to, and by this Complaint seeks, an
injunction against the Joybird Defendants, and each of them, prohibiting their
unauthorized access to Plaintiffs Computer Systems and their use of any or all of
Plaintiffs trade secrets or data stored thereon.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2510, et
seq.), against the Joybird Defendants)
71. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
72. As noted above, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon
alleges, that the Joybird Defendants further installed on Plaintiffs Computer
Systems the Backdoor, by which orders placed via Plaintiffs Website were
intentionally intercepted, duplicated, and sent to the Joybird Defendants.
73. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2520, Plaintiff seeks an Order of this Court
requiring the Joybird Defendants, and each of them to:
A. Disable the Backdoor;
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 18 of 53 Page ID #:18
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 19
B. Destroy all written and electronic copies of each and every
communication duplicated and sent to the Joybird Defendants by way of the
Backdoor;
C. Provide a list of every person, whether or not they work for the
Joybird Defendants or any of their respective agents, consultants, contractors,
subsidiaries, or attorneys, that has had access to or been in possession of
communications acquired by way of the Backdoor; and
D. Provide hard copies of all correspondence that was captured by
the Backdoor.
74. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2520, Plaintiff also seeks recovery of the
greater of:
A. the sum of the actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff and any
profits made by the Joybird Defendants as a result of the violations alleged herein;
or
B. statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $ 100 a day for
each day of violation or $ 10,000.
75.. As the conduct alleged herein was intentional, and in wanton disregard
of the rights of Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks recovery of punitive damages.
76. Further, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2520, Plaintiff seeks recovery of its
reasonable attorneys fees and other litigation costs incurred in connection with this
prosecution of this action.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, against the Joybird Defendants)
77. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
78. Plaintiff takes reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy of its customer
lists, unreleased product designs, Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 19 of 53 Page ID #:19
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 20
Fabric Designs (the Trade Secrets). Such steps include, but are not limited to:
A. requiring employees to execute non-disclosure agreements;
B. Password protecting Plaintiffs Computer Systems; and
C. limiting access to the Trade Secrets.
79. Plaintiff takes these steps as the Trade Secrets are extremely valuable in
that they are not generally known or readily available to Plaintiffs competitors and
provide a competitive advantage to Plaintiff by virtue of their secret nature.
80. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that since
the commencement of their common scheme in late 2011 or early 2012, the Joybird
Defendants, and each of them, have copied, accessed, used, loaded, executed,
distributed, and otherwise exploited the Trade Secrets.
81. The Joybird Defendants, and each of them, acquired the Trade Secrets
either:
A. by way of improper and unauthorized means (Cal. Civ.
3426.1(b)(A)) through accessing Plaintiffs Computer Systems;
B. by way of third party vendors, who they knew had a contractual
obligation to maintain the secrecy of the Trade Secrets (Cal. Civ.
3426.1(b)(B)(ii)); and/or
c. by accident or mistake, knowing that they did not have the right
to access the same (Cal. Civ. 3426.1(b)(B)(iii)).
82. The Joybird Defendants actual and threatened misappropriation of the
Trade Secrets entitles Plaintiff to injunctive relief pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code
3426.2.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the Joybird Defendants actual and
threatened misappropriation of Plaintiffs Trade Secrets, Plaintiff has been damaged
in an amount subject to proof at trial, but in any event, estimated at no less than two
million dollars ($2,000,000.00).
84. Further, pursuant to Cal. Civ. 3426.3, Plaintiff is entitled to recover
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 20 of 53 Page ID #:20
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 21
as damages for the Joybird Defendants unjust enrichment by its utilization of
Plaintiffs Trade Secrets that is not otherwise taken into account in computing
damages for actual loss, subject to proof at trial. To the extent that said sums are not
readily ascertainable, Plaintiff reserves its right to seek recovery of a reasonable
royalty.
85. Before and during the misappropriation, actual and threatened, the
Joybird Defendants, and each of them, were aware of Plaintiffs rights in and to the
Trade Secrets, and in total disregard of such knowledge, willfully, intentionally, and
maliciously used such information, and continue to use such information, to further
their own pecuniary gain and in an effort to damage Plaintiff and its business
operations. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys fees and
exemplary damages for such acts and omissions, threatened and consummated, of
the Joybird Defendants, and each of them, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 3426.3.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage, against the Joybird
Defendants)
86. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
87. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff had a relationship with those
individuals identified on its Fabric Database, with the probability of future economic
benefit to the Plaintiff.
88. The Joybird Defendants knew about those relationships.
89. The Joybird Defendants committed intentional wrongful acts designed
to disrupt those relationships, as alleged above, which have, in fact, disrupted
Plaintiffs relationships.
90. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of interference by the
Joybird Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount that is currently
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 21 of 53 Page ID #:21
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 22
unknown, but which shall be proven at trial, and is estimated at no less than one
million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000).
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus & Prof. 17200), against the Joybird
Defendants)
91. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
92. The Unfair Competition Law (UCL) prohibits acts of unfair
competition, which means and includes any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business
act or practice[.]
93. The acts described in paragraphs 1 through 56, above, constitute acts of
unfair competition.
94. As a direct and proximate result of the unfair competition alleged
above, Plaintiff has suffered direct monetary losses sufficient to establish standing
as required by Cal. Bus. & Prof. 17205. Such monetary losses include, but are not
limited to lost revenue from the diversion of sales, loss of value in Plaintiffs trade
secrets (to the extent their disclosure is not enjoined), and monies misappropriated
by the Joybird Defendants.
95. As a result of the Joybird Defendants violations of the UCL, Stitch is
obligated to provide restitution to Plaintiff in an amount subject to proof at trial.
Plaintiff estimates such restitution in an amount no less than $2 million dollars.
Plaintiff also is entitled to an injunction enjoining and restraining the Joybird
Defendants from their continued violations of the UCL.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 22 of 53 Page ID #:22
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 23
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Aiding and Abetting Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus & Prof. 17200),
against the Individual Defendants, McGuire, and the DOE Defendants)
96. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
97. The Individual Defendants, McGuire, and DOE Defendants knew and
were aware of the Stitchs unlawful, unfair or deceptive business practices by virtue
of their ownership and/or management of Stitch.
98. The Individual Defendants, McGuire, and DOE Defendants aided and
abetted these violations by Stitch in that the Individual Defendants directed and/or
personally engaged in the acts and conducted alleged above.
99. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the Individual
Defendants, McGuires, and DOE Defendants aiding and abetting of Stitchs
unfair business practices, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount that is currently
unknown, but which shall be proven at trial, and is estimated at no less than two
million dollars ($2,000,000).
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Conversion, against the Joybird Defendants and McGuire)
100. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
101. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was, and remains, the owner
and was, and remains, entitled to the possession of the Trade Secrets, the CAD files
for released products, the misappropriated monies, Stolen Computers, Excess Fabric
and the Fabric Packets (collectively Plaintiffs Property).
102. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
beginning on or about January 1, 2012, the Joybird Defendants, and each of them,
took Plaintiffs Property and converted the same to their own use. Without
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 23 of 53 Page ID #:23
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 24
Plaintiffs authorization, the Joybird Defendants have used Plaintiffs Property to
the benefit of their own business interests.
103. As a direct and proximate result of the Joybird Defendants conversion
of Plaintiffs Property, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages and the Joybird
Defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount subject to proof at trial.
Alternatively, because Plaintiffs actual damages and/or the Joybird Defendants
unjust enrichment may not be subject to reasonable proof, Plaintiff is entitled to a
royalty equal to a reasonable percentage of the revenue received by the Joybird
Defendants from their conversion of Plaintiffs Property.
104. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the
Joybird Defendants conduct was willful and malicious in that the Joybird
Defendants converted Plaintiffs Property with the deliberate intent to injure
Plaintiffs business and improve their own, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive
damages.
105. The Joybird Defendants conversion of Plaintiffs Property, unless and
until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, has caused and will continue to
cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff as described above. Plaintiff has no
adequate remedy at law for this injury, as Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
based thereon alleges, that the Joybird Defendants will continue to use Plaintiffs
Property in the absence of injunctive relief.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract, against Stormer)
106. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
107. Plaintiff has performed all of the terms, conditions, covenants and
promises required to be performed by it in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the Employment Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement between it and
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 24 of 53 Page ID #:24
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 25
Stormer, except those which it has been prevented from performing by Defendant
Stormer.
108. Defendant Stormer has breached the Employment Agreement and
Confidentiality Agreement between himself and Plaintiff by way of the acts alleged
above.
109. Accordingly, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches
of contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
110. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement and
Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiff is further entitled to specific performance,
whereby all intellectual property created while in Plaintiffs employ e.g., the
Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joybird Website, and any and all
Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs are turned over to
Plaintiff.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Duty of Loyalty, against Stormer)
111. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
112. As the Chief Operating Officer of Plaintiff, Stormer assumed fiduciary
duties to Plaintiff, as well as a general duty of loyalty to Plaintiff.
113. Stormer breached said fiduciary duties and duty of loyalty by
undertaking the acts alleged above.
114. As a direct and proximate result of Stormers breach of fiduciary duty
and duty of loyalty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof, but
in any event, in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court and estimated at
no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
115. In committing the acts set forth herein, Stormer acted willfully and with
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 25 of 53 Page ID #:25
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 26
the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff. Stormer, therefore, is guilty of malice,
oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, thereby warranting
assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish him and to deter
others from engaging in similar conduct.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract, against Stellin)
116. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
117. Plaintiff has performed all of the terms, conditions, covenants and
promises required to be performed by it in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the Employment Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement between it and
Stellin, except those which it has been prevented from performing by Defendant
Stellin.
118. Defendant Stellin has breached the Employment Agreement and
Confidentiality Agreement between himself and Plaintiff by way of the acts alleged
above.
119. Accordingly, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches
of contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
120. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement and
Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiff is further entitled to specific performance,
whereby all intellectual property created while in Plaintiffs employ e.g., the
Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joybird Website, and any and all
Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs are turned over to
Plaintiff.
/ / /
/ / /
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 26 of 53 Page ID #:26
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 27
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Duty of Loyalty, against Stellin)
121. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
122. As the Vice President of Marketing, and an integral part of Plaintiffs
management team, Stellin assumed fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, as well as a general
duty of loyalty to Plaintiff.
123. Stellin breached said fiduciary duties and duty of loyalty by
undertaking the acts alleged above.
124. As a direct and proximate result of Stellins breach of fiduciary duty
and duty of loyalty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof, but
in any event, in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court and estimated at
no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
125. In committing the acts set forth herein, Stellin acted willfully and with
the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff. Stellin, therefore, is guilty of malice,
oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, thereby warranting
assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish him and to deter
others from engaging in similar conduct.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract, against Del Toro)
126. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
127. Plaintiff has performed all of the terms, conditions, covenants and
promises required to be performed by it in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the Employment Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement between it and Del
Toro, except those which it has been prevented from performing by Defendant Del
Toro.
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 27 of 53 Page ID #:27
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 28
128. Defendant Del Toro has breached the Employment Agreement and
Confidentiality Agreement between himself and Plaintiff by way of the acts alleged
above.
129. Accordingly, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches
of contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
130. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement and
Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiff is further entitled to specific performance,
whereby all intellectual property created while in Plaintiffs employ e.g., the
Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joybird Website, and any and all
Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs are turned over to
Plaintiff.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Duty of Loyalty, against Del Toro)
131. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
132. Defendant Del Toro, as an employee of Plaintiff, assumed a general
duty of loyalty to Plaintiff.
133. Del Toro breached said duty of loyalty by undertaking the acts alleged
above.
134. As a direct and proximate result of Del Toros breach of the duty of
loyalty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof, but in any
event, in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court and estimated at no
less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
135. In committing the acts set forth herein, Del Toro acted willfully and
with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff. Del Toro, therefore, is guilty of
malice, oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, thereby
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 28 of 53 Page ID #:28
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 29
warranting assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish him
and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract, against Hinostroza)
136. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
137. Plaintiff has performed all of the terms, conditions, covenants and
promises required to be performed by it in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the Employment Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement between it and Del
Toro, except those which it has been prevented from performing by Defendant Del
Toro.
138. Defendant Del Toro has breached the Employment Agreement and
Confidentiality Agreement between himself and Plaintiff by way of the acts alleged
above.
139. Accordingly, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches
of contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
140. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement and
Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiff is further entitled to specific performance,
whereby all intellectual property created while in Plaintiffs employ e.g., the
Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joybird Website, and any and all
Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs are turned over to
Plaintiff.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Duty of Loyalty, against Hinostroza)
141. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 29 of 53 Page ID #:29
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 30
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
142. Defendant Hinostroza, as an employee of Plaintiff, assumed a general
duty of loyalty to Plaintiff.
143. Hinostroza breached said duty of loyalty by undertaking the acts
alleged above.
144. As a direct and proximate result of Hinostrozas breach of the duty of
loyalty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof, but in any
event, in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court and estimated at no
less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).
145. In committing the acts set forth herein, Hinostroza acted willfully and
with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff. Hinostroza, therefore, is guilty of
malice, oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, thereby
warranting assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish him
and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Stitch, Del Toro,
Hinostroza, McGuire and the DOE Defendants)
146. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
147. Defendants Stormer and Stellin assumed fiduciary duties to Plaintiff,
which they breached by undertaking the acts alleged above.
148. The remaining defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted, or
otherwise conspired with Stellin and Stormer in their respective breaches of
fiduciary duties for their own independent direct financial benefit.
149. As a direct and proximate result of Stormer and Stellins breaches of
fiduciary duty, as aided and abetted by the remaining defendants, Plaintiffs have
been damaged in an amount according to proof, and estimated at no less than two
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 30 of 53 Page ID #:30
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 31
million dollars ($2,000,000).
150. In committing the acts set forth herein, the defendants acted willfully
and with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff. The defendants are therefore
guilty of malice, oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights,
thereby warranting assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to
punish them and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Trademark Infringement (Violation of the Lanham Act), against the Joybird
Defendants and McGuire)
151. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
152. By virtue of the Individual Defendants respective contractual
agreements, as well as the use of Plaintiffs money to develop the name Joybird
and associated logo, Plaintiff is the owner of the trademark in the standard character
mark Joybird and the associated Joybird logo (collectively the Trademarks).
153. The Joybird Defendants and McGuire, and each of them, have
infringed the Trademarks in interstate commerce by various acts, including selling,
offering for sale and advertising goods for sale using the Trademarks. Said use of
said names and marks by the Joybird Defendants and McGuire was and is without
permission or authority of Plaintiff and said use by the Joybird Defendants and
McGuire is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake and to deceive.
154. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the
Joybird Defendants and McGuires acts of trademark infringement and unfair
competition have been willful and committed with the intent to cause confusion,
mistake and to deceive. Defendants acts as alleged herein were committed with the
intent to pass off and palm off goods under the Trademarks as the goods of Plaintiff,
and with the intent to deceive and defraud the public.
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 31 of 53 Page ID #:31
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 32
155. By reason of the Joybird Defendants and McGuires acts alleged
herein, Plaintiff has and will suffer damage to its business, reputation and good will
and the loss of sales and profits Plaintiff would have made but for the acts of
McGuire and the Joybird Defendants.
156. The Joybird Defendants and McGuire threaten to continue to do the
acts complained of herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do
so, all to Plaintiffs irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the
amount of compensation which could afford Plaintiff adequate relief for such
continuing acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required.
Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for injuries threatened.
EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Unjust Enrichment against the Joybird Defendants and McGuire)
157. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.
158. By virtue of their conduct as alleged herein, the Joybird Defendants and
McGuire were and continue to be unjustly enriched in that, among other things, they
received a substantial benefit and profit from use of Plaintiffs property e.g.,
Plaintiffs money that was used to purchase: (a) the joybird.com domain name; (b)
the Joybird logo; (c) the website currently located at www.joybird.com; (d)
Plaintiffs Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs; (d) fabric
used for the creation of product that the Joybird Defendants subsequently sold
(collectively Plaintiffs Property).
159. The Joybird Defendants are required to make restitution and pay
damages to Plaintiff for the amounts of unjust enrichment received by the Joybird
Defendants as a consequence of their wrongful conduct and acts and activities as
alleged herein, according to proof, plus interest thereon, at the legal rate of 10% per
annum.
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 32 of 53 Page ID #:32
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 33
160. The Joybird Defendants are constructive trustees for the benefit of
Plaintiff with regard to Plaintiffs Property and the proceeds earned from the
exploitation thereof. The Joybird Defendants are required to transfer Plaintiffs
Property, as well as the proceeds from the exploitation of the same, to Plaintiff to
make restitution for the unjust enrichment received by them as a consequence of
their wrongful and tortious acts and activities as alleged herein, according to proof.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief against defendants, and each of them,
as follows:
As to the First Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. An Injunction prohibiting the Joybird Defendants, and each of them,
from continuing to utilize Plaintiffs intellectual property, confidential information,
and trade secrets, including but not limited to by operating the website located at
www.joybird.com;
3. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred, including its reasonable
attorneys fees to the maximum extent allowable by law; and
4. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Second Claim For Relief
1. An injunction requiring the Joybird Defendants, and each of them to:
a. Disable the Backdoor (as well as any other means of accessing
Plaintiffs system remotely) and disclose all passwords that they set for Plaintiffs
systems;
b. Destroy all written and electronic copies of each and every
consumer record or correspondence captured by way of the Backdoor Access;
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 33 of 53 Page ID #:33
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 34
c. Provide a list of every person, whether or not they work for the
Joybird Defendants or any of its agents, consultants, contractors, subsidiaries, or
attorneys, who has had access to or been in possession of Plaintiffs
communications, emails, trade secrets, or other confidential information;
2. Compensatory damages in the amount of the greater of:
a. the sum of the actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff and any
profits made by the Joybird Defendants as a result of the
violations alleged herein; or
b. statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $ 100 a day for
each day of violation or $ 10,000.
3. Punitive damages, in an amount subject to proof at trial;
4. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred, including its reasonable
attorneys fees; and
5. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Third Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at
trial;
3. Disgorgement to Plaintiff of all sums by which the Joybird Defendants
were unjustly enriched that are not otherwise taken into account in computing
damages for actual loss, subject to proof at trial. To the extent that said sums are not
readily ascertainable, Plaintiff reserves its right to seek recovery of a reasonable
royalty.
4. An Injunction prohibiting the further misappropriation and/or use of the
Trade Secrets;
5. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred, including its reasonable
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 34 of 53 Page ID #:34
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 35
attorneys fees to the maximum extent allowable by law; and
6. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Fourth Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000);
2. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at
trial;
3. An Injunction prohibiting further interference by the Joybird
Defendants, and each of them;
4. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred; and
5. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Fifth Claim For Relief
1. Restitution to Plaintiff in an amount subject to proof at trial;
2. An Injunction enjoining and restraining the Joybird Defendants from
their continued wrongful acts, as alleged, and to return or destroy all copies of
Plaintiffs Confidential Information and Trade Secrets in their possession, custody,
or control; and
3. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Sixth Claim For Relief
1. Restitution to Plaintiff in an amount subject to proof at trial;
2. An Injunction enjoining and restraining the defendants from their
continued wrongful acts, as alleged, and to return or destroy all copies of Plaintiffs
Confidential Information and Trade Secrets in their possession, custody, or control;
and
3. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 35 of 53 Page ID #:35
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 36
As to the Seventh Claim For Relief
1. For actual damages according to proof;
2. Alternatively, for royalties equal to a reasonable percentage of the
revenue received by the defendants from their use of Plaintiffs Confidential
Information and Trade Secrets;
3. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at
trial;
4. For an injunction requiring the return and/or destruction of all
misappropriated Trade Secrets;
4. For such other or further relief as the Court may deem proper.
As to the Eighth Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred;
3. For imposition of a constructive trust on the proceeds earned from the
defendants breaches of contract;
4. Specific performance, whereby all intellectual property created while in
Plaintiffs employ e.g., the Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joybird
Website, and any and all Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric
Designs are turned over to Plaintiff; and
5. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Ninth Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at
trial;
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 36 of 53 Page ID #:36
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 37
3. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred; and
4. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Tenth Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred;
3. For imposition of a constructive trust on the proceeds earned from the
defendants breaches of contract;
4. Specific performance, whereby all intellectual property created while in
Plaintiffs employ e.g., the Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joybird
Website, and any and all Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric
Designs are turned over to Plaintiff; and
5. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Eleventh Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at
trial;
3. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred; and
4. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Twelfth Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred;
3. For imposition of a constructive trust on the proceeds earned from the
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 37 of 53 Page ID #:37
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 38
defendants breaches of contract;
4. Specific performance, whereby all intellectual property created while in
Plaintiffs employ e.g., the Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joybird
Website, and any and all Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric
Designs are turned over to Plaintiff; and
5. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Thirteenth Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at
trial;
3. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred; and
4. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Fourteenth Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred;
3. For imposition of a constructive trust on the proceeds earned from the
defendants breaches of contract;
4. Specific performance, whereby all intellectual property created while in
Plaintiffs employ e.g., the Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joybird
Website, and any and all Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric
Designs are turned over to Plaintiff; and
5. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
/ / /
/ / /
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 38 of 53 Page ID #:38
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
462838.1 39
As to the Fifteenth Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at
trial;
3. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred; and
4. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Sixteenth Claim For Relief
1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, but
estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);
2. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount subject to proof at
trial;
3. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred; and
4. For such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
As to the Seventeenth Cause of Action (Trademark Infringement):
1. For an injunction under 15 U.S.C.A. 1116, enjoining and restraining
the Joybird Defendants and McGuire, and their respective agents, servants and
employees from directly or indirectly using the Trademarks or any other mark,
word, or name similar to Plaintiff's marks which is likely to cause confusion,
mistake or to deceive;
2. For an order under 15 U.S.C.A. 1118, order that all labels, signs, prints,
packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements in the possession of defendants
bearing the Trademarks and all plates, molds, matrices and other means of making
the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;
3. For all of McGuire and the Joybird Defendants profits derived from
their infringement of the Trademarks;
Case 2:14-cv-03855 Document 1 Filed 05/19/14 Page 39 of 53 Page ID #:39
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12