-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
1/74
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 74 Page ID #:3
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
2/74
1COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
Plaintiff LAURMARK ENTERPRISES INC., by its undersigned attorneys,
states for its Complaint against Defendants Kinderhook Industries, THI-
UnderCover Holdings, LLC, Tectum Holdings, Inc., Extang Corporation, and
UnderCover, Inc., and Does 1-50 as follows:THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff LAURMARK ENTERPRISES INC. (hereinafterLAURMARK) is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business
located at 720 Jessie Street, San Fernando, California 91340. LAURMARK does
business under the fictitious business name of BAK Industries.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Extang Corporation(hereinafter "Extang") is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of
business located at 1901 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108.
Extang is one of the two leading manufacturers of tonneau covers for the
automotive aftermarket and is a direct competitor of LAURMARK in the tonneau
truck bed covers industry.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant UnderCover, Inc.(hereinafter UnderCover") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 59 Absolute Drive, Rogersville, Missouri 65742. UnderCover
is the leading manufacturer of one-piece ABS composite truck bed covers and is a
direct competitor of LAURMARK in the tonneau truck bed covers industry.
4. Upon information and belief, both Extang and UnderCover aresubsidiaries of Defendant Tectum Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business located at 888 7th Avenue, 16th Floor, New
York, N.Y. 10106, which is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant THI-UnderCover Holdings, LLC, also a Delaware corporation and also with its
principal place of business located at 888 7th Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, N.Y.
10106. Defendant Tectum Holdings, Inc. and Defendant THI-UnderCover
Holdings, LLC, either together or individually, own or have a controlling interest
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 2 of 74 Page ID #:4
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
3/74
2COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
in five of the premier brand names in the tonneau truck bed covers industry to
create a significant player in truck aftermarket.
5. Upon information and belief, each of the aforementioned Defendantsare then part of the investment portfolio of the private equity firm DefendantKinderhook Industries, a licensed Small Business Investment Company located in
New York with its principal place of business at 521 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor,
New York, N.Y. 10175 (hereinafter all of the Defendants are collectively referred
to as THI).
NATURE OF THE ACTION
6. This is an action for patent infringement and wrongful inducement ofinfringement arising under the patent laws of the United States of America, Title
35, United States Code 1, et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
2201-2201.
7. LAURMARK charges THI with patent infringement with respect tocertain LAURMARKs patents and seeks a permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C.
283 against continued infringement by THI, its subsidiaries, and all those acting
in concert with THI.
8. LAURMARK seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement ofcertain THI patents. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relieve and unfair
competition as plead below.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.
This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this actionpursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) and (b), as patent infringement claims
arise under the patent laws of the United States.
10. This Court has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338. The Court also has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 3 of 74 Page ID #:5
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
4/74
3COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) as the action is between citizens of different States and the
amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest
and costs. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over THI. Upon information and
belief, THI is subject to this Courts specific and general personal jurisdiction
pursuant to due process and/or due, at least, to its substantial business in this
forum, including (a) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (b)
regularly doing or soliciting business and/or deriving revenue from goods and/or
services provided to individuals and companies in California and in this judicial
district.
12. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), (c) and 1400(b) because, upon information and belief, THI has transacted
business in this judicial district and committed patent infringement in this judicial
district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
13. LAURMARK is the licensee of all rights to and in, including theright to bring the present suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,537,264 (hereinafter the 264
Patent), 8,061,758 (hereinafter the 758 Patent) and 8,182,021 (hereinafter the
021 Patent), copies of which are attached as Exhibits A, B and C respectively
(hereinafter collectively the LAURMARK Patents). The LAURMARK Patents
relate generally to tonneau truck bed covers.
14.
Upon information and belief, Extang manufactures, imports, offersfor sale, and sells tonneau truck bed covers, including, but not limited to, those
sold under the Encore and Solid Fold tradenames, through a network of national
and local distributors and retailers.
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 4 of 74 Page ID #:6
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
5/74
4COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
15. Upon information and belief, UnderCover manufactures, imports,offers for sale, and sells tonneau truck bed covers, including, but not limited to,
those sold under the Flex tradename, through a network of national and local
distributors and retailers.16. Upon information and belief, for a period of time, the length of which
is unknown to Plaintiff prior to discovery, THI has operated a business, for profit,
that uses LAURMARKs technology claimed and described in the LAURMARK
Patents in connection with the sale of products manufactured and sold by or on
behalf of THI or its subsidiaries.
17. LAURMARK is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at alltimes mentioned herein, that THI and its subsidiaries had actual knowledge of the
LAURMARK Patents and LAURMARKs patent rights there under prior to the
filing of this complaint.
18. The manufacture, importation, offers for sale, and sale of the tonneautruck bed covers by Extang under the Encore and Solid Fold tradenames is in
direct competition to the tonneau truck bed covers manufactured, offered for sale,
and sold by LAURMARK.
19. The manufacture, importation, offers for sale, and sale of the tonneautruck bed covers by UnderCover under the Flex tradename is in direct competition
to the tonneau truck bed covers manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by
LAURMARK.
20. The manufacture, importation, offers for sale, and sale of infringingproducts by THI or its subsidiaries has not been under license or authority of
LAURMARK.21. By infringing the LAURMARK Patents, THI and its subsidiaries has
unfairly reaped a substantial commercial advantage and savings in research and
development time and cost, all to LAURMARKs detriment.
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 5 of 74 Page ID #:7
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
6/74
5COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
22. Upon information and belief, THI has not ceased its infringingactivity but instead continues to intentionally and knowingly market and sell its
products to various distributor and retail store customers, and to induce those
distributors and retailers to violate the LAURMARKs Patents by selling THIsinfringing products. The infringement and inducement to infringe is therefore
willful, deliberate and intentional and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
23. Upon information and belief, THI has a significant portion of themarket share of the tonneau truck bed covers market. In addition to owning and
or having a controlling interest in Extang and UnderCover, it seeks to create and
systemically maintain a monopoly on the tonneau truck bed covers market. Via
the Defendant Kinderhook Industries, it owns or has a controlling interest in
TruXedo, Inc., BedRug, Inc, and Advantage Truck Accessories, Inc. Extang and
TruXedo, Inc. are two of the leading manufacturers of tonneau covers for the
automotive aftermarket. UnderCover is one of the leading manufacturers of one-
piece ABS composite truck bed covers. BedRug, Inc. is a leading manufacturer of
high-end cushioned and carpeted protective liners for the bed of a pickup truck.
Advantage Truck Accessories, Inc. is an ISO-certified manufacturer and
distributor of soft tonneau covers to OEM and aftermarket customers.
Accordingly, THI owns or has a controlling interest in five of the premier brand
names in the industry thereby creating an effective monopoly in the tonneau truck
bed covers market.
24. Upon information and belief, THI has engaged in a series ofanticompetitive activities to protect and extend its valuable monopoly against
potential competitive threats and to eliminate the competitor from the market.25. Upon information and belief, THI has threatened to file and filed
numerous frivolous lawsuits against competitors in the tonneau truck bed covers
market after such competitor refused to be purchased or bought out by THI at
below market value.
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 6 of 74 Page ID #:8
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
7/74
6COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
26. Upon information and belief, THI or those acting in concert with THIhave provided monetary inducement to distributors and retailers to remove
LAURMARKs displays and advertising materials from the distributors and
retailers showroom floors.27. Upon information and belief, THI or those acting in concert with THI
have required distributors and retailers to agree to exclusively sell THI products to
control prices and eliminate competitors under a threat that if the exclusivity
agreements were not agreed to and the distributors and retailers continued to sell
competitors products, they would not then be allowed to market and sell THI
products.
28. THIs conduct with respect to tonneau truck bed covers is aprominent and immediate example of the pattern of anticompetitive practices
undertaken by THI with the purpose and effect of attempting to obtain and
maintain its monopoly and extending that monopoly to other related markets.
29. The relevant product market is the United States.30. During the relevant time period alleged herein, LAURMARK has
manufactured, marketed, and distributed the tonneau truck bed covers in a
continuous and uninterrupted flow of intrastate and interstate commerce
throughout the United States.
31. Through the unlawful acts and practices described above, THI hasharmed competition, consumers and innovations by decreasing, and seeking to
eliminate competitors and cause consumers to pay supra-competitive prices for the
tonneau truck bed covers. Those practices, described herein, have also allowed
THI to obtain and maintain illegal monopolies in the tonneau truck bed covermarket.
32. LAURMARK is in the business of manufacturing and selling avariety of tonneau truck bed covers and related products for pick-up trucks under
the LAURMARK Patents.
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 7 of 74 Page ID #:9
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
8/74
7COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
COUNT ONE
Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) of the 264 Patent
33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of theallegations set forth above.
34. THI makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or induces others to use inthe United States methods and/or related devices covered by one or more claims
of the 264 Patent, including THIs tonneau covers.
35. THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 264 Patent inviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a).
36. By reason of THIs acts of infringement, LAURMARK has sufferedand will continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
COUNT TWO
Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) of the 758 Patent
37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of theallegations set forth above.
38. THI makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or induces others to use inthe United States methods and/or related devices covered by one or more claims
of the 758 Patent, including THIs tonneau covers.
39. THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 758 Patent inviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a).
40.
By reason of THIs acts of infringement, LAURMARK has sufferedand will continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
///
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 8 of 74 Page ID #:10
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
9/74
8COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
COUNT THREE
Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a)) of the 021 Patent
41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of theallegations set forth above.
42. THI makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or induces others to use inthe United States methods and/or related devices covered by one or more claims
of the 021 Patent, including THIs tonneau covers.
43. THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 021 Patent inviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a).
44. By reason of THIs acts of infringement, LAURMARK has sufferedand will continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm.
COUNT FOUR
Inducement to Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)) of the 264 Patent
45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of theallegations set forth above.
46. Based upon the foregoing, THI has knowingly induced andencouraged various retailers and/or distributors to infringe Plaintiffs 264 Patent.
47. Various retailers and distributors have infringed Plaintiffs 264Patent as a consequence of THIs knowing inducement and encouragement.
48. THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 264 Patent inviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b).
49.
Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of THIs wrongful acts ininducing infringement of the 264 Patent.
///
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 9 of 74 Page ID #:11
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
10/74
9COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
COUNT FIVE
Inducement to Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)) of the 758 Patent
50. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of theallegations set forth above.
51. Based upon the foregoing, THI has knowingly induced andencouraged various retailers and/or distributors to infringe Plaintiffs 758 Patent.
52. Various retailers and distributors have infringed Plaintiffs 758Patent as a consequence of THIs knowing inducement and encouragement.
53. THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 758 Patent inviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b).
54. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of THIs wrongful acts ininducing infringement of the 758 Patent.
COUNT SIX
Inducement to Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(b)) of the 021 Patent
55. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of theallegations set forth above.
56. Based upon the foregoing, THI has knowingly induced andencouraged various retailers and/or distributors to infringe Plaintiffs 021 Patent.
57. Various retailers and distributors have infringed Plaintiffs 021Patent as a consequence of THIs knowing inducement and encouragement.
58.
THIs actions thus constitute infringement of the 021 Patent inviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b).
59. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of THIs wrongful acts ininducing infringement of the 021 Patent.
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 10 of 74 Page ID #:12
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
11/74
10COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
COUNT SEVEN
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of theallegations set forth above.
61. Plaintiff had and has valid business relationships and businessexpectancies with its customers and distributors and a reasonable expectation that
such relationships would continue into the future and beyond based on a long and
consistent business relationship.
62. Knowing of and about these customer and distributor relationships,and business expectancies, Defendants have intentionally intervened and are
interfering with same, including but not limited to soliciting customers away from
Plaintiff through unlawful means, diverting these customers for themselves
through improper and illegal means, and otherwise causing termination and
disruption of and/or interference with Plaintiff's relationships and expectancies
with its customers, all resulting in the deprivation of future business opportunities
and the deprivation of prospective economic advantage to be gained from these
future business opportunities with Plaintiffs customers.
63. As a result of Defendants' intentional interference with theserelationships and business expectancies, Plaintiff will be injured irreparably and
otherwise by reason of the deprivation of future business opportunities and the
deprivation of prospective economic advantage to be gained from these future
business opportunities with Plaintiffs customers and distributors, and which will
result in Defendants being unjustly enriched.64. If Defendants are not enjoined from interfering with Plaintiffs
prospective economic opportunities, Plaintiff will continue to be injured
irreparably and otherwise as this will result in the deprivation of future business
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 11 of 74 Page ID #:13
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
12/74
11COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
opportunities and the deprivation of prospective economic advantage to be gained
from these future business opportunities with Plaintiffs customers.
65. Each of these acts was done willfully and maliciously by Defendants,with the deliberate intent to injure Plaintiff's business and improve their ownbusiness and for financial gain, thereby entitling Plaintiff to exemplary damages
and/or attorneys' fees to be proved at trial.
COUNT EIGHT
Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
66. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of theallegations set forth above.
67. Plaintiff had and has valid business relationships and businessexpectancies with its customers.
68. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff had theseexisting customer relationships.
69. Defendants have negligently intervened and interfered with andappropriated Plaintiffs customer relationships, by soliciting customers away from
Plaintiff, diverting these customers for themselves, sending improper notices to
Plaintiffs customers, by contacting Plaintiffs customers, and otherwise causing
termination and disruption of and/or interference with Plaintiff's relationships with
its customers.
70. Defendants actions were negligent in that they induced a breach ordisruption of the Plaintiff's contractual relationships with its customers.
71.
As a result of Defendants' interference with these relationships,Plaintiff has been injured irreparably and otherwise, while Defendants are unjustly
enriched.
72. If Defendants are not enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to be injuredirreparably and otherwise
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 12 of 74 Page ID #:14
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
13/74
12COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
COUNT NINE
Unfair Competition under Calif. Bus. & Prof. Codes sec 17200, et seq.
73. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of theallegations set forth above.
74. Defendants intentional, purposeful, and unlawful conduct andactions as alleged herein and above constitute unfair competition and/or deceptive
or unfair trade or business practices on the part of Defendant in violation of
Californias Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.
75. As a result of Defendants unlawful acts of unfair competition andinfringement or business practices Defendants have suffered injuries in fact,
including those alleged herein and above entitling Plaintiff to restitution and/or
injunctive relief as permitted under the statute..
76. Defendants actions have and are causing irreparable harm to Plaintiffentitling Plaintiff to injunctive relief barring Defendants from their conduct in
violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.
77. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described in thisComplaint, Defendants have been and continue to seek to be unjustly enriched,
therefore, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants wrongful conduct, and to obtain an
order for restitution.
78. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at alltimes mentioned that the conduct of Defendants, as described herein, was
malicious, oppressive and fraudulent within the meaning of California Civil Code
3294 and done without justification of privilege, thus entitling Plaintiff to anaward of punitive and exemplary damages in the amount appropriate to punish
Defendants and to make an example of them in an amount to be determined at
trial.
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 13 of 74 Page ID #:15
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
14/74
13COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
79. Plaintiff further seeks attorneys fees and costs pursuant Code ofCivil Procedure 1021.5.
80. Plaintiffs further request, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17203such orders and judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may benecessary to prevent the continued use or employment by Defendants of the
aforementioned unfair and unlawful business practices which, unless and until
enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, will continue to cause great and
irreparable injury to Plaintiff, competitors and consumers, including orders to
Defendants to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or
personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff LAURMARK prays for judgment as set forth
below:
i. That THI be declared to have infringed the claims of the 264 Patentas alleged above;
ii. That THI be declared to have infringed the claims of the 758 Patentas alleged above;
iii. That THI be declared to have infringed the claims of the 021 Patentas alleged above;
iv. That THI be declared to have induced the infringement of retailersunder the LAURMARK Patents as alleged above;
v. That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, THI and its subsidiaries, and theirrespective officers, agents, servants, employees and assigns, and all those personsacting in concert or in participation with THI or acting on its behalf, be
immediately, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from its
wrongful conduct, as outlined above;
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 14 of 74 Page ID #:16
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
15/74
14COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
291364
vi. That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, THI be ordered to account for andpay to LAURMARK all monetary damages caused to LAURMARK by reason of
THIs wrongful conduct, including interest, costs, and trebled damages;
vii. That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285, this action be declared anexceptional case and that THI be ordered to pay LAURMARKs attorney fees
and costs;
viii. That LAURMARK be granted pre-judgment and post-judgmentinterest on the damages caused to it by reason of THIs wrongful conduct;
ix. For compensatory damages according to proof;x. For punitive damages according to proof;
xi. For Preliminary and permanent injunction;xii. That Defendants be ordered to pay restitution;
xiii. That Plaintiff be awarded attorneys fees and costs of suit hereinincurred; and
xiv. That the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deemsjust and proper under the circumstances.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff LAURMARK ENTERPRISES, INC. hereby demands trial by
jury of all claims and issues for which such a trial is available.
MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
DATED: May 30, 2012 BY: __________________________Sanford L. Michelman, Esq.Mona Z. Hanna, Esq.John J. Skinner, Jr., Esq. (To be admittedPro Hac Vice) Attorneys for PlaintiffLaurmark Enterprises Inc.
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 15 of 74 Page ID #:17
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
16/74
EXHIBIT A
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 16 of 74 Page ID #:18
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
17/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 15
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 17 of 74 Page ID #:19
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
18/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 16
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 18 of 74 Page ID #:20
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
19/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 17
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 19 of 74 Page ID #:21
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
20/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 18
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 20 of 74 Page ID #:22
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
21/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 19
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 21 of 74 Page ID #:23
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
22/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 20
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 22 of 74 Page ID #:24
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
23/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 21
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 23 of 74 Page ID #:25
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
24/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 22
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 24 of 74 Page ID #:26
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
25/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 23
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 25 of 74 Page ID #:27
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
26/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 24
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 26 of 74 Page ID #:28
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
27/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 25
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 27 of 74 Page ID #:29
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
28/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 26
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 28 of 74 Page ID #:30
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
29/74
EXHIBIT A
Page 27
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 29 of 74 Page ID #:31
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
30/74
EXHIBIT B
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 30 of 74 Page ID #:32
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
31/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 28
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 31 of 74 Page ID #:33
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
32/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 29
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 32 of 74 Page ID #:34
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
33/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 30
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 33 of 74 Page ID #:35
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
34/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 31
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 34 of 74 Page ID #:36
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
35/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 32
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 35 of 74 Page ID #:37
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
36/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 33
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 36 of 74 Page ID #:38
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
37/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 34
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 37 of 74 Page ID #:39
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
38/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 35
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 38 of 74 Page ID #:40
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
39/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 36
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 39 of 74 Page ID #:41
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
40/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 37
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 40 of 74 Page ID #:42
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
41/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 38
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 41 of 74 Page ID #:43
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
42/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 39
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 42 of 74 Page ID #:44
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
43/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 40
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 43 of 74 Page ID #:45
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
44/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 41
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 44 of 74 Page ID #:46
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
45/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 42
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 45 of 74 Page ID #:47
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
46/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 43
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 46 of 74 Page ID #:48
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
47/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 44
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 47 of 74 Page ID #:49
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
48/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 45
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 48 of 74 Page ID #:50
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
49/74
EXHIBIT B
Page 46
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 49 of 74 Page ID #:51
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
50/74
EXHIBIT C
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 50 of 74 Page ID #:52
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
51/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 47
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 51 of 74 Page ID #:53
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
52/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 48
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 52 of 74 Page ID #:54
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
53/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 49
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 53 of 74 Page ID #:55
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
54/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 50
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 54 of 74 Page ID #:56
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
55/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 51
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 55 of 74 Page ID #:57
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
56/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 52
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 56 of 74 Page ID #:58
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
57/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 53
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 57 of 74 Page ID #:59
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
58/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 54
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 58 of 74 Page ID #:60
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
59/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 55
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 59 of 74 Page ID #:61
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
60/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 56
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 60 of 74 Page ID #:62
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
61/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 57
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 61 of 74 Page ID #:63
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
62/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 58
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 62 of 74 Page ID #:64
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
63/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 59
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 63 of 74 Page ID #:65
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
64/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 60
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 64 of 74 Page ID #:66
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
65/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 61
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 65 of 74 Page ID #:67
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
66/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 62
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 66 of 74 Page ID #:68
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
67/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 63
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 67 of 74 Page ID #:69
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
68/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 64
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 68 of 74 Page ID #:70
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
69/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 65
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 69 of 74 Page ID #:71
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
70/74
EXHIBIT C
Page 66
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 70 of 74 Page ID #:72
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
71/74
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 71 of 74 Page ID #:73
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
72/74
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 72 of 74 Page ID #:74
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
73/74
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 73 of 74 Page ID #:75
-
7/31/2019 Laurmark Enterprises v. Kinderhook Industries et. al.
74/74
Case 2:12-cv-04702-GHK-MAN Document 1 Filed 05/30/12 Page 74 of 74 Page ID #:76