Moss v. Moss et. al

Download Moss v. Moss et. al

Post on 14-Apr-2018

215 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/29/2019 Moss v. Moss et. al.

    1/16

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    GERALD MOSS, individually, )Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

    -against- )KATHERINE MOSS, individually, )MICHAEL MOSS, individually, )

    and )MOSS TUBES, INC., a New York Corporation )

    Defendants. )

    COMPLAINTPlaintiff, GERALD MOSS, fo r his complaint against defendants MICHAEL MOSS,

    individually, KATHERINE MOSS, individually and Moss Tubes, Inc. (MTI), states asfollows:

    INTRODUCTION1 . The Plaintiffbrings this action for declaratory relief against the Defendants

    KATHERiNE MOSS, MICHAEL MOSS and MTI, as a result ofthe Defendants declared intentto seek immediate injunctive relief against the PlaintiffGERALD MOSS for alleged materialbreach of a contract regarding a Divorce Agreement hereto attached as Exhibit A.

    2. The Plaintiff also brings this action based upon patent misuse of several expiredpatents that were assigned by the Plaintiff in the Divorce Agreement to the Defendants, and usedby Defendants to intimidate the Plaintiff GERALD MOSS and unlawfully coerce him to neveragain engage in any activity in the broad field of gastrointestinal feeding technology.

    1:13-CV-1137 (MAD/RFT)

  • 7/29/2019 Moss v. Moss et. al.

    2/16

    THE PARTIES3. The Plaintiff, GERALD MOSS, is an individual residing at , White

    Plains, New York 10605.4. The Plaintiff, GERALD MOSS, is a medical doctor, who also earned a Ph.D. in

    Biochemistry, with more than forty years of experience designing and directing the manufactureofproducts for gastrointestinal feeding and decompression and has spent the majority of hisprofessional life focused on enhancing the field of enteral feeding technology, or feedingtechnology involving the introduction of nutrients directly into the gastrointestinal tract. He hasover 1 00 publications in profession journals. For 25 years he was on the full-time faculty ofRensselaer Polytechnic Institute as a tenured Professor of Biomedical Engineering. He also helda professorial appointment in the department of Surgery of Albany Medical College, and was apracticing clinical surgeon.

    5. The Defendant, MTI, upon information and belief, is a New York corporationhaving its principal place ofbusiness at 749 Columbia Turnpike, East Greenbush, New York,12061.

    6. The Defendant, KATHERiNE MOSS, upon information and belief, is anindividual residing at 84 Climer Circle, West Sand Lake, New York 12196.

    7. The Defendant, MICHAEL MOSS, upon information and belief, is an individualand is the current Chief Executive Officer of MTI, having its principal place of business at 749Columbia Turnpike, East Greenbush, New York, 12061.

    8. The Defendant MTI manufactures enteral feeding devices comprising tubesprovided fo r gastrointestinal decompression/feeding wherein the devices are designed to aspirate

    2

  • 7/29/2019 Moss v. Moss et. al.

    3/16

    within the close confines of the distal esophagus and/or proximal duodenum to facilitate highrates ofnutrient absorption and increased rates ofwound healing and resistance to sepsis.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter ofthis action pursuant to 28

    U. S .C. 1 33 1 , 1 3 3 8, 220 1 , 2202 and 1 5 U. S.C 1 1 2 1 . Further, this court has supplementaljurisdiction over the subject matter ofthis action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 67(a).

    10. Under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302(a)(1), this Court has personaijurisdiction over theDefendant MTI because the Defendant MTI transacts business in the State ofNew York and/orcontracts to supply goods and services in the Sta te ofNew York.

    1 1 . This Venue properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).12. The Plaintiff alleges that this district is proper since a substantial part of the

    events giving rise to the claims occurred, or a substantial part ofthe property that is the subjectof this action is situated in this district.

    BACKGROUND STATEMENT1 3 . The PlaintiffGERALD MOS S s first wife JudithMoss d ied of a severe

    gastrointestinal complication (postoperative paralytic ileus) that made it impossible to nourishher with then current knowledge and techniques. The PlaintiffGERALD MOSS invented andhand-made a crude prototype ofthe Moss Tube in a vain attempt to save her life. Insubsequent months he perfected this device and utilized it in September, 1962, to successfullyfeed a young postoperative cancer patient at Albany Medical Center Hospital who had developedthe same complication.

    14. Following the death ofhis first wife and the success in using his refined MossTube prototype to save the young patient, the PlaintiffGERALD MOSS utilized his medical

    3

  • 7/29/2019 Moss v. Moss et. al.

    4/16

    knowledge to design other enteral feeding devices and systems to advance the field ofgastrointestinal feeding technology.

    1 5. The Plaintiff GERALD MOSS is an expert in the field of enteral feeding and ispassionate about improving gastrointestinal feeding technologies.

    16. The PlaintiffGERALD MOSS married his second wife, the DefendantKATHERiNE MOSS, on November 1 5, 1962.

    1 7. On June 1 5, 1 999, the PlaintiffGERALD MOSS and the Defendant KATHERINEMOSS entered into a Divorce Agreement. (See Exhibit A ofthis Complaint).

    1 8. The Divorce Agreement concerned the settling ofproperty rights between theparties (Gerald Moss and Katherine Moss) and set forth settlement terms pertaining to associatedbusiness interests ofthe parties.

    1 9. During the marriage of the Plaintiff GERALD MOSS and the DefendantKATHERiNE MOSS, two (2) corporations were formed, to wit: Moss Tubes, Inc. and MossMedical Products, Inc.

    20 . The Divorce Agreement prescribed the conveyance ofMoss Tubes, Inc. to theDefendant KATHERINE MOSS and prescribed the conveyance ofMoss Medical Products, Inc.to the PlaintiffGERALD MOSS.

    21 . The Divorce Agreement prescribed the conveyance of specifically listedtrademarks to the Defendant KATHERINE MOSS.

    22 . The Divorce Agreement prescribed the conveyance of specifically listed patentsinvented by PlaintiffGerald Moss to the Defendant KATHERINE MOSS.

    23 . The Divorce Agreement prescribed the conveyance of specifically listed productmolds to the Defendant KATHERINE MOSS.

    24 . The Divorce Agreement, in Paragraph 6(i) thereof, specifically provides:

    4

  • 7/29/2019 Moss v. Moss et. al.

    5/16

    [Gerald Moss] and Moss Medical Products, Inc. : (1) shall notcompete, during [Gerald Mosss] lifetime, with Michael Moss,[Katherine Moss] or Moss Tubes, Inc. with respect to any matterswhatsoever concerning the use ofthe aforesaid Trademarks, Patentsand Molds conveyed to [Katherine Moss] under this Agreement; (2)shall not interfere with the business affairs ofMichael Moss,[Katherine Moss] or Moss Tubes, Inc., including, without limitation,[Gerald Mosss] agreement to have absolutely no contact whatsoeverwith any agents , customers or suppliers ofMoss Tubes, Inc., (e.g.,the sterilizers or manufacturers ofproducts or services sold by MossTubes, Inc.); and (3) shall keep all matters concerning all businessaffairs ofMoss Tubes, Inc. , [Katherine Moss] and Michael Mossconfidential during his lifetime.

    25 . In the time since the Divorce Agreement was finalized, the DefendantsKATHERINE MOSS, MICHAEL MOSS and MTI, have engaged in a pattern of unlawfulintimidation designed to threaten the PlaintiffGERALD MOSS and pressure him to give up hisprofessional pursuits related to the advancement of enteral feeding technology.

    26. In a letter on or about October 30, 2002 (attached hereto as Exhibit B),Defendants, KATHERINE MOSS, MICHAEL and MTI charged the Plaintiff, GERALD MOSS,

    with breach of the Divorce Agreement and threatened legal action.27. The October 30, 2002 letter alleged violations of Paragraph 6(i) ofthe Divorce

    Agreement not to compete with the business ofMTI, as well as violations of relatedconfidentiality provisions of the Divorce Agreement even though the noncompete set forth inParagraph 6(i) related only specifically with respect to matters whatsoever concerning the useof the aforesaid Trademarks, Patents and Molds.

    28. In another letter on or about October 1 5, 2003 (attached hereto as Exhibit C),Defendants, KATHERiNE MOSS, MICHAEL and MTI again charged the Plaintiff, GERALDMOSS, with breach ofthe Divorce Agreement and again threatened legal action.

    5

  • 7/29/2019 Moss v. Moss et. al.

    6/16

    29. The October 1 5, 2003 letter asserted that the Divorce Agreement did no t allow thePlaintiffGERALD MOSS to invent anything related in any way to the Defendants MTIsproducts, and further alleged that in consideration for effecting the Divorce Agreement thePlaintiffGERALD MOSS was paid NOT to engage in any biomedical engineering activities,and that doing so constituted a material breach ofthe Divorce Agreement, for which theDefendants would seek remuneration.

    30. In yet another threatening letter on or about June 5, 2009 (attached hereto asExhibit D), the Defendants, KATHERINEMOSS, MICHAEL MOSS and MTI yet againcharged the Plaintiff, GERALD MOSS, with breach ofthe Divorce Agreement and againthreatened legal action.

    3 1 . The June 5, 2009 letter asserted that the Divorce Agreement obligated thePlaintiff GERALD MOS S not to compete in any way with the Defendant MTI, and furtheralleged that the Divorce Agreement required the Plaintiff GERALD MOSS to stay ou t of theentire medical equipment business fo r gastrointestinal feeding technology because the DivorceAgreement supposedly established a prohibited technology area even though the noncompete setforth in Paragraph 6(i) related only specifically with respect to matters whatsoever concerningthe use of the aforesaid Trademarks,