versa products v. stitch industries - cfaa trade secrets

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


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).


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.


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.


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.


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,


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).


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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 .


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.


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


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)



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;


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)



78. Plaintiff takes reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy of its customer

lists, unreleased product designs, Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and


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


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)



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


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)



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.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


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)



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)



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


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.


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)



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


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)



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


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)





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


above.









Plaintiff.

/ / /

/ / /


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)



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)





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.


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


above.









Plaintiff.

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Duty of Loyalty, against Del Toro)



132. Defendant Del Toro, as an employee of Plaintiff, assumed a general


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


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)





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


above.









Plaintiff.

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Duty of Loyalty, against Hinostroza)



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


142. Defendant Hinostroza, as an employee of Plaintiff, assumed a general


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)



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


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)



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.


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.


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)



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.


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;


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;


attorneys fees; and


As to the Third Claim For Relief



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;



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


As to the Fourth Claim For Relief


estimated at no less than one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000);


trial;

3. An Injunction prohibiting further interference by the Joybird

Defendants, and each of them;

4. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred; and


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


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



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;


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



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


As to the Ninth Claim For Relief




trial;


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



As to the Tenth Claim For Relief











As to the Eleventh Claim For Relief




trial;



As to the Twelfth Claim For Relief






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







As to the Thirteenth Claim For Relief




trial;



As to the Fourteenth Claim For Relief











/ / /

/ / /


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




trial;



As to the Sixteenth Claim For Relief




trial;



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;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

versa products v. stitch industries - cfaa trade secrets

Documents