21. lta logistics vs enrique varona (lta pre-trial cataloge)
DESCRIPTION
LTA pre trial catalog were they propose their witnesses and arguments. Notice how the rat of Eduardo Prado from Atlantic Cargo Agencies is a witness for LTA, I guess he will testify how I "stole" his accounts or smoked most of Lesters stash. I can only wonder what is this clown doing involved in this messssss....but It will be fun.TRANSCRIPT
IN THE CIRCUIT OF THE 1 1™JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FORMIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
LTA LOGISTICS, INC. and GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISIONLESTER TRIMINO
CASE NO.: 2010-59330 CA 10Plaintiff
ENRIQUE VARONA,Respondent
I
PLAINTIFF'S PRE TRIAL CATALOGUfipri »T C
COMES NOW, Counsel for the Plaintiff, LTA LOGISTICS, INC and LESTER
TRIMINO, by and through undersigned counsel and files this Pre-Trial Catalog and
states the following:
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
LTA is Transportation and Logistics Company that offers solutions and solves
issues that might arise before and during the transportation of any heavy load. LTA
specializes in handling full load freight from any point in the United States and Canada.
LTA utilizes carriers that are dependable and use high quality equipment. LTA
specializes in the transportation of heavy construction equipment such as hydraulic
excavators, draglines, drills, roof bolters, rock dusters and wheel loaders to name a few.
LTA has a practice, policy and procedure prior to employing any person for
employment to have the individual sign a non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreement
with the prospective employee. The non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreement
specifically requires that the prospective employee agree that they are not to solicit any
customers of LTA to terminate its relationship with LTA for a period of two years from
the date that the employee terminates his relationship with LTA.
According to the Plaintiffs the defendant in this action signed the Non-disclosure
and Non solicitation agreement on June 9, 2009. Sometime thereafter the employment
relationship between LTA and the defendant terminated. Subsequent to the termination
of the defendant's employment relationship with the Plaintiffs, the defendant began to
work with Landstar Transportation. This company is in the same field as LTA Logistics.
Given the fact that all the parties work in the same field, it came to the attention of LTA
that the defendant's name was on a load from a previous customer of LTA. According to
LTA this was in direct violation of the Non solicitation agreement. LTA then contacted
Landstar to inform them of the previous non solicitation agreement. The defendant was
then apparently terminated from his employment with Landstar. Te Defendant in this
action disputes that he signed the non disclosure and non solicitation agreement.
The Plaintiffs in, this cause of action advertise on the internet and receives many
of their customers from such advertising. In addition, they keep many of their currentSB-
customers through advertising on the int-ernet. After Landstar was contacted by LTA and•
was informed oi" the non-solicitation agreement, the defendant subsequently began ani -
attack campaign on the internet to discredit LTA and specifically Lester Trimino. Lester
Trimino is the President of LTA. The Plaintiffs in this cause of action spent countless
man hours addressing this attack campaign to limit the effect that it could cause on the
business. In addition, the Plaintiffs in this cause of action, retained the services of
National Positions USA to effectively deal with the with the internet attack campaign.
National Positions USA was hired by LTA to specifically address this internet attack
campaign.
It was as a result of this internet attack campaign that this action was initiated by
the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs in this action filed a request for an injunction to stop the
attack campaign by the defendant and filed an additional cause of action alleging tortious
interference.
The defendant in this action then counterclaimed for tortious interference of a
business relationship along with additional causes of action.
WITNESS LIST
1. Lester Trimino2. Annette Trimino3. Todd Osipiak4. Sebastian Nandino5. Jerry Mugar6. Richard Rojas7. Carlos Gonzalez8. Miriam Romero9. Michael Mitrani10. Myriam Arango11. William Zafra12. Esteban Lopez13. Luis Coello14. Magda Coppola15. Leticia Gonzalez16. Jeffrey Rodriguez17. Dean Huffman18. Eric Diaz19. Krystal Perez20. Roger Tabares21. Miguel MilianThe above twenty one listed witnesses can be reached at LTA Logistics(14331 SW 120th
Street, Suite 203 Miami Florida 33186-7297)22. National Positions USA (5012 Chesebro Road Suite 200 Agoura Hills, Cal 91301
Phone (866) 669-8789)23. Atlantic Cargo Agencies 14331 SW 120th Street Suite 205 Miami Florida 33186-
7297)
MEDIATION
The parties attended mediation. An impasse was reached at the mediation.
UNIQUE AREA OF THE LAW
The Plaintiffs in this cause of action have alleged and requested that this Court
enter a Permanent Injunction. The Plaintiffs in this cause of action have also alleged
Tortuous Interference. The Defendant in this cause of action has counterclaimed against
the Plaintiffs in this cause of action. Specifically the Defendant in this cause of action has
counterclaimed for tortuous Interference with a Business Relationship. In the defendant's
claim for tortuous interference with a business relationship the defendant alleges that the
Plaintiffs intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with the relationship that the defendant
had with Landstar. That as a result of the plaintiffs interference with his relationship with
Landstar the defendant was fired and suffered loss and damages as a result of the
Plaintiffs actions. The Defendants' second cause of action alleges Tortous interference
with a businesses advantage. The defendant in this cause of action alleges that due to the
Plaintiffs actions of contacting Landstar the defendants subsequent termination the
defendant suffered damage and loss. The defendant's third cause of action alleges
conspiracy for tortous interference with an advantageous business relationship. In the
defendant fourth cause of action the defendant alleges a count of fraud. The defendant in
this cause of action asserts that the Plaintiffs forged his signature on the non disclosure
and non solicitation agreement. That according to the defendant, the plaintiffs in this
cause of action forged the defendants' signature and then sent this fraudulent document to
the defendants' employer Landstar and that as a result of submitting this fraudulent
document the defendant was terminated from his employment.
EXHIBIT LIST
All previously filed non disclosure and non solicitation agreement
The non disclosure and non solicitation agreement signed by the defendant.
Emails from the defendant to the plaintiff
Any and all previously filed documents as it relates to the above case.
RESERVATION TO SUPPLEMENT PRE TRIAL CATALOGUE
The Plaintiff in this cause of action reserves the right to supplement the pre trial
Catalogue.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by
email and mail to Enrique Varona at 14823 SW 125 Court Miami Florida 33186 on this
_4th day of March 2013.
SCOTT EGLESTON, ESQUIREBrickell Bay Office Tower1001 Brickell Bay Drive St., 1200Miami, Florida 33131Tel: (305) 892-8088Fax:(305)892-9562Email: [email protected]
By:SCOTT EGLESTFlorida Bar No.: 883425