ally fin. v. blackwell
DESCRIPTION
Regarding Ally financial ownership in GMACTRANSCRIPT
Ally Financial Sues Former Employee OverSecret Foreclosure DataQBy Sophia Pearson - Jul 27, 2011 8:19 AM PT
9Recommend
in Share
0
MorePrintEmail
Ally Financial Inc., among the five largest U.S. mortgage originators and servicers, sued a former employeewho moonlighted as a foreclosure defense attorney over claims she stole confidential information.
Ally terminated the employee, Tanya L. Blackwell, last week for failing to disclose “a clear conflict” of herdual employment as a foreclosure specialist for Ally’s GMAC unit and as a practicing foreclosure defenseattorney, according to court papers filed yesterday in federal court in Philadelphia.
Prior to her termination, Blackwell allegedly improperly obtained confidential company information includingorganization charts for Ally’s foreclosure operations, according to the complaint.
Blackwell accessed Ally’s protected computers and exceeded such authorizations as may have been granted,and as a result, obtained valuable data,” the company said in the complaint.
Blackwell worked in GMAC’s Residential Capital unit in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, as a member of theCollateral Remediation team, according to the complaint. During her employment with Ally, Blackwell alsooperated the Law Office of Tanya L. Blackwell in Philadelphia and Washington and described her practiceon her LinkedIn web page as a “plaintiff only firm,” Ally said in court papers.
Ally, based in Detroit, is seeking a court order barring Blackwell’s use of the information, which sheallegedly sent to third parties, according to court papers.
Blackwell didn’t immediately return phone messages left at her law offices in Philadelphia and Washingtonseeking comment on the complaint.
The case is Ally Financial Inc. v. Blackwell, 11-cv-4694, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania(Philadelphia)
To contact the reporter on this story: Sophia Pearson in Philadelphia at [email protected].
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at [email protected].
Party Name: Advanced SearchFiled In: Pennsylvania Eastern Federal District CourtJudge: AnyCase Type: All TypesDoc Filter: All Case FilingsFiled After: All DatesFiled Before: Now
Justia > Dockets & Filings > Pennsylvania > Pennsylvania Eastern District Court > Torts - Property > Other Fraud > ALLYFINANCIAL INC. v. BLACKWELLNEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US FederalAppellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
ALLY FINANCIAL INC. v. BLACKWELLShare |
Plaintiff: ALLY FINANCIAL INC. Defendant: TANYA L. BLACKWELL
Case Number: 2:2011cv04694
Filed: July 26, 2011
Court: Pennsylvania Eastern District CourtOffice: Philadelphia OfficeCounty: Philadelphia
iii: HARVEY BARTLE
Nature of Suit: Torts - Property - Other FraudCause: 28:1332
Jurisdiction: Diversity Jury Demanded By: None
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER isrequired.Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Search for Party AliasesAssociated CasesAttorneysCase File LocationCase SummaryDocket ReportHistory/Documents
PartiesRelated TransactionsCheck Status
Search for this case: ALLY FINANCIAL INC. v. BLACKWELLSearch Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Google Blogsearch |Technorati ]Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ALLY FINANCIAL INC. Represented By: ALEXANDER NEMIROFF SearchDockets [ Dockets ]
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Google Blogsearch |Technorati ]Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]SearchFinance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]Defendant: TANYA L. BLACKWELL
SearchDockets [ Dockets ]
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Google Blogsearch |Technorati ]Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]SearchFinance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Justia Lawyer, Legal Aid & Services Directory: Philadelphia County Consumer Lawyers andPennsylvania Consumer Lawyers
Q uery R eports U tilities L ogout
STANDARD
United States District CourtEastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:11-cv-04694-HB
ALLY FINANCIAL INC. v. BLACKWELLAssigned to: HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, IIICause: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud
Date Filed: 07/26/2011Jury Demand: NoneNature of Suit: 370 Fraud or Truth-In-LendingJurisdiction: Diversity
PlaintiffALLY FINANCIAL INC. represented by ALEXANDER NEMIROFF
JACKSON LEWIS LLP THREE PARKWAY 1601 CHERRY ST STE 1350 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 267-319-7816 Email:[email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
DefendantTANYA L. BLACKWELL represented by ADRIAN J. MOODY
LAW OFFICES OF ADRIAN J.MOODY, PC 1613 SPRUCE ST STE 3/4 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-735-2400 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed # Docket Text
07/26/2011 1 COMPLAINT against TANYA L. BLACKWELL ( Filing fee $ 350 receiptnumber 046978.), filed by ALLY FINANCIAL INC. (Attachments: # 1 CivilCover Sheets)(tj, ) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
07/26/2011 Summons Issued as to TANYA L. BLACKWELL. Forwarded To: Counsel on7/26/11 (tj, ) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
07/26/2011 2 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ALLY FINANCIAL INC.(tj, ) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
07/26/2011 3 EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER filedby ALLY FINANCIAL INC.,MEMORANDUM. (Attachments:# 1 Memorandum)(tj, ) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
07/26/2011 4 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FORA TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WILL BE HELD ON 7/27/2011, AT2:00 PM IN COURTROOM 12A, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLECYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 7/26/11. 7/26/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILEDTO UNREP AND E-MAILED. (ti, ) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
07/27/2011 5 NOTICE of Appearance by ADRIAN J. MOODY on behalf of TANYA L.BLACKWELL (MOODY, ADRIAN) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
07/28/2011 01:38:22
PACER Login: cc8982 Client Code:
Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:11-cv-04694-HB
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
Plaintiff,
6'Jl 4t,~
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. "-
TANYA L. BLACKWELL
Defendant.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Ally Financial Inc. sues Tanya L. Blackwell, Esquire and says:
PARTIES
,/ I
I
1. Plaintiff, Ally Financial Inc. ("Ally") is a corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Delaware, whose principal place of business is located at 200 Renaissance Center,
P.O. Box 200, Detroit, Michigan 48265-2000.
2. Defendant, Tanya L. Blackwell, Esquire ("Defendant" or "Blackwell") is a fonner
employee of Ally who is a citizen of Pennsylvania and resides at 800 N. 2nd Street, Unit 168,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19123.
3. While employed by Ally, Defendant worked at Ally's Fort Washington,
Pennsylvania location.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This court has jurisdiction of the claims asserted in this Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332 in that Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states, and the amount in
controversy exceeds the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), exclusive of interest
i
/ ,
J \~\\
1'} ~ 1
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 2 of 13
and costs. Immediate injunctive relief is sought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(a).
5. Venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l39l(a) because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred within the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, and Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
FACTS
6. Ally is one of the world's largest automotive financial services companies
offering a full suite of automotive financing products and services in key markets around the
world. Ally additionally operates a mortgage operations unit which focuses primarily on the
residential real estate market in the United States, with business activities including the
origination, purchase, servicing, sale and securitization of residential mortgage loans.
7. Defendant's employment with Ally's subsidiary, GMAC Mortgage LLC
("GMAC") commenced on or about January 10, 2011 where she worked as a Foreclosure
Specialist in GMAC's Residential Capital ("ResCap") business unit in Fort Washington,
Pennsylvania. Within the ResCap unit, Defendant was a member of the Collateral Remediation
team with specific and limited duties.
8. At the inception of her employment, Defendant executed an extensive Ally
Conflict of Interest Questionnaire ("Questionnaire") which requires employees to disclose
potential conflicts of interest. Further, the Questionnaire clearly advised Defendant that she had
a duty to act solely in the best interests of Ally and to provide Ally with her individual loyalty.
9. During Defendant's employment, Defendant also agreed to abide by Ally's Code
of Conduct and Ethics ("Code of Conduct"). Ally's Code of Conduct states:
2
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 3 of 13
Ally employees have a duty to act solely in the best interests of Ally and to provide Ally with our individual loyalty. Do not exploit your position with Ally for personal gain.
10. The Code of Conduct specifically states that "[ n]o employee or member of any
employee's household should have a material interest or investment in any service provider,
supplier, customer, or competitor of Ally that could create a conflict of interest (including
interests in subsidiaries or joint ventures of Ally) .... "
11. During Defendant's employment, she had extensive access to Ally's confidential
and proprietary information.
12. In addition to e-mail and intranet access, Defendant had access to Ally's Loanserv
program, LPS-process management, LPS-document management, invoice management, network
sharing (K) drive, ISS and Looking Glass, as well as Ally's policies, procedures, and materials.
13. Ally terminated Defendant's employment on June 23, 2011 for, among other
things, failing to disclose a clear conflict of her dual employment as a Foreclosure Specialist with
Ally and as a practicing "foreclosure defense" attorney.
14. Upon information and belief, at all times during her employment with Ally,
Defendant operated the Law Office of Tanya L. Blackwell with offices in Philadelphia and
Washington, D.C.
15. Defendant describes her law firm practice on her LinkedIn web page as "a
plaintiff only firm" with a practice focus on, among other things, foreclosure defense litigation.
16. Defendant never disclosed to Ally that she was an attorney much less that her law
firm actively represents that it is adverse to financial services companies such as Ally.
3
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 4 of 13
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant intentionally misrepresented her
education and employment background to Ally on her employment application with Ally. The
application Defendant completed for Ally specifically states:
BY COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS AND QUESTIONS AND THAT THE INFORMA TION PROVIDED IS, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, TRUE AND CORRECT. KNOWING MISREPRESENTATION OR WITHHOLDING OF ANY FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE MAY RESULT IN DENIAL OR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT. ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE VERIFIED FOR COMPLETE ACCURACY BY A THIRD-PARTY BACKGROUND CHECK VENDOR. OFFERS OF EMPLOYMENT ARE CONDITIONED UPON A COMPLETE AND CLEAR PRE-EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND CHECK, DRUG TEST AND, IF APPLICABLE, COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.
Notwithstanding, Defendant failed to disclose both that she had attended law school and that she
is a practicing attorney with a law practice adverse to Ally's interests.
18. Ally later discovered that prior to her termination, Defendant improperly obtained
proprietary and confidential company information, including but not limited to: organizational
charts for Ally's foreclosure operations; numerous confidential internal emails not addressed to
her attention, including emails consisting of an attorney-client privileged nature; and customer
information for Ally mortgage accounts not assigned to her, which included account numbers,
customer names and addresses.
19. Defendant improperly forwarded Ally's proprietary and confidential information
to her personal email account which information, upon information and belief, was subsequently
disseminated to third parties.
20. By letter dated July 21, 2011, undersigned counsel requested that Defendant
immediately return all of Ally's confidential and proprietary information. To date, no such
information has been returned by Defendant.
4
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 5 of 13
COUNT ONE Injunctive Relief
21. Ally repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
22. By virtue of the allegations set forth herein, Ally has demonstrated a likelihood of
success on the merits and that a balancing of the equities favors the issuance of an injunction
against Defendant.
23. Unless Defendant is temporarily, preliminarily, and/or permanently enjoined from
the foregoing conduct, Ally will be irreparably harmed by:
(a) Disclosure of privileged internal emails and correspondence,
organizational documents, clients' records and financial dealings and
other confidential information which are solely the property of Ally and
its clients;
(b) Loss of confidentially of clients' records and financial dealings, loss of
confidence and trust of clients, loss of goodwill, and loss of business
reputation;
(c) Loss of personnel, damage to office stability, and a threat to the
enforcement of reasonable policies and procedures aimed at protecting
Ally from the above mentioned unlawful activities;
(d) Present economic loss, which is unascertainable at this time, and future
economic loss, which is presently incalculable; and
(e) Ally has no adequate remedy at law.
5
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 6 of 13
WHEREFORE, Ally respectfully requests that:
(1) A Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction issue immediately,
enjoining Defendant, directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in concert with others,
including any officer, agent, employee and/or representative of Defendant, until hearing and
thereafter until further Order of this Court, from:
(a) using, disclosing, disseminating, or transmitting for any purpose, any and
all of Ally's proprietary and confidential information improperly obtained by
Defendant, including, but not limited to, organizational charts for GMAC's
foreclosure operations; numerous confidential internal emails not addressed to
her attention, including emails consisting of an attorney-client privileged nature;
and customer information for GMAC mortgage accounts not assigned to her,
which included account numbers, customer names and addresses; and
(b) destroying, erasing, or otherwise making unavailable for further
proceedings in this matter, any records, telephonic records, or documents
(including data or information maintained in computer media) in Defendant's
possession, custody, or control which were obtained from or contain information
derived from any of Ally's proprietary and confidential records or information, or
which relate to any of the events alleged in the Complaint in this action; and
(c) Any and all other such acts as this Court deems appropriate for injunctive
relief.
(2) Defendant, and anyone acting In concert or participation with Defendant,
specifically including Defendant's counsel and any agent, employee or representative of
Defendant, be further ordered to within forty-eight (48) hours of notice to Defendant or her
6
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 7 of 13
counsel of the tenns of the Court's Order: a) identify and return to Ally's counsel any and all
proprietary and confidential records, documents and/or other types of infonnation pertaining to
Ally or GMAC, whether in original, copied, handwritten, computerized (including computer
software, disks, computer hard drive and/or any other type of computer or digital infonnation
storage device) or memorialized in any other fonn; and b) identify any and all individuals,
companies or organizations to whQm Defendant disclosed, disseminated, or transmitted for any
purpose, any such documents and/or infonnation.
(3) Defendant shall identify and produce to Ally her passwords and/or credentials to
all web based e-mail accounts and/or cloud, web-based, and/or electronic storage databases,
including but not limited to her Yahoo e-mail account, which contain any documents of any kind
relating to Ally or GMAC, within forty-eight (48) hours of notice to Defendant or her counsel of
the tenns of the Court's Order.
(4) Any and all proprietary and confidential infonnation within the possessIOn,
custody or control of Defendant that is contained in any computerized fonn, including on
computer software, disks, computer hard drive, and/or any other type of computer or digital
infonnation storage device, returned pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 above be pennanently
deleted by an Ally representative. Such proprietary and confidential infonnation shall be
pennanently deleted, if possible without affecting any other infonnation or software on the
computer. Defendant, and anyone acting in concert with Defendant, is precluded from
reconstituting or in any way restoring any proprietary and confidential infonnation deleted
pursuant to this paragraph and returned to Ally pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 above.
(5) costs of suit and attorney's fees be awarded; and
(6) such other and further reliefbe awarded as the Court deems just and equitable.
7
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 8 of 13
COUNT TWO Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
24. Ally repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
25. The organizational charts, privileged internal correspondence, the confidential
information contained therein, and especially customer information are subject to protection
under the Pennsylvania Trade Secret Act. See 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5301 et seq.
26. Ally's confidential information is obviously of high value to Ally as it serves as
the basis for developing, maintaining, and servicing its customers. Such information gives Ally
an opportunity to obtain a competitive advantage over other competitors who do not know or
have access to the contents of this customer information or privileged internal correspondence.
27. Ally has taken more than adequate measures under the circumstances to maintain
the secrecy of this information, including maintaining confidentiality policies prohibiting, inter
alia, the use and disclosure of such information outside of Ally.
28. Upon information and belief, Defendant has used and/or is presently misusing
Ally's confidential information by disseminating it to third parties for the sole purpose of
harming the reputation and good will of Ally.
29. The foregoing conduct of the Defendant constitutes a misappropriation and
misuse of Ally's confidential, trade secret information in violation of Pennsylvania law. See 53
Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5301 et seq.
30. As a consequence of the foregoing, Ally has suffered and will continue to suffer
irreparable loss.
8
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 9 of 13
COUNT THREE Conversion
31. Ally repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
32. The foregoing conduct of Defendant constitutes a conversion of Ally's proprietary
and confidential business information, Ally's property, and Ally's proprietary rights and
interests.
33. As a result of Defendant's unlawful conversion, Ally has suffered and/or will
continue to suffer irreparable loss, including damage to business reputation and good will and
other damages.
34. Unless Defendant is restrained and enjoined from converting property of Ally to
its own unlawful use, Ally will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury and harm for
which there is no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT FOUR Violation of Duty of Loyalty
35. Ally repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
36. During the time that she was employed at Ally, Defendant violated her duty of
loyalty and did not act in Ally's best interests.
37. Defendant also violated her duty of loyalty to Ally by failing to act for the
furtherance and advancement of her employer, solely for the benefit of her employer.
38. Defendant specifically violated her duty of loyalty to Ally by simultaneously
maintaining a legal practice as a "Foreclosure Defense" attorney while she was employed as a
9
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 10 of 13
Foreclosure Specialist with Ally's subsidiary GMAC, and intentionally failed to disclose to Ally
said dual employment.
39. Defendant further violated her duty of loyalty to Ally by improperly forwarding
the company's proprietary and confidential information to her personal email account which,
upon information and belief has been subsequently disseminated to third parties.
40. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Ally has been injured and sustained
irreparable harm and damages.
COUNT FIVE
Commercial Disparagement
41. Ally repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
42. Upon information and belief, Defendant has used and/or is presently misusing
Ally's confidential information by disseminating it to third parties accompanied by false
statements concerning or about Ally for the sole purpose of harming the reputation and good will
of Ally.
43. The foregoing conduct of the Defendant constitutes commercial disparagement in
that:
a.) the Defendant knew her statements to third parties concerning or about Ally
were false and/or through such actions acted in reckless disregard of the truth;
b.) the Defendant intended her statements to third parties to cause financial loss to
Ally or reasonably should have recognized that her statements to third parties
would result in financial loss; and
c.) Ally has suffered incalculable financial loss as a result of Defendant's false
statements to third parties concerning or about Ally.
10
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 11 of 13
COUNT SIX
Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030
44. Ally repeats and incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
45. Defendant knowingly and within intent to defraud, accessed Ally's protected
computers and exceeded such authorizations as may have been granted, and as a result, obtained
valuable data thus furthering the intended fraudulent conduct, all within the meaning of 18
u.s.c. § 1030.
46. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Ally has sustained damage or loss of not less
than $5,000.00, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Ally has suffered and will continue to
suffer substantial losses in excess of $5,000.00, including but not limited to losses sustained in
responding to Defendant's actions, investigating Defendant's actions and taking remedial steps
to prevent Defendant's further offenses.
47. Defendant's misappropriation of Ally's valuable trade secrets and proprietary and
confidential information has caused Ally damages in an amount which may not be determinable,
and as a result Ally has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury in the loss of revenue
and good will.
48. Defendant's continued dissemination to third parties of Ally's valuable trade
secrets and proprietary and confidential information is causing and will continue to cause Ally to
suffer damages to its business that may be incalculable and for which there is no adequate
remedy at law.
49. Based upon the foregoing, Ally is entitled to, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting Defendant from further use and disclosure of Ally's trade secrets and proprietary and
confidential information and directing Defendant to identify Ally's trade secrets and proprietary
11
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 12 of 13
and confidential infonnation in her custody, control, or possession and return to Ally such trade
secrets and proprietary and confidential infonnation.
WHEREFORE, by virtue of the foregoing acts complained of in Counts Two, Three,
Four, Five, and Six, Plaintiff Ally Financial Inc., demands judgment in its favor against the
Defendant, and seeks:
(1) Entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in an amount
to be proved at trial, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees; and
(2) Grant such other and further relief as the nature of the cause may require.
BY:
Dated: July 26,2011
12
Rick rimaldi (P A 49 0) Lori E. Halber (PA 80762) Alexander Nemiroff (P A 92250) JACKSON LEWIS, LLP Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102-1317 (267) 319-7802
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 13 of 13
VERIFICA nON
J, Cathy L. Quenneville, am the Corporate Secretary of Ally Financial Inc., and I am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I hereby verify that the matters set forth in the foregoing Veri tied Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
BY: I (/l.tILLL(L:f.JI Cathy L. dtenneville
Dated: July 26, 2011
4846-7785-3450, v. 1
13
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 1 of 3\ \ .
::4:;:::,"'.,",~'mro I:'Bmooh~'m~~,~:~=~~!~~o)~~~~~~~'ibymw. ~~~~ ... by local rules of court. This fOnD, apprl~t udicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is requIred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of mitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON TIfE REVERSE OF TIfE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
Ally Financial, Inc.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
DEFENDANTS
Tanya L. Blackwell, Esquire
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Philadelphia (IN u.s. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE TIfE LOCATION OF TIfE
LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
Jackson Lewis LLP, 1601 Cherry St., Suite 1350, Phila., PA 19102 (267) 319-7802
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (place an "X" in One Box Only)
o I US. Government Plaintiff
o 2 U.S. Government Defendant
o 3 Federal Question (US. Government Not a Party)
f~iversity
III. CITIZENSHIP OF P~PAL PARTIES(Place an "X" m One Box for Plamtiff (For DIverSIty Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DE PTF DEF CItIZen of ThIs State 0 I l!!I Incorporated or PrinCIpal Place 8 0 4
of Bus mess In ThIs State
CItIzen of Another State 0 2 \. 2 Incorporated and PrinCIpal Place ~ 5 0
~ (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
o 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6
IV. NATURE OF S UIT (place an "X" in One Box Onlv)
CONTRACf ,'I'ORTS· '. :y V ""OTIIER
o 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY o 610 Agriculture o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 State Reapportionment o 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 362 Personal Injury - o 620 Other Fond & Drug o 423 Withdrawal 0 410 Antitrust o 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Prnduct Med. Malpractice o 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 0 430 Banks and Banking o 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 0 450 Commerce o 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability o 630 Liquor Laws -RIGHTS 0 460 Deportation
& Enforcement of Judgmen Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal o 640 R.R. & Truck o 820 Copyrights 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and o 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product o 650 Airline Regs. o 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations o 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability o 660 Occupational o 840 Trademark 0 480 Consumer Credit
Student Loans 0 ". ""'" (jERSONAL .RO' .. " SafetylHealth 0 490 Cable/Sat TV (Exc!. Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product 370 Other Fraud o 690 Other 0 810 Selective Service
o 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 0 371 Truth in Lending .ABOR SOCIAL 0 850 Securities!Commodities! of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 380 Other Personal o 710 Fair Labor Standards o 861 HIA (1395fi) Exchange
o 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act o 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer Challenge o 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 385 Property Damage o 720 LaborlMgmt. Relations o 863 DIWCIDIWW (405(g» 12 USC 3410 o 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Product Liability o 730 LaborlMgmt.Reporting o 864 SSID Title XVI 0 890 Other StaMory Actions o 196 Franchise Injury & Disclosure Act o 865 RSI (405(g» 0 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PlUS!: NERPETITIONS o 740 Railway Labor Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act 0210 Land Condemnation 0 441 Voting 0 510 Motions to Vacate o 790 Other Labor Litigation o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 893 Environmental Matters o 220 Foreclosure 0 442 Employment Sentence o 791 Emp!. Ret. Inc. or Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectinent 0 443 Housing! Hab ••• Corp ... : Security Act o 871 IRS-Third Party 0 895 Freedom of Information o 240 Torts to Land Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act o 245 Tort Product Liability 0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 0 900Appeal of Fee Determination o 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Arner. wlDisabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other o 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access
Employment 0 550 Civil Rights o 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice 0 446 Arner. wlDisabilities- 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 0 950 Constitutionality of
Other o 465 Other Inunigration State Statutes 0 440 Other Civil Rights Actions
'\~ ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) A~eal to District
aI Original o 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from o 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from o 6 Multidistrict 0 7 Ju ge from
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened (:lOthIfi, ~istrict Litigation Magistrate specl Judgment
'-" Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 28 U.S.C. & 1332
Brief description of cause:
Violation of Trade Secrets Act VII. REQUESTED IN 0 CHECK IF TIllS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S over $75,000 CHECK YES only if demanded in cO~~:int:
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: 0 Ye~ f1'f 0
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions):
DOCKY~F1 lJ IF ANY JUDGE ~ / If
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF r!f) Ji )J/l~_ 07/26/2011 ,.i. H .;-FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ..... ./ \,/--"'V-
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPL YlNG IFP JUDGE MAG_JUDGE -------- ------------ ------------JUt 261011
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 2 of 3U D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ! I _ t \,J- <fa, ~4 FOR THE EnilSTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA- DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar.
Address of Plaintiff: Ally Financial, Inc., 200 Renaissance Center, P.O. Box 200, Detroit, MI 48265-2000
Address ofDefendant: Tanya L. Blackwell, Esq., 800 N. 2nd St., Unit #168, Philadelphia, PA 19123
Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)
Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owni
(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.I(a» Yes
Does this case involve multi district litigation possibilities? YesO
RELATED CASE. IF ANY: Case Number: ___________ Judge ______________ Date Terminated: ______ ---':;;.... __________ _
Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:
I. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this@urt?
YesO No '" 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previous inated
action in this court?
Yes 0 3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement ofa patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one ye
terminated action in this court? YesD
4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?
CIVIL: (Place t/ in ONE CATEGORY ONLY) A Federal Question Cases:
1. 0 Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
2. 0 FELA
3. 0 Jones Act-Personal Injury
4. o Antitrust
5. 0 Patent
6. 0 Labor-Management Relations
7. 0 Civil Rights
8. 0 Habeas Corpus
9. 0 Securities Act(s) Cases
10.0 Social Security Review Cases
11. 0 All other Federal Question Cases (Please specify)
Yes 0
B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
1. 0 Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
2. 0 Airplane Personal Injury
3. 0 Assault, Defamation
4. 0 Marine Personal Injury
5. 0 Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
6. 0 Other Personal Injury (Please
specify)
7. 0 Products Liability
8. /rtoducts Liability - Asbestos
9'V I other Diversity Cases
(Please specify)
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION Alexander Nemiroff (Check Appropriate Category)
1,, __________________ -', counsel of record do hereby certify:
o Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of
\ $15~0.OO exclusive of interest and costs;
~lief other than monetary damages is sought.
DATE: July 26, 2011 Alexander Nemiroff 92250 -------------------------------
Attorney-at-Law Attorney 1.0.#
NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court except as Doted above.
DATE: July 26, 2011
JUl 20 '2.Un Alexander Nemiroff 92250
Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.#
CIY. 609 (6/08)
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 1-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 3 of 3
Ally Financial, Inc. Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYL VANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
CIVIL ACTION
v.
Tanya L. Blackwell, Esquire II Defendant NO. 'C\)- C{ B 1 LJ
In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1 :03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through § 2255. ( )
(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. ( )
(c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. ()
(d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos. ( )
(e) Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.) ( )
(I) Standard Management - Cases that do not fall into anyone of the other tracks. d July 26, 2011
Date
(267) 319-7802
Telephone
(Civ. 660) 10/02
Alexander Nemiroff
Attorney-at-law
(215) 399-2249
FAX Number
Plaintiff, Ally FinanCial, Inc.
Attorney for
Alexander. [email protected]
E-Mail Address
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3 Filed 07/26/11 Page 1 of 4 --~
i
,r:1;" )\ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLV AN~_ \ ,/
I~ ./ '--I:.- ,/
'J{jt '" ~ By At .....
~ '. 2011
ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
TANYA L. BLACKWELL
Defendant.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1. Plaintiff Ally Financial Inc. ("Ally") respectfully moves this Court for a
Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Contemporaneously herewith, Ally filed a Verified Complaint with the Court in
support hereof. True and correct copies of the Verified Complaint is submitted herewith and
made a part hereof by reference.
3. As stated in Ally's Verified Complaint, Defendant has improperly obtained and
converted Ally's proprietary and confidential company information including client information,
has violated the express provisions of Ally's Conflict of Interest Questionnaire and Ally's Code
of Conduct and Ethics, and has breached her duty of loyalty to Ally. Upon information and
belief, Defendant further disseminated Ally's proprietary and confidential company information
with the intent of causing irreparable harm to Ally.
4. For the reasons stated in Ally's Verified Complaint, unless Defendant is enjoined
from converting Ally's property to her own use and from disseminating such information to third
parties, Ally will be irreparably harmed by:
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3 Filed 07/26/11 Page 2 of 4
(a) Disclosure of privileged internal emails and correspondence,
organizational documents, clients' records and financial dealings and other confidential
information which are solely the property of Ally and its clients;
(b) Loss of confidentiality of clients' records and financial dealings, loss of
confidence and trust of clients, loss of goodwill, and loss of business reputation;
(c) Loss of personnel, damage to office stability, and a threat to the
enforcement of reasonable policies and procedures aimed at protecting Ally from the above
unlawful activities; and
(d) Present economic loss, which is unascertainable at this time, and future
economic loss, which is presently incalculable.
5. Ally has no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Ally respectfully prays that this Court ORDER and DECREE that:
1. Defendant be immediately enjoined and restrained, directly and indirectly,
whether alone or in concert with others, including any officer, agent, employee, and/or
representative of Defendant, until hearing and thereafter until further Order of this Court, from
doing any of the following:
(a) using, disclosing, disseminating, or transmitting for any purpose, any and
all of Ally's proprietary and confidential information improperly obtained by
Defendant, including, but not limited to, organizational charts for GMAC's
foreclosure operations; numerous confidential internal emails not addressed to her
attention, including emails consisting of an attorney-client privileged nature; and
customer information for GMAC mortgage accounts not assigned to her, which
included account numbers, customer names and addresses; and
2
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3 Filed 07/26/11 Page 3 of 4
(b) destroying, erasmg, or otherwise making unavailable for further
proceedings in this matter, any records, telephonic records, or documents
(including data or information maintained in computer media) in Defendant's
possession, custody, or control which were obtained from or contain information
derived from any of Ally's proprietary and confidential records or information, or
which relate to any of the events alleged in the Complaint in this action.
2. Defendant, and anyone acting in concert or participation with Defendant,
specifically including Defendant's counsel and any agent, employee or representative of
Defendant, be further ordered to within forty-eight (48) hours of notice to Defendant or her
counsel of the terms of the Court's Order: a) identify and return to Ally's counsel any and all
proprietary and confidential records, documents and/or other types of information pertaining to
Ally or GMAC, whether in original, copied, handwritten, computerized (including computer
software, disks, computer hard drive and/or any other type of computer or digital information
storage device) or memorialized in any other form; and b) identify any and all individuals,
companies or organizations to whom Defendant disclosed, disseminated, or transmitted for any
purpose, any such documents and/or information.
3. Defendant identify and produce to Ally her passwords and/or credentials to all
web based e-mail accounts and/or cloud, web-based, and/or electronic storage databases,
including but not limited to her Yahoo e-mail account, which contain any documents of any kind
relating to Ally or GMAC, within forty-eight (48) hours of notice to Defendant or her counsel of
the terms of the Court's Order.
4. Any and all proprietary and confidential information within the possessIOn,
custody or control of Defendant that is contained in any computerized form, including on
3
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3 Filed 07/26/11 Page 4 of 4
computer software, disks, computer hard drive, and/or any other type of computer or digital
infonnation storage device, returned pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 above be pennanently
deleted by an Ally representative. Such proprietary and confidential infonnation shall be
pennanently deleted, if possible without affecting any other infonnation or software on the
computer. Defendant, and anyone acting in concert with Defendant, is precluded from
reconstituting or in any way restoring any proprietary and confidential infonnation deleted
pursuant to this paragraph and returned to Ally pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 above.
5. The Court's Order remains in full force and effect until such time as this Court
specifically orders otherwise.
6. The parties be granted leave to commence discovery, including depositions,
interrogatories, and requests for production of documents immediately in aid of any preliminary
injunction proceedings before the Court.
Dated: July 26,2011
4826-5187-3802, v. I
Respectfully submitted,
BY: ~ __ ~~=-~~~~~ ____ ___ Rick Grimaldi (P A 49 )
4
Lori E. Halber (P A 80762) Alexander Nemiroff (PA 92250) JACKSON LEWIS, LLP Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102-1317 (267) 319-7802
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
F I l.. f.:. J(/I U
Plaintiff,
TANYA L. BLACKMAN
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
-, I{
. DPI!.Clerk
Plaintiff, Ally Financial Inc. ("Ally"), by its undersigned attorneys, respectfully submits
this Memorandum of Law in support of its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent
Defendant, Tanya L. Blackman ("Defendant"), from continuing to utilize Plaintiffs confidential
and proprietary business information, and upon information and belief, disseminating that
information to third parties with the intent of causing irreparable injury to Plaintiff.
Defendant is a former employee of Ally, who unbeknownst to them, was all the while
practicing as a "Foreclosure Defense" attorney during her employment as a Foreclosure
Specialist with Ally. Defendant never disclosed to Ally that she was an attorney much less that
her law firm actively represents that it is adverse to financial services companies such as Ally.
Indeed, despite that Ally's application explicitly requires disclosure of all education and
employment history, Defendant omitted both that she attended law school and she is a practicing
attorney. It is alarming that Defendant, a practicing attorney, not only intentionally deceived
Ally, but used her position with Ally to improperly obtain certain proprietary and confidential
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 2 of 14
company infonnation from Ally, which she then removed and forwarded to her own personal
email account. Thereafter, upon infonnation and belief, Defendant disseminated said
infonnation to third parties with the intent of causing irreparable hann to Ally.
Ally has demanded that Defendant cease this illegal activity, to no avail. Accordingly,
Ally respectfully requests this Court's immediate intervention. For the reasons explained below,
Ally asks this Court to immediately enjoin Defendant from further use of Plaintiffs confidential
business infonnation and trade secrets, to return such infonnation in all of its fonns, and from
further acting in a manner contrary to her statutory, common law, and professional obligations to
Ally. Without this Court's intervention, Ally will suffer immediate and irreparable hann,
through the continued loss of customers, loss of customer good will, loss of business reputation,
and through the loss of the benefits derived from Ally's confidential infonnation and trade
secrets and which Defendant has misappropriated for her own personal gain and devious
purposes.
II. FACTS)
A. Background
Ally is one of the world's largest automotive financial services companies offering a full
suite of automotive financing products and services in key markets around the world. Ally
additionally operates a mortgage operations unit which focuses primarily on the residential real
estate market in the United States, with business activities including the origination, purchase,
servicing, sale and securitization of residential mortgage loans. Ally has longstanding
relationships with customers located throughout the country
I The facts are taken from the Verified Complaint and the supporting exhibits filed herewith.
2
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 3 of 14
B. Defendant's Employment With Ally.
Defendant's employment with Ally commenced on or about January 10, 2011 where she
worked as a Foreclosure Specialist in Ally's "ResCap" business unit in Fort Washington,
Pennsylvania. Within the ResCap unit, Defendant was a member of the Collateral Remediation
team with specific and limited duties.
From the beginning, Defendant intentionally misrepresented her education and
employment background to Ally and concealed that she is engaged in an active foreclosure
defense law practice with interests adverse to Ally's. The application Defendant completed for
Ally specifically states:
BY COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HA VE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS AND QUESTIONS AND THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, TRUE AND CORRECT. KNOWING MISREPRESENTATION OR WITHHOLDING OF ANY FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE MAY RESULT IN DENIAL OR TERM INA TION OF EMPLOYMENT. ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE VERIFIED FOR COMPLETE ACCURACY BY A THIRD-PARTY BACKGROUND CHECK VENDOR. OFFERS OF EMPLOYMENT ARE CONDITIONED UPON A COMPLETE AND CLEAR PRE-EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND CHECK, DRUG TEST AND, IF APPLICABLE, COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.
Notwithstanding, Defendant failed to disclose both that she had attended law school and that she
is a practicing as a "Foreclosure Defense" attorney.
At the inception of her employment, Defendant executed an extensive Ally Conflict of
Interest Questionnaire ("Questionnaire") which requires employees to disclose potential conflicts
of interest. Further, the Questionnaire clearly advised Defendant that she had a duty to act solely
in the best interests of Ally and to provide Ally with her individual loyalty. During Defendant's
employment, Defendant also agreed to abide by Ally's Code of Conduct and Ethics ("Code of
Conduct"). Ally's Code of Conduct states:
3
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 4 of 14
Ally employees have a duty to act solely in the best interests of Ally and to provide Ally with our individual loyalty. Do not exploit your position with Ally for personal gain.
The Code of Conduct specifically states that "[n]o employee or member of any employee's
household should have a material interest or investment in any service provider, supplier,
customer, or competitor of Ally that could create a conflict of interest (including interests in
subsidiaries or joint ventures of Ally) .... "
C. Plaintiff's Discovery of Defendant's Improper Conversion of Trade Secrets and Confidential Business Information
During Defendant's employment, she had extensive access to Ally's confidential and
proprietary information. In addition to e-mail and intranet access, Defendant had access to
Ally's Loanserv program, LPS-process management, LPS-document management, invoice
management, network sharing (K) drive, IUSS and Looking Glass, as well as Ally's policies
procedures, and materials. Ally terminated Defendant's employment on June 23, 2011 for,
among other things, failing to disclose a clear conflict of her dual employment as a Foreclosure
Specialist with Ally and as a practicing "foreclosure defense" attorney. Following Defendant's
termination, Ally discovered that during her employment, Defendant improperly obtained
proprietary and confidential company information, including but not limited to: organizational
charts for Ally's foreclosure operations; numerous confidential internal emails not addressed to
her attention, including emails consisting of an attorney-client privileged nature; and customer
information for Ally mortgage accounts not assigned to her, which included account numbers,
customer names and addresses. Ally further discovered that Defendant improperly forwarded
the company's proprietary and confidential information, as well as confidential customer
information, to her personal email account which, upon information and belief, was subsequently
disseminated to third parties. All of the above information improperly obtained by Defendant
4
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 5 of 14
constitutes Ally's proprietary and confidential infonnation and constitute Ally's trade secrets, as
well as customer infonnation which may be regulated by the federal Gramm Leach Bliley Act
("GLBA"), (collectively "Confidential Infonnation"). Ally's Confidential Infonnation is
valuable, confidential and is not generally known to other persons who can obtain economic
value from its disclosure or use and who can cause irreparable injury to Ally from its disclosure
and use.
Ally takes reasonable precautions to protect its Confidential Infonnation through various
methods. By way of example only, Ally limits within its own Company the distribution of its
Confidential Infonnation to those with a specific need to know and only provides authorization
and access to those employees with a specific need to access such sensitive infonnation. As an
additional protection for its Confidential Infonnation, Ally requires its employees, including
Defendant, to sign their Questionnaire and abide by their Code of Conduct which binds all
employees to act solely in the best interests of Ally and to provide Ally with their individual
loyalty. Defendant intentionally deceived Ally by failing to disclose that she was an attorney
who owned a law finn which was adverse to Ally's interests. Through her intentional actions
referenced above which were calculated to deceive and injure Ally, Defendant breached her duty
ofloyalty to her employer and committed egregious violations of federal, state and common law.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
In ruling on a motion for a temporary restraining order, the district court must "consider
the following four factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits at
final hearing; (2) the extent to which the moving party is being irreparably hanned by the
conduct complained of; (3) the extent to which the non-moving parties will suffer irreparable
hann if the preliminary injunction is issued; and (4) the public interest." Georgine v. Achem
Products, Inc., 878 F. Supp. 716, 725 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (citing S&R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Intern.,
5
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 6 of 14
Inc., 968 F.2d 371, 374 (3d Cir. 1992)). No one factor is dispositive, and the Court should
balance the four factors "to ensure an equitable outcome." Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Taylor,
795 F. Supp. 122, 127 (M.D. Pa. 1992) (citing Philadelphia Council of Neighborhood Drgs. v.
Adams, 451 F. Supp. 114, 116 (E.D. Pa. 1978)).
As set forth below, those factors are met here and Ally's request for a temporary
restraining order should be granted.
A. Plaintiff Has Made A Showing Of A Reasonable Probability Of Ultimate Success On The Merits
The case law makes clear that "[t]o show a reasonable likelihood of success on the
merits, the moving party need not show with certainty that it will ultimately prevail; however the
'irreducible minimum' required is either a fair chance for success on the merits or the raising of a
question serious enough to require litigation." Deep Sea Research, Inc. v. Brother Jonathan, 883
F. Supp. 1343, 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Benda v. Grand Lodge of Intern. Assoc. of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308,315 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. dismissed 441 U.S.
937 (1979)); see also Apollo Technologies v. Centrosphere Indus., 805 F. Supp. 1157, 1191
(D.N.J. 1992) ("[t]his requirement is satisfied if the moving party 'make[s] a showing of a
reasonable probability, not the certainty, of success on the merits"'). As demonstrated below,
that standard is more than satisfied here.
1. Defendant Violated her Duty of Loyalty to Ally
As noted above, Ally requires its employees, including Defendant, to sign their Conflict
of Interest Questionnaire requiring employees to disclose potential conflicts of interest and
requires employees to act solely in the best interests of Ally and to provide Ally with their
individual loyalty. Defendant was further required to abide by Ally's Code of Conduct
prohibiting Defendant from investment, or interest that might hurt or reflect badly on Ally. In
6
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 7 of 14
direct violation of Ally's policies, Defendant intentionally deceived Ally and failed to disclose a
clear conflict of her dual employment as a Foreclosure Specialist with Ally and as a practicing
"Foreclosure Defense" attorney. Thereafter, Defendant utilized her position with Ally to
improperly gain access to proprietary and confidential company information, as well as
confidential customer information, which she then improperly forwarded to her personal email
account and then, upon information and belief, subsequently disseminated said information to
third parties with the intent to irreparably injure Ally and to the detriment of consumer privacy.
As such, Defendant's within actions constitute an obvious and clear breach of her duty ofloyalty
to Ally.
2. Ally Has A Statutory and Common Law Right To Prevent The Use And Disclosure Of Its Confidential Business Information
Pennsylvania has adopted its own version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 12 P.S. §
5301, et seq. ("UTSA"). UTSA allows for injunctive relief and monetary damages for an
individual's "misappropriation" of "trade secrets," as those terms are defined under UTSA. See
id. Pursuant to UTSA, a "trade secret" is defined as:
Information, including a formula, drawing, pattern, compilation including a customer list, program, device, method, technique or process that:
(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
See 12 P.S. § 5302 (emphasis added).
"Misappropriation" is defined under the UTSA to include:
7
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 8 of 14
(1) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
(2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:
(i) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
(ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was:
(A) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
(B) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy oflimit its use; or
(C) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use[.]
Ally's proprietary and confidential business information, including Ally's customer
account information, internal privileged emails and analysis as well as organizational charts and
other information, constitute "trade secrets" under UTSA. Moreover, the customer information
may be protected by GLBA. Upon the inception of her employment with Ally, Defendant owed
a duty to maintain the confidentiality of Ally's proprietary business information, limit its use,
and to not exceed her authorized use of company computers and documents.
Based upon the above, Defendant's conduct in improperly obtaining Ally's proprietary
and confidential business information and then using it both during and after her employment
with Ally, knowing that it was improperly obtained, constitutes actionable misappropriation
under UTSA, for which the statute provides that injunctive relief is appropriate:
(a) Injunctions. -- Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be
8
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 9 of 14
tenninated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additionally reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.
See 12 Pa. C.S.A. § 5303.
Pennsylvania common law also pennits the Court to enJoIn an ex-employee from
competing with his fonner employer and/or to protect the employer's trade secrets and
confidential infonnation. See,~, BIEC Intern., Inc. v. Global Steel Services, Ltd., 791 F.
Supp. 489, 548 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (citing Health Care Affiliated Services, Inc. v. Lippany, 701 F.
Supp. 1142, 1153 (E.D. Pa. 1988); Anaconda Co. v. Metric Tool & Dye Co., 485 F. Supp. 410,
424 (E.D. Pa. 1980); Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. v. Johnson, 296 Pa. Super. 405, 442 A.2d
1114, 1122 (1982)).
To state a cause of action for misappropriation of a trade secret under Pennsylvania
common law, a plaintiff must show:
(1) that there was a trade secret; (2) that it was of value to employer and important in the conduct of his business; (3) that by reason of discovery of ownership the employer had the right to the use and enjoyment of the secret; and (4) that the secret was communicated to the employee while he was in a position of trust and confidence under such circumstances as to make it inequitable and unjust for him to disclose it to others, or to make use of it himself, to the prejudice of his employer.
See A.M. Skier Agency, Inc. v. Morris Gold, Sobel Affiliates, Inc., 747 A.2d 936 (Pa. Super.
2000) (citing Gruenwald v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc., 730 A.2d 1004,1012-13 (Pa.
Super. 1999). Here, Defendant's actions clearly constitute misappropriation of a trade secret,
namely Ally's confidential customer infonnation and privileged internal e-mail communications.
Specifically, documents such as customer infonnation and client lists that have been
compiled by an employer and are not of public knowledge are subject to trade secret protection.
See Robinson Elec. Supervisory Co. v. Johnson, 154 A.2d 494, 496 (Pa. 1959) (holding
9
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 10 of 14
customer lists and customer information "to be property in the nature of a 'trade secret' for
which an employer is entitled to protection, independent of a non-disclosure contract.") (quoting
Morgan's Home Equip. Corp. v. Martucci, 136 A.2d 838, 842 CPa. 1957); A.M. Skier Agency,
Inc. v. Gold, 747 A.2d 936, 941 (Pa. Super.2000) (trial court did not abuse discretion in issuing a
preliminary injunction for misappropriation of trade secrets where employee stole a directory
listing client names and contact information). Thus, in addition to Ally's confidential and
attorney-client privileged internal e-mails and correspondence, Ally's customer information and
customer lists constitute a common law trade secret and may be protected by GLBA.
Such information is obviously of high value to Ally as it serves as the basis for
developing, maintaining and servicing its clientele. As Ally compiled its customer information
itself through its employees, it has a right to use and enjoy that confidential information.
Further, this information was disclosed to Defendant in the course of her employment with Ally
enabling her to perform her job properly and effectively. Defendant improperly gained access to
and obtained customer information during her employment to which she was not entitled,
exceeding her authorization level for such information. Defendant was advised both orally and
in writing that such confidential business information, including customer identities account
numbers and addresses, were considered highly confidential information by Ally and that such
information could not be used or disclosed by Defendant except in her capacity as an Ally
employee.
B. Absent An Injunction, Plaintiff is Threatened With Immediate And Irreparable Injury And Will Have No Adequate Remedy At Law
Defendant's egregious conduct poses an immediate, continuing threat of irreparable harm
to Ally's business. Defendant has breached her duty of loyalty with Ally and is violating the
UTSA and common law by refusing to return Ally's proprietary and confidential business
10
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 11 of 14
information. Upon information and belief, Defendant is currently disseminating such
information with the sole intent to harm and irreparably injure Ally's earned goodwill and
business reputation. Such actions are aimed at damaging Ally's business prospects in the form
of present and future customers. Courts consistently find irreparable harm in situations where
customers are at stake. See, Sh&, John G. Bryant Co., Inc. v. Sling Testing and Repair, 369 A.2d
1164, 1167 (Pa. 1977) ("It is the possible consequences of this unwarranted interference with
customer relationships that is unascertainable and not capable of being fully compensated by
money damages."); Vector Security, Inc. v. Stewart, 88 F. Supp.2d 395 (E.D. Pa. 2000) ("The
harm suffered by [the company] as a result of the defendants' continued solicitation of [its]
accounts cannot be easily quantified in economic terms."); Phillip Morris, Inc. v. Pittsburgh
Penguins, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 912, 920 (W.D. Pa. 1983), affd, 738 F.2d 424 (3d Cir. 1984)
(removal of advertising from arena would cause loss of prospective customers for which
monetary damages are not calculable).
Defendant is utilizing Ally's proprietary and confidential information and trade secrets to
conduct a crusade to intentionally harm Ally's business reputation and goodwill. The misuse of
confidential business information and trade secrets is a compelling reason to issue injunctive
relief. See John G. Bryant, 369 A.2d at 1167-68 (noting that covenants not to compete are
enforced to protect an employer's relationships with its customers, confidential information, or
trade secrets). Thus, the loss of present and future relationships with customers and the damages
caused by the misuse of confidential business information is incalculable and cannot be fully
compensated for by the payment of money damages.
If Defendant is permitted to continue to misuse or disclose Plaintiff s confidential
information, Ally will not only be deprived of present customers, but also of potential future
11
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 12 of 14
customers, development of additional business from those customers, loss of potential referrals
from those customers, and loss of goodwill with its existing customers. In short, the harm that
flows from a destruction of customer relationships cannot be liquidated to a sum certain. As
stated above, the intentional attempted destruction of business reputation and customer
relationships coupled with the improper disclosure of confidential and proprietary information
cannot be measured by monetary damages.
C. Plaintiff Will Suffer Greater Hardship Than Defendant If Injunctive Relief Is Denied
Arguably, once a movant has sufficiently demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the
merits of its suit, it need not show that the balance of the hardships tips in its favor. Seide v.
Crest Color, Inc., 835 F. Supp. 732, 738 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). Nevertheless, the equities in this case
weigh heavily in favor of Ally's requested injunction. Defendant will suffer no harm whatsoever
from the injunction Ally seeks because it will impose nothing more than to require Defendant to
return to Ally its proprietary and confidential information to which she was not authorized to
obtain and convert for her own use in the first place. On the other hand, the damage which
Defendant will continue to inflict upon Ally in the absence of injunctive relief is immediate,
substantial, and irreparable. Ally will lose years of goodwill and customer relationships all
developed at great time and expense. Plaintiff may also lose the competitive advantage they held
through development of its confidential information and trade secrets. Ally's position in the
marketplace is and will continue to be seriously threatened by Defendant's violation of Ally's
Code of Conduct and Ethics to which she agreed, the UTSA and common law. Since Defendant
will not adhere to Ally's Code of Conduct, her own professional obligations, or the law
voluntarily, the Court must enjoin her to ensure compliance and avoid damage to Ally from
Defendant's unauthorized use of Ally's confidential business information and trade secrets.
12
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 13 of 14
Overall, the facts of the present case justify the issuance of injunctive relief. As a
practical matter, the relief that Ally seeks wiII do no more than preserve the status quo pending
the Court's determination. As has been stated elsewhere, "justice is not served if the subject
matter of the litigation is destroyed or substantially impaired during the pendency of the suit."
Haines v. Burlington County Bridge Comm., 1 N.J. Super. 163, 174 (App. Div. 1949).
D. The Public Interest Favors, If At All, The Issuance Of An Injunction Here
As Judge Caldwell explained in Merrill Lynch v. Rodger, the public interest factor is not
implicated on the facts presented in this case under prevailing Third Circuit law. Merrill Lynch
v. Rodger, 75 F. Supp. 2d 375, 383 (M.D. Pa. 1999). As stated above, ordering Defendant to
comply with Ally's Code of Conduct and Ethics and to return proprietary and confidential
information obtained improperly and surreptitiously, does not inhibit the public's ability to
choose a financial services company, and members of the public are free to choose Ally, or any
other financial services or mortgage company.
To the extent the public interest is impacted, the public has a greater interest against
allowing Defendant to breach the confidence of her agreed upon Code of Ethics with Ally and
rewarding Defendant for her intentional deception of Ally by entering into employment with the
company under false pretenses.
13
Case 2:11-cv-04694-HB Document 3-1 Filed 07/26/11 Page 14 of 14
E. CONCLUSION
Under the facts presented here, the four elements are satisfied and injunctive relief should
be granted. For the foregoing reasons, Ally respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order.
BY:
Dated: July 26,2011
4822-8277-5050, v. 1
14
~--~-=~----~-b~--------Rick Grimaldi (P A 495 6) Lori Halber (PA 80762) Alexander N emiroff (P A 92250) JACKSON LEWIS, LLP Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 13 50 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102-1317 (267) 319-7802
Attorneys for Plaintiff