versa products v. stitch industries - cfaa trade secrets

5/25/2018 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] N. KNOX (SBN 192966)E-Mail: [email protected] POLSTER & BERGER LLP1840 Century Park East, 17th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067Telephone: 310-277-8300Facsimile: 310-552-3209

Attorneys for Versa Products, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

VERSA PRODUCTS, INC., aCalifornia corporation

Plaintiff,

vs.

STITCH INDUSTRIES, INC., aDelaware corporation doing business asJOYBIRD FURNITURE;CHRISTOPHER STORMER, an

individual; JOSHUA STELLIN, anindividual; ALEJANDO ANDRESDEL TORO, an individual, aka ALEXDEL TORO; ANDRESHINOSTROZA, an individual;ROBERT MCGUIRE, an individualdoing business as MCGUIRE DESIGN,and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-cv-03855

COMPLAINT FOR:

1. Violation of the Computer Frauand Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 103et seq.);

2. Violation of the ElectronCommunications Privacy Act (1U.S.C. 2510, et seq.);

3. Misappropriation of Trade

Secrets;4. Interference with ProspectivEconomic Advantage;

5. Unfair Business Practices (CaBus & Prof. 17200);

6. Aiding and Abetting UnfaBusiness Practices (Cal. Bus Prof. 17200);

7. Conversion;8. Breach of Contract (Stormer);9. Breach of Fiduciary Du

(Stormer);10. Breach of Contract (Stellin);

11. Breach of Fiduciary Duty(Stellin);12. Breach of Contract (Del Toro);13. Breach of Duty of Loyalty (D

Toro);14. Breach of Contract (Hinostroza15. Breach of Duty of Loyal

(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 ofFiduciary Duty;

17. Trademark Infringement; and18. Unjust Enrichment

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Versa Products, Inc. (Versa or Plaintiff) hereby alleges

follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under, inter alia, the Computer Fraud and Abuse A

(CFAA), Title 10 U.S.C. 1030, et seq.; the Electronic Communication Priva

Act (ECPA), Title 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq.; and the Lanham Act, Title 15 U.S

1051, et seq.

2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 13

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 Califorcorporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Californ

and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Plain

manufactures and sells furniture throughout the United States under various tra

names and trademarks, including, among other things, Thrive Home Furnishin

(Thrive). Under the Thrive trademark, Plaintiff manufactures and sells Americ

made, mid-century modern style furniture, primarily via its webs

www.thrivefurniture.com (the Thrive Website).

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges t

Defendant Stitch Industries, Inc. (Stitch) is, and at all times herein relevant was

corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delawa

doing business as Joybird Furniture in the County of Los Angeles, State



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-l

retailer of mid-century modern furniture, which was launched on or about Janua

2014. The Internet domain joybird.com was operated by a Korean pet sto

(Parakeet World)until 2009, and then was dormant until approximately Octob

2012 when it was acquired by the Individual Defendants (ownership of which w

subsequently transferred in February of 2014 to Stitch).

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges th

Defendant Christopher Stormer (Stormer) is an individual who is, and at all tim

mentioned herein was, a resident of, and doing business in, the County of L

Angeles, State of California. From approximately May, 2001 to December

2013, Stormer was an employee of Plaintiff, was its Chief Operating Officer, a

was an integral part of its management team.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges t

Defendant Joshua Stellin (Stellin) is an individual who is, and at all tim

mentioned herein was, a resident of, and doing business in, the County of L

Angeles, State of California. From March 18, 2011 to approximately Octob

2013, Stellin was an employee of Plaintiff, its Vice President of Marketing, and w

an integral part of its management team.


Defendant Alejandro Andres Alex Del Toro(Del Toro) is an individual who

and at all time mentioned herein was, a resident of, and doing business in, t

County of Los Angeles, State of California. From approximately July, 2011

November, 2013, Del Toro was an employee of Plaintiff in charge of Onl

Marketing, reporting to Stellin.


Defendant Andres Hinostroza (Hinostroza) is an individual who is, and at

time mentioned herein was, a resident of, and doing business in, the County of L

Angeles, State of California. From approximately July 30, 2012 to Novemb



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-clic

marketing system, reporting to Del Toro.

10. Hereinafter Stormer, Stellin, Del Toro, and Hinostroza shall be referr

to as the Individual Defendants).


Defendant Robert McGuire, dba McGuire Design (McGuire) is, and at all tim

herein relevant was an individual who is, and at all time mentioned herein was

resident of San Antonio, Texas, but doing business in the County of Los Angel

State of California. McGuire is a graphic designer who, among other thin

helped create the Thrive Website as well as the other websites maintained

Plaintiff.

12. The true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES

through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues sa

defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend t

Complaint when the true names and capacities of said defendants have be

ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of t

fictitiously named defendants is in some manner responsible or liable for the a

and damages alleged herein. Hereinafter, Stitch, the Individual Defendants, and

DOE Defendants will be collectively referred to as the JoybirdDefendants.

ALTER EGO ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiff is informed believes, and on that basis alleges, that there exi

a unity of interest and ownership between Stitch, on the one hand, and the Individ

Defendants, on the other hand, such that there was no individuality and separaten

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

times herein mentioned Stitch was merely a shell and sham through which t

Individual Defendants carried on their business in a company name, and that Stit



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 avo

individual obligations and liabilities, both monetary and non-monetary.

15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at

times herein mentioned the Individual Defendants treated and used the assets

Stitch as their own personal property, dominated, controlled and operated Stitch

suit their personal convenience and for the purpose of evading duties a

obligations, both monetary and non-monetary, owed by the Individual Defendants

others.

16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, th

adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Stitch as an entity distinct fro

the Individual Defendants would sanction fraud and promote injustice, in that t

Individual Defendants have used Stitch as a proxy to engage in the conduct alleg

herein on their behalf and for their personal enrichment, with the intention and

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 agreem

with Plaintiff (collectively the Employment Agreement), the terms of which

reflected in the exemplar employment agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Ea

Employment Agreement was substantially identical, and provided, among oth

things, that:

A. the Individual Defendants shall refrain from engaging in a

business activities, pursued for gain, profit or other pecunia

advantage that are directly competitive with the activities

Employer. (Employment Agreement, 2)

B. all trade secrets disclosed to the Individual Defendants,

developed by them in the course of their work for Plaint



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 a

private or personal record of Employers Trade Secrets or oth

confidential or proprietary information, or otherwise take steps

preserve or record Employers Trade Secrets or other confident

and proprietary information for use outside the services bei

rendered to Employer. (Id., 5(D)

D. the Individual Defendants were to not use Employers Tra

Secrets or any other confidential and proprietary informati

belonging to Employer for any purpose other than wo

performed by Employee for Employer. (Id., 5(E)

E. the Individual Defendants were not to directly or indirec

solicit, during the term of their employment and for one ye

thereafter, any of Plaintiffs customers, prospective customers,

employees. (Id., 6 and 7)

F. any and all intellectual property developed by Stormer, Stell

Del Toro, and/or Hinostroza during the period of employme

was owned by Plaintiff. (Id., 8)

18. Further, the Individual Defendants each signed identical Confidential

Agreements, a true and correct copy of an exemplar is attached hereto as Exhibit

Among other things, the Confidentiality Agreements prohibited each of t

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,

officers of Plaintiff, owed fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff. All of the Individ

Defendants, however, owed a duty of loyalty to the Plaintiff.

II. While Employed by Plaintiff, The Individual Defendants Use Plaintif

Resources To Build Joybird

20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that

Individual Defendants, and each of them, beginning in 2012, while employed

Plaintiff in positions of trust and responsibility, conspired to use Plaintiffs corpor

resources, including financial, to develop a competing business, including

Joybird Website and products that would be offered for sale thereon.

21. Specifically, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based there

alleges, that while employed by Plaintiff, at some point in 2012 the Individu

Defendants decided to form a competing company, which they forma

incorporated as Stitch on or about December 31, 2013. However, prior to leav

Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants simply stole corporate resources to develop th

competing company.

22. By way of example, from mid 2012 through December, 2013,

Joybird Defendants, through defendant Del Toro, caused approximately $90,700

of Plaintiffs money to be paid to McGuire for the creation of the Joybird Websi

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all tim

McGuire was aware that Plaintiffs funds were being diverted for the purpose

helping the Individual Defendants surreptitiously create their competing website.

23. Further, in November, 2012, Del Toro, on behalf of the Individ

Defendants, purchased the Joybird logo from Arwan Sutanto, a graphic design

located in Indonesia, through the Brandcrowds.com website. Concurren

therewith, Del Toro, on behalf of the Individual Defendants, bought t



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 inform

and believes that the Individual Defendants used Plaintiffs funds to purchase t

logo and domain name.

24. Additionally, in or about August, 2013, while still working for Plaint

the Joybird Defendants, purporting to act on behalf of Plaintiff, hired Video Shark

a Canadian animation advertising company, to create the Joybird promotional vid

that was thereafter used extensively by the Joybird Defendants in the marketing

their company on the Internet (e.g., as paid advertisements on YouTube videos).

25. By spring 2013, months before leaving Plaintiff, the Joybird Webs

was already in advanced stages of development and being tested by the Individu

Defendants from their work computers. Further, by August, 2013, two mon

before the first Individual Defendant left Plaintiff, the Joybird Website was neari

completion.

III. Plaintiffs Design and Manufacturing Process

26. Plaintiff uses a project management system called Basecamp for

development of its products. Basecamp is a multi-platform application (i.e., it c

be accessed by a PC, Mac, iPhone, Android device, etc.) that allows employees

create projects. Each project is a unified location to discuss the project

opposed to over e-mail, where someone may inadvertently be excluded from

discussion thread), have group to-do lists, and share files (e.g., digital renderings

designs).

27. Basecamp provides its registered users with dedicated areas on

cloud server that are password protected in order to prevent unauthorized access

28. The Individual Defendants, and each of them, had access to

Basecamp system as part of their employment and would regularly use it to devel

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

would have its 3-D Computer-Aided-Design (CAD) rendering artist create a th

dimensional digital reproduction of a desk concept (CAD Design). Certain

Plaintiffs employees, including the Individual Defendants, would comment on

design and suggest revisions which would then be incorporated by the artist. F

example, to visualize how the desk would look with different pull handles, the art

could swap out the design of the handles. Through this discussion process, a desi

would go from conception through development and completion.

30. Once a CAD Design was completed, the file was used to create Inter

based advertising as well as the design specifications for the manufacturing of t

product itself.

31. With respect to advertising, the CAD Design would be used by

website developers to display images of furniture being offered for sale that cou

be manipulated by the customer. For example, a customer could, with a click of h

mouse change a rendering of Plaintiffs Cleveland Sofa from Lucky Turquoise

Omega Doeskin

32. As will be discussed below, CAD Designs created by Plaintiff

being used by the Joybird Defendants to advertise products. For example, Plaintif

Cleveland sofa is being advertised atwww.joybird.comas the Fitzgerald Sofa.

http://www.joybird.com/http://www.joybird.com/http://www.joybird.com/http://www.joybird.com/


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 cre

engineering designs for the framing and assembly of the furniture (t

Engineering Schematics), the relevant portions of which are then programm

(the Frame Design) into specialized computer numerical control (known

CNC) machines that cut wood for the frame to the precise measurements call

for in the Engineering Schematics.

34. Similarly, the CAD files are used to create detailed plans for how

fabric will be cut from larger uniform rolls of fabric to create the upholster

portions of the furniture. These fabric plans are programmed into a CNC fab

cutting machine (the Fabric Designs) which cuts the fabric into the various piec

necessary for the creation of the upholstered portions of the furniture.

35. After a CAD Design is finalized, it takes approximately 250 wo

hours to create Engineering Schematics, a Frame Design, and a Fabric Design

each individual furniture design.

36. The Fabric Designs are extremely important to a furniture maker

they take into account both the design of the furniture (e.g., the size of the piec

that need to be cut to form the padded area) and, as the pieces are of vario

irregular shapes, how to maximize the amount of pieces that can be cut out of t

ordered fabric. Minimizing the waste portion of the fabric is critical to the financ

success of any furniture maker.

37. Basecamp is a secure platform, such that the product designs are n

generally known to the public or Plaintiffs competitors. By maintaining

confidentiality of designs until such time as the final products are released to t

general public, Plaintiff maintains a competitive advantage.

38. Additionally, Plaintiffs Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs a

Fabric Designs are kept confidential and not generally known to the public.

maintaining the confidentiality of the Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs a

Fabric Designs, Plaintiff maintains a competitive advantage because a competi



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 Plaintif

Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs, as well as tens

thousands of dollars attempting to reverse engineer Plaintiffs products. Further

is not readily possible to reverse engineer the Fabric Designs to duplicate the c

savings realized by way of Plaintiffs confidential Fabric Designs.

39. Additionally, the CAD Designs retain value, even after the designs

released to the public by way of advertising the furniture for sale. If a competi

wanted to offer the identical piece of furniture, it would have to expend time a

money attempting to reproduce the CAD Designs.

40. The final version of the CAD Designs, whether the products w

offered for sale or not, as well as the Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs a

Fabric Designs, were stored on Plaintiffs Basecamp accountand/or its local serve

Hard copies of Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs and Fabric Designs (t

Hardcopies) were also maintained by Plaintiff.

IV. Theft of Plaintiffs Unreleased Designs, Engineering Schematics, Fram

Design, and Fabric Designs.

41. Despite reasonable attempts by Plaintiff to maintain the secrecy of

unreleased designs, the Joybird Website currently offers for sale products whi

were developed on the Basecamp project management platform that had not y

been offered for sale by Thrive (the Unreleased Products). A comparison of

product images on the Joybird Website with the product images on Basecam

evidence that, without authority, the Individual Defendants accessed Plaintif

local computer servers (which are connected to the Internet), Plaintiffs secu

Basecamp account, and/or Plaintiffs secure leased server space (collectiv

Plaintiffs Computer Systems) and unlawfully made copies of the CAD Desig

for the Unreleased Products.

42. Additionally, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based there



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 Plaintif

Computer Systems to unlawfully make copies of completed digital renderin

Fabric Designs, and Engineering Schematics of products already offered for sale

Plaintiffs website (the Released Products). Although images of the Releas

Products were publicly available, the CAD Designs, Engineering Schematics, Fra

Designs, and Fabric Designs, remain secured.

43. Additionally, in December, 2013, concurrently with the Individ

Defendants leaving Plaintiffs employ, Plaintiffs fabric CNC machine ceas

operations. In the course of getting it repaired, Plaintiff discovered that Plaintif

database of Fabric Designs had been removed from the system. Plaintiff is inform

and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Joybird Defendants stole a

duplicated the Fabric Designs and have been utilizing them in the manufacture

furniture that is identical to Plaintiffs designs.

44. Plaintiff has also discovered that approximately 80% of the hardcop

it maintains of its Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs ha

been stolen.

45. Further, prior to leaving their employment at Plaintiff, the Joyb

Defendants changed the passwords to several of Plaintiffs vital systems and th

failed and refused to disclose those passwords to Plaintiff such that, after t

Individual Defendants left Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was prevented from accessing (a

in some case is still prevented from accessing) parts of Plaintiffs Compu

Systems.

46. Including the Unreleased Products, Released Products, and produ

that are not offered by Thrive (the Joybird Only Products), there

approximately twenty (20) different types of sofas (not including love seats a

sectionals), forty-seven (47) different chair types, twenty-eight (28) tables and de

types, nineteen (19) credenza or storage units, five (5) beds, and one hundred fif

five (155) accessories. Even excluding the accessories, and figuring



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 ha

had to spend approximately twenty three thousand eight hundred (23,800) ma

hours to independently create the Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, a

Fabric Designs. This is, of course, not including time spent to: (1) conceive a

create the CAD Designs; (2) develop the accessories; and (3) set up t

manufacturing facility for Joybird. As there were only approximately two thousa

(2,000) total hours between the time the first Individual Defendant (i.e., Stellin) l

Plaintiff until the Joybird Website was launched, there simply is no way that t

Joybird Defendants could have independently conceived of and created the CA

Files, Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs necessary for t

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

no charge, a swatch of every fabric (Fabric Packets) that can be used in t

manufacture of its furniture. This request form includes the customers nam

address, phone number, and e-mail address, and includes an opt-in for informat

about sales and specials. This information is used to create a master database

potential customers (the Fabric Database). This information of prospect

customers is maintained strictly confidential, and is never sold or given to any th

parties.

48. Based on an analysis of the Fabric Database and purchasing data, it

estimated that each customer request is worth approximately $350. Furth

approximately 64% of individuals who request a Fabric Packet end up purchasin

product from Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs average order is $1,638.

49. Prior to the Individual Defendants leaving Plaintiff, Plaintiff wou

average approximately 80 Fabric Packet requests per week. Shortly after

Individual Defendants left, however, although the traffic to P laintiffs webs



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 wee

50. Plaintiff began investigating, and found Fabric Packet requests litera

disappearing before its eyes. For example, on March 26, 2014 at 12:43 P.M.,

Fabric Database showed four unprocessed requests. Testing its theory, Plaintiff

not change the requests from unprocessed to processed in its system, and less th

an hour later, at 1:30 p.m., two of the leads were deleted remotely. Less than o

hour later, at 2:17 p.m., another lead was deleted. By the next morning,

remaining lead was deleted from the system.


Individual Defendants, and each of them, have, either directly or throu

instructions to third parties acting on their behalf, accessed and unlawfully ma

copies of all or portions of the Fabric Database. Further, in an attempt to profit fro

the Fabric Database and/or hide their activities, the Joybird Defendants dele

customer information from the Fabric Database.

52. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleg

that the Individual Defendants, and each of them, have, either directly or throu

instructions to third parties acting on their behalf, accessed and duplicated Plaintif

customer list which contains the names, contact information, and order details for

of Plaintiffs customers.

53. Despite Plaintiffs efforts to block the Joybird Defendants continu

access to its system, the Joybird Defendants continue to access Plaintiffs Compu

system to steal and delete customer information. Based on the average order

$1,638 and 64% sell-through rate, Plaintiff estimates that from January 1, 20

through May 1, 2014, Plaintiff has lost at least approximately $83,865.60 in sa

per weeki.e., in excess of $1.5 million dollars.

54. Although Plaintiff has moved its Fabric Database system to a n

server in the hopes that the Joybird Defendantsefforts would be thwarted, Plaint

is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Joybird Defenda



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 thin

Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Joyb

Defendants further installed on Plaintiffs Computer Systems a backdoor monitori

system (the Backdoor) by which orders placed via Plaintiffs Website w

intentionally intercepted, duplicated, and sent to the Joybird Defendants.

55. Further, despite express contractual provisions whereby the Individ

Defendants agreed not to solicit Plaintiffs employees for a period of one (1) ye

the Joybird Defendants have repeatedly contacted Plaintiffs employees to soli

them to come to work for the Joybird Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff is inform

and believes, and based thereon alleges, that several of Plaintiffs employees hav

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 Custom

Information, Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleg

that, prior to leaving Plaintiff, the Joybird Defendants, and each of them, ha

either directly or through instructions to third parties acting on their behalf, stol

pre-packaged Fabric Packets that were then used by Stitch in fulfilling requests

Fabric Packets received via the Joybird Website.

57. Further, a review of purchasing records confirms that during t

relevant time period, the Joybird Defendants, and in particular Stormer, would ord

fabric far in excess of what was necessary or required to complete orders. Plain

is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the Joybird Defenda

stole the excess fabric (the Excess Fabric) for use in manufacturing their ow

products sold through the Joybird website

58. In addition to changing passwords to Plaintiffs computer systems,

alleged above in Paragraph 45, shortly before their employment terminate

Stormer, Stellin, Del Toro and Hinostroza each took affirmative steps to both hi



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 t

company owned computers that they were issued;

B. attempting to delete the files contained on the hard drives

company owned computers that they were issued; and/or

C. absconding with, and refusing to return company own

computers that they were issued (the Stolen Computers).

59. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, th

physical files belonging to the Plaintiffs were also removed and/or destroyed by t

Joybird Defendants, and each of them.

60. Further, the Joybird Defendants simply embezzled funds whi

Plaintiff is informed and believes, were put towards the development of th

competing business. Two of the schemes discovered so far by which the Joyb

Defendants embezzled funds are:

A. The Individual Defendants would create false orders

Plaintiffs system, wherein an order would be placed and th

would manually show that the product had been paid for by t

customer (although no such payment had actually be

received). Then, the Individual Defendants would credit back

their own credit cards (or credit cards of unknown c

conspirators) the cost of the Order.

B. The Individual Defendants created a mirror website

whereby instead of redirecting a customer who misspelled t

Plaintiffs domain name to Plaintiffs actual website, a duplic

website at the misspelled domain would allow customers

purchase products from Plaintiff. The Individual Defendan

however, changed the payment system on this mirrored webs

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 t

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60, above.


Joybird Defendants, and each of them:

A. knowingly, and with intent, and without authorization (

alternatively, exceeding their authorization) accessed, and thereby obtain

information from Plaintiffs Computer Systems (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C));

B. knowingly, and with intent to defraud, and without authorizat

(or, alternatively, exceeding their authorization) accessed, and thereby obtain

information and data of value in excess of $5,000.00 in any 1-year period fro

Plaintiffs Computer Systems (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(4)); and/or

C. knowingly, and with intent, and without authorization access

and thereby caused damage resulting in an aggregate loss in excess of $5,000.00

value to Plaintiffs Computer Systems (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(A)(iii)).

63. Plaintiffs Computer Systems are used in interstate commerce an

therefore, are protected computers (18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(2)).

64. In accessing Plaintiffs Computer Systems, the Joybird Defendants, a

each of them, copied, accessed, used, loaded, executed, distributed, and otherw

exploited Plaintiffs trade secrets.

65. In addition to the above-alleged conduct, the Joybird Defendants, a

each of them, denied Plaintiff access to various components of Plaintiffs Compu

Systems, and have thereby further misappropriated Plaintiffs trade secrets and oth

confidential information, obtained information of value, impaired the integrity of t

information stored on Plaintiffs Computer Systems, and caused damage.

66. The value of the use of the Plaintiffs trade secrets far exceeds



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 Defendan

unauthorized access impaired the integrity of the information and data stored

Plaintiffs Computer Systems.

68. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Joybird Defendan

and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered a loss resulting, inter alia, from the cost

responding to the Joybird Defendants actions, conducting a damage assessme

lost revenue, and other consequential damages and reasonable costs.

69. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Joybird Defendan

and each of them, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount subject to proof at tri

but estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

70. Plaintiff is further entitled to, and by this Complaint seeks,

injunction against the Joybird Defendants, and each of them, prohibiting th

unauthorized access to Plaintiffs Computer Systems and their use of any or all

Plaintiffs trade secrets or data stored thereon.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2510,

seq.), against the Joybird Defendants)

71. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each of


72. As noted above, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based there

alleges, that the Joybird Defendants further installed on Plaintiffs Compu

Systems the Backdoor, by which orders placed via Plaintiffs Website w

intentionally intercepted, duplicated, and sent to the Joybird Defendants.

73. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2520, Plaintiff seeks an Order of this Co

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 eve

communication duplicated and sent to the Joybird Defendants by way of t

Backdoor;

C. Provide a list of every person, whether or not they work for

Joybird Defendants or any of their respective agents, consultants, contracto

subsidiaries, or attorneys, that has had access to or been in possession

communications acquired by way of the Backdoor; and

D. Provide hard copies of all correspondence that was captured

the Backdoor.

74. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2520, Plaintiff also seeks recovery of

greater of:

A. the sum of the actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff and a

profits made by the Joybird Defendants as a result of the violations alleged here

or

B. statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $ 100 a day

each day of violation or $ 10,000.

75.. As the conduct alleged herein was intentional, and in wanton disrega

of the rights of Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks recovery of punitive damages.

76. Further, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2520, Plaintiff seeks recovery of

reasonable attorneys fees and other litigation costs incurred in connection with th

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 custom

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

that they are not generally known or readily available to Plaintiffs competitors a

provide a competitive advantage to Plaintiff by virtue of their secret nature.

80. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that sin

the commencement of their common scheme in late 2011 or early 2012, the Joyb

Defendants, and each of them, have copied, accessed, used, loaded, execute

distributed, and otherwise exploited the Trade Secrets.

81. The Joybird Defendants, and each of them, acquired the Trade Secr

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 contract

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 rig

to access the same (Cal. Civ. 3426.1(b)(B)(iii)).

82. The Joybird Defendants actual and threatened misappropriation of

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 a

threatened misappropriation of Plaintiffs Trade Secrets, Plaintiff has been damag

in an amount subject to proof at trial, but in any event, estimated at no less than t

million dollars ($2,000,000.00).

84. Further, pursuant to Cal. Civ. 3426.3, Plaintiff is entitled to recov



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

Plaintiffs Trade Secrets that is not otherwise taken into account in computi

damages for actual loss, subject to proof at trial. To the extent that said sums are n

readily ascertainable, Plaintiff reserves its right to seek recovery of a reasonab

royalty.

85. Before and during the misappropriation, actual and threatened,

Joybird Defendants, and each of them, were aware of Plaintiffs rights in and to t

Trade Secrets, and in total disregard of such knowledge, willfully, intentionally, a

maliciously used such information, and continue to use such information, to furth

their own pecuniary gain and in an effort to damage Plaintiff and its busin

operations. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys fees a

exemplary damages for such acts and omissions, threatened and consummated,

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 tho

individuals identified on its Fabric Database, with the probability of future econom

benefit to the Plaintiff.

88. The Joybird Defendants knew about those relationships.

89. The Joybird Defendants committed intentional wrongful acts design

to disrupt those relationships, as alleged above, which have, in fact, disrupt

Plaintiffs relationships.

90. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of interference by t

Joybird Defendants, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount that is curren



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 o

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 unf

competition, which means and includes any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent busin

act or practice[.]

93. The acts described in paragraphs 1 through 56, above, constitute acts

unfair competition.

94. As a direct and proximate result of the unfair competition alleg

above, Plaintiff has suffered direct monetary losses sufficient to establish standi

as required by Cal. Bus. & Prof. 17205. Such monetary losses include, but are n

limited to lost revenue from the diversion of sales, loss of value in Plaintiffs tra

secrets (to the extent their disclosure is not enjoined), and monies misappropriat

by the Joybird Defendants.

95. As a result of the Joybird Defendantsviolations of the UCL, Stitch

obligated to provide restitution to Plaintiff in an amount subject to proof at tri

Plaintiff estimates such restitution in an amount no less than $2 million dolla

Plaintiff also is entitled to an injunction enjoining and restraining the Joyb

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 a

were aware of the Stitchs unlawful, unfair or deceptive business practices by virt

of their ownership and/or management of Stitch.

98. The Individual Defendants, McGuire, and DOE Defendants aided a

abetted these violations by Stitch in that the Individual Defendants directed and

personally engaged in the acts and conducted alleged above.

99. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the Individ

Defendants, McGuires, and DOE Defendants aiding and abetting of Stitch

unfair business practices, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount that is curren

unknown, but which shall be proven at trial, and is estimated at no less than tw

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 own

and was, and remains, entitled to the possession of the Trade Secrets, the CAD fi

for released products, the misappropriated monies, Stolen Computers, Excess Fab

and the Fabric Packets (collectively Plaintiffs Property).

102. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, t

beginning on or about January 1, 2012, the Joybird Defendants, and each of the

took Plaintiffs Property and converted the same to their own use. 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 24

Plaintiffs authorization, the Joybird Defendants have used Plaintiffs Property

the benefit of their own business interests.

103. As a direct and proximate result of the Joybird Defendants convers

of Plaintiffs Property, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages and the Joyb

Defendants have been unjustly enriched in an amount subject to proof at tri

Alternatively, because Plaintiffs actual damages and/or the Joybird Defendan

unjust enrichment may not be subject to reasonable proof, Plaintiff is entitled to

royalty equal to a reasonable percentage of the revenue received by the Joyb

Defendants from their conversion of Plaintiffs Property.


Joybird Defendants conduct was willful and malicious in that the Joyb

Defendants converted Plaintiffs Property with the deliberate intent to inju

Plaintiffs business and improve their own, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punit

damages.

105. The Joybird Defendants conversion of Plaintiffs Property, unless a

until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, has caused and will continue

cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff as described above. Plaintiff has

adequate remedy at law for this injury, as Plaintiff is informed and believes, a

based thereon alleges, that the Joybird Defendants will continue to use Plaintif

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 a

promises required to be performed by it in accordance with the terms and conditio

of the Employment Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement between it 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 25

Stormer, except those which it has been prevented from performing by Defend

Stormer.

108. Defendant Stormer has breached the Employment Agreement a

Confidentiality Agreement between himself and Plaintiff by way of the acts alleg

above.

109. Accordingly, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants breach

of contract, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, b

estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

110. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement a

Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiff is further entitled to specific performan

whereby all intellectual property created while in Plaintiffs employ e.g.,

Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joybird Website, and any and

Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs are turned over

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 fiducia

duties to Plaintiff, as well as a general duty of loyalty to Plaintiff.

113. Stormer breached said fiduciary duties and duty of loyalty

undertaking the acts alleged above.

114. As a direct and proximate result of Stormers breach of fiduciary du

and duty of loyalty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof, b

in any event, in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court and estimated

no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

115. In committing the acts set forth herein, Stormer acted willfully and w



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 mali

oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, thereby warranti

assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish him and to de

others from engaging in similar conduct.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract, against Stellin)





of the Employment Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement between it a

Stellin, except those which it has been prevented from performing by Defenda

Stellin.

118. Defendant Stellin has breached the Employment Agreement a


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 Plaintif

management team, Stellin assumed fiduciary duties to Plaintiff, as well as a gene

duty of loyalty to Plaintiff.

123. Stellin breached said fiduciary duties and duty of loyalty

undertaking the acts alleged above.

124. As a direct and proximate result of Stellins breach of fiduciary du

and duty of loyalty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof, b

in any event, in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court and estimated

no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

125. In committing the acts set forth herein, Stellin acted willfully and w

the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff. Stellin, therefore, is guilty of mali

oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, thereby warranti

assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish him and to de

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 D

Toro, except those which it has been prevented from performing by Defendant D

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 a


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 gene


133. Del Toro breached said duty of loyalty by undertaking the acts alleg

above.

134. As a direct and proximate result of Del Toros breach of the duty

loyalty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof, but in a

event, in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court and estimated at

less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

135. In committing the acts set forth herein, Del Toro acted willfully a

with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff. Del Toro, therefore, is guilty

malice, oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, there



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 h

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 D

Toro, except those which it has been prevented from performing by Defendant D

Toro.

138. Defendant Del Toro has breached the Employment Agreement a


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 gene


143. Hinostroza breached said duty of loyalty by undertaking the a

alleged above.

144. As a direct and proximate result of Hinostrozas breach of the duty

loyalty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof, but in a

event, in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court and estimated at

less than two million dollars ($2,000,000).

145. In committing the acts set forth herein, Hinostroza acted willfully a

with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff. Hinostroza, therefore, is guilty

malice, oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, there

warranting assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish h

and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary DutyAgainst Stitch, Del Toro,

Hinostroza, McGuire and the DOE Defendants)



147. Defendants Stormer and Stellin assumed fiduciary duties to Plaint

which they breached by undertaking the acts alleged above.

148. The remaining defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted,

otherwise conspired with Stellin and Stormer in their respective breaches

fiduciary duties for their own independent direct financial benefit.

149. As a direct and proximate result of Stormer and Stellins breaches

fiduciary duty, as aided and abetted by the remaining defendants, Plaintiffs ha

been damaged in an amount according to proof, and estimated at no less than t



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 willfu

and with the intention to cause injury to Plaintiff. The defendants are theref

guilty of malice, oppression and fraud, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs righ

thereby warranting assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate

punish them and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Trademark Infringement (Violation of the Lanham Act), against the Joybir

Defendants and McGuire)



152. By virtue of the Individual Defendants respective contract

agreements, as well as the use of Plaintiffs money to develop the name Joybir

and associated logo, Plaintiff is the owner of the trademark in the standard charac

mark Joybird and the associated Joybird logo (collectively the Trademarks).

153. The Joybird Defendants and McGuire, and each of them, ha

infringed the Trademarks in interstate commerce by various acts, including sellin

offering for sale and advertising goods for sale using the Trademarks. Said use

said names and marks by the Joybird Defendants and McGuire was and is witho

permission or authority of Plaintiff and said use by the Joybird Defendants a

McGuire is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake and to deceive.


Joybird Defendants and McGuires acts of trademark infringement and unf

competition have been willful and committed with the intent to cause confusio

mistake and to deceive. Defendantsacts as alleged herein were committed with

intent to pass off and palm off goods under the Trademarks as the goods of Plaint

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 alleg

herein, Plaintiff has and will suffer damage to its business, reputation and good w

and the loss of sales and profits Plaintiff would have made but for the acts

McGuire and the Joybird Defendants.

156. The Joybird Defendants and McGuire threaten to continue to do

acts complained of herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to

so, all to Plaintiffs irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain t

amount of compensation which could afford Plaintiff adequate relief for su

continuing acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be requir

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 a

McGuire were and continue to be unjustly enriched in that, among other things, th

received a substantial benefit and profit from use of Plaintiffs property e

Plaintiffs money that was used to purchase: (a) the joybird.com domain name;

the Joybird logo; (c) the website currently located at www.joybird.com;

Plaintiffs Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fabric Designs; (d) fab

used for the creation of product that the Joybird Defendants subsequently so

(collectively Plaintiffs Property).

159. The Joybird Defendants are required to make restitution and p

damages to Plaintiff for the amounts of unjust enrichment received by the Joyb

Defendants as a consequence of their wrongful conduct and acts and activities

alleged herein, according to proof, plus interest thereon, at the legal rate of 10% p

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

Plaintiff with regard to Plaintiffs Property and the proceeds earned from t

exploitation thereof. The Joybird Defendants are required to transfer Plaintif

Property, as well as the proceeds from the exploitation of the same, to Plaintiff

make restitution for the unjust enrichment received by them as a consequence

their wrongful and tortious acts and activities as alleged herein, according to proof

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief against defendants, and each of the

as follows:

As to the First Claim For Relief

1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, b

estimated at no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000);

2. An Injunction prohibiting the Joybird Defendants, and each of the

from continuing to utilize Plaintiffsintellectual property, confidential informatio

and trade secrets, including but not limited to by operating the website located

www.joybird.com;

3. For Plaintiffs costs of suit actually incurred, including its reasonab

attorneys feesto 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 access

Plaintiffs system remotely) and disclose all passwords that they set for Plainti

systems;

b. Destroy all written and electronic copies of each and eve

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

Joybird Defendants or any of its agents, consultants, contractors, subsidiaries,

attorneys, who has had access to or been in possession of Plaintif

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 a

profits made by the Joybird Defendants as a result of

violations alleged herein; or

b. statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $ 100 a day

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

trial;

3. Disgorgement to Plaintiff of all sums by which the Joybird Defenda

were unjustly enriched that are not otherwise taken into account in computi

damages for actual loss, subject to proof at trial. To the extent that said sums are n

readily ascertainable, Plaintiff reserves its right to seek recovery of a reasonab

royalty.

4. An Injunction prohibiting the further misappropriation and/or use of

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 feesto 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 Joyb

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 fr

their continued wrongful acts, as alleged, and to return or destroy all copies

Plaintiffs Confidential Information and Trade Secrets in their possession, custod

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 th

continued wrongful acts, as alleged, and to return or destroy all copies of Plaintif

Confidential Information and Trade Secrets in their possession, custody, or contr

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 t

revenue received by the defendants from their use of Plaintiffs Confident

Information and Trade Secrets;


trial;

4. For an injunction requiring the return and/or destruction of

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

defendants breaches of contract;

4. Specific performance, whereby all intellectual property created while

Plaintiffs employ e.g., the Joybird name, joybird.com domain name, Joyb

Website, and any and all Engineering Schematics, Frame Designs, and Fab

Designsare 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









Designs are turned over to Plaintiff; and


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




3. For imposition of a constructive trust on the proceeds earned from t







/ / /

/ / /



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 restrain

the Joybird Defendants and McGuire, and their respective agents, servants a

employees from directly or indirectly using the Trademarks or any other ma

word, or name similar to Plaintiff's marks which is likely to cause confusio

mistake or to deceive;

2. For an order under 15 U.S.C.A. 1118, order that all labels, signs, prin

packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements in the possession of defenda

bearing the Trademarks and all plates, molds, matrices and other means of maki

the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;

3. For all of McGuire and the Joybird Defendants profits derived fr

their infringement of the Trademarks;



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 40



5. For three times the amount of Plaintiffs actual damages caused

McGuire and the Joybird Defendants infringement;

6. That this is an exceptional case and that Plaintiff be awarded

reasonable attorney's fees;

7. For imposition of a constructive trust on the Trademarks, and t

proceeds derived from Defendants use of those trademarks.

As to the Eighteenth Claim For Relief

1. Compensatory damages in an amount subject to proof at trial;


trial;

3. For imposition of a constructive trust on Plaintiffs Property, and

proceeds derived from McGuire and the Joybird Defendants use of Plaintif

Property.



Dated: May 19, 2014 RESCH POLSTER & BERGER LLP

By: /S/

ANDREW V. JABLON

Attorneys for Versa Products, Inc.


versa products v. stitch industries - cfaa trade secrets

Documents