Bad Cop Companies has found another one!
These cops make you go humm how low will they go to steal? More interesting but not mentioned here is Time Theft to the Government - how can these cops be in two locations at once? What we tax payers are paying these guys too? Other research shows that one of these Cops - SGT Vinelli from Ft. Carson Police Department is the Training Officer for his Police Department and yet owns a company doing exactly the same thing? Isn't there Policy that states Federal Employees can not have Conflicts of Interests? Why are these Cops still working if they have stole money from these folks? Doesn't a cop working here have to have a Security Clearance? How can the cop keep a Security Clearance if they are stealing? Just questions
Get comfortable - its a good read!
MESA COUNTY DISTRICT COURTMESA COUNTY, COLORADO125 North Spruce StreetGrand Junction, CO 81501Telephone: (970) 257-3640%FOREMOST RESPONSE, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff: v. DRAKON DEFENSE, ALAN FOUST, MICHAEL NEIL, WILLIAM VINELLI, and VERONICA SOLANO, Defendants.
Case No.: 11 CV 4171Division: 9 Courtroom:
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPlaintiff Foremost Response, Inc. (Foremost), by its undersigned counsel, Michael J. GrattanIII, complains against Defendants as follows:
Parties, jurisdiction, venue and introduction
1. Plaintiff Foremost is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business located at 3070 I-70 Business Loop, #B-4, Grand Junction, Colorado 81504.
2. Defendant Drakon Defense (Drakon) is a Colorado limited liability company, with its principal place of business located 38 Eagle Crest Drive, Canon City, Colorado 81212.
3. Defendant William Vinelli is an individual who resides in Fremont County, who was a former employee of Foremost, and who is currently a member, officer and/or employee of Drakon.
4. Defendant Veronica Salano is an individual who resides in Fremont County, who was a former employee of Foremost, and who is currently a member, officer and/or employee of Drakon.
5. Defendant Alan Foust is an individual who resides in Mesa County, who previously contracted with Foremost to provide services, and who is currently a member, officer and/or employee of Drakon.
6. Defendant Michael Neil is an individual who resides in Mesa County, who was a former employee of Foremost, and who is currently a member, officer and/or employee of Drakon.
7. Defendants William Vinelli, Veronica Solano, Alan Foust, and Michael Neil are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the Individual Defendants.
8. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because this is a civil dispute, Colo. Const. Art. VI, 9 (1).
9. Venue is proper in this County because, most of the events at issue occurred in Mesa Count, Foremosts principal place of business is in Mesa County, and two of the Individual Defendants reside in Mesa County.
Background and general factual allegations
10. Foremost provides security services throughout Colorado. As part of these services, it provides personal protection, corporate/executive security, static security, individual personal risk assessment, compiling of security and intrusion deterrent plans, training, and general security services.
11. Foremost was founded in October 4, by Jerald James Sutton and has continually operated since that time.
12. The Individual Defendants were all formerly employed at Foremost, and while employed there learned about Foremosts techniques, processes, systems, technologies, equipment, designs, and customer and pricing information.
13. While employed at Foremost, the Individual Defendants planned to create and did create Drakon to compete directly with Foremost.
14. Drakon provides the same type of training services and security service that Foremost provides.
15. One or more of the Individual Defendants caused Articles of Organization for Drakon to be filed with the Colorado Secretary of States office on November 20, ID number 20101635954, while the other Individual Defendants were still employees of Foremost. Defendant William Vinelli is listed in the Articles of Organization as the person who is the registered agent and who caused the Articles to be filed.
16.in conjunction with their involvement with Drakon and while employed by Foremost, each Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of activity designed to increase Drakons visibility and profitability at Foremosts expense. Without limiting the foregoing, the Defendants (or some of them) engaged in each of the following activities on behalf of Drakon: a. Soliciting Foremosts clients;b. Performing work for Foremosts clients;c. Soliciting prospective clients while not granting that opportunity to Foremost;d. Using Foremosts time and equipment in performing services for Drakon;e. Negotiating for the rental of space for Drakon;f. Preparing business cards, brochures, a logo, and similar marketing materials for Drakon;g. Providing security services which competed with Foremosts services;h. Presenting training seminars which competed with Foremosts seminars;I. Establishing payment systems for Drakons;j. Appropriating Foremosts forms for Drakons use;k. Appropriating Foremosts power point presentations for Drakons use;l. Representing themselves to third parties not as representatives of Foremost but as representatives of Drakon;m. Communicating regularly on behalf of Drakon with Foremosts client an prospective clients;n. Accepting payment for security work rather than passing on that paymentto Foremost;o. Providing their contact information at Drakon rather than Foremost;p. Attempting to network with clients on behalf of Drakon rather than Foremost;q. Pursuing and usurping Foremosts business opportunities on behalf of Drakon; and, r. Failing to make deposits of funds that belonged to Foremost.
17.in general, despite being employed by Foremost, each of the Defendants competed in every way possible with Foremost, usurping Foremosts corporate opportunities and trade secrets.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONBreach of the Duty of Loyalty (Against the Individual Defendants)
18. Foremost incorporates and restates the foregoing allegations.
19. As employees of Foremost, the Individual Defendants owed a duty of loyalty to Foremost to act solely for Foremosts benefit in all matters connected to their employment.
20. The Individual Defendants breached their duty of loyalty to Foremost by attempting to take Foremosts opportunities and clients and creating Drakon to compete directly with Foremost and through which they would engage in efforts to take business from Foremost.
21. The Individual Defendants breached their duty of loyalty to Foremost by taking and planning to take, while still employees of Foremost, to take Foremosts accounts away from Foremost and move them to Drakon.
22. The Individual Defendants breached their duty of loyalty to Foremost by communicating with these clients, while still employees at Foremost and using Foremosts time and equipment, about moving their accounts to Drakon.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONIntentional Interference with Contract/Prospective Advantage (Against All Defendants)
23. Foremost incorporates and restates the foregoing allegations.
24. Foremost and its clients as well as vendor Smith & Wesson (collectively the third parties) had a contract or prospective relationship. For the clients, Foremost agreed to provide services. For Smith & Wesson, Foremost and Smith & Wesson would conduct seminars and trade shows together.
25. At all relevant times, the Individual Defendants had knowledge of these contracts and/or prospective business relationships.
26. At all relevant times, the Individual Defendants knew that these contract and/or prospective business relationships earned or had the possibility of earning substantial revenues and profits for Foremost, and that Foremost had reasonable expectations the this contract and/or prospective business relationships would continue to supply substantial income to Foremost in the future.
27. The Individual Defendants while still employees of Foremost, and all Defendants following the formation of Drakon, had communications with representatives of the third parties to end their contracts or prospective business relationships with Foremost.
28. As a direct and proximate result of these communications, Defendants were successful in causing some of the third parties to terminate their relationships with Foremost.
29. There are no applicable privileges or justifications for the Defendants actions.
30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has been harmed and continues to be harmed.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONColorado Uniform Trade Secret Act, C.R.S. 7-4-102 et seq. (Against All Defendants)
31. Foremost incorporates and restates the foregoing allegations.
32. Foremost developed many customer lists, pricing information, techniques, processes, technologies, and concepts that constitute trade secrets pursuant to the Colorado Uniform Trade Secret Act, C.R.S. 7-4-102 et seq., either by virtue of the techniques, processes, technologies, pieces of equipment, designs, and concepts being original in themselves, or being used in an original and unique combination.
33. These techniques, processes, technologies, pieces of equipment, designs, and concepts include, but are not limited to slide presentations, training techniques, customer contact information and lists, contract forms, photos, pricing information. (the Trade Secrets).
34. Foremost developed these Trade Secrets via a huge investment of time and expense, which Foremost estimates in the thousand of hours and in hundreds of thousands of dollars.
35. Foremost took reasonable precautions to guard the secrecy of these Trade Secrets, including limiting access to information about them to those employees who needed to know about them to perform their jobs for Foremost and Foremosts customers.
36. The Individual Defendants during their employment with Foremost, and all Defendants following the formation of Drakon, were privy to these Trade Secrets in order to perform their jobs.
37. The Individual Defendants as owners, members, officers, and/or employees of Drakon, and Drakon itself, are using these same techniques, processes, technologies, pieces of equipment, designs, and concepts.
38. These actions by the Defendants constitute misappropriation of the Trade Secrets by improper means.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCivil Conspiracy (Against the Individual Defendants)
39. Foremost incorporates and restates the foregoing allegations.
40. While still employees at Foremost, the Individual Defendants had the objective, a meeting of the minds regarding, and the shared goal to create Drakon to compete directly with and take the business of Foremost in breach of their duty of loyalty to Foremost.
41. While still employees at Foremost, the Individual Defendants had the objective, a meeting of the minds regarding, and the shared goal to interfere with Foremosts contracts through the formation and operation of Drakon, representing intentional interference with those contracts with no justification or privilege.
42. While still employees at Foremost, the Individual Defendants had the objective, a meeting of the minds regarding, and the shared goal to continue to use the Trade Secrets once they had formed Drakon and taken the clients from Foremost, constituting the improper misappropriation of Trade Secrets.
43. These actions constitute civil conspiracy under Colorado law.
44. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the Individual Defendants civil conspiracy, for which damages the Individual Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTIONUnjust Enrichment (Against All Defendants)
45. Foremost incorporates and restates the foregoing allegations.
46. While they were employees at Foremost, Foremost conferred upon the Individual Defendants the benefit of the knowledge of the Trade Secrets necessary to perform their work for Foremost.
47. This benefit was conferred on the Individual Defendants at the expense of Foremost, which had borne the cost and risk of developing these Trade Secrets.
48.By forming Drakon and continuing to use the Trade Secrets that Foremost developed, the Individual Defendants prior to the organization of Drakon and all Defendants after the organization of Drakon are being unjustly enriched in an amount to be determined at trial.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTIONUnfair Competition (Against All Defendants)
49. Foremost incorporates and restates the foregoing allegations.
50.By continuing to use the Trade Secrets developed by Foremost in their capacity as owners, members, officers and/or employees of Drakon, the Individual Defendants before the organization of Drakon and all Defendants after the organization of Drakon have unfairly misappropriated Foremosts business and business values.
51. Foremost took the risk and spent the money incurred to develop these Trade Secrets which the Individual Defendants learned while employees at Foremost.
52. All Defendants are deriving profit by using these Trade Secrets.
53. As such, all Defendants have interfered with [a] competitors legitimate business precisely at the point where profit is to be reaped. American Television & Communication Corp. V Manning, 651 P. 2d 440,444 (Colo. App. 1992) (quoting International News Service v Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215,240 (1918).
54. These actions constitute Unfair Competition under Colorado law, and have caused Foremost to incur damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCivil Theft under C.R.S. 18-4-401,405 (Against All Defendants)
55. Foremost incorporates and restates the foregoing allegations.
56. Defendants (or some of them) knowingly obtained or exercised control over funds belonging to Foremost without authorization.
57. Defendants (or some of them) intended to deprive Foremost permanently of the use or benefit of those funds.
58. As a result, Foremost has suffered damage.
59.By doing so, Defendants (or some of them), committed civil theft (i.E., embezzlement).
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTIONBreach of Contract (Against Foust)
60. Foremost incorporates and restates the foregoing allegations.
61. Foust entered into a contract with Foremost by which he agreed not to disclose or divulge any confidential information of Foremost.
62.By engaging in the actions set forth above, Foust has breached his contractual obligations.
63. As a result of this breach, Foremost has been damaged. WHEREFORE, Foremost requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of Foremost and against the Defendants for: a. Compensatory damages for lost income;b. Disgorgement of profits improperly gained by Drakon and/or the Individual Defendants;c. Punitive damages;d.injunctive relief, ordering Drakon and the Individual Defendants to cease any and all operations that wrongfully compete against Foremost and/or misappropriate Foremosts Trade Secrets;e. An Order directing Defendants to disgorge the client phone numbers and other trade secrets used in Foremosts business;f. All damages allowed for civil theft;g. All damages Foremost has suffered as a result of Fousts breach of contract;h. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the extent available by law;I. Attorney fees, to the extent available by law; and, j. Such other and further relief which the Court deems just and proper.
Plaintiff makes demand for trial by jury on all issuesfor which a jury trial is available.
DATED this 8th day of March. Michael j. Grattan iii, p.C. S / Michael J. Grattan IIIMichael J. Grattan III #31387Attorney for PlaintiffIn accordance with C.R.C.P. 121 1-26 (9), a printed copy of this documentwith original signature is being maintained by the filing party and will bemade available for inspection by the filing party and will be made availablefor inspection upon request.
0 comments