Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-6101CINEMAGIC, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation - Plaintiffs VS. John Crawford 757 Erford Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011, and Dolphin NewMedia, Inc. 5221 Simpson Ferry Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 and Ms. Jan T. McKnight 505 Beech Ave. Hershey, PA 17033 and Mr. Clifford A. Sobel T/DBA The Phoenix Group, Inc. and Oatrageous Muffin Co., Inc. 24 Woodbine Ave., Suite #3 Northport, NY 11768 Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION: EQUITY DOCKET NO: C~I - 6, roi t NOTICE You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take certain action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that ff you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff(s). You may lose money or property or other rights important to you YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ON, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CINEMAGIC, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation Plaintiffs VS. John Crawford 757 Erford Rd. Camp Hill, PA 17011, and Dolphin New Media, Inc. 5221 Simpson Ferry Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 and Ms. Jan T. McKnight 505 Beech Ave. Hershey, PA 17033 and Mr. Clifford A. Sobel T/DBA The Phoenix Group, Inc. and Oatrageous Muffin Co., Inc. 24 Woodbine Ave., Suite #3 Northport, NY 11768 Defendants ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ) CUMBERLAND COUNTY ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION: EQUITY ) DOCKET NO: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT AND NOW, this J-~day of ~/~ ,2001, comes Plaintiff, Cinemagic Inc., by. their attorney Robert W. Waeger, Esq., state their Complaint against Defendants, as follows: The Parties 1. Plaintiff, Cinemagic Inc. ("Cinemagic") is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, maintaining a principal office at 930 Century Dr., Suite 101, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, John Crawford CCrawford") is an adult individual maintaining a residence at 757 Erford Rd., Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and is owner of Dolphin New Media, Inc. a Pennsylvania corporation, maintaining a principal office at 5221 Simpson Ferry Rd., Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania,, 17055. 3. Defendant, Jan T. McKnight CMcKnight") is and adult individual maintaining a residence at 505 Beech Ave., Hershey, Pennsylvania, 17033. 4. Defendant, Clifford A. Sobel, T/DBA The Phoenix Group, Inc. both maintaining an office at 24 Woodbine Ave., Suite 3 Northport, NY 11768. Jurisdiction and Venue 5. This action arises under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this cou[t. 6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant's Crawford and McKnight pursuant to 42 PA Cons. Stat. Ann. §5301(a)(1). 7. Venue in this Court is proper because the claims asserted arose in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and/or certain occurrences out of which the claims arose took place in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. At all relevant times Cinemagic has been engaged in the business of selling and servicing computers, peripherals, software and related equipment, as well as programming and the designing of interactive multimedia programs. 9. A significant portion of Cinemagic's total business relates to the selling and servicing of computers, peripherals, software and the programming and/or designing of programs and interactive multimedia for specialized customers. Cinemagic's technical applications are highly specialized in multimedia and motion design. 10. In order to maintain its growing leadership and expertise in its specialized industry, Cinemagic, has, over a substantial period of years, expended substantial amounts of time, money and resources in the continuing development of technology in all aspects of their specialized business. 11. Cinemagic has obtained and can only .maintain its present position in the marketplace and competitive advantage by preserving the confidentiality of the technology and information covering its process, product variables, product specifications, and development data as well as customer lists, customer information; marketing information, sales, pricing, cost and profitability information, as well as its programming methodologies and programming design specialty. All of said information constitutes trade secrets and/or confidential information. 12. Cinemagic takes substantial measures to maintain the confidential and trade secrets nature of its technology in order to protect the business of Cinemagic from discovery by its competitors. The methods utilized by Cinemagic in this regard include employee agreements, independent contractor agreements and other security measures, including verbal contracts and agreements from its employees. Defendant Crawford and Mel~nioht 13. Defendant Crawford was employed by Cinemagic between October of 1996 and March of 2000. Defendant McKnight was employed by Cinemagic between April of 1999 and June of 2001. 14. Crawford was promoted to the position of Multimedia Director, and McKnight was a Sales/Marketing professional wherein they were privy to "secret" and privileged information regarding Cinemagic operations, strategy, pricing, sales contracts, specialty programming methods, customer lists, and partnership. 15. Crawford and McKnight became familiar with the proprietary process and technology which are applicable to the specialized computer business of Cinemagic. 16. Crawford and McKnight became familiar with Cinemagic's computer systems, technology information, production of multimedia, motion design and interact programs specifically within its business relationship with a company known as Oatrageous Muffin Co. (OMC) DBA The Phoenix Group and an individual known as Cliff Sobel. 17. As part of their employment by Cinemagic, Crawford and McKnight received propriety and confidential information, especially sensitive customer lists, on-going projects and other business relationship information. Defendants Crawford and McKnioht Duties to Plail~tiff 18. While employed by Cinemagic, Crawford and McKnight occupied positions of trust and confidence. By virtue of the existence of this relationship they had a duty not to use or disclose confidential information especially when it is utilized to compete against Cinemagic. 19. Crawford and McKnight executed a limited non-compete agreement and/or confidentially agreement with Cinemagic early in their relationship.. 20. Crawford and McKnight were also aware through many employee meetings, etc, that all Cinemagic customer information must be kept secure, and corporately Cinemagic enforced restrictions to keep said information confidential. 21. On March 27, 2000 Crawford terminated his employment without advance notice. He gave reasons "that he was frustrated with the nature of the multimedia business and did not want to continue in this line of work." 22. As early as April 12, 2000 Cinemagic received a call from Erik Elugren of the University of Virginia, advising Cinemagic that Crawford called him to solicit multimedia work. 23. At about this same time, April 2000, Cliff Sobel of the Phoenix Group advised Cinemagic that Crawford solicited him for multimedia work. 24. Both clients described in averments g22 and//23 are clients of Cinemagic, and Crawford's solicitation of them violates his non-compete agreement, as well as tortiously interferes with Cinemagic's contractual relationship with said clients. 25. Cinemagic, through its counsel's letter dated April 24, 2000 specifically warned Crawford of his efforts to compete and solicit Cinemagic's customers. Crawford advised no such activity was taking place. 26. Since April 2000, Cinemagic is aware, that Crawford continues to solicit business in violation of his non-competition agreement and in fact has performed computer and/or multimedia projects for Mr. Cliff Sobel and his business's. Cinemagic has obtained irrefutable documentation of these violations from the Intemet as well as from Cliff Sobel. 27. Cinemagic is also aware of other projects for MTV network, Discovery Channel worked on by Crawford. 28. Crawford is also collecting Pennsylvania. Unemployment Compensation benefits while "working" in direct competition against Cinemagic. 29. In Crawford's employment by others, or as an independent contractor, he will inevitably draw upon and utilize the expertise, knowledge, customer needs, and customer lists he acquired during his employment by Cinemagic, with respect to trade secrets, proprietary and confidential information described heroin. 30. While employed by Cinemagic, McKnight occupied positions of trust and confidence. By virtue of the existence of this relationship McKnight has a duty not to use or disclose confidential information especially when it is utilized by himself to compete against Cinemagic. 31. McKnight executed a limited non-compete agreement and/or confidentially agreement with Cinemagic early in her relationship with said agreement being executed on or about April of 1999.. 32. Crawford was also aware through many employee meetings, etc, that all Cinemagic customer information must be kept secure, and corporately Cinemagic enforced restrictions to keep said information confidential. 33. McKnight was also aware through many employee meetings, etc, that all Cinemagic customer information must be kept secure, and corporately Cinemagic enforced restrictions to keep said information confidential. 34. On or about June of 2001, McKnight terminated her employment. 35. Cinemagic, through its counsel's letter dated June 14, 2001 specifically warned McKnight of her efforts to compete and solicit Cinemagic's customers. 36. Since June of 2001, Cinemagic is aware, that McKnight continues to solicit business in violation of his non-competition agreement and in fact has performed computer and/or multimedia projects for Mr. Cliff Sobel and his business's. Cinemagic has obtained irrefutable documentation of these violations from the Intemet as well as from Cliff Sobel. 37. McKnight has applied for Pennsylvania unemployment compensation benefits while "working" in direct competition against Cinemagic. 38. In McKnight's employment by others, or as an independent contractor ,she will inevitable draw upon and utilize the expertise, knowledge, customer needs, and customer lists she acquired during his employment by Cinemagic, with respect to trade secrets, proprietary and confidential information described herein. Defendant Sobel (The Phoenix Group, Inc.) 39. Defendant Cliff Sobel and/or his corporation The Phoenix Group, Inc., are in a business relationship with Cinemagic either by himself, or through his corporation the Oatrageous Muffin Co., Inc. T/DBA The Phoenix Group, Inc. Said relationship has existed since 1997. 40. Over a period of January 1997 through present, the plaintiff and defendant Sobel entered into agreements whereby Sobel agrees to buy and plaintiff agrees to sell programming, computer equipment, services for interactive training, DVD preparation, designing of programs and interactive multimedia, for specialized customers. 41. Said items and services were delivered to, accepted, and utilized by defendant Sobel, and a resulting benefit has inured to Sobel. 42. Sobel, in turn, has used the relationship of trust and confidence it had with Cinemagic to its benefit, by directly competing for Cinemagic's customers, by soliciting Cinemagic's employees and former employees, to assist in the tortious interference with Cinemagic's contractual relationship with its clients. Cinemagic has been advised by an existing customer, that Sobel has solicited said customer and "He called me to solicit business in the area of interactive multimedia." And "that Jan McKnight and John Crawford are employed by his company." 43. In Sobel's employment of Crawford and McKnight, or as using them as independent contractors, or in collusion with them, he will inevitably draw upon and utilize the expertise, knowledge, customer needs, and customer lists acquired during Crawford and McKnight's employment by Cinemagic, with respect to trade secrets, proprietary and confidential information in direct violation of non-compete agreements. Irreparable Harm to Cinema~c 44. Defendants are in direct competition of Cinemagic. 45. The confidential information which defendants possess as described herein will assist him or his subsequent employer in the development of products which compete directly with Cinemagic. 46. Said actions by defendants already completed, and any in the future will cause immediate and irreparable harm to Cinemagic. 47. The damages to Cinemagic are not yet susceptible to accurate measurement and are by this nature, irreparable. 48. Cinemagic has no adequate remedy at law. Count I 49. The averments of Paragraphs 1-43 herein are incorporated by reference. 50. Crawford and McKnight are subject to a written expressed contractual provision prohibiting their competition against Cinemagic; and Crawford and McKnight are subject to a verbal contractual agreement as an employee of Cinemagic not to compete. 51. Crawford and McKnight's conduct is willful, intentional and un-privileged and causes irreparable harm as well as potential money damages to Cinemagic. 52. As a result of Crawford and McKnight's actions, Cinemagic is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Crawford from competing with the business of Cinemagic for a period of one year and compensatory damages in an amount yet to be determined. Count II Breach of Duty 53. The averments of Paragraphs 1-47 herein are incorporated by reference.. 54. Defendants actions are willful, intentional and unprivileged and have caused and are causing irreparable harm as well as potential monetary damages to Plaintiff. 55. As a result defendants aforesaid action, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from competing with the business of Plaintiff for a period of one (1) year and compensatory damages in an amount yet to be determined. Count III T0rtious Interference with Business Relationahins 56. The averments of Paragraphs 1-50 hereinabove are incorporated herein by reference thereto as if fully set forth. 57. The aforesaid actions by defendants constitute tortious interference in the business and contractual relationships between Plaintiff and Plaintiff present customers. 58. As a result of defendants aforesaid actions, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from further solicitation of Plaintiff customers or employees in violation of defendants contractual and other duties to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff is further entitled to compensatory damages in an amount yet to be determined, for punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other legal or equitable relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Count TV Unfair Competition 59. The averments of Paragraphs 1-53 are incorporated herein by reference thereto as if fully set forth. 60. By engaging in the aforesaid conduct, defendants have engaged in unfair competition with Plaintiff. 61. The actions of Defendant have been willful, intentional and unprivileged and have caused and are continuing to cause irreparable harm as well as potential monetary damages to Plaintiff in an amount yet to be determined. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests: (1) A special/preliminary injunction, followed by a permanent injunction against Defendant and all other persons or entities actions in conce~t with either of them or on behalf of either of them: (a) Enjoining defendants for one (1) year from the date of any ORDER this Court may grant from employment by or consulting with any client of Plaintiff in any capacity, direct or indirect; and (b) Enjoining defendants from in any way disclosing or otherwise providing to any third person directly or indirectly, any trade secret, proprietary or confidential information or data relating to any multimedia process, process or process or product variable, product specification, research or development data, supplier, customer, bid or marketing information, sales, pricing, cost or profitability information or business plan or strategy; and (c) Enjoining defendants from any breach of his limited Non-Competition Agreement, his Intellectual Property Agreement, or his Confidentiality Agreement with Plaintiff. (d) Enjoining defendants from soliciting clients or other employees of Cinemagic who are subject to non-competition agreements or for the purpose of unfairly competing with Cinemagic. (e) Enjoining defendants from any interference in Cinemagic's contractual relationship with Cinemagic's current customers. (2) A judgement in favor of Plaintiff and against all defendants for ail direct, consequential, incidentai and special damages arising out of defendant's aforesaid wrongful conduct, including punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT W. WAEGER, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Cinemagic, Inc. VERIFICATION Dated: I, / J/ , AS // , of / / CINEMAGIC, INC. hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities.