The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-6087 ANDREW W. BARBIN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 43571 ANDREW W. BARBIN, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 7171506-4670 OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD NATHAN SWARTZ && DANIEL THAU DEFENDANTS Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 07 66 ?-l Uv,I icrw COMPLAINT IN LAW & EQUITY NOTICE TO: DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN: You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if 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. You may lose money or property or other rights importance to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO OSI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA OLLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJOPARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-3166 DATED: 7 Atty. I.D. #43571 ANDREW W. BARBING P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 506-4670 Counsel for Plaintiff 2 ANDREW W. BARBIN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 43571 ANDREW W. BARBIN, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717/506-4670 Attorney for Plaintiffs OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD , NATHAN SWARTZ & DANIEL THAU DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. G :7- 40y) COMPLAINT IN LAW & EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (LEGAL ISSUES) COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, Andrew W. Barbin, P.C., hereby files this Complaint against Defendants Millennium, Inc., Dan Swartz, and Daniel Thau and avers as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Optima Technology Associates, Inc., is an Pennsylvania corporation with principal place of business at 515 Fishing Creek Road, Lewisberry, PA 17339. 2. Defendant Millennium Inc is a Pennsylvania corporation with principal place of business at 181 Ore Bank Road, Dillsburg, PA 17019. 3. Defendant Nathan Swartz (Swartz) is a Pennsylvania citizen with residence at 181 Ore Bank Road, Dillsburg, PA 17019, it is believed and averred that he is President and principal shareholder of Millennium, Inc. 4. Defendant Daniel Thau (D. Thau) is Pennsylvania citizen, an employee and shareholder of Millennium with a business address of 181 Ore Bank Road, Dillsburg, PA 17019. 5. It is believed that others, including Atul Chawala of Sark Synertek Pvt. Ltd., a former contract supplier of Optima, may have participated and or instigated the wrongful acts, but their inclusion is dependant upon discovery not yet complete. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. All of the wrongful acts alleged herein center upon actions of Millennium within Cumberland County, and the conduct of Swartz a resident of Cumberland County. 7. The majority of events which give rise to the cause of action set forth in this Complaint occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. Jurisdiction and venue over all claims set forth in this Complaint is proper in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 9. Swartz was an employee of Optima from November 1, 1999 to January 31, 2007. 10. In order to protect proprietary information and client relations essential to the welfare of the company and its employees, all employees of Optima were required to sign a non- compete agreement which specifically precluded working for a competitor while employed at Optima. 11. Swartz executed the non-competition confidentiality agreement. 12. Swartz was employed in a management/operations position and used company assets to develop customer and supplier relationships and acquired highly sensitive proprietary information of Optima during the course of his employment including price and bid information from suppliers and customers as well as forms and business documents developed at considerable expense by Optima. 13. Swartz decided to create a directly competing enterprise to Optima, using assets, contacts and proprietary information of Optima. 14. It is believed and averred that he did so at the instigation of Atul Chawala of Sark Synertek Pvt. Ltd., a former contract supplier of Optima, which had been dropped by Optima in 2 favor of another supplier. 15. It is believed and averred that the business which became Millennium operated unincorporated under the direction of Nathan Swartz from some time in 2003 to January 2005. 16. Millennium was formally registered with the Department of State as of January 3, 2005. 17. Neither the Department of State filing nor the Millennium web site provided public information indicating Swartz was affiliated with the company. 18. Nathan Swartz continued to work for Optima until January 31, 2007. 19. He continued to work for Optima while creating the competing business, as a hedge in case it did not succeed, and to ensure continued access to sensitive proprietary information which would identify leads and provide inside information regarding bid amounts so he could wrongfully undercut the price quotes of his employer Optima. 20. To assist him in this wrongful conduct, Swartz recruited Daniel Thau who he met when Daniel was working as a washroom attendant at the Eclipse Night Club in Harrisburg in 2003. 21. Swartz convinced Daniel Thau to enter into a computer component import sales business with him. 22. It is not known the degree to which Swartz initially disclosed his wrongful conduct at the inception of Daniel Thau's involvement. 23. Daniel Thau had a 2 year engineering certification and no experience in this type of business. 24. Daniel Thau recruited his brother Adam Thau. to assist him in technical sales, as he had a four year degree in engineering; though Adam, too, had no experience in this type of 3 business. 25. Swartz arranged to use Optima's former supplier Sark Synertek Pvt. Ltd., after Optima began using Sahasra Electronics rather than Sark as a supplier. 26. Swartz communicated with Atul Chawala from Sark by email, who agreed to initial low prices and terms which allowed Swartz to pay for supplies only after being paid by end purchasers. 27. These terms were better than the custom and practice in the industry, but would allow Sark to wrongly divert business of Optima to Millennium through predatory pricing in addition to wrongful conversion of proprietary information and wrongful competition through theft of assets and relations. 28. Atul Chawala met with Nathan Swartz at his old house at 204 Erford Road, Cumberland County for the purpose of pursuing the wrongful conduct described herein. 29. Swartz used contract and order documents from Optima to create the Millennium forms, and provided detailed price lists, leads, contact information, personal information regarding client representatives acquired through employment at Optima, profit margin data and related material from Optima to enable Millennium to under cut Optima regarding its existing clients and prospective clients. 30. Swartz took virtually all written materials of Optima, which had been developed at considerable expense by Optima, in the form of order forms, terms and conditions of sale, warranty terms etc., and related business documents and re-labeled them for use by Millennium. 31. Swartz continued to work for Optima, and used funds acquired through his compensation from Optima to fund his wrongful competition process. 32. Swartz continuously supplied Daniel Thau and Adam Thau leads and proprietary 4 information acquired from Optima to facilitate the wrongful competition. 33. Daniel Thau focused on customer service, and did some sales. 34. Adam Thau concentrated on sales. 35. Swartz repeatedly provided proprietary information of Optima to Adam Thau to facilitate the wrongful competition. 36. Swartz worked for Millennium after Optima's regular business hours on Purchase Orders and technical issues for customer service. 37. It is believed and averred that substantial time spent on the pay clock at Optima was actually spent in furtherance of the interests of Millennium and to the detriment of Optima. 38. Swartz explained to Daniel and Adam Thau, that he chose the name "Millennium," because it was the Sanskrit translation of "Sahasra." which was Optima's supplier after it dropped Sark. 39. It is believed that Atul Chawala encouraged the use of this name, so that Optima and Sahasra would know who the moving force behind Millenium was. 40. Swartz explained to Daniel Thau and to Adam Thau that he would continue to work for Optima while they developed the competing enterprise. 41. Swartz admitted to Adam Thau that he was under competition restrictions with Optima, and that it was very important that Dan and Adam not speak with the owner of Optima, Paul Anastasio. 42. Swartz emailed Daniel Thau and Adam Thau a picture of Paul Anastasio so that they would recognize him. 43. While Millennium was located at Swartz' former residence at 204 Erford Road, Cumberland County, card board was placed put in the garage windows, so that Paul could not 5 look in and see what we were doing if he suspected something. 44. After Millennium successfully diverted work from Optima to Millennium and had begun to make money, Swartz came one evening and bragged to Daniel and Adam Thau that he had gone into Optima's office files and ripped up his noncompete agreement. 45. Swartz also indicated that he was considering "keying" some of Optima's boards for a Phoenix order, to give Millennium an advantage in seeking orders from Phoenix. 46. Swartz also disclosed that he was taking a more active role in Optima's dealings with Oly Khounsevath of Sutron Corporation so that he could get the Sutron business for Millennium. 47. Swartz also discussed attempting to recruit an employee named Tim Heidelbaugh from Optima, but apparently dropped the idea when Mr. Neidich, whom he respected, suggested that it would be "hairy business" to do so. 48. Swartz provided specific quote package information to Adam Thau from Optima's renewal offer to Dataforth in order to allow Millennium to underbid Optima. 49. Millennium successfully undercut that bid and was awarded substantial work as the result of that theft of proprietary information. 50. Millennium was awarded the business and then won the "Dataforth Supplier of the Year" Award, which Optima had previously won. 51. The award was then used to promote the business, making other business the tainted fruit of the prior wrongful conduct. 52. Swartz provided Millennium information regarding Optima clients Sutron, Phoenix and EMSG as well. 53. Swartz basically tried to cherry pick Optima's best clients. 6 54. It is believed and averred that Millennium successfully diverted substantial additional existing clients and prospective leads through misappropriation of the assets and proprietary information of Optima, and that any and all businesses of Millennium was proximately the result of, and fruit of, the misappropriations. 55. Swartz eventually dumped Atul Chawala and Sark in favor of a Chinese supplier, effectively double crossing Atul Chawala and Sark, who were used only long enough to enable Swartz to allow make effective use of the assets stolen from Optima.. 56. Swartz also eventually double crossed Adam Thau, dividing the brothers, breaking the original "partnership" agreement, and driving Adam from the business without compensation for his contributions. 57. Incredibly, Swartz imposed a "settlement" agreement on Adam Thau which specifically precluded him from communication with Paul Anastasio or Optima. 58. Ironically, Swartz has since asserted claims against Adam Thau for allegedly violating noncompete obligations to Millennium regarding the business stolen from Optima. 59. Adam Thau admitted his role in the business, and disclosed and documented conduct of Swartz, after Paul Anastasio had discovered that new supplier for his prior customer Dataforth listed Millennium Circuits as a supplier in an email. Upon investigation, of Millennium, Optima identified the business address as the same as Mr. Schwartz's home address. 60. Optima is aware of substantial lost business from Dataforth, and is aware of efforts to secure additional business from customers Sutron and Phoenix. 61. Because Swartz had access to complete customer lists and leads, Optima believes and avers that Millennium, Swartz and Daniel Thau also wrongfully diverted business from other customers. 7 62. Injunctive relief as well as monetary damages is required to redress the diversion and reestablish the relationships improperly stolen. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST NATHAN SWARTZ 63. Paragraphs 1-62 are incorporated here by reference. 64. Swartz breached his employment contract by engaging in competitive activities while employee by Optima in direct violation of the written agreement between them. 65. Swartz breached common law duties of loyalty and confidentiality with regard to the trade secrets and proprietary information of Optima by misappropriating them for competitive activities during and after his employment by Optima. 66. The breaches directly and proximately caused lost contracts with existing and prospective customers, and caused the loss of the value of services of Swartz and those working with him on contracts which he secretly and improperly diverted to Millennium. 67. Swartz should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits from the date of the inception of the wrongful conduct to the date of his resignation. 68. Swartz should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits) received from Millennium from inception of the competing activities to the present date, as all compensation was the direct and proximate result of his breaches of contract obligations to Optima, and misappropriation of its assets. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment an unliquidated amount in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), together with interest and such other relief as the Court may deem just. 8 COUNT 11- THEFT AGAINST NATHAN SWARTZ 69. Paragraphs 1 to 68 are incorporated by reference as if restated. 70. The conduct of Swartz set forth above constitutes theft by deception of salary and corporate assets and opportunities. 71. The thefts directly and proximately caused lost contracts with existing and prospective customers, and caused the loss of the value of services of Swartz and those working with him on contracts which he secretly and improperly diverted to Millennium. 72. Swartz should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits from the date of the inception of the wrongful conduct to the date of his resignation. 73. Swartz should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits) received from Millennium from inception of the competing activities to the present date, as all compensation was the direct and proximate result of his breaches of contract obligations to Optima, and misappropriation of its assets. 74. Swartz should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits from the date of the inception of the wrongful conduct to the date of his resignation. 75. Swartz should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits) received from millennium from inception of the competing activities to the present date, as all compensation was the direct and proximate result of his breaches of contract obligations to Optima, and misappropriation of its assets. 76. The conduct is outrageous and warrants imposition of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment an unliquidated amount in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), together with interest, punitive damages and such other relief as the Court may deem just. 9 COUNT III - FRAUD AGAINST MILLENNIUM, NATHAN SWARTz, AND DANIEL THAU 77. Paragraphs 1 to 76 are incorporated by reference as if restated. 78. Optima supplied Swartz with employment, compensation, and access to highly sensitive and valuable proprietary information in actual and reasonable reliance on Swartz the false and fraudulent explicit and implicit assurances of Swartz involved in his execution of a confidentiality agreement and acceptance of continued employment with concomitant loyalty and confidentiality burdens inherent in employment under the common law. 79. Swartz purposefully concealed his misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct to allow him to continue his wrongful conduct and to cause Optima to fund and facilitate the effective theft of corporate assets and opportunities for a period of more than two years. 80. Swartz fraudulently acquired compensation and valuable proprietary information of Optima for the benefit of Millennium, Nathan Swartz and Daniel Thau. 81. Millennium and Daniel Thau, knowingly and intentionally facilitated and acted in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme by accepting and acting upon the fraudulently acquired assets and information to facilitate the effective theft of Optima corporate assets and opportunities for a period of more than two years. 82. Millennium, Swartz and Daniel Thau, purposefully concealed their wrongful conduct to ensure its maximum continuance and took steps to attempt to secure the silence of Adam Thau when he left the company and its conspiratorial fraudulent conduct. 83. The fraudulent conduct directly and proximately caused lost contracts with existing and prospective customers, and caused the loss of the value of services of Swartz and those working with him on contracts which he secretly and improperly diverted to Millennium. 84. Swartz should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits 10 received from Optima from the date of the inception of the wrongful conduct to the date of his resignation. 85. Millennium, Swartz, and Daniel Thau should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits) received from Millennium from inception of the competing activities to the present date, as all compensation was the direct and proximate result of their fraudulent appropriation of the assets and corporate opportunities of Optima. 86. Millennium, Swartz, and Daniel Thau should be required to compensate Optima for the expense of reestablishing customer relationship[s] with the diverted customers and opportunities. 87. The conduct was tortious and outrageous and warrants imposition of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment an unliquidated amount in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), together with interest, punitive damages and such other relief as the Court may deem just. COUNT IV - INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING AND PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS AGAINST MILLENNIUM, NATHAN SWARTZ, & DANIEL THAU 88. Paragraphs 1-87 are incorporated by reference. 89. The conduct set forth above constitutes intentional wrongful interference by all defendants with the actual and prospective contractual relationships of Optima. 90. The interference was unprivileged and wrongful. 91. The conduct actually and proximately caused Optima to lose existing and prospective customers and substantial contracts. Swartz should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits received from Optima from the date of the inception of the 11 wrongful conduct to the date of his resignation. 92. Millennium, Swartz, and Daniel Thau should be required to disgorge all compensation (income and benefits) received from Millennium from inception of the competing activities to the present date, as all compensation was the direct and proximate result of their fraudulent appropriation of the assets and corporate opportunities of Optima. 93. Millennium, Swartz, and Daniel Thau should be required to compensate Optima for the expense of reestablishing customer relationship[s with the diverted customers and opportunities. 94. The conduct was tortious and outrageous and warrants imposition of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in the amount of Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred One Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($19,701.75), plus accumulated finance charges of material suppliers, pre judgment interest, costs, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such other relief as this court may deem just. COUNT-V - PERMENANT INJUNCTION AGAINST MILLENNIUM, NATHAN SWARTZ, & DANIEL THAU 95. Paragraphs 1 to 94 are incorporated by reference. 96. The entire business of Millennium is the fruit of the tortious misconduct of Swartz and Daniel Thau. 97. Monetary damages cannot effectively compensate Optima for lost and disrupted business relationships. 98. The conduct was outrageous and warrants the strongest injunctive relief to ensure that Defendants do not benefit directly or indirectly from their egregious conduct. 99. The theft of proprietary information and promotion of Millennium, Swartz and 12 Daniel Thau in the market through the use of the stolen assets and opportunities so permeates their corporate and personal business reputations in this narrow and specialized field that no servable component exists. 100. Millennium, Swartz and Daniel Thau should be permanently enjoined from use of any proprietary information of Optima, or information derived from the use of the proprietary information of Optima. 101. Millennium, Swartz and Daniel Thau should be permanently enjoined from offering services or seeking employment with any customer of Optima from January 2003 to January 2007. 102. Millennium, Swartz and Daniel Thau should be permanently enjoined from offering services in competition to Optima. 103. Alternatively, Millennium, Swartz and Daniel Thau should be enjoined from offering services in competition to Optima for a period of five years. Wherefore, Optima requests injunctive relief in the form sought, and/or such other relief as the Court may deem just. Date: October 15, 2007 13 Andrew W. Barbin, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 717-506-4670 - OCT.15'2007 08:38 7179325878 #5703 P.001/001 ANRRrW W. IIAnniN, RxQlrME Attorney I.D. 43571 ANDttxw W. HARBirt, P.C. 5020 RI(ter Road, Suits 109 Methanksburg, PA 17055 7171506-4670 OPTIMA TFCFINOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., PI.A I N11FF V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, IXD NATHAN S'WARTZ & DANIEL TIIAt) DEFENDANTS Attorney for Pleintifra TN TIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. COMPLAINT IN LAw & EQIJI'I•Y VERrFIC.ATION I, Paul Anastasio do hereby state that the statements made in the foregoing complaint are true and cort•ect based upon my knowledge information and belief. I understand that !Ouse statements are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dxtcd: October I2, 2007 Paul Anastasio Post-ir Fax Note 7671 mate O / dy li"`of ? / ?} p... _ TO K • [?P.t?E$I?/ Fromp . //QS . camept. _ .rlrrrl ? • ??? Ffionp q JJ Phone A Fax k ? ? 'X ? ?,Z, • Fax 1 U` W tZ> 9 a- iV {-2 i ? l l r?> n --i -? rat -? Fri i.7 CJ ..-a `J M .y David W. Knauer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 21582 Knauer & Associates, L.S.C. 411-A E. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Knauer@early.com 717-795-7790 717-795-7793 Fax OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA : NO. 07-6087 V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD NATHAN SCHWARTZ & DANIEL THAU, Defendants DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendants, Millennium Circuits, Ltd., Nathan Schwartz and Daniel Thau, who make and lodge their preliminary objections. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FORMAT The Defendants have pled their Preliminary Objections as follows: a.) the Plaintiff has misspelled the Defendant Nathan Schwartz's last name as "Swartz". Rather than pleading an objection each time the Plaintiff utilizes Mr. Schwartz's last name, the Defendant Schwartz incorporates into the remaining paragraphs the correct spelling of his name by reference hereto; b.) the Defendants utilize the same numbering that the Plaintiff utilizes in its Complaint so that numbering of these Preliminary Objections corresponds to the Complaint numbers; c.) often there are more than one preliminary objection to a single paragraph and the Defendants raise the objections in the numerical sequence of the paragraphs rather than grouping them under specific headings of multiple violations because it is easier to follow the preliminary objections in accordance with the Complaint's numbered paragraphs. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IN THE FORM OF A REQUEST FOR A MORE SPECIFIC COMPLAINT 6. The Defendant Schwartz's objects to the phrase "all wrongful acts alleged", and requests a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3). 10. All Defendants' preliminary objections to paragraph of the Complaint are: a.) the Plaintiff identifies a broad classification of "propriety information" however the Plaintiff has not listed or otherwise identified the "propriety information", and all Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3); b.) Plaintiff identifies a broad classification of "client relations essential to the welfare of the company and its employees" however the Plaintiff has not listed or otherwise identified what "client relations" or how the client relations they are essential to the company and its employees.all Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3); c.) the Plaintiff states that all employees were required to sign a non- compete agreement but fails to state whether the not to compete agreement is the basis of their claim and to fails to attach of copy thereof to the Complaint thereby violating Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(h) and (i) and the Defendants raise a preliminary pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No., 1028(a)(2); 11. The Plaintiff has pled that the Defendant Schwartz "executed the no- competition confidentiality agreement" but the Plaintiff fails to attach a copy of same in violation of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(i). All Defendants object on the basis that the Plaintiff has failed to attach a copy of said purported agreement to its Complaint. 12. All Defendants' preliminary objections to this paragraph are: a.) the Plaintiff states that the Defendant Schwartz was "employed in a management/operations position" but fails to identify what position the Plaintiff claims the Defendant Schwartz held and all Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3); b.) the Plaintiff states that the Defendant Schwartz "used company assets to develop customer and supplier relationships" but fails to identify what "company assets" the Defendant Schwartz used and all Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3); c.) the Plaintiff states that the Defendant Schwartz "acquired highly sensitive propriety information of Optima during the course of his employment including price and bid information from suppliers and customers" but fails to identify what "highly sensitive propriety information he acquired, the Defendant Schwartz used and all Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3); d.) the Plaintiff pled that the Defendant Schwartz acquired "forms and business documents developed at considerable expense by Optima", the Defendant Schwartz and all Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to the Defendant Schwartz used and all Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3);) as to what forms and business documents and at what expense the Plaintiff developed same. 13. The Plaintiff pled that the Defendant established a "directly competing enterprise to Optima, using assets, contacts and propriety information of Optima" without setting forth what assets, what contacts and what propriety information. The Defendant Schwartz and all Defendants object on the basis of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) and request a more specific complaint. 19. The Plaintiff's Complaint again used the phrase "sensitive propriety information" without identifying what "sensitive propriety information", the Plaintiff has failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) and all Defendants request a more specific complaint. 27. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants: a.) engaged in "predatory pricing" without identifying what it contends is "predatory pricing". The Defendants' cannot reply thereto without knowing what the Plaintiff feels is "predatory pricing" and therefore they request a more specific complaint on the basis that the Plaintiff failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3); b.) the plaintiff speaks of "wrongful conversion of propriety information", but fails to set forth what it deems to be "propriety information", the Plaintiff therefore did not comply with Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) and the Defendants request a more specific complaint defining and setting forth what the Plaintiff contends is "propriety information"; c.) the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants "wrongfully converted "proprietary information" but failed to set forth how the Defendants "did the "wrongful conversion". Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what it deems was "wrongful conversion" and how the Defendants wrongfully converted the "propriety information"; d.) The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in "wrongful competition", however the Plaintiff does not set forth what it contends was "wrongful competition", and the Defendants a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) requiring the Plaintiff to set forth what it contends is "wrongful competition". e.) The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants committed their wrongful conversion by "theft of assets and relations" without identifying what assets it alleges all Defendants stole, and the Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) requiring the Plaintiff to set forth what it contends the Defendants stole; f.) The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants committed their wrongful conversion by stealing "relations" without setting forth what relations the Defendants stole and how they stole "relations". Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) requiring the Plaintiff to set forth what it contends is theft of "relations and how the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants stole "relations". The Defendants request a more specific complaint in accordance with the objections to sub-paragraphs "a" through 'Y' of this paragraph. 28. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Schwartz met with Mr. Atul Chawala at Schwartz's "old house" for the purpose of "pursuing the wrongful conduct described herein". The Defendants object to the phrase "pursing the wrongful conduct described herein". The Defendants incorporate herein by reference thereto, their prior preliminary objections to the same type of allegations on the basis that the Plaintiff has not provided what it deems as "wrongful conduct' and the Defendants object on the basis that it has violated Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) and the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what is the wrongful conduct pled in the Complaint. 30. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Schwartz: a.) "took virtually all written materials of Optima" after a string of types of documents the Plaintiff concludes with "etc. and related business documents and re-labeled them for use by Millennium". The Defendants object on the basis that the Plaintiff has pled the word "virtually all" and concluding with the "etc", the abbreviation for the Latin phrase etcetera, i.e. "and other" without specifying what other documents the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Schwartz took. The Plaintiff's pleading fails to conform with Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) and with Pa.R.C.P. No1019(i). If the documents are the basis of the claim, then the Plaintiff should have attached copies of them to the Complaint and the Defendants request a more specific complaint with respect to the Plaintiff's use of the phrase "virtually all written materials. b.) the Plaintiff alleges that the written materials "had been developed at considerable expense by Optima" but fails to set forth the "considerable expense" in violation of with Pa.R.C.P. No 1028(a)(3) and the Defendants request a more specific complaint as to those expenses. the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what it deems is "considerable expense' 31. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Schwartz used his income from his work for Optima "to fund his wrongful competition process". The Defendants object to the phrase "wrongful competition process" on the basis that Pa.R.C.P. No 1028(a)(3) requires a more specific complaint and the Defendants request that the Plaintiff be ordered to file a more specific complaint to this paragraph. 32. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Schwartz: a.) "supplied Daniel Thau and Adam Thau leads and propriety information acquired from Optima" without setting forth what "leads and proprietary information" the Defendant Schwartz supplied. The Plaintiff fails to set forth what leads or what constituted "proprietary information". Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No 1028(a)(3), the Defendants object and request a more specific complaint; b.) the Plaintiff plead "wrongful competition" without setting forth what it contends was "wrongful competition". The Plaintiff failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. No 1028(a)(3) and the Defendants request a more specific complaint. 35. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Schwartz a.) "repeatedly provided proprietary information of Optima" without specifying what it alleges is "proprietary information". The Plaintiff has failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. No 1028(a)(3) and the Defendants request a more specific complaint. b.) the Plaintiff pled the term "wrongful competition" that does not specify what the phrase "wrongful competition" the Plaintiff contends the Defendants did. The Plaintiff has not complied with Pa.R.C.P. No 1028(a)(3) and the Defendants request a more specific complaint. 37. The Plaintiff alleges "substantial time on the pay clock... was actually spent in furtherance of Millennium and to the detriment of Optima." The Plaintiff fails to identify whose time it references whether of past or present employees and what amount of time constitutes "substantial". The Plaintiff has failed to set forth a complaint with specificity and that entitles the Defendants to a more specific complaint pursuant with the Plaintiff failure to comply with Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3). 44. In paragraph 44, the Plaintiff alleges that: the Defendant Schwartz "diverted work from Optima to Millennium" without identifying what work or client or how the Defendant Schwartz diverted same. The Defendants object on the basis that the Plaintiff has not pled the Complaint with sufficient specificity and therefore pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants are entitled to a more specific complaint. 45. The Plaintiff alleges that: a.) the Defendant Schwartz "was considering "keying" some of Optima's boards. The Defendants object on the basis that the Plaintiff has failed to set forth what the word `keying' means in the trade or business that both the Plaintiff and the Defendants work. The Defendants request a more specific complaint pursuant to In paragraph 45, the Plaintiff alleges that: b.) the Plaintiff has failed to identify what is a "Phoenix order". The Defendants object on the basis that the Plaintiff's pleading of a "Phoenix order' is insufficiently specific because it does not indicate whether that term is a term of art, a client's name or a geographic designation. The Defendants object on the basis of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) and request a more specific complaint. 51. The Plaintiff: a.) makes an allegation without identifying to which Defendant it refers: The Defendants are emitted to know against whom that allegation is made and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) the Defendants request a more specific complaint identifying to which the Defendant refers; b.) the Plaintiff again uses the phrase "wrongful conduct" without defining the term or how it applies to any Defendant, therefore pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) the Defendants are entitled to a more specific complaint. 52. The Plaintiff alleges that "Schwartz provided Millennium information" for certain then Optima clients without specifying what "information" or what "clients". The Defendants request a more specific complaint with respect to what information Schwartz provided pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. NO. 1028(a)(3). 53. The Plaintiff alleges that: a.) the Plaintiff used the term "cherry pick" without defining said term and what actions the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant Schwartz did to create the illusion in the minds of Optima's board of directors, stock owners or managers that the Defendant Schwartz had been cherry picking. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3) the Defendants are entitled to a more specific complaint and so move; b.) the Plaintiff utilizes the term "best clients" but fails to identify them. Without knowing the identities of those "best clients" the Defendant Schwartz cannot plead and the Defendants request a more specific complaint identifying those alleged clients. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3). 54. the Plaintiff alleges that: a.) the Plaintiff alleges a conclusion that the corporate Defendant "diverted" Plaintiff's business from it to the Defendant Millennium without setting forth what facts the Plaintiff contends created its conclusion that Millennium "diverted its business. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3); b.) the Plaintiff pleads the conclusion that the corporate Defendant "diverted substantial additional existing clients and prospective leads" to itself. The Plaintiff does not set forth what it alleges is "substantial". Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what it alleges is the basis of its conclusion; c.) the Plaintiff pled that the corporate Defendant had "diverted ... additional existing clients" to itself from the Plaintiff but does not identify the "existing clients" by name or address. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth the names and addresses of Optima's "existing clients" that the Plaintiff alleges Millennium diverted to itself; d.) the Plaintiff pled that the corporate Defendant had "diverted ... additional existing clients and prospective leads" that the Plaintiff pled that the corporate Defendant had "diverted ... additional existing clients" to itself from the Plaintiff but does not identify the "prospective leads" by name or address. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth the names and addresses of Optima's "prospective leads" " that the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant Millennium diverted to itself; e.) the Plaintiff pled the conclusion that the corporate Defendant had engaged in "misappropriation" of Plaintiff's business without setting forth the facts on which it bases the charge of misappropriation. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting the facts the Plaintiff contends created a "misappropriation" of Plaintiff's business; f.) the Plaintiff pled the conclusion that the corporate Defendant had misappropriated its "assets" without identifying what assets the corporate Defendant misappropriated. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting the facts the Plaintiff contends created a "misappropriation" of Plaintiff's business; g.) the Plaintiff pled the conclusion that the corporate Defendant had misappropriated its "assets and proprietary information" from the Plaintiff to itself without identifying what "proprietary information" the to the corporate Defendant obtained. the corporate. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what "proprietary information" the Plaintiff alleges that corporate Defendant obtained;. h.) the Plaintiff alleges that the Plaintiff pled the conclusion that "any and all businesses of Millennium... (obtained) was proximately the result of, and fruit of, the misappropriations". The Plaintiff pled the conclusion that the corporate Defendant without setting forth the facts that the Plaintiff alleges support its conclusion that "any and all businesses" Millennium had was the result of misappropriated "assets and proprietary information" wrongfully obtained from the Plaintiff. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth the factual basis that "any and all" businesses the corporate Defendant had was the result of the Defendant's misappropriation; 55. the Plaintiff alleges that: a.) the Defendant Schwartz used "assets stolen" from Optima without identifying what "assets" it alleges the Defendant Schwartz used. . Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what assets it alleges the Defendant Schwartz utilized; b.) the Defendant Schwartz used "assets stolen" from Optima without setting forth what, when and how the Defendant Schwartz stole Plaintiff's "assets. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth how, when and what assets the Defendant Schwartz stole from the Plaintiff. 59. The Plaintiff alleges that: a.) the Defendant Thau's brother Adam Thau had admitted "his role in the business (Millennium), and disclosed and documented conduct of Schwartz...". However, the Plaintiff's pleading is defective because it fails set forth what Adam Thau disclosed. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what Adam Thau disclosed; b.) the Plaintiff pled that Adam Thau had "documented the conduct of the Defendant Schwartz" and the Plaintiff fails to attach to its Complaint what the Defendant Adam Thau documented. The Plaintiff's pleading without attaching what Adam Thau "documented" violates Pa.R.C.P. No 1019(i) and therefore it should be stricken or in the alternative the Plaintiff should be ordered to attach whatever Adam Thau had "documented by attaching same to its Complaint to bring it into conformance with Pa.R.C.P. No 1019(i); 60. The Plaintiff alleges that it is aware of "substantial lost business from Dataforth" without setting forth what it deems "substantial" and what business it lost. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what it deems "substantial" and identifying what business it lost. 61. The Plaintiff pled that: a.) "Because Schwartz had access to complete customer lists and leads, Optima believes and avers that" each of the Defendants "wrongfully diverted business from other customers". The Plaintiff has pled a conclusion but does not set forth the facts that support its belief. . Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth the facts that support its belief. b.) the Plaintiff pled that each Defendant had "wrongfully diverted business from other customers" of Optima. The Plaintiff fails to set forth what facts it believes support its conclusion. The Plaintiff has pled a conclusion but does not set forth the facts that support its belief. . Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth the facts that support its belief; c.) the Defendant Thau never worked for the Plaintiff and never had access to Plaintiff's facility. The Defendant Daniel Thau is entitled to know what facts support the Plaintiff's conclusion that he "wrongfully diverted business" from the Plaintiff to Milennium. The Plaintiff has pled a conclusion but does not set forth the facts that support its allegation. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth the facts that support its belief; 62. The Plaintiff pled that: a.) it is entitled to "injunctive relief' but fails to set forth why or what would entitle it to injunctive. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth the facts that support its conclusion that it is entitled to injunctive relief; b.) the Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to "monetary damages" but fails to set forth facts to support its contention, how and why it is entitled to monetary relief. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth the facts that support its conclusion that it is entitled monetary damages and to set froth the amount of damages as well as how and why it is entitled to monetary damages; c.) the Plaintiff pled that it is entitled to monetary damages "to redress the diversion and reestablish the relationships improperly stolen. The Plaintiff has pled the conclusion but not the facts to support its claim because it fails to set forth a list of what clients it contends it lost. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint identifying what clients it lost allegedly improperly acquired from the Plaintiff; d.) the Plaintiff pled that it is entitled to monetary damages "to redress the diversion and reestablish the relationships improperly stolen". The Plaintiff has pled the conclusion but not the facts to support its claim because it fails to set forth a list of what clients it contends it lost. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint identifying what clients the Plaintiff alleges that it lost; e.) the Plaintiff pled the conclusion that it lost clients allegedly "improperly acquired" from it, however, it does not set forth facts supporting the phrase. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendants request a more specific complaint identifying what clients the Plaintiff alleges that it lost and how the "relationships (were) improperly stolen." 65. The Plaintiff pled that: a.) the Defendant breached his common law duties to Optima with respect to trade secrets and proprietary information without listing what trade secrets the Plaintiff claims the Defendant took. If the Plaintiff alleges that the "trade secrets and proprietary information is written or susceptible to reproducing in writing, then the Plaintiff failed to comply with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(i) and the Defendant objects on the basis of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2) and b.) the Defendant misappropriated the "trade secrets and proprietary information" without stating when, how and what the Defendant misappropriated the "trade secrets and proprietary information". Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3), the Defendant requests a more specific complaint identifying setting forth what the aforesaid "trade secrets and propriety information" were and how the Defendant misappropriated them; c.) the Defendant utilized the "trade secrets and proprietary information" for "competitive activities during and after his employment with Optima however the Plaintiff does not set forth what particular activities before and after the Defendant left the Plaintiff's employ 65 (a.)The Defendant plead that Defendant Schwartz had breached common law duties of loyalty and confidentiality with regard to trade secrets and proprietary information. The Defendant requests a more specific complaint setting forth what common law duties of loyalty and what confidentiality duties the Plaintiff complains the Defendant Schwartz breached. b). The Defendant plead that Defendant Schwartz had breached common law duties of loyalty and confidentiality with respect to trade secrets and proprietary information. The Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what trade secrets and what proprietary information the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant utilized. c.) The Plaintiff plead that the Defendant Schwartz misappropriated trade secrets and proprietary information without setting forth how he misappropriated them. d). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Schwartz misappropriated the trade secrets and proprietary information for competitive activities during and after his employment by Optima. The Defendant Schwartz requested more specific complaint with respect to what activities the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did during his employment and separately after his employment. 66. The Plaintiff plead that the Defendant Schwartz's breaches "lost contracts with existing and prospective customers." The Defendant Schwartz requests a more specific complaint setting forth what lost contracts with existing Optima clients the Plaintiff claims they lost setting forth those contracts by name of existing customer and what specific loss the Plaintiff claimed and the Defendant requests a more specific complaint setting forth the prospective customers by name. 78. In paragraph no. 78, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant Schwarz had asked us to "how he sent some invaluable information." 78 (a)The Defendants requested more specific complaint with respect to what sensitive and inevaluable proprietary information the Plaintiff contends the Defendant Schwartz had. 78. (b)The Defendants in Paragraph No. 78 plead that the Defendant Schwartz executed a confidentiality agreement but failed to attach the copy of the agreement to the Complaint. The Defendants thereby violated Pa. R.C.P. 79. In Paragraph No. 79, the Plaintiff plead that the Defendant Schwartz was involved in fraudulent conduct but fails to set forth the particular conduct that the Plaintiff claims Defendant Schwartz did. The Defendant Swartz objects to the term "fraudulent" and requests a more specific complaint setting forth with particularity the fraudulent conduct that the Plaintiff claims Defendant Schwartz did. (b) In Paragraph No. 79, the Plaintiff plead that the Defendant Schwartz was involved in "theft of corporate assets: and opportunities for a period of more than two years. The Defendants Schwartz requests more specific complaint setting forth what corporate assets and opportunities the Defendant Schwartz engaged in that would constitute theft of corporate assets and opportunities. 80. (a) In Paragraph No. 80, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Schwartz "fraudulently acquired compensation and valuable proprietary information." The Defendant Schwartz objects to the Plaintiff's pleading that he fraudulently acquired and requests a more specific complaint setting forth with particularity the fraudulent conduct the Plaintiff contends Defendant Schwartz performed. 80 (b). The Defendant Schwartz requested more specific complaint as to the Plaintiff's pleading that he acquired "compensation and valuable proprietary information." The Defendant Schwartz requests a more specific complaint setting forth what "compensation and what valuable proprietary information" the Plaintiff claims the Defendant Schwartz had. 80 (c). The Defendant Schwartz objects to the portion of Paragraph No. 80 in which the Plaintiff plead that Defendant Schwartz had acquired compensation and valuable proprietary information for the benefit of Millennium, Nathan Schwartz and Daniel Thau. The Defendant Millennium and Daniel Thau each request a more specific complaint setting forth what compensation and what valuable proprietary information Defendant Schwartz obtained for each of them with specificity. 81. In Paragraph No. 81, the Plaintiff plead that Millennium and Daniel Thau "knowingly and intentionally facilitated and acted fraudulent scheme by accepting and acting upon the fraudulently acquired assets and information. 81 (b) The Defendants Millennium and Daniel Thau request a more specific complaint setting forth with particularity what fraudulent scheme and how they acted "upon the fraudulently acquired assets and information." The basis for the objection is that fraud has to be plead and set forth with particularity. 82 (a) In Paragraph No. 82, the Plaintiff plead that all Defendants "purposely concealed their wrongful conduct to insure maximum continuance." Each of the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth exactly what wrongful conduct the Plaintiff accuses them of being involved in and how they "concealed their wrongful conduct." 82 (b) The Plaintiff plead that the Defendants "took steps to attempt to secure the silence of Adam Thau when he left the company." The Defendants request a more specific complaint with respect to what steps the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants took to secure the "silence of Adam Thau." 83. The Plaintiff plead that the Defendants had engaged in "conspiratorial fraudulent conduct" and each Defendant requests a more specific complaint because fraud must be plead with particularity. 84 (a) The Plaintiff plead fraudulent conduct, but failed to set forth any specific fraudulent conduct and the Defendants request a more specific complaint with respect to exactly what conduct the Plaintiff contends was fraudulent. 84 M.The Plaintiff plead that the fraudulent conduct "caused lost contracts with existing and prospective customers." The Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what contracts the Plaintiff contends it lost from existing customers and also what claims it has with respect to "prospective customers." 85. The Plaintiff requests that each Defendant to discourage all compensation, income and benefits" because his claim is that each of the Defendants were involved in fraudulent appropriation of assets and corporate opportunities of Optima." Each Defendant requests a more specific complaint with respect to what the Plaintiff contends was fraudulent misappropriation because fraud must be plead with more specificity and particularity. 91. Paragraph No. 91, the Plaintiff plead that it lost "existing and prospective customers and substantial contracts." The Defendant Schwartz requests a more specific complaint setting forth the identity of the existing and prospective customers the Plaintiff complains that it lost and what "substantial contracts" he claims it lost. With respect to the "substantial contracts", the Defendant Schwartz requests a more specific complaint setting forth what "substantial contracts" consisted of. 92. The Plaintiff in Paragraph No. 92 plead that the Defendants were engaged in "fraudulent appropriation of assets and corporate opportunities of Optima." Each Defendant requests a more specific complaint setting forth with particularity what "fraudulent appropriation" the Plaintiff contends was involved in this case. 96. The Plaintiff in Paragraph No. 96 claims that "the entire business from Millennium is a fruit of the torsus misconduct of the Defendants Schwartz and Daniel Thau." Each Defendand requested a more specific complaint setting forth what specific "fruit' it claims is a result of the Defendants' torsus midconduct. Each Defendant, in addition, requests a more specific complaint setting forth what the Plaintiff contends "torsus misconduct." 97. In Paragraph No. 97, the Plaintiff plead "monetary damage cannot effectively compensate Optima." The aforesaid statement is a conclusion and the Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth the reasons the Plaintiff contends monetary damages "cannot effectively compensate Optima." 98. None. 99 (a) In Paragraph No. 99, the Plaintiff accuses each Defendant with "theft of proprietary information." The Defendants request a more specific complaint setting forth what the Plaintiff claims each of them did to constitute theft; the Plaintiff plead "theft of proprietary information." Each Defendant requests a more specific complaint setting forth what the Plaintiff contends is "proprietary information." 99 (b) Each Defendant requests a more specific complaint with respect to exactly what the Plaintiff contends was promotion of Millennium, Schwartz and Thau. 99 (c) In Paragraph No. 99, the Plaintiff plead that each Defendant used "stolen assets." Each Defendant requests a more specific complaint setting forth what acts it contends each Defendant did to steal "proprietary information" from the Plaintiff. 99 (d) The Plaintiff in Paragraph No. 99 plead that each Defendant had stolen "asset and opportunities" from the Plaintiff. Each Defendant requested more specific complaint setting forth which assets and what opportunities each Defendant stole from the Plaintff. 99 (e) In Paragraph No. 99, the Plaintiff plead that it engages in a "narrow and specialized field." Each Defendant requests a more specific complaint setting forth the basis the Plaintiff contends it competes in a "narrow and specialized field." 100 (a) The Plaintiff requests each Defendant to be "permanently enjoying for muse of any proprietary information" of Optima or information derived from the use of "proprietary information" of Optima. Each Defendant requests a more specific complaint setting forth what specific information the Plaintiff claims are proprietary and what specific information was derived from the use of proprietary information; 100 (b) In Paragraph 100, the Plaintiff twice plead "proprietary information." Each Defendant requests a more specific complaint setting forth exactly what the Plaintiff contends is proprietary information. Wherefore, the Defendants request a more specific complaint. Respectfully submitted, KNAUER & ASSOCIATES, L.S.C. David W. Knauer, Esquir Attorney for Claimant Attorney I.D. No. 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: December 4, 2007 (717) 795-7790 David W. Knauer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 21582 Knauer & Associates, L.S.C. 411-A E. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Knauer@early.com 717-795-7790 717-795-7793 Fax OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff v. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD NATHAN SWARTZ & DANIEL THAU, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA : NO. 07-6087 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David W. Knauer, Esquire, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the Defendants' Preliminary Objections was served on December 4, 2007 to the following individuals: Andrew W. Barbin, Esquire 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: December 4, 2007 Respectfully submitted, KNAUER & ASSOCIAT S, L.S.C. David W. Knauer, Es Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney I.D. No. 21582 411-A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 795-7790 "? ri SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-06087 P _4COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OPTIMA TECNOLOGY ASSOCIATES IN VS MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS LTD ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: THAU DANIEL but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT - EQUITY On November 28th , 2007 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: So an Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 %er Th mas ine .00 ff of Cumberland County . 00 16.00 I?I?3f b7 r. 11/28/2007 Ao ANDREW BARBIN Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of , A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-06087 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OPTIMA TECNOLOGY ASSOCIATES IN VS MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS LTD ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of YORK serve the within COMPLAINT - EQUITY County, Pennsylvania, to On November 28th , 2007 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep York County 57.43 Postage 3.59 9 8 . 0 2 11/28/2007 ANDREW BARBIN So answee R. Thomas Kline`- Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of in his bailiwick. He therefore A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-06087 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OPTIMA TECNOLOGY ASSOCIATES IN VS MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS LTD ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: SWARTZ NATHAN but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT - EQUITY On November 28th , 2007 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 11/28/2007 ANDREW BARBIN So answers. r. R. ThomasKline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. 1 OF 3 ! J COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF S(R>I?; 9601E 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE WSTRUCTIONS PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LME 1 THRU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPES 1 PLAINTIFF/S/ 2. C?W16 18ff Ft Y I r UVO Optima Technology Associates Inc tS civil 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT NOTICE, C I C 3 DEFENDANT/S/ Millennium Circuits Ltd et al Notice & Complaint SERVE 5 NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY. CORPORATION, ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD Millennium Inc 6 ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT NO, CITY, BORO. TWP. STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 181 Ore Bank Road Dillsbur , PA 17019 7 INDICATE SERVICE' U PERSONAL U PERSON IN CHARGE XMDEPUTIZE U RT _MAIh U 1ST CLASS MAIL U POSTED U OTHER NOW November 8 20 07 I, SHERIFF OF Y OUNTY, PA, do hereby eputize the sheri f York COUNTY to execute this Writ an thereof -a to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff., );HER OF COUNiY4 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICU U T OF COUNTY Cumberland Please mail return of service to CImiberland County Sheriff. Thank you. ADV FEE PAID BY CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy of the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATUR , 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED 5020 RITTER ROAD, SUITE 109, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 17-506-4670 10-16-2007 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed) CUMBERLAND CO SHE RIFF SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHERIFF - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS L.ME 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15. Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. M J M C G I L L Y C S O 111-9-2007 111-15-2007 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL ( ) RESIDENCE ( POSTED( ) POE( ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER ( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. O 1 hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because 1 am unable to I e the individual, company, etc. named above. (See remarks below.) 18. NAME AND TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED / LIST ADORE E IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendant) 19. Date of Service 20. Time of Service ,A- 4Z S444V-A'V 'L C-0 - 0v`J'4P-'4 -- 1I-14-oh :SH f 21. ATTEMPTS Date Time Mi 5p In . e Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. 22. 23. Advance Costs 24. Service Costs 25 N/F 26. Mileage 27. Postage 28. Sub Total 29. Pound 30. Notary 31. Surchg. 32 Tot. Costs 33 Costs Due efund Check No >150.00 0.00 .C?j ?9. 0 34. Foreign County Costs 35. Advance Costs 36 Service Costs 37 Notary Cert. 38. Mdeage/Pos1aiVJNot Found 39. Total Costs 40. Costs Due or Refund 41 AFFIRIM nd subscrib befo me this SO ANSWERS . NI ll N Signature of re 45. GATE 42, day of .20- 43. PR T 4 Dep. Sheriff o ^ , H e i NOTARY 46. Signature of York v E County Sheriff - WILLIAM M. HOSE, SHERIFF 11-20-20( 48. Signature of Foreign 49 DATE County Sheriff • OF AUTHORIZED F AUi ••"vV?ISSUINGrScvc"r' yrAUTHORITYn? anu?rANDrc 3acTITLEcwnn oivnr%rur%r 151. DATE RECEIVED 1. WHITE - Issuing Authority, 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY -Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE - Sheriffs Office a ? ?.?', ? =?,? ! ?' ?•'?'' =mow '+ NIA i r. ! • (.'7 G [ _1 4 03A "J -..jL COUNTY OF YORK 2 OF 3 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 9 SERVICE CALL. (717) 771-9601 SHERIFF SERVICE NSTRWTXM PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LSE 1 THRU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPES 1 PLAINTIFF/S/ 2. COURT NUMBER 07-6087 Optima Technology Associates Inc 07-6087 civil 3 DEFENDANT/S/ 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAIN O T I C , C I C A Millennium Circuits Ltd et al Notice and Complaint SERVE 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY. CORPORATION, ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD 181 Ore Bank Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 116. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT NO., CITY, BORO. TWP. STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT Nathan Swartz 7 INDICATE SERVICE' U PERSONAL L7 PERSON IN CHARGE XN DEPUTIZE U CERT MAIL L] 1ST CLASS MAIL U POSTED U OTHER NOW November 8 , 20 07 I, SHERIFF OF 9W '4? C UNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the sheriff of York COUNTY to execute this Writ and, =!t- n thereof g to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. SHERIFF-DIF OU 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICb U T OF C 0 U N T Y Cumberland ADV FEE PAID BY CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and S I G N A T U R F n a N D R E W W. B A R B I N , ESQ. 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED 5020 RITTER ROAD, STE 109., MCHANICSBURG, PA 17055 717-506-4670 10-16-2007 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed). CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHERIFF - 00 NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LM 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15. Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. M J M C G I L L Y C S O 111-9-2007 111-15-2007 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL ( RESIDENCE ( PO ED ( ) POE( ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. O 1 hereby certity and return a NOT FOUND because I am to locate the individual, company, etc. named above. (See remarks below.) 18. NAME AND TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED / LIST RESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendant) 19. Date of Service 20 Time of Service 21. ATTEMPTS Date Time Miles Int. Vale Time Miles Int. Dale Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Mlles Int. 22. REMARKS: 23. Advance Costs 24 Service Costs 25. N/F 26. Mileage 27. Postage 28. Sub Total 29. Pound 30 Notary 31. Surchg. 32. Tot. Costs 33 Costs Due ar Refund Check No 34. ForWgn County Costs 35. Advance Costs 36 Service Costs 37 Notary Cert. 38. Mileage/Postage/Not Found 39. Total Costs 40 Costs Due or Refund 41. AFFIRMED and subscribed to befo me this O t h 3 ANSWERS . N 0 V _ . Q7 42 day of 44. Signature of / 45. T . - - -r lIte"9 4 NOTARY Dep. Sheriff J r ' d r7 1 46. Signature of York U / _A7- DATE _ .,.. County Sheriff WILLIAM M. HOSE, SHERIFF 11-20-2007 48 Signature of Foreign 49 DATE County Sheriff 4n 1 nrrrunuu-enr_e-ornre?nt OF AUTHORIZED ISSUING ......,..-"'-"-- AUTHORITY AND TIT 51 DAthRECEIVED LE 1. WHITE - Isawng Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY -Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE - Shenffs Office y 9l t `t'J 3 OF 3 COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 Miles I SERVICE CALL, (717) 771-9601 SHERIFF SERVICE WSTRWTIONS PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LSE 1 THRU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPES 1 PLAINTIFF/S/ 2 COURT NUMBER 07 - 6 0 8 7 Optima Technology Associates Inc 07-6087 civil 3. DEFENDANT/S/ 4 TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINN O T I C E , C I C I Millennium Circuits Ltd et al Notice and Ccmplaint SERVE nAMt OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY. CORPORATION, ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD Di9Tliel Thau 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT NO, CITY, BORO, TWP. STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 181 Ore Bank Road Dillsburg, PA 17019 7. INDICATE SERVICE: 0 PERSONAL U PERSON IN CHARGE XXU DEPUTIZE U CERT MAIL U 1ST CLASS MAIL U POSTED U OTHER NOW November 8 20 07 I, SHERIFF O NTY, PA, do he by deputize t e eriff of York COUNTY to execute this W return ther rding to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff.. 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE:O U T O F C 0 U N T Y curriberland ADV FEE PAID BY CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction. or removal of any property before sheriffs sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE ANDREW W. B A R B I N , ESQ 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED 5020 RITTER RD., STE 109 MCHANICSBURG, PA 17055 717-506-4670 10-16-2007 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed). CUMBERLAND CO SHERIFF SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHERIFF - DO NOT WRITE WELOW THIS UM 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15. Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. M J M C G I L L Y C S O 11- 9- 2 0 0' 111-15-2007 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL ( ) RESIDENCE (IJr POSTED( ) POE ( ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER ( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. 0 1 hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, etc named above. (See remarks below.) 16. NAME AND TITLE OF INDIVIO L SERVED / LIST ADDRESS HE SHOWN ABOVE (RetationJs 1i to Defendant) 19. Date of Service 20 Time of Service Miles Int. DatLrl Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. Dale Time Miles Int. Date Time Mlles Int 21. ATTEMPTS Dale n315 22. REMARKS: 23. Advance Costs 24. Service Costs 25 N/F 126. Mileage 1 27. Postage 28. Sub Total 29. Pound 30. Notary 31. Surchg. 32. Tot. Costs 33 Costs Due or Rehired Check No 34. Foreign County Costs 35. Advance Costs 36 Service Costs 37 Notary Cert. 38. Mieage/PostagafNot Found 39. Total Costs 40. Costs Due or Refund 41. AFFIRM subscribed to bef a me this SO EWERS " 42, day of U V _ 2o-O 743:_ Sp ature of Depn.SheriR ??3 p rr 4?' "/T p 1 -RaQ444*4 NOTARY 46Signature of York -- W. DATE County Sheriff WILLIAM M. HOSE SHERIFF 1-20-2007 r48 Signature of Foreign 49. DATE County Sheriff ...?.,..?..... ...?.v... aro.?n??nc I51.UATEREGEIVED OF AUTHORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND TITLE 1. WHITE - lssu" Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY -Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE - ShenRs Office ANDREW W. BARBnv, ESQUME Attorney LD. 43571 ANDREW W. BARRIN, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717/5064670 OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD NATHAN SCHwARTz & DANIEL THAU DEFENDANTS : Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.. 07-6087 COMPLAINT IN LAW & EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (LEGAL ISSUES) RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiff, by and through counsel, Andrew W. Barbin, P.C., hereby files this Response in Opposition to Defendants' Preliminary Objections of Defendants as follows: 1. SUMMARY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Nathan Schwartz was an employee of Optima. He conspired with Daniel Thau and Adam Thau to create a competing business (Millennium), while he remained an employee of Optima. Nathan took bid package, pricing and quotation type information as well as all the general information required to establish a business and used it to the detriment of Optima to divert existing and potential business opportunities from optima to Millennium. He did this despite having previously executed a non-compete agreement which prohibited competing with the employer during employment or using employer proprietary information after employment. He bragged to Adam Thau that he destroyed his non-compete agreement before he finally left employment with Optima. The Complaint sets forth the claims arising from this misconduct in detail. It also identifies specific clients known to have been stolen. There is no lack of specificity, and no required document was omitted. II. RESPONSE To SPECIFIC AVERMENTS Defendants assert a single request for a more specific pleading through a serial objection to specificity of specific paragraphs. Though a global response is provided in argument below, a response to the specific assertions is provided numerically here, for clarity and ease of cross reference. 6. Under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(8), a document may reference and incorporate another part of the document. There is no lack of specificity here, as set forth in the remainder of the Complaint; the wrongful competition took place at a business/residence in Cumberland County. No specificity objection is implicated. 10. The confidential and proprietary information referenced in Paragraph 10 is further clarified by Paragraphs 12, 29, and 30 and illustrated by a specific example in Paragraphs 48 and 49. There is more than sufficient specificity. The failure to attach the executed non-compete is sufficiently explained by the averment in Paragraph 44 that the executed agreement was ripped up by Schwartz. The content of the destroyed document is a discovery issue. Under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(1) it is sufficient to explain the absence of the document and state its gist which has been done. If necessary, a copy of the agreements of the other employees containing the same terms can be provided though Plaintiff contends that it is a discovery rather than a pleading issue. The agreements of others are not a basis for the suit under Pa.R.C.P. 1019 (h), but are evidence of the terms under 1019(i). 11. See Paragraph 10 above. 12. There is no lack of specificity here. The issue with regard to Proprietary information is addressed in Paragraph 10 above. These are all discovery issues and have nothing whatever to do with whether proper causes of action were pled with sufficient specificity. 2 13. There is no lack of specificity here. Defendants created a directly competing entity using proprietary information including actual current bid information to divert an existing client of Optima to the new business. See Paragraph 10 above. These are all discovery issues and have nothing whatever to do with whether proper causes of action were pled with sufficient specificity. 19. See Paragraph 10 above. 27. There is no lack of specificity. See Paragraph 10 above. Defendants wrongfully secured and used bid information of Optima to ensure that its competing bid would be lower. The terms used have settled meaning in reference to noncompete litigation in Pennsylvania and are used in that sense. There is not the least ambiguity in the nature of the allegations. Plaintiff is not required in the pleading stage to identify each fact which supports a claim or each instance of the fraudulent course of conduct. The scope of the fraudulent conduct is pled with more than sufficient detail to enable a response to be filed. All other matters are discovery issues and have nothing whatever to do with whether proper causes of action were pled with sufficient specificity. 28. This averment does not assert to be a preliminary objection, but merely an objection to a characterization. A denial in an Answer is the only proper forum for this concern. 30. There is no lack of specificity. Plaintiff is not required to identify each document and is permitted to describe by type and by category. Inclusion of the etc. did not alter the specificity of the pleading and merely indicates that the description is categorical and nonexclusive. 31. These are all discovery issues and have nothing whatever to do with whether proper causes of action were pled with sufficient specificity. 3 32. In the context of a sales business there is no ambiguity in the averment that Defendant took leads and proprietary information from Optima and used them for Millennium. The Dataforth bid package was a specific example of this conduct. See Paragraph 10 above. 35. See Paragraphs 10 and 32 above. 37. In context, there is no conceivable reference but to time spent. by Schwartz as the employee of Optima to wrongfully divert corporate opportunities, proprietary information, and client relationships of Optima for the wrongful benefit of Millennium and the co-conspirator defendants. See Paragraph 19, and generally Paragraphs 19 through 37. He was the only Defendant to work for Optima. There is no lack of specificity here. 44. There is no lack of specificity here. Specific clients were identified in Paragraphs 48 to 52. Optima also avers that it believes there were others who were diverted or whom Defendants attempted to divert and thereby interfered with existing and prospective contractual relations. 45. This is absurd. First, the averment reports the words reported. to have been used by Schwartz, Defendants is the author of any ambiguity alleged. Second, the word "keying" is generally understood as involving scratching by running a key across a surface; there is no ambiguity in that aspect. "Phoenix order" is a clear reference to existing work of Optima pending during Schwartz employment and wrongful competition overlap with a company called Phoenix. Finally, the keying averment is not an essential element of any claim, and is merely part of the res gestae which establishes the alleged character of the conduct alleged. 51. The allegation is plain on its face, applies to all, and is not in any way lacking in specificity. 4 52. In context, there is no ambiguity that Optima alleges that confidential proprietary information regarding existing clients of Optima was given to Millennium employees to allow them to use the information to have a competitive advantage in wrongfidly competing with Optima. 53. The allegation is plain on its face, applies to all, and is not in any way lacking in specificity. An allegation that Defendants sought to "cherry pick" Optima's best clients is in no way ambiguous. Specific clients were identified in Paragraphs 47 to 52., and Paragraph 53 merely characterized the significance and import of the prior averments in the context of Optima's business. 54. The allegation is plain on its face, applies to all, and is not in any way lacking in specificity. Specific clients were identified in Paragraphs 47 to 52, and Paragraph 54 merely indicates that Optima believe that additional instances of the wrongful conduct will be revealed in discovery. 55. There is no lack of specificity. See Paragraphs 10, 32, and 37 above. 59. The sworn statement of Adam Thau referenced in the averment is evidence of misconduct and not the basis of a claim under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h). As such, Defendants are not entitled to production of the statement itself until discovery commences following their issuance of a verified answer. Optima contends that Defendants seek the document prior to filing an answer in order to enable them to adjust their answer to address their admissions against interest. 60. Optima is not required to plead with specificity the amount of lost business, and has not done so because the information is in the possession and control of third parties. Eventually, Defendants will have to identify which of its clients "just happened to be" prior clients of Optima; Optima will then acquire the billing records related to each. Once that 5 information is provided, Optima will be able to provide detailed specification of all work claimed to be subject to this claim in responsive discovery. Optima is aware of the Dataforth contract through communications with Adam Thau and Dataforth, quantification for Dataforth and others however is not possible prior to discovery, and has nothing whatever to do with any legitimate pleading issue. 61. There is no lack of specificity here. The basis for the conclusion is stated in the averment and in the preceding averments. There is no ambiguity that only Swartz worked for Optima. It is plainly averred that Millennium and Thau knowingly and intentionally joined a civil conspiracy to make wrongful use of the information and assets wrongfully diverted from Optima to Millennium by Schwartz. 62. This is a conclusion of law in relation to all the preceding averments and is not ambiguous in the context of the well settled law of wrongful competition by former employees in Pennsylvania. There is no lack of specificity. 65. (Repeated in the pleading.) There is no lack of specificity. General description and specific examples were pled and previously addressed. 66. Specific clients were pled and previously addressed. See Paragraph 54 above. 78. There is no ambiguity in that averment. It summarizes the detailed averment incorporated by averment Paragraph 77. These concerns were addressed multiple times previously. See Paragraphs 10, 32, 37 above. 79. to 81. These concerns were addressed multiple times previously. See Paragraphs 10, 32, 37 above. 82. The averment regarding attempts to silence Adam is not ambiguous or lacking in required specificity. This is evidence related to knowledge of the wrongful nature of the 6 conduct. Optima is not required to plead the details of such evidence. This is entirely a discovery issue. The remaining concerns were addressed multiple times previously. See Paragraphs 10, 32, 37 above. 83. to 100. The remaining concerns were addressed multiple times previously. See Paragraphs 10, 32, 37 above. III. ARGUMENT The Complaint sets forth in detail a straightforward series of interrelated claims of wrongful competition by an employee during and after employment. Known conduct is detailed and additional wrongful conduct which is believed to have occurred is also set forth with sufficient detail to allow appropriate responsive pleading and to focus discovery. Plaintiff contends that the Complaint is more than adequately specific and that any and all issues raised in these objections are matters reserved for discovery. However, to the extent the Court may deem that there is any lack of specificity, or that either the executed non-compete agreements of the other employees or the statement of Adam Thau should be attached to the Complaint as claimed, then Optima seeks leave to amend to address any deficiency identified. IV. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Preliminary Objections should be Dismissed and Defendants be directed to Answer the Complaint. Respectfu mitted, _ Atty. No. 43571 Andrew W. Barbin, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-506-4670 Date: January 9, 2008 7 ANDREW W. Bmmw, EsQuntE Attorney I.D. 43571 ANDREW W. BARBIN, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717/50641670 OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD NATHAN SCHWARTZ & DANIEL THAU DEFENDANTS Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.. 07-6087 COMPLAINT IN LAW & EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (LEGAL ISSUES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew W. Barbin, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS upon the company and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, as follows: David W. Knauer, Esquire Knauer & Associates, LSC 411 A East Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6; Attorney for Plaintiff Optima Technology Associates, Inc. DATE: January 9, 2008 Atty. NO. 432 / 1 Andrew W. Barbin, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-506-4670 L » c_h? A Todd J. Shill, Esquire Attorney I. D. No. 69225 Rhoads & Sinon LLP One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC. Plaintiff V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD, NATHAN S WARTZ & DANIEL THAU Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-6087 COMPLAINT IN LAW & EQUITY ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Todd J. Shill and Rhoads & Sinon LLP on behalf of the Defendants in the above-captioned matter. RHOADS & SINON LLP By: Todd J. Shi One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants 688526.1 J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of May, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Entry of Appearance" was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Andrew W. Barbin, Esquire Andrew W. Barbin, P.C. 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 9.,a. MoL, ? i .? V v M o -. ? ? 5 ANDREW W. BARBIN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 43571 ANDREW W. BARBIN, P.C. 555 Gettysburg Pike, Suite C-100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717/506-4670 OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD NATHAN SCHWARTZ & DANIEL THAU DEFENDANTS Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.. 07-6087 COMPLAINT IN LAW & EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (LEGAL ISSUES PRAECIPE TO UPDATE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO: CURT LONG, Prothonotary Please update the firm affiliation, address and phone number of Andrew W. Barbin as follows: Andrew W. Barbin, Esquire Andrew W. Barbin, P.C. Atty. I.D. #43571 555 Gettysburg Pike, Suite C-100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Telephone: (717) 506-4670 Facsimile: (717) 506-4672 Respect 11 submitted, 'a? Andrew W. Barbin, Esquire Atty. I.D. 43571 ANDREW W. BARBIN, P.C. 555 Gettysburg Pike, Suite C-100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-506-4670 DATED: May 30, 2008 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 ANDREW W. BARBIN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 43571 ANDREW W. BARBIN, P.C. 555 Gettysburg Pike, Suite C-100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717/506-4670 OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD NATHAN SCHWARTZ & DANIEL THAU DEFENDANTS Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.. 07-6087 COMPLAINT IN LAW & EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (LEGAL ISSUES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew W. Barbin, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the PRAECIPE To UPDATE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE upon the company and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Todd J. Shill, Esquire Rhoads & Sinon, LLP P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 Andrew W. Barbin Atty. No. 43571 Andrew W. Barbin, P.C. 555 Gettysburg Pike, Suite C-100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-506-4670 Attorney for Plaintiff Optima Technology Associates, Inc. DATE: May 30, 2008 r? "•.' i:7 ;?; c.-? ? s ? ? j ? 1,. ? h f V ":..?.. ...r.f ?. :.., .; . p ?.. ?} 4 '? ? i w.- . i? OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD NATHAN SCHWARTZ & DANIEL THAU DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.. 07-6087 COMPLAINT IN LAW & EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (LEGAL ISSUES) PRAECIPE TO UPDATE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO: CURT LONG, Prothonotary Please update the street address of Andrew W. Barbin as follows, all other information remains the same: n c A ndrew W. Barbin, Esquire -r, tr ,- 4 -p V Andrew W. Barbin, P.C. .-_ r- C ri Atty. I.D. #43571 r -0 rn 5 Kaeey Cw r-+-, aui'f-, 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 M Telephone: (717) 506-4670 s•`•' Facsimile: (717) 506-4672 car, Respectfully submitted, Andrew W. Barbin, Esquire Atty. I.D. 43571 ANDREW W. BARBIN, P.C. 5 Kacey Court, Suite 102 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-506-4670 Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: February 5, 2010 OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF V. MILLENNIUM CIRCUITS, LTD NATHAN SCHWARTZ & DANIEL THAU DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.. 07-6087 COMPLAINT IN LAW & EQUITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (LEGAL ISSUES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew W. Barbin, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the PRAECIPE To UPDATE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE upon the company and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Todd J. Shill, Esquire Rhoads & Sinon, LLP P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 Andrew W. Barbin Atty. No. 43571 Andrew W. Barbin, P.C. 555 Gettysburg Pike, Suite C-100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-506-4670 Attorney for Plaintiff Optima Technology Associates, Inc. DATE: February 5, 2010 OF SUM David 1n. Bud( e Renee X Simpson Prothonotary :' _ . D 1St Deputy Prothonotary 0 !lfuu.� /it �irkS. Sohona ESQ �\ °` '`'`� Irene E. llorrozu Solicitor 1750 2nd Deputy Prothonotary Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County, Pennsylvania - 4:a87 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013,AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE—THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P.230.2. BY THE COURT, DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 • Carlisle, PA 17013 • (717)240-6195 • Fax.(717)240-6573