HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-4565V/ 6
DAVID'S FURNITURE, LTD., a COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Pennsylvania Corporation, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
V. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5 Ot'VJ VVh
JANET L. MEGONNELL and GEHMAN
& CO., :
Defendant
NOTICE TO DEFEND
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 defenses 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 for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money
or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW.
THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER
LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
Lawyers Referral Service
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(800) 990-9108
USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las
demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accibn dentro de
los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacibn de esta Demanda y Aviso
radicantopersonalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la
Corte por escrito sus defenses de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya.
Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso
puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o
culquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra
suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros
derechos importantes para usted.
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO
INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA
SIGUIENTE OFICINA, ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA
DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO.
SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES
POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE
AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A
PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN.
Lawyers Referral Service
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(800) 990-9108
496148vI
4
KATHRYN L. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE
Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 28960
3401 North Front Street
P. 0. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000 - Phone
(717) 236-1816 - Fax
klsimpson@mette.com
DAVID'S FURNITURE, LTD., a
Pennsylvania Corporation,
Plaintiff,
V.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
LAW AND EQUITY
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 01- qS(S ? ??
JANET L. MEGONNELL and GEHMAN
& CO.,
Defendant
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff, David's Furniture, Ltd. ("David's") is a corporation organized and
operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with corporate offices at 914 S.
13th Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
2. David's operates retail furniture stores offering design services at several
locations in Dauphin, Cumberland, Lancaster, York and Berks County, Pennsylvania.
3. Janet L. Megonnell is an adult individual and resident of Elizabethtown,
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
4. Until May 27, 2008, Megonnell was employed by David's as a design consultant.
5. As a condition of her employment, Megonnell signed a Covenant Not to Compete
("Covenant"). A true and correct copy of the Covenant is attached as Exhibit "A."
6. Gehman & Co. ("Gehman") is a fictitious name, registered with the Pennsylvania
Corporations Bureau, of a retail furniture business with a principal place of business at 121
Gettysburg Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
7. Gehman is a direct competitor of David's.
8. Beginning sometime after her resignation from David's Megonnell was hired by
Gehman as a design consultant or equivalent position, and now works at Gehman's principal
place of business at 121 Gettysburg Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This is an action for equitable and injunctive relief as well as damages, and the
damages sought are in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court.
10. This action arises out of a covenant not to compete, promises, and common and
statutory law duties and obligations between David's and Megonnell and Gehman, therefore,
venue and jurisdiction properly lie in the court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11. David's is engaged in the business of marketing and selling home furnishings and
design services and owning and operating retail furniture stores and related activities in Central
Pennsylvania.
12. Megonnell was hired as a design consultant and assigned to David's
Mechanicsburg store located at 53 N York St, Mechanicsburg, PA.
13. The furniture business is competitive throughout the United States and in
Pennsylvania, and it is dependent for its success upon the strength of relationships between each
store, design consultant and customers.
14. Pursuant to David's business model for all of its stores, it emphasizes to the
design consultants that the development of strong and lasting relationships with customers is the
foundation for the stores' success.
15. David's has dedicated substantial financial resources and training to ensuring that
its design consultants are able to develop the skills necessary to maintain strong and lasting
relationships with customers and to serve the needs of those customers.
16. As with its other stores, David's relies primarily on the design consultants to
develop and maintain relationships between themselves and their customers.
IT Megonnell's Covenant is dated August 30, 2005.
18. Megonnell's Covenant prohibits her from taking part in any business or
performing any services in direct competition with the business of David's within a 50 mile
3
radius of the various locations where David's has stores, for the duration of her employment and
for a period of two years following the termination of her employment.
19. Megonnell's conduct during her employment with David's reflected her belief
that she was bound by the terms of the Covenant.
20. As a design consultant at the Mechanicsburg store, Megonnell was responsible for
greeting customers, assisting them in the selection and purchase of furnishings, and providing
design services.
21. In her capacity as a design consultant, Megonnell had substantial and continuous
contact with David's customers.
22. Megonnell's duties as a design consultant were the obligation to market on behalf
of David's Mechanicsburg store and to increase business.
23. Megonnell was attentive to and successful in her marketing efforts for David's.
24. In her capacity as design consultant, Megonnell had access to confidential and
proprietary business information related to aspects of David's business, including but not limited
to pricing information, customer lists, and marketing strategies.
25. In her capacity as design consultant, Megonnell also had access to and was
entrusted with proprietary and confidential procedures, and guidelines and forms setting forth
information about customer service, all of which are unique to David's system of operation, and
were developed by David's.
4
26. In the course of her duties as design consultant, Megonnell also had access to
proprietary and confidential information related to David's overall business and management
strategies.
27. On May 27, 2008, Megonnell gave notice of her resignation from her employment
with David's which David's made effective immediately.
28. David's informed Megonnell that it intended to enforce the Covenant and it would
not allow her to utilize proprietary and/or confidential information obtained in the course of her
employment at David's.
29. Megonnell has accepted employment with Defendant Gehman & Co. ("Gehman")
whose furniture store is located less than four (4) miles from David's location where she worked.
30. Upon information and belief, Megonnell is using confidential and proprietary
business information from David's for her own purposes and gain and for that of Gehman.
31. The location of Megonnell's new employment with Gehman is less than four (4)
miles from the David's Mechanicsburg store and within the distance prohibition set forth in the
Covenant.
32. Megonnell's employment by Gehman within four (4) miles of the David's
Mechanicsburg store, her use of information about pricing techniques and practices, and use of
David's confidential and proprietary business information and trade secrets constitute breaches
of her contractual, statutory, quasi-contractual, common law fiduciary duties of loyalty to
David's, unlawful interference with David's business relations, and misappropriation of David's
trade secrets.
5
33. Megonnell's repudiation and breaches of her contractual, statutory, quasi-
contractual and common law obligations are wrongful, without justification, and will cause great
harm to David's.
34. Fairness and justice requires that Megonnell be bound to her obligations and
promises not to compete, disclose, keep or use David's information or business practices or
procedures, and to maintain confidentiality and loyalty to David's.
35. As a result of Megonnell's wrongful repudiation of her obligations, David's has
suffered and will continue to suffer monetary losses and immediate and irreparable harm,
including but not limited to loss of business goodwill, business relationships, disclosures of its
confidential business procedures and operations, and loss of customers.
36. The immediate and irreparable harm to David's cannot be avoided by any other
means than enjoining Megonnell from continuing her employment with Gehman, and further
enjoining her from keeping, disclosing, seeking, or utilizing David's proprietary or confidential
business information for her own purposes.
37. The threatened harm to David's outweighs any possible harm to Megonnell from
the issuance of an injunction because Megonnell is capable of working outside of the geographic
limitation and without otherwise violating her obligations to David's.
38. David's timely informed Megonnell that it would seek a permanent injunctive
relief if she pursued the activities complained of in this Complaint.
39. David's timely informed Gehman that it would seek a permanent injunctive relief
if it continued to employ Megonnell.
6
40. All conditions precedent to David's right to seek relief have been performed or
have otherwise occurred or been waived.
COUNTI
BREACH OF CONTRACT
V.
JANET MEGONNELL
41. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated and are made a material part of this
Count I.
42. Megonnell entered into a valid and enforceable Covenant with David's whereby
she agreed not to:
a. engage in business in competition with the business of David's within a
50-mile radius of the City of Harrisburg, City of Lancaster, and City of York;
b. disclose any trade secrets, details of business affairs, names of customers,
or other information relating to David's business; and
c. Solicit, canvass or accept any business or transaction for any other person,
firm or corporation or business similar to David's.
43. David's has sought from Megonnell adequate assurances that she would honor her
obligations under the Covenant, which assurances Megonnell has failed to provide.
44. The Covenant is reasonable and ancillary to the offer of employment between
David's and Megonnell, was supported by consideration, and is enforceable in equity, thus
entitling David's to injunctive relief.
45. David's provision is reasonable and necessary to protect the legitimate interests of
David's, including, but not limited to, its maintenance of business relationships with customers,
valuable, unique, and confidential business information related to its methods of servicing
7
customers, customer lists, marketing, pricing and training as well as business management
procedures, and its goodwill with the public within a specific geographical region.
46. The Covenant provision is reasonable in that it is limited in scope, time, and
geographical area and extends only so far as is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of
David's and at least covers Megonnell's employment within four (4) miles of the David's store
in which she previously worked.
47. Megonnell is in breach of her contractual obligations in that she made plans to
accept employment with Defendant Gehman, a direct competitor of David's located within four
(4) miles of the location where Megonnell worked.
48. Megonnell is in violation of her contractual obligation in that she has learned her
methods of business procedures from David's and, upon information and belief, intends to utilize
this proprietary information in her new employment.
49. David's has honored its obligations to Megonnell for the entire duration of
Megonnell's employment with David's.
50. David's has substantially complied with all of its obligations as an employer of
Megonnell.
51. No event has occurred that would permit Megonnell to repudiate or otherwise fail
to honor her obligations under the Covenant.
52. As a result of Megonnell's wrongful repudiation of her contractual obligations,
David's has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary losses and substantial irreparable
harm, including but not limited to loss of business goodwill, business relationships with
8
customers, confidentiality of its business methods including marketing, pricing, customer lists
and training.
53. The irreparable harm to David's cannot be avoided by any other means than
enjoining Megonnell from working at Defendant Gehman & Co., within a fifty (50) mile radius
of David's Mechanicsburg store, or otherwise breaching her non-compete obligations, and
further enjoining her from keeping, disclosing, seeking, or utilizing David's proprietary or
confidential business information for her own purposes or that of any other.
COUNT II
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
V.
JANET MEGONNELL
54. Paragraphs 1 through 53 are incorporated and are made a material part of this
Count II.
55. Through words and actions, including at least by signing the Covenant,
Megonnell promised David's that she would carry out her duties of loyalty and confidentiality to
David's, would not accept employment or work with a competitor of David's within the 50-mile
radius of the stores, would not engage in activities that conflict with David's interests, use
confidential and proprietary and business information for her own personal purposes or gain or
those of another.
56. Megonnell knew and expected that David's would rely on her words and actions
to believe that Megonnell would honor her loyalty and confidentiality obligations, and would not
9
compete, disclose information, engage in conflict of interest, or otherwise use David's business
information for her own purposes.
57. David's relied on Megonnell's words and conduct to David's detriment, in that it
employed Megonnell in a position that allowed her access to all manner of confidential and
proprietary information about David's business procedures and business contacts.
58. Megonnell has used her access to all manner of confidential and proprietary
information about David's business procedures and business contacts for her own purposes and
gain and against the interests of David's to David's detriment, including but not limited to loss of
business goodwill, business relationships with customers and confidentiality of its business
procedures and operations.
59. David's has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages and
substantial, immediate and irreparable harm as a result of Megonnell's actions, including but not
limited to loss of business goodwill, business relationships with customers, and the
confidentiality of its business procedures and operations.
60. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing Megonnell's promises to David's, and
prohibiting her from working for Gehman & Co. within a 50-mile radius of Mechanicsburg store,
or otherwise breaching her non-compete obligations or from keeping, disclosing, seeking, or
using confidential and proprietary information about David's business procedures, and business
contacts for her own purposes and gain.
10
COUNT III
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY/BREACH OF LOYALTY
V.
JANET MEGONNELL
61. Paragraphs 1 through 60 are incorporated and made a material part of this Count
III.
62. Megonnell was employed as a design consultant at the Mechanicsburg store and
as such, has a common law obligation to act on behalf of and in the interests of David's.
63. Megonnell has a common law fiduciary duty and a duty of loyalty to:
a. Act in good faith and solely for David's and the Mechanicsburg store in
all of her business dealings concerning the retail sales of furnishing and related
businesses;
b. Use the facilities, equipment, personnel and business opportunities
available through David's only for the benefit of David's and the Mechanicsburg store;
C. Refrain from utilizing the facilities, equipment, personnel, and business
opportunities for her own benefit in a competing business;
d. Refrain from using confidential and proprietary business information
obtained while employed by David's for a competing business;
e. Refrain from using confidential or proprietary business procedures,
business practices, and other information about the furniture business practices unique to
David's, for any business other than David's.
64. Megonnell has violated her common law fiduciary duties of loyalty by using
facilities, equipment, business opportunities, proprietary and confidential business information,
and proprietary and confidential information about David's unique method of marketing, pricing,
using customer lists and training by becoming employed by Gehman, a competitor of David's,
located less than four (4) miles from David's Mechanicsburg store.
11
It
65. Megonnell's wrongful acts were intentional and outrageous, taken to further her
own pecuniary interests, with wanton disregard for the interests and rights of David's.
66. David's has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages and
substantial, immediate and irreparable harm as a result of Megonnell's breaches of her fiduciary
duties of loyalty to David's, including but not limited to loss of business goodwill, business
relationships, and confidentiality of its business procedures and operations.
67. David's immediate and irreparable harm can only be remedied by prohibiting
Megonnell from continuing her employment within a 50-mile radius of Mechanicsburg, or
otherwise breaching her non-compete obligations, and/or from keeping, disclosing, seeking, or
using confidential and proprietary information about David's business procedures and business
contacts.
COUNT IV
INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
V.
JANET MEGONNELL
68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 are incorporated by reference and are made a material
part of this Count IV.
69. The development of long lasting business relationships with customers is the
foundation of the success of David's in general and more specifically, of the Mechanicsburg
store.
70. David's has a reasonable expectation that, absent interference by Megonnell, it
will be able to maintain the relationships that it has developed with customers in the future.
12
•
71. David's has a reasonable expectation that it will continue to realize substantial
profits from its longstanding business relationships with customers, absent interference with
those relationships by Megonnell.
72. Megonnell is aware of the relationships between David's and its customers, and is
aware of the value and critical importance of these relationships to the success of the
Mechanicsburg store.
73. Despite her knowledge of the value and importance of the continuance of these
business relationships, Megonnell has engaged in conduct that is intended to and will damage
these relationships for the express purpose of utilizing and diverting these business opportunities
for her own benefit.
74. Megonnell has interfered with the business relationships between the
Mechanicsburg store and its customers.
75. Megonnell's wrongful acts were unprivileged and improper and were not taken to
protect legitimate business concerns.
76. Megonnell's wrongful acts were intentional and outrageous, taken to further her
own pecuniary interests, with wanton disregard for the interests and rights of David's.
77. David's has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages and
substantial and irreparable harm as a result of Megonnell's interference with its business
relationship, including but not limited to loss of business goodwill, business relationships with
and confidentiality of its procedures and operations.
13
r
78. David's harm can only be remedied by prohibiting Megonnell from continuing
her employment with Gehman within a fifty (50) mile radius of the Mechanicsburg store, or
otherwise breaching her non-compete obligations, or from keeping, disclosing, seeking, or using
confidential and proprietary information about David's business procedures and business
contacts.
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA TRADE SECRETS LAW
V.
JANET MEGONNELL
79. Paragraphs 1 through 78 above are incorporated by reference and are made a
material part of this Count V.
80. During the course of Megonnell's employment at Mechanicsburg store,
Megonnell has access to and did obtain significant proprietary and confidential information
related to all aspects of David's business including, but not limited to, pricing information,
customer lists, budgets, and marketing strategies.
81. Proprietary and confidential information obtained by Megonnell is not generally
known to nor readily ascertainable by proper means by any other persons other than those
similarly employed by David's.
82. The confidential and proprietary information obtained by Megonnell has
independent economic value as a result of the fact that it is not generally known to nor is readily
ascertainable by private means by other persons.
14
i
83. David's has taken all reasonable and necessary steps to maintain the
confidentiality of its business information.
84. Upon information and belief, Megonnell has utilized David's proprietary and
confidential information for the purpose of obtaining employment with Gehman and will
continue to use that information to further the success of her new employer.
85. Megonnell cannot work for a direct competitor without disclosing the proprietary
and confidential information learned while working for David's to new employer or for her own
use.
86. Megonnell's wrongful acts were intentional and outrageous, taken to further her
own pecuniary interests, with wanton disregard for the interests and rights of David's.
87. David's has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages and
substantial, immediate and irreparable harm as a result of Megonnell's misappropriation of its
trade secrets, including but not limited to loss of business goodwill, business relationships with
customers, confidentiality of its business procedures and operations.
88. David's harm can only be remedied by prohibiting Megonnell from continuing
her employment at Gehman within a fifty (50) mile radius of the Mechanicsburg store, or
otherwise breaching her non-compete obligations, or from keeping, disclosing, seeking, or using
confidential and proprietary information about David's business procedures and business
contacts for her own purposes and gain.
WHEREFORE, David's respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against
Megonnell and:
15
i
a. Permanently enjoining Janet Megonnell from working at Gehman & Co.
or otherwise engaging in a business in competition with the Mechanicsburg store within a
50-mile radius of the Mechanicsburg store for a period of two years from the date of the
Order;
b. Precluding Megonnell from utilizing any confidential or proprietary
business information related to David's business for her own use or for any other
furniture store or other business;
C. Permanently enjoining Megonnell from breaching any term of the
Covenant.
d. Directing Megonnell to comply with all of her obligations under the
Covenant.
e. Awarding David's all damages, fees, and costs incurred as a result of
Megonnell's breach of her contractual, quasi-contractual, and common law obligations to
David's;
f. Awarding David's attorneys' fees on the violation of the trade secrets
claim; and
g. Awarding such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT VI
INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
V.
GEHMAN & CO.
89. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated and are made a material part of this
Count VI.
16
e
t
90. Gehman knew and had notice of the covenant signed by Megonnell as a condition
of her employment with David's.
91. Gehman intentionally acted to interfere with the covenant between David's and
Megonnell by hiring Megonnell as a design consultant in violation of the covenant.
92. Gehman's interference has resulted in Megonnell's employment with a direct
competitor of David's, less than four (4) miles from the David's store in Mechanicsburg, in
violation of the covenant.
93. As a direct and proximate result of Gehman's conduct, David's has suffered a loss
of business opportunities, a loss of customers, and the actual or potential disclosure of its
proprietary and confidential information.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in
excess of the arbitration limits of this court against Defendant Gehman & Co., comprised of
consequential damages to be determined, disgorgement of profits, interest and costs.
COUNT VII
VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA TRADE SECRETS ACT
V.
GEHMAN & CO.
94. Paragraphs 1 through 40 and 89 through 93 are incorporated and are made a
material part of this Count VI.
95. Gehman knew that during the course of Megonnell's employment at the
Mechanicsburg store, Megonnell had access to and did obtain significant proprietary and
17
e
confidential information related to all aspects of David's business including, but not limited to,
pricing information, customer lists, budgets, and marketing strategies.
96. Proprietary and confidential information of the type obtained by Megonnell is not
generally known to nor readily ascertainable by proper means by any other persons other than
those similarly employed by David's.
97. The confidential and proprietary information obtained by Megonnell has
independent economic value as a result of the fact that it is not generally known to nor is readily
ascertainable by private means by other persons.
98. David's has taken all reasonable and necessary steps to maintain the
confidentiality of its business information.
99. Upon information and belief, Gehman will utilize or has utilized David's
proprietary and confidential information for and will continue to use that information.
100. Megonnell cannot work for Gehman without using or disclosing the proprietary
and confidential information learned while working for David's to Gehman's economic
advantage and the economic disadvantage of David's.
101. David's has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages and
substantial, immediate and irreparable harm as a result of Gehman's misappropriation of David's
trade secrets, including but not limited to loss of business goodwill, business relationships with
customers, confidentiality of its business procedures and operations.
102. David's harm can only be remedied by prohibiting Gehman from employing
Megonnell or from keeping, disclosing, seeking, or using confidential and proprietary
18
L
r
information about David's business procedures and business contacts for Gehman's own
purposes and gain.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in
excess of the arbitration limits of this court against Defendant Gehman & Co., comprised of
consequential damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys' fees, interest and costs.
Respectfully submitted,
METTE, , ANS & WOODSIDE
KAT A .. SIMSON, I
Sup. r I. . o. 28960
3401 North ront Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000 - Phone
(717) 236-1816 - Fax
klsimpson@mette.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: July 29, 2008
19
I
14
/lot
MA-127-2808 10 : STAY FROM-DAV I DS FURNITURE
+71TZ332963 T-080 8.002/003 F-"T
co"WAMNOTTOCOMPM
Ties Nimbi caiiwad, (bnkd ar caged 'Bmpk"") for ? cone3 ior? and
bduding to be legaIIy Fx v and In coghn ct3M wirer ama (a) empboymeat an or nit
am date bumf or (b) a p mmWon wkh a Salary ice as or *Aer the dace bmm4 with
or by DyAVM179 F[JRNIT[JRE., LM. a p i lu +glvaoia b 2dow Wq*tWX o, with oftes
at 914 & 13° Street. ED=bb x& PA 17104 Omvbsft m2ed OSmpbyW) hweby
agoras the during the team ofamopbymeat afFsapby" t SSm Inywo ¦od for a paiod
oftwo years f am the date of on ofeaid ae0pbyaveat, wI>rt with oft witbo>tt
comet offtpkrya, directly or Sys sntb* mane or iu co4wwflm Wn others;
(a) Engage in any busims is =mpedflon wkh the business ofEmploywr w bin. a
radby of 8&y m11o of the City of9rrisburg, Da 0b Cotao,
City. ofL?e r. Uncader CooW, Pennsylvania, and City of York, York
County, Pemsymma:
(b) Requas any customers of Employer's bussWess or any former "omrs to
cmtaa or cancel dwir busioess with Employer;
(c) Disclose to any person, fim or corporation any trade, tecmiCal or
technological secrets, any details of orga on or business affairs, any
names ofpast or present cummm of the bins or any other h&rmadon
rekft to Euplayer's business;
(d) Solicit, canvva or accept any business or transaction for any other person,
fain or corporation or basittese sim3fa?r to Pmployar's business;
(e) Induce, or amppt to Muenoe, any employee of Employer's business to
terminate employment with Employer or to enter into any emiloymentt or
other bushms relarb=Wp with any other person (including Employee), firm
or cprporatioa; or
(f? Actor conduct (himself or herselt) in any manner which he or she sball bane
reason to believe is inimical contrary to the best interest of Employer's
business.
If this non-c:ompctitioa covenant sban be decreed by proper authmitY to be
unenfoseeable because tha time and/or space is deemed unreasonable, then the
time and/or space shall be reduced accordingly to such exteut that this covet
shall be deemed reasonable and en£arceablc.
Employee mcogai= that hmodiate and irreparable damage will result to
Moyer ,icfEmployee bma gibes any of the teams and candkians O t & covenant
and, accordingly, Fmployee betcby consents to the onny by and Court of
competent lrr?tion for an mjuwtion against him or her to sestz-ait? any such
breach, in addition to my outer remedies or trains ibr money' damages wraith tbc.
Empioyer may 1L Emloycc represna and wsrrarns to the Employer tbgt his
or hrr experience and agoblUies are stab that be or sire tarn obt du employment
without bteacbing the tsrma sad conditions of this pinso ap% and that his or her
obligations under ft provisions of this paragraph (mad the m6rcement thereof by
in,juumi on or othwwiw) w91 not pmvienat tin or her from easing a livelbaod.
99-d E00/Z00'd 969-1 996Z99Z111+ 3b11iiwnd s01AV0- oN:i MOM 800Z-12-AVA
v NW-27^2008 10s68AM FROM-DAVIDS FURNITURE
tTIT2332063 T-080 P.003/003 F-487
in awwon to an of ft s+ea mdW set Am& sbava od ow odw raw&s
peovi&d by law, °D w8m 69 in 69 Owcut ofvioledDD If EmPlvy" of
t1lis coves" hart io Mtliku?yx as dmo a to
Empbyw the sal of
encn. 00-
. 49 ..I.. - i .era o?perrcfba+ old .
dye cmmmn t0 bomb fbis ooh mtto coca st • Big t+soogtm?d and
agromd that d?8?es is eaQb evm3t Ipo? he ? ? k to lbo?,
iff
though via sad agtoemmt a?itb to i,qued
damages shed in no evm~t 1,1011o ?yoc'st mjuuguvw
This covemmt not to compGto is encaw tbis Alor-
dap of
Br.
68V-d £00/100'd 908-1 £96Z££Zlll+ MnllNani SalAVO-40ad N9040 80OZ-lZ-00
r,% c>
4?s -n
r - y
0
CV9
VERIFICATION
I, Michael D. Martin, President of David's Furniture, Ltd., have read the foregoing
complaint and I verify that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief and I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the
Plaintiff. To the extent that the foregoing document and/or its language are that of counsel, I
have relied upon counsel in making this Verification.
I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
_
DATED:4YUJ
MICHAEL D. MARTIN
KATHRYN L. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE
Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 28960
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000 - Phone
(717) 236-1816 - Fax
klsimpson@mette.com
DAVID'S FURNITURE, LTD., a
Pennsylvania Corporation,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
V.
JANET L. MEGONNELL and GEHMAN
& CO.,
Defendant
: LAW AND EQUITY
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 09 - C-/ SbS
PRAECIPE TO ATTACH VERIFICATION
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Attached to this Praecipe is a signed Verification which we request be filed as part of the
Complaint filed on behalf of David's Furniture, Ltd. on July 29, 2008. The Verification was
inadvertently omitted from that document.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
KATPfRYN f . IMPSO9, I
Sup. t.I.D N 28960
3401 North Prerfit Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000 - Phone
(717) 236-1816 - Fax
klsimpson@mette.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: August 6, 2008
VERMCAL'ION
1, Michael D. Martin, President of David's Furniture, Ltd., have read the foregoing
complaint and I verify that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief and I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the
Plaintiff. To the extent that the foregoing document and/or its language are that of counsel, I
have relied upon counsel in making this Verification.
I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATED:
MICHAEL D. MARTIN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s)
and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows:
Janet L. Megonnell
c/o Gehman & Co.
121 Gettysburg Pike
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Gehman & Co.
121 Gettysburg Pike
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Respectfully submitted,
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
KATHRYN Ir. IMPSON, ES
Sup. Ct. I.D. 0 28960
3401 North ho?ft Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000 - Phone
(717) 236-1816 - Fax
klsimpson@mette.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: August 6, 2008
499579v1
C7 r.,
? ^
t
ryM? ? ? 1
"JQ
W
.*
DAVID'S FURNITURE, LTD., a
Pennsylvania Corporation
Plaintiff
V.
JANET L. MEGONNELL and GEHMAN
& CO.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: DOCKET NO. 08-4565 Civil Term
Defendant
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Please enter the appearance of Stevens & Lee and Joseph D. Shelby, Esquire on
behalf of Defendants, Janet L. Megonnell and Gehman & Co., in the above action.
Notice by copy hereof is given to all parties and counsel of record.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 15, 2008
STEVENS & LEE
By
6?srph D. elby, Esquire
Attorney TD- No.69399
25 N. Queen Street, Suite 602
Lancaster, PA. 17603
(717) 399-1721
ids@stevenslee.com
Attorneys for Defendants
08/15/08/SL 1 85971 1 v 1 /000000.00000
I*-
+.
DAVID'S FURNITURE, LTD., a
Pennsylvania Corporation
Plaintiff
V.
JANET L. MEGONNELL and GEHMAN
& CO.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO. 08-4565 Civil Term
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, JOSEPH D. SHELBY, ESQUIRE, certify that on this date, I served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEARANCE upon the following, by depositing
the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Kathryn L. Simpson, Esquire
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
Attorney for Plaintiff
Date: August 15, 2008
4eh D. She
08/] 5/08/sLl 85971 M/000000.00000
.? r
ji?
t_ eft'!
DAVID'S FURNITURE, LTD., a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Pennsylvania Corporation CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 08-4565 Civil Term
V.
JANET L. MEGONNELL and GEHMAN
& CO.
Defendants
NOTICE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE
WITHIN NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF, OR A
JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
STEVENS & LEE
STEVENS & LEE
Dated: August, 2008 By
o ph D. §h #Y, Esquire
ttorney I.D. o. 69399
25 N. Queen Street, Suite 602
Lancaster, PA. 17603
(717) 399-1721
jds@stevenslee.com
Attorneys for Defendants
SLl 861576v1 /103739.00001
DAVID'S FURNITURE, LTD., a
Pennsylvania Corporation
Plaintiff
V.
JANET L. MEGONNELL and GERMAN
& CO.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO. 08-4565 Civil Term
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
Defendants Janet L. Megonnell ("Megonnell") and Gehman & Co. ("Gehman")
(collectively Defendants), by and through their attorneys Stevens & Lee, hereby answer the
Complaint filed by the Plaintiff David's Furniture, LTD ("David's") as follows:
ANSWER
1. Admitted, upon information and belief.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted. By way of further answer, Megonnell was employed by David's
from August 30, 2005 until May 27, 2008.
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that execution of the covenant
not to compete was a condition of employment. The remaining averments are admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
1
SLl 861576vl/103739.00001
Jurisdiction and Venue
9. The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 constitute a conclusion of law to
which no response is required.
10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 constitute a conclusion of law to
which no response is required.
Factual Background
11. Admitted.
12. Admitted. By way of further answer, Megonnell was hired by David's on
August 30, 2005, after already spending thirty (30) plus years in the industry.
13. Denied as stated. There are numerous factors on which the furniture business
relies for ultimate success.
14. Defendants lack information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph 14; therefore, it is denied.
15. Defendants lack information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph 15; therefore, it is denied.
16. Defendants lack information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph 16; therefore, it is denied.
17. Admitted.
18. Denied as stated. The Covenant, attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint, is a
written document which speaks for itself. Any attempt to paraphrase is, therefore, denied.
19. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell did not remember signing the covenant.
20. Admitted.
2
SLl 861576v1 /103739.00001
21. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Megonnell had contact with David's
customers. It is denied that the contact was substantial and continuous in light of the fact that
those adjectives are very subjective.
22. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Megonnell had any
marketing duties for David's. To the contrary, she had no marketing duties. The remaining
allegations are admitted.
23. Denied. See response to Paragraph 22, above.
24. Admitted in part and denied in part. Whether certain information was
confidential and proprietary business information is a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and to the extent a response is deemed required, it is denied. To the contrary,
Megonnell had no access to any marketing strategies, nor did she have access to proprietary
pricing information. The remaining allegations are admitted.
25. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell did not have access to proprietary and
confidential procedures, nor were David's forms setting forth information about customer service
unique to David's.
26. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell did not have access to proprietary or
confidential information related to David's overall business and management strategies.
27. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Megonnell's separation of
employment from David's was a resignation; instead Megonnell was constructively discharged.
The remaining allegations are admitted. By way of further answer, Megonnell had given
2 weeks notice of her resignation, but was not permitted to work for those weeks.
28. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that David's informed
Megonnell that it would not allow her to use proprietary and/or confidential information obtained
3
SLl 861576v11103739.00001
in the course of her employment at David's. By way of further answer, Megonnell has not used
any proprietary and/or confidential information since her constructive discharge from David's.
The remaining allegations are admitted.
29. Admitted.
30. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell is not using confidential or proprietary
business information from David's in her employ with Gehman.
31. Admitted.
32. The allegations contained in Paragraph 32 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, they are denied. To
the contrary, Megonnell is not using information about David's pricing techniques and practices
or any trade secret information about David's in her employment with Gehman.
33. The allegations contained in Paragraph 33 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
34. The allegations contained in Paragraph 34 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
35. The allegations contained in Paragraph 35 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
36. The allegations contained in Paragraph 36 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
37. The allegations contained in Paragraph 37 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, they are denied. To
the contrary, the harm to Megonnell outweighs that to David's.
38. Admitted.
4
SLl 861576v1 /103739.00001
39. Admitted.
40. The allegations contained in Paragraph 40 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
COUNTI
(Breach of Contract v. Megonnell)
41. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
42. The allegations contained in Paragraph 42 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
43. Admitted in part and denied in part. Whether Megonnell has obligations under
the Covenant is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is
deemed required, it is denied. The remaining allegations are admitted.
44. The allegations contained in Paragraph 44 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, they are denied. To
the contrary, the covenant is not reasonable.
45. The allegations contained in Paragraph 44 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is denied that the
restrictions in the Covenant are reasonable and necessary to protect the legitimate business
interests of David's.
46. The allegations contained in Paragraph 46 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
47. The allegations contained in Paragraph 47 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
5
SLl 861576vl /103739.00001
48. The allegations contained in Paragraph 48 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, they are denied. To
the contrary, Megonnell has not used any proprietary information of David's in her employment
with Gehman.
49. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell was constructively discharged from
David's as she was required to work Sundays - a factor that was not revealed to her upon her
hire and introduction of the Restrictive Covenant which is attached as Exhibit A to the
Complaint.
50. Denied. See response to Paragraph 49, above.
51. Denied. See response to Paragraph 49, above.
52. The allegations contained in Paragraph 52 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
53. The allegations contained in Paragraph 53 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
COUNT II
(Promissory Estoppel v. Megonnell)
54. Paragraphs 1 through 53 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
55. Denied. The Covenant is a written document which speaks for itself and any
attempt to paraphrase is, therefore, denied.
56. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 as to what David's relied upon and, therefore, it is
denied.
6
SLI 861576v1 /103739.00001
57. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 as to what David's relied upon and, therefore, it is
denied. By way of further answer, the allegations as to what constitutes confidential and
proprietary information is a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
58. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell has not used any confidential or
proprietary information about David's in any capacity since she was constructively discharged.
59. The allegations contained in Paragraph 59 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
60. The allegations contained in Paragraph 60 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
COUNT III
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Breach of Loyalty v. Megonnell)
61. Paragraphs 1 through 60 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
62. Denied. The common law obligation to act on behalf of any interest of David's
was while Megonnell was an employee of David's. No such common law obligation existed
after she was constructively discharged.
63. The allegations contained in Paragraph 63 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, they are denied. To
the contrary, see response to paragraph 62 above.
64. The allegations contained in Paragraph 64 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, they are denied. By
way of further answer, Megonnell has not used any proprietary and confidential information
about David's since she was constructively discharged by David's.
7
SLl 861576v1 /103739.00001
65. The allegations contained in Paragraph 65 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
66. The allegations contained in Paragraph 66 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
67. The allegations contained in Paragraph 67 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
COUNT IV
(Interference with Business Relationships v. Megonnell)
68. Paragraphs 1 through 67 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
69. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the allegations contained in Paragraph 69; therefore, they are denied.
70. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the allegations contained in Paragraph 70; therefore, they are denied.
71. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the allegations contained in Paragraph 71; therefore, they are denied.
72. Admitted. By way of further answer, Megonnell is also aware of the
importance of customer relations to all retail businesses.
73. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell has not engaged in conduct intended to
damage David's relationships with its customers. By way of further answer, Megonnell had
thirty (30) years of experience in the industry and developed her own relationships with clients,
prior to becoming employed by David's in 2005.
74. The allegations contained in Paragraph 74 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
8
SLl 861576vl /103739.00001
75. The allegations contained in Paragraph 75 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
76. The allegations contained in Paragraph 76 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
77. The allegations contained in Paragraph 77 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
78. The allegations contained in Paragraph 78 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
COUNT V
(Violation of the Pennsylvania Trade Secrets Law v. Megonnell)
79. Paragraphs 1 through 78 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
80. Whether certain information to which Megonnell had access was proprietary or
confidential is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is
deemed required, Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Megonnell had access to
proprietary pricing information, budgets or marketing strategies. It is admitted that she had
access to customer lists.
81. The allegations contained in Paragraph 81 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is denied that
Megonnell had access to any proprietary information of David's other than customer lists.
82. The allegations contained in Paragraph 82 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
83. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 83; therefore, they are denied.
9
SLl 861576v1 /103739.00001
84. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell has not utilized any proprietary and
confidential information belonging to David's since she was constructively discharged
therefrom.
85. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell is working for a competitor without
disclosing proprietary information of David's.
86. The allegations contained in Paragraph 86 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
87. The allegations contained in Paragraph 87 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
88. The allegations contained in Paragraph 88 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
COUNT VI
(Interference with Contract v. Gehman & Co.)
89. Paragraphs 1 through 88 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
90. Denied. Whether the Covenant signed by Megonnell was a condition of her
employment with David's is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. It is denied that
Gehman had notice of the covenant when it hired Megonnell. To the contrary, it did not.
91. The allegations contained in Paragraph 91 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
92. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Gehman intentionally
interfered with the purported contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Megonnell. The
remaining averments are admitted.
10
SL1 861576v1 /103739.00001
93. The allegations contained in Paragraph 93 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
COUNT VII
(Violation of Pennsylvania Trade Secrets Act v. Gehman & Company)
94. Paragraphs 1 through 93 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
95. Denied. Whether Megonnell obtained proprietary and confidential information
related to David's while employed thereby is a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
To the extent a response is deemed required, it is denied that Gehman knew that Megonnell had
obtained significant proprietary and confidential information while employed at David's; nor
could it have known, because Megonnell did not obtain significant proprietary and confidential
information.
96. The allegations contained in Paragraph 96 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is denied that
Megonnell had access to any proprietary information of David's other than customer lists.
97. The allegations contained in Paragraph 97 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
98. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 98; therefore, they are denied.
99. Denied. To the contrary, Gehman has not used any proprietary and confidential
information of David's.
100. Denied. See response to Paragraph 99, above.
101. The allegations contained in Paragraph 101 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
11
SL1 861576vl /103739.00001
102. The allegations contained in Paragraph 102 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required.
NEW MATTER
1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Gehman does not possess trade secrets and/or proprietary information of
David's.
3. Defendants do not use any alleged trade secret or confidential proprietary
information of Plaintiffs.
4. The Covenant Not to Compete attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint is not
reasonable, because it does not protect the legitimate business interests of the Plaintiff.
5. The Covenant Not to Compete attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint is not
enforceable, because Megonnell was constructively discharged by Plaintiff.
6. The geographic restrictions imposed by the Covenant Not to Compete attached
as Exhibit A to the Complaint is overly broad and not designed to protect legitimate protectable
business interests.
7. Plaintiff material breached its obligations to Defendant Megonnell; as such, the
restrictive covenant is unenforceable against Defendant Megonnell.
8. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney's fees for common law breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty or interference with business or contractual
relationships.
9. Gehman is not an entity that can be subject to a lawsuit in Pennsylvania.
12
SLi 861576v1/103739.00001
10. Megonnell worked in the industry for thirty plus years before being hired by
David's, establishing her own clientele.
STEVENS & LEE
Dated: August , 2008 By
J 66 D. Shel squire
Attorney I.D. No. 69399
51 South Duke Street
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602
(717) 399-1721
jds@stevenslee.com
Attorneys for Defendants
13
SL1 861576v1 /103739.00001
VERIFICATION
I, Hans Gehman, verify that I am the Treasurer of Gehman & Co., that as such I
am authorized to sign this Verification, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and
New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I
unde#stand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904
relaog to unworn falsification to authorities.
Dated: August,2 2008
SLl 861576vl /103739.00001
Hans Gehman
VERIFICATION
I, Janet Megonnell, hereby state that I am a Defendant in this action and hereby
verify that the statements made in the fore going Defendants' Answer and New Matter are true
And correct to the best of my knowledge, .information and belief.
I understand that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of
18 P? C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. .
Oanet MegonncI1
Dated: August.4 2008
1 861576v11103739.00001
DAVID'S FURNITURE, LTD., a
Pennsylvania Corporation
Plaintiff
V.
JANET L. MEGONNELL and GERMAN
& CO.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO. 08-4565 Civil Term
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, JOSEPH D. SHELBY, ESQUIRE, certify that on this date, I served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Answer and New Matter upon the following, by
depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Kathryn L. Simpson, Esquire
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
Attorney for Plaintiff
Jo . Shelby
Date: August, 2008
SLl 861576v1 /103739.00001
?_ ,.,,
' {
?- -
ryf• -?r
k
??
?.: '
?f
<J? a f?'?.?t
C?,?
'"7') <<..?
='
?. 1
" ^
?'S
T
CASE NO: 2008-04565 P
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
DAVIDS FURNITURE LTD
VS
MEGONNELL JANET L ET AL
STEVE BENDER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE
MEGONNELL JANET L
DEFENDANT
was served upon
the
, at 0012:15 HOURS, on the 9th day of August , 2008
at 121 GETTYSBURG PIKE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to
JANET MEGONNELL DEFENDANT
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE
together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 12.00
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
Postage 42
yJo-3Ios q 4J 0.42
Sworn and Subscibed to
before me this day
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
08/11/2008
METTE EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
Deputy Sheriff
of A.D.
,.-?- %. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2008-04565 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
DAVIDS FURNITURE LTD
VS
MEGONNELL JANET L ET AL
STEVE BENDER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
GEHMAN & CO the
DEFENDANT , at 0012:15 HOURS, on the 9th day of August 2008
at 121 GETTYSBURG PIKE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to
LEON GERMAN MANAGER
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
ql b)169 1,-
6.00
.00
.00
10.00
.00
? 16.00
Sworn and Subscibed to
before me this
of
day
So Answers:
4??Z-
R . 'Thomas Kline
08/11/2008
METTE EVANS & WOODSIDE
By.
Depu y Sheriff
A. D.
KATHRYN L. SIMPSON, ESQUIRE
Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 28960
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000 - Phone
(717) 236-1816 - Fax
klsimpson@mette.com
DAVID'S FURNITURE, LTD., a
Pennsylvania Corporation,
Plaintiff,
V.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
LAW AND EQUITY
CIVIL ACTION NO.:
JANET L. MEGONNELL and GEHMAN
& CO.,
Defendant
4k- tJ/ 505-
REPLY TO NEW MATTER
Plaintiff, by its counsel, Mette, Evans & Woodside, filed the following Reply to New
Matter:
1. The averments contained in paragraph 1 of Defendants' New Matter are legal
conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments
are denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial.
2. Denied. To the contrary, Gehman has access to the trade secrets and confidential
proprietary information of Plaintiff through its employment of Megonnell.
3. Denied. To the contrary, both Gehman and Megonnell have access to the trade
secrets and confidential proprietary information of Plaintiff.
4. Denied. To the contrary, the Covenant Not to Compete is designed to protect the
disclosure and/or other improper use of Plaintiffs' trade secrets and confidential proprietary
information communicated to or learned by Megonnell during her employment with Plaintiff.
5. Denied. To the contrary, Megonnell voluntarily resigned her position with
Plaintiff stating only her displeasure with her schedule and, as a result, she was not
constructively discharged.
6. Denied. To the contrary, the restrictions contained in the Covenant Not to
Compete are appropriate especially in the instant case where Megonnell now works less than
four (4) miles from the location where she worked for Plaintiff.
7. The averments contained in paragraph 7 are legal conclusions to which no
response is required. To the extent that an answer is required, the averments are denied and strict
proof is demanded at time of trial.
Admitted. By way of further answer, attorneys' fees are sought only for the
violation of the Pennsylvania Trade Secrets Act which provides for the recovery of such fees.
9. The averments contained in paragraph 9 are legal conclusions to which no
response is required. To the extent that an answer is required, the averments are denied and strict
proof is demanded at time of trial.
Z
10. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information as to
how many clients Megonnell established prior to her employment with Plaintiff. By way of
further answer, Plaintiff is entitled to the protection provided by the Covenant Not to Compete
against disclosure of all customers, trade secrets, and/or confidential proprietary information
obtained while Megonnell was employed by Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the New
Matter and enter judgment for Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
KATYN L SIMPSON, ES
Sup. t.I.ID. o. 28960
3401 North ront Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000 - Phone
(717) 236-1816 - Fax
klsimpson@mette.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: October 20, 2008
3
VERIFICATION
I, Michael D. Martin, President of David's Furniture, Ltd., have read the foregoing reply
to new matter and I verify that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief and I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of the
Plaintiff. To the extent that the foregoing document and/or its language are that of counsel, I
have relied upon counsel in making this Verification.
I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
DATED: Z O J
MICHAEL D. MARTIN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s)
and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows:
Joseph D. Shelby, Esquire
Stevens & Lee
25 N. Queen Street
Suite 602
Lancaster, PA 17603
Respectfully submitted,
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
KATHF/YN L.. S MPSO'N, ESQ
Sup. C . I.D. Igo. 28960
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000 - Phone
(717) 236-1816 - Fax
klsimpson@mette.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: October 20, 2008
5019400
cry K'i
f?J C lei
43
?Cy
.. _i
?" cD
David D. Bueff
Prothonotary
4grkS. Sohonage, ESQ
Solicitor
&nee X Simpson
1S` Deputy Prothonotary
Irene E. W orrow
2nd Deputy Prothonotary
Office of the Prothonotary
Cumberfand County, Pennsylvania
/)8 - 'yS11Ps CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011, 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 0 Suite 100 9 Carlisle, PA 17013 • (717 240-6195 0 Fa.X (717 240-6573