Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 26

Aaron Cronan, OSB 082964

[email protected]
Cronan Law LLC
4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

CATALINBREAD LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-1795

Plaintiff,

v. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DAMAGES
SCOTT MILLER,
HOWARD GEE, Violations of Defend Trade Secrets Act (18
BORIS LUTKSOVSKY, and U.S.C. § 1831 et seq.), Oregon Uniform Trade
MICHAEL ERICKSON Secrets Act (O.R.S. § 646.461 et seq.),Com-
puter Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030
Defendants. et seq.), Fraud and Conspiracy to Commit
Fraud; Intentional Interference with Busi-
ness Relations; Breach of Contract; Trespass
to Chattels; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

__________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 1 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 26

Plaintiff Catalinbread, by and through its counsel, for its complaint against

Defendants Scott Miller, Howard Gee, Boris Lutksovsky and Michael Erickson,

hereby alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This case concerns a calculated and deliberate effort of Defendants,

former employees of Plaintiff, to cause economic harm to the company,

misappropriate Plaintiff’s intellectual property, tangible property, and protected

trade secrets, for Defendants’ own use and adverse to Plaintiff’s interests.

Defendants, while still working for Plaintiff, conspired to enter into competition

with Plaintiff, using trade secrets and intellectual property rightfully owned by

Plaintiff, with the ultimate objective of running Plaintiff out of business and taking

all of Plaintiff’s business. After Plaintiff became aware of Defendants’ actions and

demanded that Defendants cease their unlawful activities, Defendants took

Plaintiff’s physical and electronic property with the intent to permanently deprive

Plaintiff. Defendants communicated plans, took steps and actually succeeded in

deleting electronic files containing Plaintiff’s trade secrets, intellectual property and

information critical for the operations of the business. Plaintiff has already suffered

injuries and is certain to suffer further injury as the proximate result of Defendants’

unlawful conduct.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Catalinbread LLC is a limited liability company, organized

and existing under Oregon law, with its principal place of business in Portland,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 2 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 3 of 26

Oregon (hereinafter “Catalinbread”). Plaintiff creates a variety of guitar pedals

using innovative engineering and design techniques, which it sells across the

United States and internationally.

3. Defendant Scott Miller (“Miller”) was Catalinbread’s Sales

Representative and assigned the role of temporary manager of Catalinbread

following the untimely passing of the founder and owner, Nicholas Harris

(“Harris”). Miller held this role until on or about October 20, 2017 when he resigned

after becoming aware that Catalinbread’s new owner, Mary Burkett (“Burkett”),

mother and heir of Harris’ business, had discovered the conspiracy to harm the

company.

4. Defendant Howard Gee (“Gee”) was paid to design guitar pedals for

Catalinbread until on or about October 20, 2017 when he resigned after becoming

aware that Burkett had discovered the conspiracy to harm the company.

5. Defendant Boris Lutksovsky (“Lutksovsky”) was employed to provide

information technology and computer support until terminated for cause on or

about October 26, 2017.

6. Defendant Michael Erickson (“Erickson”) was employed to provide

customer service and artist relations until he resigned on or about October 23, 2017.

JURISDICTION

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over federal question claims

under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq., and the Computer

Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 3 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 4 of 26

Additionally, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims herein

asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because all claims rise from the same

controversy.

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all parties because they

reside in or have their principal place of business or employment in the District of

Oregon.

9. Venue is proper in this Court because the transactions giving rise to

this action occurred in the District of Oregon and all parties reside in or have their

principal place of business in the District of Oregon. Venue is proper in the Portland

Division because the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the counties over

which the Portland Division presides.

FACTS OF THE CASE

10. Catalinbread was founded in 2003 by Harris as a producer of

specialized guitar distortion pedals.

11. Defendants were employees of Catalinbread prior to the events in this

action.

12. Since its founding, Catalinbread developed a national reputation for

producing unusual and innovative pedals, which were used by numerous prominent

musicians and are sold across the United States and internationally.

13. Catalinbread developed and continues to maintain proprietary and

confidential information, plans, designs, schematics, programs, lists, and knowhow

related to the design, manufacture, sales of its products, as well as valuable and

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 4 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 5 of 26

confidential information regarding the operations of the business. Collectively, all of

this information constitutes Catalinbread’s valuable trade secrets, its “secret

sauce.” Catalinbread took reasonable and appropriate steps to secure and protect

the trade secrets, including but not limited to: adopting confidentiality policies and

procedures in its employee handbook; maintaining a secure computer network,

protected by passwords and limiting user accounts to employees with password

requirements; and deprovisioning employees who left employment.

14. Harris died unexpectedly on March 9, 2016, when his vehicle was

struck by tree felled in a windstorm. Melissa Palmer, Nicholas’ sister, was

appointed to administer his estate. Ownership then passed after probate to

Nicholas’ mother, Mary Burkett. Burkett is currently the sole owner of

Catalinbread and remains active in its administration. Probate closed in or around

June 2017.

15. After Burkett assumed control of the company in June 2017,

production suddenly and without explanation fell significantly below prior levels.

16. Because Scott Miller was the acting manager, Burkett sought

explanations from Miller regarding the drop in production. Burkett requested

updates and detailed reports from Miller. Miller ignored or outright refused to

comply with the requests.

17. During this same time period, Defendants were using Catlinbread

laptops to communicate privately on the online messaging service Slack.

Defendants used Slack to communicate plans to compel Burkett to sell them the

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 5 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 6 of 26

company by making it difficult if not impossible to continue operations if she

refused.

18. In the course of this action, Defendants conspired to delete and

successfully deleted entire threads of the Slack conversations to prevent discovery

by Burkett. Upon information and belief, the communications were deleted after

notice of Plaintiff’s investigation and their full knowledge of likely litigation.

19. In or about August 2017, Miller and Gee started insisting that Burkett

sell them the company and that Burkett provide financing for the sale.

20. In or around September 2017, Defendants started taking overt steps

towards founding a new company to compete directly against Catalinbread,

including removing components for building product, proprietary development parts

and breadboards1 from Catalinbread with the specific intent of recasting

proprietary and unreleased Catalinbread prototypes as competing pedals.

Defendants also started making plans to raise funds for their new competing

venture. Around this time, Defendants purchased domain names for use with the

planned competing company.

21. Defendants continued to work for Catalinbread as they planned their

new competing company, and repeatedly reminded each other to do the “bare

minimum” yet “play poker face” while working at Catalinbread so as not to arouse

suspicion. While being paid for company work, Scott Miller scheduled and held

1A breadboard is a construction base for guitar pedals and other electronics,

generally used for creating prototypes.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 6 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 7 of 26

meetings with the staff to plan for the new company.

22. In or around October 2017, as Defendants demonstrated concern that

Catalinbread would discover their plans, Defendants accessed Catalinbread’s Slack

account and Catalinbread’s on-site computers and, without authorization, deleted

company-owned information that could reveal their plans for their new company.

Defendants deleted their own Slack conversations and “channels” created on

Catalinbread’s Slack account. They deactivated or deleted accounts of current and

former employees, including Harris’ own legacy account and that of Harris’ sister,

Melissa Palmer, who were not cooperating and posed a threat of discovery of the

conspiracy plans.

23. In or around October 2017, Gee, going by his known nickname

Kittycaster, and Lutksovsky, created a second Slack channel that allowed

Defendants to communicate outside of Catalinbread’s system.

24. In or around September and October 2017, Defendants planned a trip

to the annual National Association of Music Merchants conference (“NAMM show”),

using Catalinbread’s funds and resources, in order to raise funds and awareness of

their new competing venture. Defendants represented this trip to Catalinbread as a

networking trip for Catalinbread’s benefit. Defendants expressly planned to buy

non-refundable tickets so they would still be able to use arrangements paid for by

Catalinbread even if they left the company and went into competition against

Catalinbread.

25. In or around October 2017, Defendants conspired to use and began

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 7 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 8 of 26

using Catalinbread’s proprietary engineering to develop a line of competing

products, while purporting to work on Catalinbread’s time and using Catalinbread’s

resources. Defendants discussed getting the work done “on [Catalinbread]

paychecks” so they would not be “burning this money on salaries” of their competing

venture. Defendants Gee and Lutksovsky made efforts to work from home as much

as possible so they would not be discovered working on their own projects where

they would be seen by Catalinbread ownership or other employees.

26. On or around October 13, 2017, Defendants conspired to coerce

Burkett to sell Catalinbread to them or they would cause the company to self-

destruct. Defendants expressed through Slack their dual hopes that this plan would

lead to them having their own venture, while having Catalinbread as a venture

“end badly” for Burkett.

27. On or around October 14, 2017, Defendants took overt steps to cause

Catalinbread to self-destruct, including falsely and without authorization marking

supplies as out of stock and downloading protected build of material (“BOM”), cost

of goods (“COG”) schematics, product structures, files, and other data from

Catalinbread computers and making copies for later appropriation.

28. On or around October 14, 2017, Defendants took steps to download

NAMM show badges and purchase non-refundable tickets using Catalinbread

resources for use under their new venture.

29. On or around October 14, 2017, Defendants resolved to stop producing,

but still collect wages from Catalinbread, in order to coerce Catalinbread to either

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 8 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 9 of 26

fire them, in which case they would seek unemployment, or sell them the business.

30. On or around October 18, 2017, Burkett made a good faith effort to

engage Defendants and offered a way forward that would foster cooperation and

protect Catalinbread from further injury.

31. On or around October 18, 2018, at the same time Burkett was meeting

with Catalinbread employees and again immediately following the end of business,

Defendants escalated their efforts to pull as much proprietary and secret

information from Catalinbread computers as they could, and accelerated work on

establishing the competing venture, using Catalinbread resources, before access

could be fully denied.

32. On or around October 18, 2017 and shortly thereafter, upon realizing

that their plans had been discovered by Catalinbread, Defendants expressly

misrepresented and lied about their actions and the intentions, with the hope of

“stringing [Burkett] along” in order to buy more time to convert Catalinbread

resources and develop competing products while still being paid by Catalinbread.

Defendants falsely informed Burkett that they did not use Slack so that she would

not find their plans. Defendants purged their company phones, deleted as much

information as they could from Catalinbread computers, changed and deleted online

passwords, purged Catalinbread laptops, and took as much Catalinbread property

as they could before Miller, Gee and Erickson quit. Lutksovsky was terminated for

cause a few days later.

33. At least as early as October 2017 and ongoing, Defendants continued

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 9 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 10 of 26

to design their new competing line of products, built directly off of Catalinbread

information and property, while simultaneously initiating a smear campaign

against Catalinbread with the express intention that Catalinbread would no longer

be able to sell to distributors “should [Burkett] be able to resuscitate” the company.

As if to broadcast their intent, Defendants renamed their Slack channel

“Catalindead.”

34. As the direct and proximate result of the intentional, planned and

systematic deletion, removal and destruction of company assets, Burkett and

Catalinbread were forced to expend significant time and money to restore business

operations; the business incurred substantial and near terminal losses in revenue,

sales, production, and suffered irreparable damage to its reputation.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act
(18 U.S.C. § 1831, et seq.))
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as though set forth fully herein.

36. Plaintiff owns and possesses aforementioned confidential and

proprietary trade secret information, which is financial, scientific, business,

economic, technical, or engineering in nature.

37. Plaintiff has taken reasonable measures to keep said information

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 10 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 11 of 26

secret and confidential.

38. Plaintiff’s said information derives independent economic value from

not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper

means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use

of the information.

39. Plaintiff’s said information relates to the products and services now

and in the future used, sold, shipped, and ordered in interstate and foreign

commerce.

40. Upon information and belief, Defendants, individually and in concert,

acquired said trade secrets by improper means.

41. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew or had reason to know

that said trade secrets were obtained by improper means.

42. Upon information and belief, Defendants disclosed or used, or intended

to disclose or use, said Plaintiff’s trade secrets without the consent of Plaintiff or

any other person authorized to consent to use at the time of disclosure or use.

43. Upon information and belief, Defendant obtained said trade secrets

through theft, misrepresentation, breach of duty to remain secrecy, and inducement

of breach of duty to remain secrecy.

44. Upon information and belief, Defendant did not obtain said trade

secrets through reverse engineering, independent derivation, or any other lawful

means of acquisition.

45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misappropriation,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 11 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 12 of 26

Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, and therefore

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred

herein pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(C).

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Misappropriation under Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act)
46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as though set forth fully herein.

47. The Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, O.R.S. § 646.461 et seq.

(“OUTSA”), allows a party to recover compensatory damages in the form of actual

losses stemming from the misappropriation of a trade secret, and the unjust

enrichment experienced by the party liable for misappropriation. In addition, upon

a showing of willful or malicious misappropriation, punitive damages may be

awarded in an amount not exceeding twice any compensatory damages.

48. The OUTSA also allows for the temporary, preliminary and permanent

enjoinment of actual or threatened misappropriation.

49. The OUTSA further allows the award of attorney fees and punitive

damages upon a finding of willful or malicious misappropriation of a trade secret.

50. Under the OUTSA, “trade secret” is defined broadly to mean

“[i]nformation, including a drawing, cost data, customer list, formula, pattern,

compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that:

(a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not

being generally known to the public or to other persons who can

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 12 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 13 of 26

obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances

to maintain its secrecy.”

51. Under the OUTSA, “misappropriation” is defined as:

(a) “Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or

has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper

means;

(b) or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied

consent by a person who used improper means to acquire

knowledge of the trade secret;

(c) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or

implied consent by a person who, before a material change of

position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and

that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake; or

(d) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or

implied consent by a person, who at the time of disclosure or use,

knew or had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade secret

was:

(A) Derived from or through a person who had utilized

improper means to acquire it;

(B) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to

maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 13 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 14 of 26

(C) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the

person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.” O.R.S. §

646.461(2).

52. Under the OUTSA, “improper means” is defined to include: “theft,

bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain

secrecy or espionage through electronic or other means.” O.R.S. § 646.461(1).

53. Plaintiff owns and possesses information aforementioned confidential

and proprietary trade secret information.

54. Plaintiff has taken reasonable efforts under the circumstances to

maintain the secrecy of said information.

55. Plaintiff’s said information derives independent economic value from

not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic

value from its disclosure or use.

56. Upon information and belief, Defendants, individually and in concert,

acquired said trade secrets by improper means.

57. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew or had reason to know

that said trade secrets were obtained by improper means.

58. Upon information and belief, Defendants disclosed or used, or intended

to disclose or use, said Plaintiff’s trade secrets without the consent of Plaintiff or

any other person authorized to consent to use at the time of disclosure or use.

59. Upon information and belief, Defendant obtained said trade secrets

through theft, misrepresentation, breach of duty to remain secrecy, and inducement

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 14 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 15 of 26

of breach of duty to remain secrecy, through electronic or other means.

60. Upon information and belief, Defendant did not obtain said trade

secrets through reverse engineering or independent development alone.

61. Defendants willfully and maliciously acquired and used that

information knowing that they were doing so by improper means.

62. As a results of Defendants’ willful and malicious misappropriation of

its trade secrets, Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial

and is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages, pursuant to O.R.S. §

646.465.

63. Plaintiff also requests that the Court grant permanent injunctive relief

against each and every Defendant under O.R.S. § 646.463, enjoining them:

(a) From further access to Plaintiff’s data, files, records, information

and accounts, including all proprietary prototypes and other forms

of intellectual property embodied therein, and the computers on

which such items are stored (collectively, “Plaintiff’s Protected

Information”);

(b) From use of Plaintiff’s Protected Information;

(c) To return all company property, including all copies of Plaintiff’s

Protected Information;

(d) Pending discovery and final judgment in this action, from deleting

or altering in anyway the data, metadata, information, files, records

and documents contained on any company electronic device or

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 15 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 16 of 26

computer, or any device in their possession, custody, or control

containing data, files, records, information accessed or downloaded

from company computers, Slack channels, or cloud computer-based

accounts;

(e) Soliciting or initiating contact with any distributors or retailers

engaged in the sale or distribution of guitar pedals; and

(f) Owning, managing or being employed by any business engaged in

the sale or distribution of guitar pedals.

64. Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless

Defendants are so enjoined. Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law to protect it

from this harm and to compensate it for the damages and loss suffered and that it

will continue to suffer from Defendants’ misappropriation of its trade secrets. In

addition to the irreparable harm that will occur to Plaintiff’s ability to effectively

compete in the marketplace if its trade secrets and confidential and proprietary

information are used by Defendants to compete against it, or otherwise

disseminated to Plaintiff’s competitors or the general public, Plaintiff will suffer

irreparable harm to its ability to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of its

trade secrets and confidential information, and thereby suffer a loss of the right to

protect such information as a trade secret and as confidential. If the

misappropriated and wrongfully obtained information are not returned, Plaintiff’s

ability to maintain and protect its secrecy and confidentiality will be compromised if

not wholly eviscerated.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 16 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 17 of 26

65. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs

incurred herein pursuant to O.R.S. § 646.467.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)
66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as though set forth fully herein.

67. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) is codified at 18 U.S.C. §

1030 et seq. The CFAA subjects any person to criminal and civil liability who

intentionally or with fraudulent intent accesses a protected computer without

authorization or in excess of authorized access, and thereby obtains a thing of value

in furtherance of an object of fraud, or causes damages and/or loss.

68. Plaintiff’s computer system is used for sales in interstate commerce

and is therefore a “protected computer” under the CFAA. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 1030(e)(2)(B).

69. Upon information and belief, Defendants, individually and in concert,

knowingly and intentionally exceeded authorized access to Plaintiff’s computer

system by login into restricted systems for purposes and activities in violation of

company policies and employee authority, including but not limited to copying and

deleting protected, confidential and trade secret information, deleting

communications, changing passwords and login credentials

70. Upon information and belief, Defendants, individually and in concert,

knowingly and intentionally accessed Plaintiff’s computer system after such

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 17 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 18 of 26

authorization was revoked by logging into restricted systems for purposes and

activities in violation of company policies and employee authority, including but not

limited to copying and deleting protected, confidential and trade secret information,

deleting communications, and changing passwords and login credentials.

71. Upon information and belief, Defendants obtained information from

Plaintiff’s protected computers as a result of unauthorized access.

72. Upon information and belief, Defendants obtained the access to

Plaintiff’s computer system through the use of interstate communications.

73. Plaintiff has a private cause of action under the CFAA pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 1030(g), which provides that “[a]ny person who suffers damage or loss by

reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator

to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief” if

the conduct “involves 1 of the factors set forth in subclauses (I), (II), (III), (IV), or

(V)” of Section 1030(c)(4)(A)(i).

74. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)(A)(i)(I), a civil action may be maintained

upon a showing of a “loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period …

aggregating at least $5,000 in value.”

75. Upon information and belief, Defendants also knowingly and with the

intent to defraud Plaintiffs, accessed the protected computer and obtained

information with a value in excess of $5,000.

76. Plaintiff requests that the Court grant temporary, preliminary, and

permanent injunctions against each Defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), enjoining

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 18 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 19 of 26

them:

(a) From further access to Plaintiff’s Protected Information;

(b) From use of Plaintiff’s Protected Information;

(c) To return all company property, including all copies of Plaintiff’s

Protected Information; and

(d) Pending discovery and final judgment in this action, from deleting

or altering in anyway the data, metadata, information, files, records

and documents contained on any company electronic device or

computer, or any device in their possession, custody, or control

containing data, files, records, information accessed or downloaded

from company computers, Slack channels, or cloud computer-based

accounts;

(e) Soliciting or initiating contact with any distributors or retailers

engaged in the sale or distribution of guitar pedals; and

(f) Owning, managing or being employed by any business engaged in

the sale or distribution of guitar pedals.

77. Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless

Defendants are so enjoined. Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law to protect it

from this harm and to compensate it for the damages and loss suffered and that it

will continue to suffer.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 19 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 20 of 26

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Fraud and Conspiracy to Commit Fraud)
78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as though set forth fully herein.

79. Upon information and belief, Defendants, individually and in concert,

knowingly made false representations of material facts to Plaintiff, including, but

not limited to their assertions that Defendants were continuing to work on behalf of

Catalinbread, when in fact they were actively planning to compete against

Catalinbread and destroy its value.

80. Upon information and belief, Defendants intended that Plaintiff act on

false representations in a manner reasonably contemplated.

81. Plaintiff was not aware of the falsity of Defendant’s representation.

82. Plaintiff rightfully and reasonably relied on the truth of Defendant’s

representation by continuing to employ each of them until Plaintiff ultimately

uncovered the truth about their plans.

83. Plaintiff suffered injuries as the actual and proximate result of

Defendant’s false representation.

84. Upon information and belief, Defendants had a meeting of the minds

on the object and course of action in one or more unlawful overt acts in furtherance

of said fraud.

85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has

been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 20 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 21 of 26

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Interference with Business Relations)
86. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as though set forth fully herein.

87. Plaintiff has a valid business relationship with distributors, retailers

and consumers.

88. Upon information and belief, Defendants, individually and in concert,

intentionally interfered with said relationship.

89. At the time of interference, Defendants were no longer associated with

Plaintiff and were therefore a third party.

90. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ interference was

accomplished through improper means and for an improper purpose.

91. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff suffered damage to economic

relations with distributors, retailers and consumers as an actual and proximate

result of Defendants’ interference in an amount to be determined at trial.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract)
92. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as though set forth fully herein.

93. Defendants were paid for contracted services pursuant to written and

oral agreements effective through resignation or termination in or about October

2017.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 21 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 22 of 26

94. Defendants breached the agreement by failing to perform the

contracted services.

95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff has

been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Trespass to Chattels)
96. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as though set forth fully herein.

97. Upon information and belief, Defendants, individually, and in concert,

intentionally exercised dominion and control of Plaintiff’s tangible and intangible

property, including intellectual property.

98. In exercising dominion and control of Plaintiff’s property, Defendants

dispossessed Plaintiff of property’s value.

99. Plaintiffs suffered actual injury as the actual and proximate result of

Defendants’ dominion and control of Plaintiff’s property in an amount to be

determined at trial.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
100. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 34 above, as though set forth fully herein.

101. Each Defendant, while they were Plaintiff’s employees, trusted with

access to confidential and proprietary information, owed to Plaintiff fiduciary

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 22 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 23 of 26

duties, including, but not limited to the duties of undivided loyalty, utmost good

faith, full, fair and frank disclosure, and fair dealing.

102. Each Defendant breached his fiduciary duties to Plaintiff as

specifically set forth in the above-stated allegations, and including, but not limited

to:

(a) Accessing and downloading the company’s confidential and proprietary

information, data, files, trade secrets, records, and accounts;

(b) Deleting the company’s confidential and proprietary information, data,

files, trade secrets, records, and accounts from company systems;

(c) Preparing to use confidential information and trade secrets to solicit

Plaintiff’s clients, solicit the company’s employees, and otherwise compete

with Plaintiff after they separated from the company;

(d) Developing competing products with company trade secrets and planning

a creating a competing company while on paid company time and with

company computer and internet assets; and

(e) Committing other acts, as detailed herein, to the detriment of the

company.

103. As a result of Defendants’ breach of their fiduciary duties, Plaintiff has

been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, and is entitled to compensatory

and punitive damages.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

104. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all appropriate claims.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 23 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 24 of 26

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief against Defendants and each of them as

follows:

a. For permanent injunctive relief as requested herein, including, but

not limited to, enjoining Defendants:

1. From further access to Plaintiff’s Protected Information;

2. From use of Plaintiff’s Protected Information;

3. To return all company property, including all copies of

Plaintiff’s Protected Information;

4. Pending discovery and final judgment in this action, from

deleting or altering in anyway the data, metadata,

information, files, records and documents contained on any

company electronic device or computer, or any device in their

possession, custody, or control containing data, files, records,

information accessed or downloaded from company

computers, Slack channels, or cloud computer-based

accounts;

5. Soliciting or initiating contact with any distributors or

retailers engaged in the sale or distribution of guitar pedals;

and

6. Owning, managing or being employed by any business

engaged in the sale or distribution of guitar pedals.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 24 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 25 of 26

b. On Plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets,

Federal), in an amount to be determined at trial, but for not less than

$200,000;

c. On Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief (Misappropriation of Trade

Secrets, State), in an amount to be determined at trial, but for not less

than $200,000;

d. On Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act),

in an amount to be determined at trial, but for not less than $200,000;

e. On Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief (Fraud and Conspiracy to Commit

Fraud), in an amount to be determined at trial, but for not less than

$200,000;

f. On Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for Relief (Intentional Interference with

Business Relations), in an amount to be determined at trial, but for not

less than $200,000;

g. On Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief (Breach of Contract), in an amount

to be determined at trial, but for not less than $200,000;

h. On Plaintiff’s Seventh Claim for Relief (Trespass to Chattels), in an

amount to be determined at trial, but for not less than $200,000;

i. On Plaintiff’s Eighth Claim for Relief (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), in an

amount to be determined at trial, but for not less than $200,000;

j. For Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements

incurred herein; and

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 25 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210
 Case 3:18-cv-01795-HZ Document 1 Filed 10/09/18 Page 26 of 26

k. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: October 9, 2018 /s/ Aaron J. Cronan

Aaron J. Cronan, OSB 082964
Attorney for Plaintiff Catalinbread

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT – 26 Cronan Law LLC

4207 Woodstock Blvd #440
Portland, OR 97206
Tel: (503) 482-9210