­

Russ Whitney complain agaist Frederick et al United States District Court, S.D. Florida. WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. SEAN FREDERICK, an individual, Don Frederick, an individual, and The Markus Group, a Canadian Corporation, Defendants. No. 03-61544. August 11, 2003. Complaint Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Dolin & Pancier, P.A., Attorneys for Plaintiff, 300 Las Olas Place, 300 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 860, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301, Tel: (954) 522-3456, Fax: (954) 527-8663, Scott W. Rothstein, Esq., Florida Bar No.: 765880, Christina M. Kitterman, Esq., Florida Bar No.: 958484. Civ-Gold. Magistrate Judge Simonton. Plaintiff, WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. ("WHITNEY"), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this, its Complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Defendants, SEAN FREDERICK, DON FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP, and alleges: INTRODUCTION This is an action for Defendant's, SEAN FREDERICK, blatant violation of the Confidentiality, Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreement entered into with Plaintiff, WHITNEY; for Defendants' misappropriation of Plaintiffs' trade secrets and proprietary information in violation of Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act; and Defendants' flagrant infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works. JURISDICTION 1. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, WHITNEY, was and continues to be a Colorado Corporation with its principal place of business in Cape Coral, Florida, conducting business throughout the United States including Broward County, Florida, Canada and the United Kingdom. 2. At all times material hereto, Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, was and continues to be a resident of Canada, doing business in the United States including, without limitation, the State of Florida. 3. At all times material hereto, Defendant, DON FREDERICK, was and continues to be a resident of Canada, doing business in the United States including, without limitation, the State of Florida. 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, THE MARKUS GROUP, was and continues to be a Canadian corporation owned and operated by Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, doing business in the United States including, without limitation, the State of Florida. 5. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '§ 1332. The amount in controversy is greater than $75,000 exclusive of interest, attorneys' fees and costs. 6. Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because he: (a) Operates, conducts, engages in or carries on a business or business ventures within this state; (b) Breached the Confidentiality, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement entered into in this state; (c) Violated Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. '§ 688.001 et. seq.; (d) Executed a written Agreement in which Defendant agreed to litigate this matter in Broward County, Florida, subject to the laws of the State of Florida; and (e) Infringed upon Plaintiff's valid copyrighted materials in violation of 17 U.S.C. '§ 501. 7. Defendant, DON FREDERICK, is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because he: (a) Operates, conducts, engages in or carries on a business or business ventures within this state; (b) Violated Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. '§ 688.001 et. seq.; and (c) Infringed upon Plaintiff's valid copyrighted materials in violation of 17 U.S.C. '§ 501. 8. Defendant, THE MARKUS GROUP, is subject to the

jurisdiction of this Court because it: (a) Operates, conducts, engages in or carries on a business or business ventures within this state; (b) Breached the Confidentiality, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement entered into in this state through Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK; (c) Violated Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. '§ 688.001 et. seq.; (f) Executed a written Agreement in which Defendant agreed to litigate this matter in Broward County, Florida, subject to the laws of the state of Florida, through Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK; and (g) Infringed upon Plaintiff's valid copyrighted materials in violation of 17 U.S.C. '§ 501. VENUE 9. Venue is proper in this Court because: (a) The Confidentiality, Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement was entered into in the State of Florida, and Plaintiff's trade secrets were misappropriated by Defendants, SEAN FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP, from Plaintiff's principal place of business in the State of Florida. (b) Pursuant to the Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement, the parties agreed that the governing law shall be that of the state of Florida and legal venue shall lie in Lee, Broward or Palm Beach counties at the option of Plaintiff, WHITNEY. Plaintiff has elected to have venue lie in Broward County, Florida. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. Plaintiff, WHITNEY, was formed by its Chief Executive Officer, Russ Whitney, and is a leader in the business of providing post-secondary educational and training products and services in the areas of real estate investing, business development, financial investment and asset protection. 11. Plaintiff, WHITNEY, conducts approximately 150 real estate free preview training programs per month with approximately 24,000 new students registered each month. 12. Furthermore, Plaintiff, WHITNEY, spends millions of dollars each year on infomercials and other advertising to promote its products and services. 13. WHITNEY'S training programs are designed to present its students with the maximum amount of education by offering cutting-edge real estate and investing materials and educational trainings to facilitate success for its students. 14. In order to stay on the cutting edge, WHITNEY'S training programs provide students with successful investors, trainers, mentors and speakers. 15. In early 2000, Plaintiff, WHITNEY, entered into an independent contractor relationship with Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, whereby Defendant was engaged to conduct training sessions and speeches for Plaintiff's students, throughout Canada. 17. As a trainer and speaker for Plaintiff, Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, had access to Plaintiff's trade secrets, specifically its proprietary information and customer lists. 18. While working as an independent contractor for Plaintiff, training and speaking for Plaintiff's students, Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, developed his own corporation, Defendant, THE MARKUS GROUP, to compete with Plaintiff's business. 19. Defendants, SEAN FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP, began to solicit Plaintiff's customers as their own to sell their own competing materials to Plaintiff's customers. 20. In late 2002, Plaintiff instituted its new Confidentiality, Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreement with all of its employees and independent contractors. 21. Initially, Defendant resisted signing such Agreement in consideration of maintaining his independent contractor relationship with Plaintiff. 22. However, on January 9, 2003, in further consideration of and as a material term of his continuing to be engaged as an independent contractor with Plaintiff, Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, executed the Confidentiality, Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreement and Independent Contractor Agreement (collectively referred to as "Agreement") with Plaintiff, WHITNEY. A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "A," and incorporated by reference herein. 23. In addition to competing in his individual capacity, Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, utilized Defendant, THE MARKUS GROUP, to unlawfully compete with Plaintiff's business to develop prospective business advantages not yet realized. 24. On January 21, 2003, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, had violated and continues to violate the Agreement entered into with Plaintiff as he is working in direct competition with Plaintiff. 25. Furthermore, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant, DON FREDERICK, was performing an "Intensified Training Camp" on behalf of Defendants, SEAN FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP, utilizing almost identical replicas of Plaintiff's copyrighted "Advanced Training Curriculum" to compete with Plaintiff for financial gain. 26. Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, had access to Plaintiff's copyrighted "Advanced Training Curriculum" as an instructor for Plaintiff's students. A copy of Plaintiff's Advanced Training Curriculum is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the Certificate of Copyright Registration is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. 27. The "Training Camp Curriculum" Defendants, SEAN FREDERICK, DON FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP, utilized to compete with Plaintiff's business are substantially similar to Plaintiff's copyrighted materials. A copy of Defendants' Training Camp Curriculum is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference. 28. Based on these flagrant violations of the Agreement and infringement on Plaintiff's copyrighted material, on February 6, 2003, Plaintiff terminated its independent contractor relationship with Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK. A copy of the termination letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by reference. 29. On or about February 21, 2003, Plaintiff became fully aware that Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, was and continues to be President of Defendant, THE MARKUS GROUP, working in direct competition with Plaintiff, utilizing Plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information, which is protected by both the Agreement and Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and unlawfully duplicating Plaintiff's copyrighted material. 30. As such, on February 21, 2003, Plaintiff sent a "Cease and Desist" letter to Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP, demanding that Defendant discontinue using Plaintiff's proprietary material to promote educational trainings offered by Defendants, SEAN FREDERICK, DON FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP. A copy of Plaintiff's "Cease and Desist" Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "F," and incorporated by reference herein. 31. Although Defendants, through their counsel, agreed to stop making use of Plaintiff's material, to date, Defendants have refused to comply with Plaintiff's demand. Thus, Plaintiff was forced to bring this action. A copy of Defendants' letter attached hereto as Exhibit "G," and incorporated herein by reference. 32. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed, waived or excused. 33. Plaintiff, WHITNEY, has retained the undersigned law firm and is obligated to pay it a reasonable fee for its services. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES AGAINST DEFENDANT, SEAN FREDERICK 34. Plaintiff, WHITNEY, realleges and reavers paragraphs 1 through 33 as if fully set forth herein. 35. Plaintiff, WHITNEY, and Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, entered into the Confidentiality, Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreement on January 9, 2003. See Exhibit "A." 36. Defendant's position with Plaintiff gave him access to valuable information, proprietary in nature and protected by Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Thus, Plaintiff required Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, to execute the Agreement as a condition to his independent contractor relationship with Plaintiff to protect Plaintiff's trade secrets, valuable confidential business and professional information as well as its existing and prospective customer lists. 37. Plaintiff painstakingly developed, and continues to develop, innovative ideas, products and services for its real estate investing, business development, financial investment and asset protection. 38. Such trade secrets and confidential business information are fundamental to Plaintiff's success, and keeping such information confidential is essential to maintaining Plaintiff's business at a competitive advantage. 39. The Agreement entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, is reasonably necessary to protect Plaintiff's legitimate business interests. 40. Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, without permission from Plaintiff, has disclosed, directly and indirectly, Plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information, he has used Plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information to benefit himself and Defendant, THE MARKUS GROUP, and has refused to, and continues to refuse to, discontinue using Plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information. 41. Furthermore, on or about January 21, 2003, Plaintiff learned that Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, while still employed with Plaintiff was working with Defendant, THE MARKUS GROUP, in direct violation of the Agreement between Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, and Plaintiff. 42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's, SEAN FREDERICK, blatant breach of the Agreement, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable damages for Defendant's unlawful competition with Plaintiff and its subsidiaries, Defendant's solicitation of Plaintiff's customers, and Defendant's use, misappropriation and disclosure of Plaintiff's confidential and proprietary information. 43. Pursuant to the Agreement, the prevailing party in any litigation arising out of the Agreement shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. See Exhibit "A." WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, WHITNEY, respectfully requests: (a) a preliminary injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendant from the present and future use of Plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information and trade secrets; (b) a preliminary injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendant from competing with Plaintiff's business; (c) a permanent injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendant from the present and future use of Plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information and trade secrets; (d) an Order awarding Plaintiff all damages suffered as a result of Defendant's Breach of the Confidentiality, Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreement; (e) an Order awarding Plaintiff all attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Agreement; (f) an Order awarding such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT II - VIOLATION OF FLORIDA'S UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 44. Plaintiff, WHITNEY, realleges and reavers paragraphs 1 through 33 as if fully set forth herein. 45. As an instructor for Plaintiff, Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, was exposed to, and entrusted with many of Plaintiff's trade secrets including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's customer lists, training manuals, educational materials, business operation materials, commercial information, formulas for training and real estate success and compilations of information which Plaintiff used to create a significant business advantage in the industry. 46. Plaintiff trusted Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, with its most confidential trade secrets and proprietary information to use in the development and actual presentation of Plaintiff's training seminars. 47. Upon Plaintiff's termination of its independent contractor relationship with Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, he willfully misappropriated Plaintiff's customer lists, training manuals, educational materials, business operation materials, commercial information, formulas for training and real estate success and compilations of information which Plaintiff used to create a significant business advantage in the industry with the intent to deprive Plaintiff and/or misappropriate the above referenced trade secrets to his own use and/or for the use of Defendants, DON FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP. 48. Defendant's, SEAN FREDERICK, willful misappropriation of Plaintiff's trade secrets has provided, and will continue to provide, Defendants with a commercial advantage over Plaintiff. 49. Defendant's actions as set forth herein constitute a direct violation of '§ 688.001 et seq., the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act. 50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' willful misappropriation and use of Plaintiff's trade secrets, Defendants have caused, and will continue to cause, irreparable damages to Plaintiff and unjust enrichment to Defendants, SEAN FREDERICK, DON FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, WHITNEY, respectfully requests: (a) a preliminary injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants from the present and future use of Plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information and trade secrets; (b) a permanent injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants from the present and future use of Plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information and trade secrets; (c) an Order awarding Plaintiff statutory damages, injunctions and attorneys' fees for the unlawful misappropriation of Plaintiff's trade secrets pursuant to Fla. Stat. '§ 688.001 et. seq. (d) an Order awarding such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III - COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 51. Plaintiff, WHITNEY, realleges and reavers paragraphs 1 through 33 as if fully set forth herein. 52. Plaintiff owns a valid copyright for its "Advanced Training Curriculum" with the United States Copyright Office Registration No. TX 5-649-128. See Exhibit "C." 53. Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, as a trainer and speaker for Plaintiff had direct access and permission to utilize Plaintiff's "Advanced Training Curriculum" to supplement his lectures to Plaintiff's students. See Exhibit "B." 54. Defendant, SEAN FREDERICK, misappropriated Plaintiff's "Advanced Training Curriculum" and made unauthorized copies of Plaintiff's copyrighted work to use in direct competition with Plaintiff. 55. Defendants, SEAN FREDERICK, DON FREDERICK and THE MARKUS GROUP, presented their students with a training manual, "Training Camp Curriculum," which has identical paragraphs to Plaintiff's copyrighted work and, as a whole, is substantially similar in both expression and ideas to Plaintiff's copyrighted work, "Advanced Training Curriculum." See Exhibit "D." WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, WHITNEY, respectfully requests: (a) a preliminary injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants from the present and future use of Plaintiff's copyrighted material; (b) a permanent injunction, enjoining and restraining Defendants from the present and future use of Plaintiff's copyrighted material; (c) an Order awarding Plaintiff statutory damages, injunctions and attorneys' fees for the unlawful copying of Plaintiff's copyrighted material pursuant to 17 U.S.C. '§ 501 et. seq. (d) an Order awarding such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND PLAINTIFF demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right by jury. John T. Reed, a.k.a. John Reed, Jack Reed, 342 Bryan Drive, Alamo, CA 94507, Voice: 925-820-7262, Fax: 925-820-1259, www.johntreed.com

Log in to comment
­