Bull Bag, Llc v. Remorques Savage, Inc.

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

D. Conn.January 19, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT AT NEW HAVEN BULL BAG, LLC ) Civil Case No. 3:16cv1735 (VLB) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) REMORQUES SAVAGE, INC. ) Defendant. ) January 19, 2017 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS The Defendant Remorques Savage, Inc. (“Remorques” or the “Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court to Dismiss the Complaint of the Plaintiff The Bull Bag, LLC (“Bull Bag”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(4). The Plaintiff’s Complaint against the Defendant should be dismissed first and foremost because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, a Canadian entity wholly operated in Canada. Second, the Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on each of the breach of contract, Connecticut Unfair Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), and negligent misrepresentation counts. And finally, the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed for insufficient process as the Plaintiff failed to serve the Defendant with all documents required by this Court’s order. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED/ NO TESTIMONY REQUIRED Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 3 2 In support of this Motion, and in accordance with D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(a)1, the Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed concurrently herewith. REMORQUES SAVAGE, INC. By Its Attorneys, /s/ David A. DeBassio David A. DeBassio (ct24365) ddebassio@hinckleyallen.com Alexa T. Millinger (ct29800) amillinger@hinckleyallen.com HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP 20 Church Street, 18th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 725-6200 (Telephone) (860) 278-3802 (Fax) Dated: January 19, 2017 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 3 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing document was filed through the ECF system on the 19th day of January, 2017 and will be sent electronically to the registered participants identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Kenneth A. Votre Votre & Associates PC 8 Frontage Road East Haven, CT 06512 Email: votrelaw@gmail.com /s/ David A. DeBassio 56480423 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 3 56480566 v1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT THE BULL BAG, LLC ) Civil Case No. 3:16cv1735 (VLB) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) REMORQUES SAVAGE, INC. ) Defendant. ) January 19, 2017 REMORQUES SAVAGE, INC’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS I. INTRODUCTION The Defendant Remorques Savage, Inc. (“Remorques” or the “Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in support of its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of the Plaintiff The Bull Bag, LLC (“Bull Bag”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(4). The Plaintiff’s Complaint against the Defendant should be dismissed first and foremost because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, a Canadian entity wholly operated in Canada. Second, the Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on each of the breach of contract, Connecticut Unfair Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), and negligent misrepresentation counts. And finally, the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed for insufficient process as the Plaintiff failed to serve the Defendant with all documents required by this Court’s order. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 21 2 II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement, a Purchase Order, that called for the Defendant to build a trailer. (Complaint “Compl.” at ¶4). The Purchase Order was negotiated and confirmed via electronic mail in August of 2015. (Id.). The Defendant never entered into the State of Connecticut in negotiating or performing its obligations under the terms of the Purchase Order agreed to by the parties (Exhibit 1 to Savage Affidavit “Savage Aff.” (Exhibit A)). The Purchase Order was not formed in the State of Connecticut. The work on the trailer was not done in the State of Connecticut. (Savage Aff. ¶ 23).The trailer at issue has never been physically present in the State of Connecticut. The parties usually communicated via electronic mail or telephone. (Compl. at ¶¶4, 5, 7, 9). The Defendant produced the trailer in accordance with the Purchase Order, as the Plaintiff admits. (Id. at ¶8, 11). The Plaintiff never paid the Defendant for any work done pursuant to the Purchase Order. (See Compl. ¶13). The Plaintiff did not terminate the Purchase Order until after the Defendant had completed the construction of the trailer. There is no allegation or fact alleged in the Complaint that the trailer had to be completed by a certain date and time. The Defendant is located in the city of Sherbrooke, Province of Quebec. (Id. at ¶ 2). Remorques does not and has never had any physical presence in the State of Connecticut. (Savage Aff. ¶8). Remorques does and has never solicited or conducted business in the State of Connecticut. (Savage Aff. ¶¶7,9). Remorques does not have any customers in the State of Connecticut. (Savage Aff. ¶11). Remorques does not and has never directed any marketing or Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 21 3 advertising efforts to the State of Connecticut. (Savage Aff. ¶12).The Plaintiff approached the Defendant and asked the Defendant to build the trailer at issue. (Savage Aff. ¶14).The Defendant never solicited the Plaintiff’s business in the State of Connecticut. (Savage Aff. ¶13).The Plaintiff was the party who refused to tender payment to the Defendant for the trailer. The Complaint is devoid of any fact that would establish that Remorques has sold the trailer to a third party or sold the designs of the trailer or other alleged intellectual property of the Plaintiff to a third party. The Defendant is not presently nor has it ever used the designs or other alleged intellectual property of the Plaintiff at issue in this litigation for any other customer. (Savage Aff. ¶38).Similarly, the Defendant is not presently nor has it ever sold the designs or other alleged intellectual property of the Plaintiff at issue in this litigation to any other party. (Savage Aff. ¶39). Attached (Exhibit 5 to Savage Aff.) is a true and accurate copy of the Complaint that was served on the Defendant. The Defendant has never been served with the Court’s Standing Orders regarding Pre-Trial Deadlines, Electronic Filing Orders, Standing Protective Order or Notice to Counsel as the Plaintiff was ordered to. (See Docket Entry # 6). III. ARGUMENT A. This Action Should Be Dismissed Because This Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over the Defendant. The due process requirement for personal jurisdiction “protects a person without meaningful ties to the forum state from being subjected to binding judgments within its jurisdiction.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 21 4 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir. 1996). On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Id. at 566. In determining whether jurisdiction exists, a court must first look to the forum state's long-arm statute and determine whether the statute reaches the foreign corporation. If the long-arm statute authorizes personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the court must then decide whether the exercise of jurisdiction over that party offends due process. OneBeacon Ins. Grp. v. Tylo AB, 731 F. Supp. 2d 250, 254 (D. Conn. 2010)(citing Bensmiller v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 47 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir.1995)). In determining whether an exercise of jurisdiction offends due process, a court examines whether the non-resident defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state sufficient to confer general or specific personal jurisdiction. Id. at 257. Specific jurisdiction occurs when a court exercises personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in a suit “arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum.” Id. (citing Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8 (1984)). General jurisdiction occurs when a court exercises personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in an action that does not arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. Id. (citing Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414 n. 9). Here, personal jurisdiction over Remorques is wholly improper because Connecticut’s long-arm statute does not reach the present circumstance, nor Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 4 of 21 5 does Remorques have sufficient minimum contacts for any type personal jurisdiction in Connecticut. 1. Connecticut’s Long-Arm Statute Does Not Authorize Jurisdiction Over Remorques. “[T]he amenability of a foreign corporation to suit in a federal court in a diversity action is determined in accordance with the law of the state where the court sits.” Arrowsmith v. United Press Int'l, 320 F.2d 219, 223 (2d Cir.1963). Accordingly, this Court applies the law of the State of Connecticut. The Plaintiff mistakenly claims in its Complaint that it has jurisdiction over Remorques based on Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b. However, that statute applies to jurisdiction over foreign individuals. Remorques is a foreign corporation, as the Plaintiff has alleged in its Complaint (¶2), and is therefore subject to the mandates of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 33-929(f). “Connecticut law does not extend jurisdiction over foreign corporations, as distinguished from individuals, for tortious acts committed outside the state that injure a person in Connecticut. Compare Conn. Gen.Stat. § 33-929(f) with § 52-59b(a).” Potts v. Septic Heater Co., 632 F. Supp. 2d 190, 193 (D. Conn. 2009). The Connecticut long-arm statute, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 33-929(f), provides that foreign corporations are subject to suit in Connecticut only under the following circumstances: (1) Out of any contract made in this state or to be performed in this state; (2) out of any business solicited in this state by mail or otherwise if the corporation has repeatedly so solicited business, whether the orders or offers relating thereto were accepted within or without the state; (3) out of the production, manufacture or distribution of goods by such corporation with the reasonable expectation that such goods are to be used or consumed in this Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 5 of 21 6 state and are so used or consumed, regardless of how or where the goods were produced, manufactured, marketed or sold or whether or not through the medium of independent contractors or dealers; or (4) out of tortious conduct in this state, whether arising out of repeated activity or single acts, and whether arising out of misfeasance or nonfeasance. None of the enumerated circumstances is present here. The Purchase Order at issue in the Plaintiff’s Complaint was not performed and was never contemplated to be performed in Connecticut. The Purchase Order was formed and performed wholly in Canada. (Savage Aff. ¶23). Further, subsection (2) is inapplicable because Remorques did not solicit the Plaintiff’s business in Connecticut. The Plaintiff approached Remorques about the possibility of hiring Remorques to build a trailer. (Savage Aff. ¶¶ 13, 14). Subsection (3) does not apply because it requires that there is a “reasonable expectation that such goods [produced] are to be used or consumed in this state and are so used or consumed. . . .” Here, it is undisputed that the trailer Remorques began building for the Plaintiff never left Quebec, and therefore was not “used or consumed” in Connecticut. (Savage Aff. ¶¶ 24, 25). Finally, Remorques did not commit any tortious conduct in the State of Connecticut. Indeed, the Purchase Order was not negotiated, formed, or performed in the State of Connecticut, and Remorques never physically entered into Connecticut in connection with the Purchase Order, nor does Remorques do any business in Connecticut in general. (Savage Aff. ¶¶ 4014, 23-24). There is no basis for the long-arm statute to reach Remorques. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 6 of 21 7 2. This Court’s Jurisdiction Over the Defendant Would Not Comport With Due Process Requirements. a. This Court Has No General Jurisdiction Over Remorques. Even if jurisdiction may be exercised under Connecticut's long-arm statute, the Court must still determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction in this case would comport with the requirements of Due Process. Young Pharm., Inc. v. AMP Med. Prod., LLC, No. 3:15-CV-0516 (VLB), 2016 WL 1305113, at *4 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2016). The Supreme Court has established a two-pronged test for determining whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 362 U.S. 310, 314 (1945)). First, the corporation must have “certain minimum contacts” with the forum state, and second, maintenance of the suit must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Kernan v. KurzHastings, 175 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788 (1984)). A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign corporations only if their contacts with the state have been “so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 317). “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.” Id. at 2853-54. Applying that standard, “only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 7 of 21 8 defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 760 (2014). Here, the Plaintiff has not alleged, and Remorques does not have, the requisite contacts with Connecticut to be subject to general jurisdiction here. The Plaintiff has admitted, (Compl. ¶2), that Remorques is a foreign corporation, and further has not alleged that it has any continuous or systematic contacts in Connecticut. The Complaint is devoid of any basis for specific jurisdiction. b. This Court Has No Specific Jurisdiction Over the Defendant. In order to establish specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff “must . . . show that [the defendant] ‘purposefully availed’ [itself] of the privilege of doing business in [the forum State] and that [the defendant] could foresee being ‘haled into court’ there.” OneBeacon, 731 F. Supp. 2d at 257-58 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)). “To exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant, the plaintiff's action must be related to the defendant's contacts within the forum, and “the requisite ‘minimum contacts' must be such that [the defendant] can ‘reasonably anticipate’ being hauled into court in the forum state.” Young Pharm., Inc. v. AMP Med. Prod., LLC, No. 3:15-CV-0516 (VLB), 2016 WL 1305113, at *4 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2016)(citing Vertrue Inc. v. Meshkin, 429 F. Supp. 2d 479, 495 (D. Conn. 2006); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985). Central to this inquiry is whether the defendant has “purposefully avail [ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 8 of 21 9 the benefits and protections of its laws.” Id. (citing Vertrue Inc., 429 F.Supp.2d at 495; Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)). Here, the Plaintiff has not alleged any sales or contacts with Connecticut other than Remorques’ Purchase Order with the Plaintiff. This is insufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction. “The United States Supreme Court has strongly suggested that a single sale of a product within a state, by itself, is insufficient to establish ‘minimum contacts’ such that personal jurisdiction comports with the requirements of Due Process.” Id. In J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Robert Nicastro, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 180 L.Ed.2d 765 (2011), a distributor agreed to sell the defendant's machines in the United States and defendant's officials “attended trade shows in several States” but not in New Jersey, the forum of the lawsuit. Id. at 2790. Four machines “ended up in New Jersey.” Id. After discovery, the trial court found that the “defendant does not have a single contact with New Jersey short of the machine in question ending up in this state.” Id. Justice Kennedy's plurality opinion held that “[t]hese facts may reveal an intent to serve the U.S. market, but they do not show that J. McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the New Jersey market.” Id. Six justices in J. McIntyre appeared to agree that a single sale in a given forum does not provide sufficient “minimum contacts” without at least, as Justice Breyer stated in a concurring opinion, “something more.” Id. The plaintiff needed to have offered evidence of, for example, “special state-related design, advertising, advice,” or “marketing.” Young Pharm., Inc., 2016 WL 1305113, at *5. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 9 of 21 10 Here, the Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendant “purposefully availed” itself of conducting business in Connecticut, such that it would be reasonable for the Defendant to be haled into court here. The Complaint merely alleges that the parties entered into a Purchase Order for Remorques to build a trailer for the Plaintiff in Canada. The Purchase Order was not solicited, negotiated, or performed, in whole or in part, in the United States, let alone in Connecticut. (Savage Aff. ¶¶14, 19, 23). Further, the Plaintiff has not alleged “something more” which would constitute purposeful availment. Indeed, Remorques does not have a physical presence in Connecticut (Savage Aff. ¶ 8), does not and has never had any bank accounts in Connecticut (Savage Aff. ¶ 9), does not has never solicited or conducted business in Connecticut (Savage Aff. ¶¶ 7,10), has no customers in Connecticut (Savage Aff. ¶ 11), and does not and has never directed any marketing or advertising efforts to the State of Connecticut (Savage Aff. ¶ 12). The Plaintiff goes so far as to allege the Defendant is not “authorized to conduct business in the State of Connecticut” (Compl. ¶ 2). For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s Complaint has failed to allege any basis for personal jurisdiction over Remorques in Connecticut. B. The Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to State a Claim on All Four Counts Alleged and is Subject to Dismissal Under 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff’s Complaint should also be dismissed because all four counts fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The function of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) “is merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of evidence that might be offered in support thereof.” Ryder Energy Distrib. Corp. v. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 10 of 21 11 Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc., 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir.1984) (citation omitted). When considering such a motion, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, draw inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and construe the complaint liberally. Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687, 691 (2d Cir.2001). The district court may dismiss a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) only if the plaintiff's factual allegations are not sufficient “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1960, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, a plaintiff must provide the grounds of her entitlement to relief beyond mere “labels and conclusions”; “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 1964-65. In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider only the allegations made in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and any facts of which judicial notice may be taken. See Newman & Schwartz v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 102 F.3d 660, 662 (2d Cir.1996); Brass v. Amer. Film Techn., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.1993). Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is well settled that, “[i]f, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 11 of 21 12 pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.” Mill Creek Grp., Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 136 F. Supp. 2d 36, 41 (D. Conn. 2001). 1. The Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Count Fails to State a Claim. First, the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim in the First Count fails to state a claim upon which the Court may award relief in that it fails to allege a specific provision of the parties’ agreement the Defendant breached. The Plaintiff alleges the parties had an agreement whereby the Defendant would build the Plaintiff a trailer. (See Compl. ¶5). The Plaintiff further alleges the Defendant did in fact build this trailer and it was not until the trailer was complete the Plaintiff decided to terminate the parties’ agreement. The work commissioned by the Plaintiff was done pursuant to a Purchase Order (Exhibit 1 to Savage Aff.). The Purchase Order contains no date by which the work had to be completed. The Plaintiff does not allege that the trailer had to be constructed by a certain date. In fact, the allegations establish the Plaintiff was aware of the construction and delivery schedule and, despite this knowledge, did not terminate the Purchase Order through and until the Defendant had built the trailer at issue and a dispute arose as to who owned the design and specification documents. (Compl. ¶¶9, 10). Because the Plaintiff’s Complaint has not cited to any specific contractual provision that has been breached, it fails to state a claim for breach of contract, and indeed it is unclear what the Plaintiff purports to be the basis for the breach of contract claim. See Rapco, Inc. v. Louis, No. CV00803569, 2002 WL 725485, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2002)(“Since no violation of a specific promise within the attorney-client relationship is alleged in this case, the Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 12 of 21 13 plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege a cause of action for breach of contract.”). Further, there was no “meeting of the minds” with regard to who owned the designs and specifications for the trailer, therefore there can be no breach of contract for the Defendant retaining possession of those items. The Plaintiff has alleged that it is harmed by “Remorques failing to perform by not having the prototype of designs developed over years of research and that are proper intellectual property of the Plaintiff.” (Compl. ¶ 15). Exhibit 1 to the Savage Affidavit is a true and accurate copy of the Purchase Order for the trailer at issue. The Purchase Order does not reference any compensation for engineering or design, nor does the Purchase Order reference any obligation to turn over the designs or specifications to the Plaintiff. Indeed, as the email conversation attached as Exhibit 4 to the Savage Affidavit evidences, the parties had different understandings about ownership of the designs. “In order for an enforceable contract to exist, the court must find that the parties' minds had truly met. . . If there has been a misunderstanding between the parties, or a misapprehension by one or both so that their minds have never met, no contract has been entered into by them and the court will not make for them a contract which they themselves did not make.” Gallogly v. Kurrus, 97 Conn. App. 662 (2006)(citing Fortier v. Newington Group, Inc., 30 Conn. App. 505, cert. denied, 225 Conn. 922, 625 A.2d 823 (1993)). Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 13 of 21 14 Since there was no agreement on the issue of who owned the designs, there can be no breach. The Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead any cause of action for breach of contract. 2. The Plaintiff’s Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) Count Fails to State a Claim. The Plaintiff’s Second Count under the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) fails to state a claim because (1) the entire Second Count is nothing more than conclusory allegations and recitations of the elements of the CUTSA claim with no supporting facts and (2) the Compliant contains no allegations and supporting facts that the Defendant has used or disclosed any alleged trade secrets to a third party and. CUTSA defines actionable “misappropriation” as follows: 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; or (2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (i) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (ii) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use * * * or (iii) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) before a material change of his 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. Conn. Gen.Stat. § 35-51(b); On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 313, 323 (D. Conn. 2003). As a threshold point, the Plaintiff’s complaint contains nothing more than threadbare allegations and recitals of the elements of the claim. See Ashcroft v. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 14 of 21 15 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court is entitled to disregard those allegations as nothing “more than conclusions, [and are] not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 679. Without having pled the necessary allegations for a CUTPA claim, the count should be dismissed. The Plaintiff has not pleaded any allegations of any improper means in acquiring any trade secret under the first subsection of the statute. Further, the Complaint contains no facts or allegations that the Defendant is actually using any alleged trade secrets, therefore has not “disclosed” any trade secrets under the second subsection. The Plaintiff has only alleged that the Defendant “may” use the alleged trade secrets. Indeed, Remorques has not nor has it ever used or sold the designs or other alleged intellectual property of the Plaintiff at issue in this litigation. (Savage Aff. ¶¶38,39). The Court does not provide relief for speculative outcomes. Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Groton, 46 Conn. 514, 518 (1997)(“A hypothetical injury or threat is not a ripe or justiciable claim”). The Plaintiff has wholly failed to plead any basis for a CUTSA violation and the count should be dismissed accordingly. 3. The Plaintiff’s Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) Count Fails to State a Claim. The Plaintiff’s CUTPA claim in the Third Count must be dismissed because the Complaint (1) fails to allege any aggravating circumstances beyond a mere breach of contract and therefore is insufficient to state a claim for a violation of CUTPA, and (2) the Plaintiff’s CUTPA claim contains mere conclusory allegations and a bare recitation of the claim and is thus insufficient to state a claim for a violation of CUTPA. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 15 of 21 16 CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110b (2013). A simple breach of contract cannot sustain a CUTPA claim, absent some allegation as to how or in what respect the defendant’s activities are either immoral, unethical, unscrupulous or offensive to public policy.” Vega v. Sacred Heart Univ., Inc., 836 F. Supp. 2d 58, 64 (D. Conn. 2011). “In order to plead a prima facie violation of CUTPA, there need to be more than merely a breach of contract. Specifically, Connecticut courts have held there must be some ‘[s]ignificant aggravating circumstances.’” Hart v. World Wrestling Entm’t, Inc., No. 3:10cv0975 (SRU), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43184, at *33034 (D. Conn. March 28, 2012). The Complaint is devoid of any allegations of aggravating circumstances. Although the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that a party’s refusal to perform under a valid contract while retaining the benefits of the contract may be an aggravating circumstance, such an allegation is absent here. See, e.g., Empower Health, LLC v. Providence Health Solutions, LLC, No. 3:10cv1163, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60142, at *18-19 (D. Conn. June 3, 2011)(citing Saturn Constr. Co. v. Premier Roofing Co., 680 A.2d 1274, 1283 (Conn. 1996). The Complaint clearly states that the Defendant produced the trailer at issue, and the Plaintiff refused to accept delivery, pay for the trailer and then terminated the relationship. Remorques expended all the time and resources necessary to perform the agreement and was never compensated for the same. There is no allegation the Defendant retained some benefit of the agreement to the Plaintiff’s detriment. To Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 16 of 21 17 the contrary, the Complaint and the allegations fairly imply the Plaintiff is the party seeking to retain the benefits of the parties’ agreement without compensating Remorques for it. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s complaint contains nothing more than threadbare allegations and recitals of the elements of the claim. See Iqbal, 556 at 678. The Court is entitled to disregard those allegations as nothing “more than conclusions, [and are] not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 679. Without having pled the necessary allegations for a CUTPA claim, the count should be dismissed. 4. The Plaintiff’s Negligent Misrepresentation Count Fails to State a Claim. Finally, the Plaintiff’s claim for negligent misrepresentation in the Fourth Count must also be dismissed as a matter of law because the Complaint (1) wholly fails to allege the requisite elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim; (2) is preempted to the extent the Plaintiff’s claim is premised on trade secrets; and (3) is nothing more than conclusions and the recitation of the elements of the claim. The elements of a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation have been summarized as follows: One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment . . . supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 17 of 21 18 D'Ulisse-Cupo v. Board of Directors of Notre Dame High School, 202 Conn. 206, 217-218 (1987); See also Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co., 232 Conn. 559, 578 (1995). The Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim is nothing more than a regurgitation of its breach of contact claim. The Plaintiff fails to allege the Defendant supplied false information to the Plaintiff or failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating any information to the Plaintiff. The Count alleges the Plaintiff’s damages, if any, would arise if the Defendant engaged in any “[r]eproduction or sale of the prototype to a third party.” (Compl. ¶ 38). The count further alleges that the Defendants “failure to… protect the Plaintiff’s trade secrets has harmed the Plaintiff.” (Compl. ¶ 40). There is no allegation containing any fact that would establish the Defendant promised to keep any information shared between the parties secret, has either reproduced or sold the prototype to a third party or failed to protect the Plaintiff’s information. To the extent the negligent misrepresentation claims are premised on the Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets, such claims are explicitly preempted. CUTSA provides: (a) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the provisions of this chapter supersede any conflicting tort, restitutionary, or other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret. Conn. Gen.Stat. § 35-57(emphasis added); On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 313, 333-34 (D. Conn. 2003). And lastly, the negligent misrepresentation claim is again nothing more than threadbare allegations and a recital of the elements of the claim. Therefore, Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 18 of 21 19 without reliance on the similarly deficient CUTSA allegations, and without pleading any of the necessary elements of a negligent misrepresentation claim, the count must be dismissed as legally insufficient. C. The Plaintiff’s Complaint Should be Dismissed Under Rule 12(b)(4) As the Plaintiff Failed to Properly Serve the Defendant as Ordered by the Court. Finally, the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) because the Plaintiff failed to serve all documents required by the Court. “[A] Rule 12(b)(4) motion is proper only to challenge noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 4(b) or any applicable provision incorporated by Rule 4(b) that deals specifically with the content of the summons.” Id. (citing Jackson v. City of N.Y., No. 14-CV-5755 (GBD)(KNF), 2015 WL 4470004, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2015)(quoting 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1353 (3d ed. 2004)). “Objections to sufficiency of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) must identify substantive deficiencies in the summons, complaint or accompanying documentation.” Soos v. Niagara Cty., No. 1:15-CV- 00870 EAW, 2016 WL 3659139, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016). In this case, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to serve the following documents on the Defendant when serving the Complaint: Order re: Chambers Practice; Electronic filing Order; Order on Pretrial Deadlines; Protective Order. (See Docket Entry #6 dated 10/19/16). The Defendant has never been served with any of these documents. (Savage Aff. ¶40). The Court’s order was clear and unambiguous. The Complaint should be dismissed for the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order and serve the proper documents with the Complaint. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 19 of 21 20 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. REMORQUES SAVAGE, INC. By Its Attorneys, /s/ David A. DeBassio David A. DeBassio (ct24365) ddebassio@hinckleyallen.com Alexa T. Millinger (ct29800) amillinger@hinckleyallen.com HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP 20 Church Street, 18th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 725-6200 (Telephone) (860) 278-3802 (Fax) Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 20 of 21 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing document was filed through the ECF system on the 19th day of January, 2017 and will be sent electronically to the registered participants identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Kenneth A. Votre Votre & Associates PC 8 Frontage Road East Haven, CT 06512 Email: votrelaw@gmail.com /s/ David A. DeBassio 56480566 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 21 of 21 EXHIBIT A Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-2 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 8 Plaintiff, ) Civil Case No. 3:16cv1735 (VLB) ) ) } ) ) ) January 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BULL BAG, LLC v. REMORQUES SAVAGE, INC. Defendant. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS I, Christian Savage, do on oath depose and state as follows: 1. I am over eighteen (1B) years of age and I believe in the duty and obligations of an oath. 2. I am the Owner and President of the Defendant, Remorques Savage, Inc. (OiRemorques"), and am familiar with the facts and circumstances which are the subject of this action. 3. I submit this affidavit in support of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Remorques. 4. Remorques' principal place of business is located in the city of Sherbrooke, Province of Quebec. 5. Remorques has no physical presence in the United States. 6. All of Remorques locations are in Canada. 7. Remorques does not and has never conducted business in the State of Connecticut. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-2 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 8 2 8. Remorques does not and has never had a physical presence in the State of Connecticut. 9. Remorques does not and has never had any bank accounts in the State of Connecticut. 10. Remorques does not and has never solicited or conducted business in the State of Connecticut. 11. Remorques has no customers in the State of Connecticut. 12. Remorques does not and has never directed any marketing or advertising efforts to the State of Connecticut. 13. Remorques never solicited the Bull Bag, LLC's ("Bull 8ag") business in the State of Connecticut. 14. Bull Bag contacted Remorques in Canada and asked Remorques to build the trailer at issue. PURCHASE ORDER WITH THE BULL 8AG, LLC 15, Remorques communicated with Paul Dispazio ("Dispazio"), a representative of Bull Bag, in conducting the negotiations that eventually culminated in an agreement with Bull 8ag. 16. Remorques and Bull 8ag entered into a Purchase Order ("Purchase Order") that called for Remorques to build a trailer, 17. The only written agreement between the parties is the Purchase Order. 18. A true and accurate copy of the Purchase Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-2 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 8 3 19. The Purchase Order was not formed in the State of Connecticut; it was drafted at Remorques' offices in Quebec and emailed to DiSpazio. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the email sending DiSpazio the Purchase Order. 20. DiSpazio emailed his execution of the Order back to us. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of the acceptance of the Purchase Order. 21. When negotiating the Purchase Order with DiSpazio, he never claimed the plans and specifications for the trailer would be confidential, would belong to the Bull Bag or that he believed the engineering costs for the plans and specifications were included in the price quoted in the Purchase Order. 22. Remorques usually communicated with DiSpazlo by electronic mail or occasionally by telephone. REMORQUES' WORK UNDER THE PURCHASE ORDER 23. Remorques never physically entered into the State of Connecticut in negotiating or performing its obligations under the terms of the Purchase Order (Exhibit 1), nor was it contemplated that the contract would be performed in the State of Connecticut. 24. The trailer was built at Remorques' facilities in Quebec. No work on the trailer was done in the State of Connecticut. 25. The trailer at issue has never been physically present in the State of Connecticut. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-2 Filed 01/19/17 Page 4 of 8 4 26. Remorques built the trailer the Bull Bag requested pursuant to the Purchase Order. 27. Despite this, the Bull Bag never paid Remorques for the trailer. 28. The Bull Bag did not terminate the Purchase Order and refuse to honor its obligations to Remorques until after Remorques had completed the construction of the trailer. 29. There was never an agreement or understanding that the trailer had to be completed by a certain date and time. BULL BAG'S BREACH OF THE CONTRACT WITH REMORQUES 30. There was never an agreement or understanding that the Bull Bag would own the designs and specifications for the trailer. 31. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of an email exchange dated December 1,2015 between Remorques former Sales Director Martin Bouchard ("Bouchard") and DiSpazio regarding ownership of the plans. 32. Bouchard emailed DiSpazio on 12/1/15, 12:08 and said as follows: "My plans are not to be used by another manufacturer." 33. DiSpazio responded to Bouchard's email on 12/1/15, 12:23: "The engineering cost was part of your quote for the trailer ... " 34. Bouchard responded to DiSpazio by email date stamped 12/1115, 16:05: "First here we want to clarify that the law in Canada and in the United States confirm that the plans are ours (the Defendant's). The prototype will build for you is yours you signed an order and committed yourself by email and over the phone. So I will deliver the trailer to you next week. There wasn't any saying of you having Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-2 Filed 01/19/17 Page 5 of 8 exclusivity ... you signed an order for a trailer not for engineering plans." 35. DiSpazio responded by email date stamped 12/1/15, 16:26: "I'm sorry this is not what we discussed, we will not be accepting the trailer and ceasing our relationship with you." 36. Remorques has not shipped the trailer to Bull Bag in Connecticut, indeed the trailer has not left Canada. 37. Remorques has not sold the trailer to a third party, has not sold the designs of the trailer or any other alleged intellectual property of the Bull Bag to a third party. 38. Remorques is not presently nor has it ever used the designs or other alleged intellectual property of the Bull Bag at issue in this litigation for any other customer. 39. Remorques is not presently nor has it ever sold the designs or other alleged intellectual property of the Bull Bag at issue in this litigation to any other party. 40. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate copy of the Complaint that was served on Remorques. Remorques has never been served with the Court's Standing Orders regarding Pre-Trial Deadlines, Electronic Filing Orders, Standing Protective Order or Notice to Counsel. CHRISTIAN SAVAGE fJo-- r~, ~ ~/Its ..-r::- (f:'~ '-S) ;:) /:.::;u 5 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-2 Filed 01/19/17 Page 6 of 8 ,/ SHate~ Province of Quebec em:mty-uf Country of Canada ~.Mtre. Stephane Hardouin, public notary Personally appeared before me ~ , and swore that he has read this document and that the facts contained herein are true and accurate to the best of his knowledge and belief. Date: 18 janvier 2017 /' ~~~~--~~~~~7/ My Commission expires: for life 56480664 6 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-2 Filed 01/19/17 Page 7 of 8 Revenu Quebec REZ·130 (2010-10) Certificat d'attestatlon Loi sur Ia publicite legale des entreprises (RLRQ, chapitre P-44.1) J'atteste que I'entreprise portant Ie nom REMORQUES SAVAGE INC, • est imrnatnculee depuis Ie 23 novembre 1999 , • n'est pas en detaut de deposer une declaration de mise a jour annuelle . • n'est pas en detaut de sa conformer a une demande qui lui a ete falte en vertu de l'artlcls 73. • n'est pas en voie de dissolution. • n'est pas radlee. Nurnero de certification: 124142740 Le numsro de certification cl-dessus vous permet de consulter en tout temps ce document certlfle a I'aide du service en ligne Verifier un nurnero de certification du Registraire des entreprises. Fait Ie 18 janvier 2017 pour le numero d'entreprise du Quebec 1148965271. Registraire des entreprises Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-2 Filed 01/19/17 Page 8 of 8 56508442 v1 TABLE OF EXHIBITS TO AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS • Exhibit 1 - Purchase Order between Remorques Savage Inc. and the Bull Bag, LLC. • Exhibit 2 - Email exchange between Martin Bouchard and Paul DiSpazio dated August 6-8, 2015. • Exhibit 3 - Email exchange between Martin Bouchard and Paul DiSpazio dated August 8, 2015. • Exhibit 4 - Email exchange between Martin Bouchard and Paul DiSpazio dated December 1, 2015. • Exhibit 5 - Summons and Complaint served on Remorques Savage, Inc. by the Bull Bag, LLC. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-3 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 1 , . t . Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-4 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 3 · . . .. Sold to The BullBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd , 1-203-996~7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats-Unis Ship to . The Bull Bag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd, 1-203-996-7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats-Unis REMORQUES SAVAGE INC. 1855, BOUL. QUEEN VICTORIA, SHERBROOKE, Quebec J1J 4N8~:m¥.mt§ ~ Canadarei: 819566-7770 5193 The Bullbag 2015-08-11 1 Telec.: {Bi9) 566-1197 Order 1 0 Flatbed 20" FOOT LONG ALL 18500,00 $ 18500,00 $ dump trailer ALUMINIUM FLAT BED WITH 30" CLEARANCE FOR A CRANE WITH A BOX 4 a E rated tires 215f75/R 17.5 0,00 $ 0,00 $ with Gal ....anlssd spokes 4800 LBS 1 a Double Barn doors with 0,00$ 0,00 $ specials hing as 1 0 2 1OK all bath axles with 0,00$ 0,00 $ Industrial HD Hardware and electncal brakes 1 0 ALUMINIUM FLOOR 0,00$ 0,00$ 1 0 18"X8" dump box with 0,00 $ 0,00 $ Hydraulic cylinder 144" 12 TONS, LED LIGHTS, roll and tarp with manual arm for the tarp, 60" solid sides 3/16 thick made of aluminium sheet i 0 Aluminium GOOSENECK to 0,00 $ 0,00 $ be around 90" 1 0 *AII amounts are in US 0,00 $ 0,00 $ Dollars #~ 8/15/2015 Comments Subtotal 18350,00 $ IMPORTANTI TOUJOURS vERIFIER LE ROULEMENT A BILLE( Freight 0,00 $ BEARING) SUSPENSION, PRESSION DE VOS PNEUS, LUMIERES Tax 0,00 $ FONCTIONELLES, MAIN ACCOUPLEMENT, CHAINE DE SECURITE CROIS~ EN X, POUR VOTRE SECURITE ET AUTRES USAGERS DE Total Amount 18350,00 $ LA ROUTE .. I!l!!1I Amou nt Received 0,00 $ Balance 18350,00 $ Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-4 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 3 l ' Order . .. Sold to The BullBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd , 1-203-996-7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats-Unls Shipto The BullBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd ,1-203-996-7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats-Llnls 1 o ESCOMPT E Delete tarp and hardware for the tarp Side lighting down trailer to have lights placed eVery 12" top and bottom FOB 63 N Branford Rd #4, Branford, CT 06405, United states (150,00 $) (150,OO $) Total Discount Amount 0,00 $ 8/15/2015 Comments Subtotal 18350,00 $ IMPORTANTI TOUJOURS VtRIFIER LE ROULEMENT A BILLE( Freight 0,00$ BEARING) SUSPENSION, PRESSION DE vas PNEUS, LUMIERES Tax 0,00 $FONCTlaNELLES, MAIN ACGOUPLEMENT, CHAINE DE St.CURITt: GROISE EN X, POUR VOTRE SECURITE ET AUTRES USAGERS DE Total Amount 18350,00 $ LA ROUTE ..!!!1l!! Amount Received 0,00 $ Balance 18350,00 $ Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-4 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 3 ; :" EXHIBIT 2 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-5 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 8 - ~- - -----.~---- Forwarded conversation Subject: From: Remorque Savage Date: 2015-08-06 15:13 GMT-04:00 To: "Paul G, DiSpazio'! Transport fees would be around 800$ for two trailers on a 53 i flat trailers For the duties it depends the quantity we agree on Thanks Martin Bouchard Directeur des ventes Remorques Savage 1-866-702-7770 From: Paul G.DiSpazio Date: 2015-08-0622:44 GMT-04:00 To: Remorque Savage Sorry but your pricing with these fees are not acceptable. We will continue to purchase from another source. Wishing you success. Paul G. Di'Spazio Chief Executive Officer The BullBag LLC }3 Route 80 Killingworth Connecticut, USA. 06419 Mobile 1-(203)996-7516 Office 1~(866)414-2855 1 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-5 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 8 --.---~:----,--:-------;,--~~------ From: Remnrque Savage Date: 2015-08-07 11:26 GMT-04:00 To: "Paul G.DiSpaziolt Ok 18350$ delivered to your place. What do you say? Give me a call From: Remorque Savage Date: 2015-08-11 10:56 GMT-04:00 To: "Paul G'Di Spazio" Delivered to CT and all customs taking care. I want to build that awesome trailer and I want to build a lot of ihem. 2015-08-0622:44 GMT-04:00 Paul G.DiSpazio : From: Remorque Savage Date: 2015-08-11 10:59 GMT-04:00 To: "Paul GDiSpaziofl Here 1added FOB to your business adress From: Paul DiSpazio Date: 2015-08-12 12:18 GMT-04:00 To: Remorque Savage Approved lets get this built I 2 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-5 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 8 Paul G. DiSpazio Chief Executive Officer The Bull Bag LLC. 8 State Route 80 Killingworth. Connecticut 06419 U,S.A Mobile 1-203~996·7516 Email: pdispazio@thebullbEl9·com WEB: www.thebuUbag.coTTl From: Remorque Savage [mailto:info.remorquesavage@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:59 AM To: Paul G.DiSpazio Subject: Re: Martin Bouchard Directeur des ventes Remorques Savage 1~866-702-7770 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-5 Filed 01/19/17 Page 4 of 8 The BullBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd , 1-203-996-7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats-Unis , . Ship to '. The BullBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd , 1-203-996-7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats~Unis Order ... ;, - . -. -::Sold to -' . . a Flatbed 20" FOOT LONG ALL 18500,00 $ 18500,00 $ dump trailer ALUMINIUM FLAT BED WITH 30" CLEARANCE FOR A CRANE WITH A BOX 4 0 E rated tires Z15r75/R. 17.5 0,00 $ 0,00 $ with Galvanised spokes 4800 LBS 1 0 Double Barn doors with 0,00 $ , 0,00$ specials hinges 1 a 2 10K oil bath axles with 0,00 $ 0,00 $ industrial HD Hardware and electrical brakes 1 0 ALUMINIUM FLOOR 0,00 $ 0,00 $ 0 18"X8" dump box with 0,00$ 0,00 $ Hydraulic cylinder 144" 12 TONS, LED LIGHTS, roll and tarp with manual arm for the tarp. 60" solid sides 3/16 thick made of aluminium sheet 1 0 Aluminium GOOSENECK to 0,00$ 0,00 $ be around 90" 1 0 ~AIlamounts are in US 0,00$ 0,00 $ Dollars Comments Subtotal 18350,00$ IMPORTANT! TOUJOURS VERIFIER LE ROULEMENT A BILLE( Freight 0,00 $ BEARING) SUSPENSION, PRESSION DE vas PNEUS, LUMIERES Tax 0,00 $ FONCTIONELlES, MAIN ACCOUPLEMENT. CHAINE DE S~CURITE CROlSE EN X, POUR VOTRE SECURITE ETAUTRES USAGERS DE Total Amount 18350,00 $ LA ROUTE ..llll!ll Amount Received 0,00$ Balance 18350,00 $ Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-5 Filed 01/19/17 Page 5 of 8 REMORQUES SAVAGE INC. 1855, SOUL. QUEEN VICTORIA, SHERBROOKE, Quebec J1J 4N8~""!M\'M ~ Canada Tel.: 819 566~7770 5193 The Bullbag 2015-08-11 2 Telec.: (819) 566~1197 Order ! I I I I. I i i : ., . .. _ Sold to ", . . The BuUBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd , 1-203~996-7516 Branford, Con necticut Etats~Unj$ Ship to The BullBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd , 1~203-996-7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats-Unis 1 o ESCOMPT E Delete tarp and hardware for the tarp Side lighting down trailer to have Hghts placed every 12" top and bottom (150,00 $) (150,00 $) Total Discount Amount 0,00 $ Comments Subtotal 18350,00 $ IMPORTANTl TOUJOURS VERIFIER LE ROULEMENT A BILLE( Freight 0,00 $ BEARING) SUSPENSION, PRESSION DE VOS PNEUS, LUMIERES Tax 0,00 $FONCTIONELLES, MAIN ACCOVPLEMENT, CHAINE DE SECURITE CROISE EN X, POUR.VOTRE SECURITE ET AUTRES USAGERS DE Total Amount 18350,00 $ LA ROUTE .. 1111!1! Amount Received 0,00$ Balance 18350,00 $ Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-5 Filed 01/19/17 Page 6 of 8 -- ---:---------;-~~~~~- - - -_- Order .. _ - .' '. -', .Sold to ....:: - '. Ship to . ' The BullBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd, 1-203-996-7516 Branford r Connecticut Etats-Unfs The BuliBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd I 1-203~996-7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats-Unis 0 Flatbed 20" FOOT LONG ALL 1B 500,00 $ 18500,00 $ dump trailer ALUMINIUM FLAT BED VVlTH 30" CLEARANCE FOR A CRANE WITH A BOX 4 ° E rated {ires 215f75/R 17,5 0,00 $ 0,00 $with Galvanised spokes 4800 LBS 1 0 Double Barn doors with 0,00 $ 0,00 $ specials hinges 1 ° 2 10K on bath axles with 0,00$ 0,00 $industrial HD Hardware and electrical brakes 1 0 ALUMINIUM FLOOR 0,00 $ 0,00 $ 1 a 18"X8" dump box with 0,00 $ 0,00$ Hydraulic cylinder 144" 12 TONS, LED LIGHTS, roll and tarp with manual arm for the tarp. 60" solid sides 3/16 thick made of aluminium sheet 1 a Aluminium GOOSENECK to 0,00$ 0.00 $ be around 90" 1 0 "All amounts are in US 0,00 $ 0,00 $ Dollars Comments Subtotal' 18350,00 $ IMPORTANTI TOUJOURS VE::RIFIER LE ROULEMENT A BILLE( Freight 0,00 $ BEARING) SUSPENSION, PRESSION DE vas PNEUS, LUMI~RES Tax 0,00$ FONCTIONELLES, MAIN ACCOUPLEMENT, CHAINE DE SECURITE CROISE EN X, POUR VOTRE SECURITE ET AUTRES USAGERS DE Total Amount 18350,OD$ LA ROUTE .. !1I1111 Amount Received 0,00 $ Balance 18350,00 $ i ! I I Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-5 Filed 01/19/17 Page 7 of 8 !.. I ---:-:--~ ..~_------,------- -_.-. ----.,_ -,-,_~--~.---.-- -- ----;--- -, -_ ..,--,---- REMORQUES SAVAGE INC, 1855, BOUL. QUEEN VICTORIA, !!~~~~I!~~ SHERBROOKE, Quebec J1J 4N8 Canada ra, 819566-7770 Telec.: (819) 566-1197 Order The BullBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd ,1-203-996-7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats-Unis . Ship to -.- The BullBag LLC 63-4 North Branford Rd , 1~203-996-7516 Branford, Connecticut Etats-Unis 1 a ESCOMPT E Delete tarp and hardware for the tarp Side lighting down trailer to have lights placed every 12" top and bottom FOB 63 N Branford Rd # 4, Branford, CT 06405, United States (150,00 $) (150,00 $) Total DiscountAmount 0,00 $ Comments Subtotal 18350,00 $ IMPORTANT! TOUJOURS VERIFIER LE ROULEMENT A BILLE( Freight 0,00 $ BEARING) SUSPENSION, PRESSION DE VOS PNEUS, LUMIERES Tax 0,00 $FONCTIONELLES, MAIN ACCOUPLEMENT, CHAINE DE SECURITE CROISE EN X, POUR VOTRE SECURITE ET AUTRES USAGERS DE Total Amount 18350,00 $ LA ROUTE..!!lII!1 Amount Received 0,00$ Balance 18350,00 $ Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-5 Filed 01/19/17 Page 8 of 8 , ~.~~--------c-----------:--...,.--,--,- ----:-.~~.' .~ ~.. ' ~_ -~ :. , EXHIBIT 3 ..... Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-6 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 3 ; . Forwarded conversation Subj ect: Here is your signed Order #5193 From: Paul G. DiSpazio via DocuSign Date: 2015w08w15 16:20 GMT-04:00 To; Remorque Savage DocuStp~ Paul G. DiSpazio pdispazio@thebullbag.com Paul G. DiSpazio has signed a document using DocuSign. Here is the message: !'Signed. Ready to proceed" Select VIEW DOCUMENT to securely view and download your documents, 1 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-6 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 3 2 From: Remorque Savage Date: 2015-08-17 11:36 GMT-04:00 To: "Paul G. Difspazio" I got the order signed. We are looking since wednesday for the DOT Approval. Since we are Transport Canada approved they won't no problem. Martin Bouchard . Directeur des vcntes Remorques Savage t-866-702~ 7770 Martin Bouchard Directeur des ventes Remorques Savage 1-866"702" 7770 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-6 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 4 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-7 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 Please inform me if you like to move forward with the agreement, without the requested requirement's we cannot continue our relationship, ! • !: Forwarded conversation Subject: position going forward From: Paul DiSpazio Date: 2015-12-01 11:55 GMT-05:00 To: Remorque Savage Regards am;;:;.. Paul G, DiSpazio Chief Executive Officer! Founder The BuHBag LLC, 8 State Route 80 Killingworth. Connecticut 06419 U,S.A Phone 1-866-414-2855 Mobile 1-203·996·7516 Email: pdrspazio:@!hebullbag.com 1 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-7 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 6 WEB: 'MNW.thebuJlbag.com II Ii Ii Ii !i Ii n i1 I: I) E H Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii 11 il From: Remorque Savage Date: 2015-12-0112:08 GMT-05:00 To: "Paul O. DiSpazio" 18194328122. My plans are not to be used by an other manufacturer. Confirm me that and we'll NDA agreement you'll get plans From: Paul DiSpazio Date: 2015-12-0112:23 GMT-05:00 To: Remorque Savage The engineerlng cost was part of your quote for the trailer, we have the prototype speclficatlons we sent to you many months back. ]fyou cannot supply us wfth trailers based on our schedule we have the right to go elsewhere. Iwill not budge or negotiate on this no longer, I need to move forward today with our crane supplier. Paul G. DiSpaz!o Chief Executive Officer I Founder The Bull Bag LLC. 8 State Route 80 Killingworth. Connecticut 06419 U.S.A Phone 1-806-414-2855 2 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-7 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 6 3 Mobile 1-203-996-7516 Email: pdispazio@thebuflbag.corrl WEB: www.thebulfbag.com From: Remorque Savage [mailto:lnfo.remorquesavage@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 1/ 201512;08 PM To: Paul G. OiSpazio Subject: Re: position going forward From: Remorque Savage Date: 2015-12-01 16:05 GMT-05:00 To: Paul DiSpazio HI Paul, We spoke with the laywer to confirm what we said. First here we want to clarify that the law in Canada and in the United States confirm that the plans are ours. So we can give them to you but not for free and not because you tolds us the measurement of the trailers. The prototype will build for you is yours you signed an order and you committed yourself by email and over the phone. So I will deliver the trailer to you next week. There wasn't any saying of yon having exclusivity. You can get it but first we need to sign a distribution agreement. You sign an order for a trailer not for engineering plans. We want to start that relationship on a good basis. First a N011disclosure agreement will be send to you so that you can take not of it and sign it. By signing those papers we will do business in our best interests. Thanks Please accept our best regards. Martin Bouchard Sale Director Savage trailers 18667027770 Martin Bouchard Directeur des ventes Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-7 Filed 01/19/17 Page 4 of 6 Remorques Savage 1-866-702-7770 From: Paul DiSpazio Date: 2015-12-01 16:26 GMT-05:OO To: Remorque Savage Cc: vj aco bs@the bullbag~90m 1'm sorry this is not what was discussed, we will not be accepting the trailer and ceasing our relationship with you. I wish you the best and good luck Paul DfSpazio .., -, Paul G. D1Spazio Chief Executive Officer I Founder The BulfBag LLC. 8 State Route 80 Ki IIIngworth. Connectl Gut 06419 U.S.A Phone 1-866·414-2855 Mobile 1-203-996-7516 Email: pdiso8zio@thebullbag.com WEB: www.thebulrbag.com 4 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-7 Filed 01/19/17 Page 5 of 6 5 From: Remorque Savage {mailto:info,remorguesavage@gmail,com] Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 20154:05 PM To: Paul DiSpazio Martin Bouchard Directeur des ventes Remorques Savage 1~866-702-7770 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-7 Filed 01/19/17 Page 6 of 6 -'~," EXHIBIT 5 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 30 (/A<;!dr Complaint·Allegations of the wrohgful acts ot the accused Nature and purpose of the prO<;.eegi!1gard, where appropriate, the amount in dispute Breach of contract, violation of Connecticut Trade Secrets Act vlo!atlon of Cc;mneclicut Unfair Trade._ PriJlr th« courl unies« ri!ljurred by FM. R. Civ;P; " (I)) Thls summons for (lIa,"~Dflm1ivirlllG/ and IiI/e. ij'df'y) ~_~ __ ~__ ~ __ was received by me on ("'"10) . D 1 personally served the summons.on the individual at (plate) ~ ________________ on (Jal~J ..__ ; or o l left tho summons at the IndIvidual's rcsldcncc or usual place of nbode ""1m fi!<1»>d-,-,---c,--- ,a person of sutt~bleage and discretion who resides there, -Ol-1-;-((I;--al.,-a),-----~-----, -'-'andmailed a copy to the mdividual'.~ last known arlcress; or o 1served the sinnmcna on (Iwm",,!ilU{i1>idJIdIJ , who is designuted by law to acceptservice of process on behalf of (Il~"'"Q/"rgm'l;otlo,,;,, _ ~ on «I(lle) : or o 1 returned the summons unexecuted because ~ ~ _ ___ ~ "__ ;or o Othe( (..J!rc(M ~ __ ~ _ My fees are $ for travel and $ __ ~ __ for ~Cl'ViCC5, for 0 total of$ (l.OO 1declare under penally of p~~ury that thls Information is true. Date: _ Servers signarure Printed uame nnd-Utle Servers address Additional information r~gat'd1ngattempted service, etc: Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 7 of 30 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 1 Filed 10/19116 Page 1 of 11 CIVIL COVER SHEET I, In) I'LA!N'nl'FS THE BULL !lAG, LLC CnlhILyorl\B-tdm:-C(l.rpinllliltdDtfllrnilll( _..._>-~~ ......., ...........__ ._ (INl~s_/II~r.rmFt·c;J$iTh'QUTrJ") . N01E; %WJ&'~Ft;::~ill~%t~~~,(ISF.;T!mL!icA11ONilP OIlFJl.NDANTS REMOROUlOS SAVAGE, INC. (b) COIOlIYorItesid.,,,,t offll'l LI,I,dPlal.1I1T ~dj~'''x. ~T /r..I1'KN·/N Il.tNJIJN1'!I~"('~'*-S) Au-c.rncys (.ifK: O;ffi~J'(rjrp!l.t:dlnj~LIY. :l!fL',~':nlJ."(,,U:l D-I13"\\'HillllritW;ll'( C :n'~·QIl..I·rlPiJUpEu"L' c .(:3:0 ~I~ Ai:} PI :3 [$ !'\tl)llt!l:le:I:lInidc~ LiHlIll)' (J iM P.1ll!1rt Ll ~SD-C-cmn1bc(r CI U:i:I~t:CUI~}'..,rp.,rallll-s:d U.hI~.k)" 0 ~1!$1I:J.~IMrrl-t,cll:il: 0 mT ....dr:j~ tJ ~6I}U~J'lrtLIIIk.n S~ttd91l(L;-.~1.5 I::iIJ.lOM~rl."c I,..JICl)rl'roil-lJct ~~;;:;;~iilijDi:::::::::::t;'¥li~¥,~[fillY:210 ~1t)o~:tO):lI!te_rlllnLlI!J!t'fd~ld lE;!id.uik:s: V~Gt~u.) C:H~ M~",,~i'llHlu(' Lill).H~ ~.,. .. •.1.Jr. l I~'" .•.. ~~..Ji m ....Ls .•:.~ t:7PQ'\1i"Ofl'Wlllll'!lm'~ [J U)ltccvl'fI)'llro..C'1'JUl11;1I:1'ol LKAlllily l'F.;R$O~,,"L..P.R.Ort:R'I,\~ (] ?16P"~II •• WT1>ip.o~~ldt 0 151.1~~,~(I::JPHrJ p ~$.~c.u"nmu:.r<:ro:'iil . o(lfV~12JI',dku'fiI, 0 :'I'D:MOI~Vel~lc.I~. .D 31IH)jhC'rFr;l'Il-L.I ;\9'; 0 1'62 BIt~kW.iIDt9.i01 0 ~IJDCicrI.uh'!TV CJ laJ !i~thol-tlc.r.s· Slit.; b 3SS MDI~Yd,lcl, E"l ;;'l71 TrnULm ~~JilPi 0 mL!lbQf"b.hN~1 t'l 11:6'1DI.lJ.!cmll,l.~WNO~(Q.l) 0 !50 S",II;rillc~::tJI~III1n&I~J Crt ,)lrjOI~~tr.II"IJllr:1 ftodud I.i!lbllli!i 0 '",I~~~r~u,m:J l_,I;'{ru~m 0 8:-GI( SSlPThl1\' XVI G."'I.~"'IrII:a-;: o l~~~~IIrr-1'lPtol(lu"IL!ILln[l;y 0 ;):.6Qo.~~(f"tflc,uI ~'.f~'il:rl!t"O~rM~1Il a l~[I~IWIlyUOOI.n1Ol 0 ~o!i:'iNSI j~I)~I;)} . Q ~;.e[Ii~~TSI.ll:nOtY,r\trkin~ D kMFI.ndiHIl lilltl.l~· O_,]EIr.5r.:-clpCtI}'Dnl~..!i'C' OlJilfJiln~t.M~.iroh~ 08'9tAllrirnh ...l1aI",cU p-iI£2 r«sm.llnjlll)'''' hPdw:l J.:1iEn1it;r J.-u~"t-).-el 0 119J EU1"~fl"rnmIlIlMt~II,I~'tI.~rs r-;:~~giilii~m~I$~~M~¢I0"~I~~k~'I'~''''''~~~:£ij~fflli~fID:illi1lEjO1(1IJ(nhcrl..llt-"""Li~.Fitrill ':!ffimW;:mm~:zj[]1ril.5 r:,..,..eo:J.;,m~rlll=r~lll~1;' ..~. llP.i\l.'l'IIO ....~'SI.TV..-. - ,-" <~"CE\·m'RlGl • - iT' ....HJ:'ttJr.lBWP (]. nTH i!rn~-or:I1Rcti('Crr,~m. ~ : IfiEDf. L·TAx5un-s;:.' Ar:'! (J 211j~ ['Or\ol:dW'lLlkI~1 1':1 ,,=1O o.ht('l::n·jl ni~b' lh.brH'r~ ("mp'." Lut:~ S",o;",ahy In:1 n 87.£iT ...:<~:< lU,$. I'ilic~OO 0 g.g~ r.,brll-.\(I;Q'Ii'Rf!~'I,"'W tM" i\N".ll)r CJ ~~Tojt!s Ulr-lilnd I':J I·U,(\nW;r.'IWD~d,,~Io~I~~·rJ S5 Ou,~h lla~lll-j)" . ~.' :.lM:MI IiATf N.":::;:· ~ .lj:tzJc!S\!aU~ tJ !lc Cotlli CI J (J ~ Rt;~"5[medhr 0 S rm;tlsfctJtd 1~1I1 0 ij ~ullhH~lril:~ IitQP(:IIW ~MlherD}::;tri-a1 Ut~l.IIliQ:L)· (SfIJ-'t.'(!j1 T(im~ftr VII. IlEQUESTEI) IN 0 CIIl)Cl(If'fh1S IS /I. CI.,ISSAC!'Wt'! 11~MM~\J s CH1!CK\'ES .,,1y ifd",.Iful.:J;. ",,,,pl.l,,L __ ",C",O",M=-P.::L.::.;A"l,_N",l''-!t_-,-__ U_NDIIRR\JI.~ 2J, F !,-Cd'. 1,OOO.OOO,~O JUI'"n~M,'N", )I( Y..... 0 Nb VlU. RELATIl)) C .....SE(S) W ....N" •••• _ .OOCKllT NIIMRl;~ DI\1¥ 1011812016 ArPI+\'1NGJr:"P ~_ +-"-~ •• ,., JUooe ~IM.)UmJI! Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 8 of 30 2. The Defendant, Reroorques Savage, Inc, r Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 1 Filed 10f19/16 page 2 of 11. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT THE BULlJ BAG, ·LLC, r CIVIL ,ACTION NO. PlaintJ.ff, ! 16-1735 ! v. 1 I REMORQIJES SAVAGE, INC. I Defendant. I OCTOBER 19.( 2016...,. COMl?LAINT JURISDICTION: 'rhis Court haa jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. § 4(k) (l} tAl as it applies to Conn. Gen. stat. § 52- 59b. COUNT ONE: BREACH OF CONTRAC~ 1 • The Plaint.iff / The Bull BagI LLCr (" Plainti ff"} is and was .at all times relevant herein a. limi.ted liabili ty company, do i.riq business in the Town of Killingworth, County of Middlesex, Connecticut and herein authorized to do business in Connecticut. {hereinafter "Remorquesll) I is and was at all tLmas 1 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 9 of 30 :. country of Canada. On information and belief Case 3:16"cv"01735-VL'B Document 1. FII~d 10{19/16 Page 3 of 11 relevant herein,' a Can;:t.dian cor po ra tLon doing business at 1855 BOl,llevqrd Queen-Victoria, in the town O·~ Sherbrookt province of :Quebec, in the Remorques is not authorized to do business in Connecticut. 3. In August of 2015 Remorques engaged in t;he conduct of bue.i.ne's s in state of Connecticut by engaging into and negotiating a contract with the Plaintiff to be performe9 in the stat$ of Connecticut. 4. Ip August of 20).5 tbe Plaintiff and RemoI;guel.>· f'ormed a contract via email for- R,ernorques to construct a trailer base.d on the design and other intellectual property of the Pl·a,lntiff and to deliver that trailer in Connecticut for USe on Connecticut highways. 5. Beginning in early May of 2015 the Plaintiff and Remozques e&changed emails with the intent that Rernorques will construct a custom t ra i Ler per design specifications provided by Plaintiff to be 2 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 10 of 30 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 1 r:'iled10/19/16 Page4 of 11 used in Conne~ticut. Said ~on8truction would be subject to all United States and connecticut laws and regulations with delivery required to take plaoe in Connecticut. 6, The role Of Remorques was to construct the trailer purely from the design and intellectual property provided Remorques fxom Plaintiff and to deli_vel:' in Connecticut for regular use in Conne~ticut. 7. After mul-tiple emai·ls. and promises for production py Remorques the Plaintiff signed a purchase order on ~ugust 17, 2015 for production of the prototype. S, The prototype W(.lS produced but not until late November 2015 and the trainer has not bene delivered. 9, On Nqvel!lber 10, 2015 Remorques, through sales manager Martin Bouchard, advi.aad th.e F:!.,;l.intiff that his order Was "officially next on (siC) line," with delivery approximately November 27, 2015. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 11 of 30 ape.c.if Lca'tLons, designs, and plans. Moreover, Case 3:16-cV·01735-VLB Document 1 Flied 10/19/16 Page 5 of 11 10. The partIes, after fu:r:ther delays, had a breakdown i.n their working relationship escalating to the . . . relationship ending on or about December Z, 2015. ~l. Remorques produced a prototype based on the intellectual property, designs, and specifications provided by the Plaintiff. 12. Remorques failed to perform in a timely manner and remit to the Plainti.ff the prototype a s- -well as ~?tci\:i.giV'i.ty and non+d.i s cLoe'ur-e of the i.ntellectual property as a.greed. 13. Remorques made a Qemand for payment threatening to sell the trailer to a non-party. 14. It is unknown whether Remorques has sold the prototype. 15. The Plaintiff iEi" tia rmad by Remorqu.es· tailing to perform by not having the prototype of designs developed over years of r'ese ar-ch arid that are proper Lrrtel.Leot.uaL property of the Plaintiff . .8.elI).orques has not returned the Plaintiffl s Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 12 of 30 design specifications or other intellectual ~~----~--~--~--------------------------------------------------~~------~ Case 3:16-cv-01735·VLB Document 1 Flied 10/19116 Page B of 11 Remor-ques, upon ;LnfGlrmation and belief, is using said information for other customers. 16. MOreover, the plaintiff is harmed by any sale, reproduction of the prototype, or sale of the property of the Plaintiff's. SECOND COUNT: vrOl:.~';t'l9N os CONN!ii:CTICtrT TRADE SECRETS ACT 1-16. Paragraphs 1-16 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1- 16 of this the Second Court. 17. The Plaintiff provided protected intellectual property to Remorques contingent on t.ne protection of that property and the conetrxuc t.Lon of a prototype. 18. The "Plaintiff over y~ars has developed the trailer design and specifications which have potential economic value by not generally being known. 19. '1'hePlaintiff has taken reasonable steps to protect the design specifications ahd maintain their s Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 13 of 30 6 case 3:16-cv-01735NLB Document1 Filed 10/19/16 page 7 of 11 secrecy including communications with Remorques to preserve the se9recy of the desig~ specifications. 20. Renorques 1:hreatened to sell ·the prototype as developed per the specifications or the Plaintiff. 21. Any sale of the prototype to a third party wou~d be misappropriation of ube plaintiff's trade secret. 22. It is unknown if the trailer has been sold. 23. Remorques dealings including failing to engage in the requested axelusivity and misrepresentation s as to exclusivity and production equate to misappropriation of the J?laintiff"s trade secret. 2'4. Any .sale of the. trailer to a third party' would destroy the secrecy of the Plaintiff's traqe secret significantly and irreversibly harm the Plaintiff. 25. Any retention of the trade secret, designs r 3D models, prototypes or other mediums ot the Plaintiff1s trade secret will harm the Plaintiff. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 14 of 30 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 1 Filed 10/19116 page B of 11 THIRD COUNT; VrOU'l'ION OF CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1-25. P.aragraphs 1~25 of the· Second Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1- 25 of this the Third Court. 26. Rernorques made representations to the Plaintiff of intent to produce, p.:cot~ctl and hold exclusive the specifications of the Plaintiff. 27. The Connecticut statute is applicable because Remorques entered into a contract to produce a trailer for use in Connecticut and used that conduct to solicit the release of trade secrets in Connecticut from the Plaintiff. 28, Reffio·rql..1es.failed to produce a prototype in a timely m~.nner. 29. Remorques ref'uses to return or even recognize the designs as trade secrets of the PlaintifL, 30. Remorques through deceptive practices has acquired the trade secrets of the Plaintiff. It is uncl~ar if Remorques ever intended to perform. 7 ' . .. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 15 of 30 8 ~.' Case 3: 16-cv-0173SNLB Document 1 FUed 10/19/16 Page 9 of 11. 31. The Plaintiff is ha~med by Re~arque's knowledge of the Plaintiff's design specifications. 32. Remorgues violated the Connecticut Trade secrets Act and threatened to take, keep and utilize the Plaintiff's info·rmation in order to take advantage of the Plaintiff r such conduct is a v.Lo.Lat i.on of the Connedticut Unf;;ti:r:Trade Practices Act. FOlJR'I'lt COUNT: NJ!jGLIGENT MISREPRESE!NTATION 1-32. Paragraphs 1-32 of the Third Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made paragraphs 1- 32 of this the Fourth Court. 33. Remorques, represented an ability to construct for t.he PlaJntif.f a prototype and future production based an the Plaintiff's specifications, 34. The Plaintiff provided those specifications, 35. Rernorques failed to produce a prototype in a .):"e.;tsonabletime. 36. The prototype lIIas produced silJni":F.icantly afte:t the purchase order was s:Lgn~!i arid other promises for production were made. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 16 of 30 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VlB Document 1 Filed 10/19/16 Page 10 of 11 37. The Plaintiff revealed their trade sec~ets on xe l.Lance on Remorques promise for performance as well pS Eecrecy. 38. Any r,eproduction or sale of the prototype to a third party would irreversibly deat.r oy the trade secret and therefore harm the PIElintiff. 39. 'llhe Plaintiff would have procured alternative production its well-developedavenues for specifications if Plaintiff knew thatthe production would be signifi.cantly delayed. 4,0. Rernorqucs' failure to ,perform in a timely manner and protect, the Plaintif:J;r 3 trade secrets has harmed the Plaintiff. 9 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 17 of 30 f1/ .'BY; c ../ Kenn4th A. Votre & Associates, 90 Grove Street suite 209 Ridgefield, CT 06a77 Tel; (203) 498-0065 Fax: {203J 438-4202 votreJ.aw@gm!lil.com Case 3:16-ov-01735-VJ.S uoeument 1 Filed 10/19116 Page 11 of U WB::ElUf'O:RE,the Plaintiff claims the folloHing damages; 1. Money Damages in the amount of $1,000,000; 2. Costs; 3. Ipjunction for production; 4. Injunction for sale: and 5, Other equitable relief as the Court may deem 'p.rope r . PLAINTIFF DEMANDB A !rlUAL BY JURY. Dated this 19th day of October, 2016. TI1E PLAINT I FF 1 10 Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 18 of 30 ; L!IDEMANDE DE SIGNIFICATiON A ·i!ETlY:~NG~RDE DOCUMENrS JUOICIAIRES ET EXTRAJUDICIAIRi!S EN M.ATIERE CIVILE Convention relative 11(il signification a !'etranger de doctJm~I'It5ludldalres et extrajudiciaire·s en ma(lere civile ou commerctale, sign 138 11lH Haye Ie 15 novembre 1965 Adresse de I'autorlte receptrlca MINI~R):DE lAJUSTIC~ PU QUEIlEC Direction des serVices prolesslonnels Entralde lnternatlonale 1200, Route de j'Egllse, 2eme ~!aee Que bee (Queb&) G1V4Ml leientite et adrcsse du depOSilrIt The B.ul{ Bag, tLC C/O Vat re &AsS(ltlates, P.e. 90 Grove street, Suite 209 Ridgdield, cr ll6S77, Etars,Unls Le deposant sousslgne a l'honneur de transmettre ".8(1 double exernplalre- Iss documents ~numereS cl-daasous et, ccoforrnement a l'artlcle 5 de la Convention susrnentlonnee, demands I;;;signification lrnmedlate d'un exernptalre au destlnatujre, il savolr {lclentlte et adresse] Remorquas Salv~ge, Inc. lass Boulevard QueenNlctolia, sherbrooke, QuebecJ!J 4N8, Canada rf (a} Conformernent aux dtspostttons de l'allnea (a) du premier paragraphe de l'artlele 5 de I" Conventlon II (Il) Conformement a la methode partlcullere sulvante (altnea (b) du prernler paragraphe de l'article5) 11 (c! Par remtse au destlnatalre, s'll l'accepte volontalremenc (deu~ieme paragraphe cia l'artlcle S) i.'autorlce est priee de retourner ou de faire rctourner au'deposant UM cople des documents - et des annexes - aVei: un ~ertificat tel qu'indique au verso U.te de" document, fait 11 RidgeField, Ie 11/11/2.016Sommatlon Feulll e de touvertllre civile Signaturo Iltfou cachetPI",rnte Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 19 of 30 REsuME DU DOCUMENT it. SIGNIFII>R Convention relative a la signification 11l'~trangl'cr de documents juc:llclalres et extrajudlclaues en matiere clvile ou commerclals, ~igne'" 11L~Have le 15 ncvernbre 1%5 [artlcle 5, paragrapbe 4) Nom et adresse d II deposan; I(enneth A. VotTe 90 Grove street, Suite lD9 Ridgefield, Cf 06877 P~rtlcularlt~ des parties The Bull Bag, U:'C Remerques Savage; tnc, DOCUMEN,T JUOIClAIRE Nature at objet du document Somrnatlon - Autorite demandant 18T!do premia!d!fendeur klwil (OAfl.1 [£$ PRl"lll'ESDEDaMNDElJRSAUX erArS·ul~s ~fMliMEHl) REI;WlQUE: OIINS LES CAS DECONIlN.lNATIOH IMMOBIU~R£, Ul1L1SEH l·EW!.ACP.MEIiT DULOJ'lN Dn£l1l1£ll.Jpua.uIC (0) A\'OOil\li (Nom, mesa ijLnumero de L!l6phDJ1Bdu cabloo~ Volre & Associates, P.C. 90 Grove Street, Su~~ 209, Rldll"nel~,cr 00677 (203) 498 0065 (pro'~' '"IS 00 1f"""«'l'O""m.,,~ PTF CI~I'1\oooota.1 (Jl ;( d.", "". C<1lII$3i'6O\1IToolll LISC.~!-llIlo)) d .<\OORbpallililnd,I'E1a1 PW.@l;~~!Bm!ti:,,:q,J 410A'~Iru,1 ,~lOIll~~(I~ n ~)I)B'"I.",.IBIlo!M ,'a:;UDI"",l! t,...,.".. (,~Commor", , [WO"..,,'''dlpo..l-oo • ~!i,QIJi'poI1o"'" ~~lO~_~ ·c'-_,,· ...... ~ ~ ~OOClIiW) 0 ailllLli$i~Jn'dQ ... 21 USC8!ll • ,10M" ~::;~.==BIb\ rmmlglllilvl V. ORIGINE (A!Mo>un< x, d'IIS~OO<'I~jQ"",''''''' nq'Pn>cllio"']IfiI,;, r]2 :e4:td~'~"roioI I p 1l4i"d"n~bu""ld'.ppol 114R!""'I;ou"" .. ~ 115T,,",r''"d'I<\."~. ~,IIi'1(..0<1=) \ Ciklr'" .~~I<>I! de, ili:U,I. ""Iu,ll~ dOpO' fmuM,,_ rl<. po< <:0/11 "'" ~'"'" [uM.'cli>n""" .. Ill/>IES COC!*ROUI "'"~"''''I '1~'m.",l6'd""I. ~"'~' LAPI..A1N.TE: COllEc}lI'EllVERlUDU 1000000,00 o~Ml\lIDE D€~U_Ry:M Cui rIll""R~G\E~EMn) FRCl1.P. VIII, CAS LlE[S} f\'w~. JUG£ I J1.UMERQDlJ DOS'OIER S'iI Y aJfeu j~ .... ). Om BIGMlljllf av PROCUREUR DThR€GISTREMI1IT 1SQcU016 1IitJ,~,,·1 p(]~ lrnAGE IN!ERliE llElJI.iENT I IFP APrt.IC~BJ." I JUGr I JlXlEM~G.J!E~VW !.IOWNff --- 11' Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 24 of 30 TRIBUNAL DE DISTRICT Des trATS-UNIS POUR tE DISTRICT DE CONNECTICUT THE BULL BAG, lie, Plalgtrant, ACTION CIVILE N° 16·1735 v. REMORQUES SAVAGE, INC. D8fendeur, 19 OCTORRE 2016 COMPOENCE' : Ce Tribunala J;ompeten.te en vertu de la Fed. R. elv. P,!i 4 {kJ (1) (A) tel qu'appllcable au Conn. Gen. Stat, § 52-59-b. PREMIER CHEF: VIOLA nON DU CONTRfI, T· 1. Le Plalgna~t, Th!1oBull Bag,. U:C, (fe {( Pialgn~l)~ 'll ~5t.!ita ete a-tout moment pertinent aux pn\sentes une societe a responsabifite limltee. fatsat"lt des affalres dans la ville de Killingworth, comte de Middlesex au Connecticut, at autorlsea a falre des affatres dans lo Connecticut. 2. ~8 Defendeur, RettlOrque~Savage, lnc., (cl-apres le « Defendeur »] est eta ete Ii tout moment pertinent aux presentes une 50cMte canadtsnne falsant des affalres au lESS, boulevard de. Ii! Relt\e-Vlctorla, dans la Ville de sherbrooke, province de Quebec, au canada. Sur Illformatlcm et conviction, Hernorquas n'est pas autorlse a f~ire des affaires dans le Connecticut. 3. Au cours du mois d'aDQ.t 2015, Remotques s'est engage dans la condulte des affalres dans l'etat du Connecticut en nllgociant un contrat avec Ie Plalgnant if iHre execute dans ['Mat du Connecticut. 4. Au COUfs du mots d'.oUt 2015, Ie Plaignant et Remorques ont forme un ccntrat par courrler electrontque autorlsant Remcrques a construire une remorque fondee sur fa cOf1!:eptlon et a'utre propriete Intel!ectuelle du plalgnant at 11Ihlrer cette remorque dans I~ Connecticut pour utilisation sur {es routes du Connecticut. Case 3:16-cv-01735-VLB Document 16-8 Filed 01/19/17 Page 25 of 30 9. Le 10 novernhre 2015, Rernorques, par I'intermedlalre du directeur des ventes Martin BoucharD, ~ Informe Ie Plalgnant que sa rommande etalt « offlclellement fa prothalne en (sic) ligna \f avec ITvralsonv~rs Ie 27 novembre 2015, S. En debut du mols de mal 2015. Ie Plaignant at Remorques ont echaoge des courtiers electrontques dont le but etllit de permettre a Remorques de construire une remorque sur mesure, seloo les specifrc~tlans de conception tournles par le Plaignant, it etTe utilisee dans la Connecticut. tadlte construction seralt soumtse a toutes les 1015et taus les rsglements des ·Etat~-Uniset du Connecticut at sa llvralson auralt dO avolr lieu dans Ie Connecticut. 6. Le role de Retnorques e:talt de constr(Jire Ii! remorque en se fondant excluslvernent sur Ia conception et la proprlete lntellectuelle fournles ~ aernorques par le Plalgnant at sur una IIvraison dans Ie Connectlcut pour une utilisation reguli~re clans Ie Co~necticut. 7. Aprl!s plusleurs counters electronlques et prornesses de production par Remorques, Ie Pl