Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC

13 Citing briefs

  1. Navajo Air, LLC v. Crye Precision, LLC et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 61 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment ., 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment . and In Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Document

    Filed October 27, 2017

    Finally, the fact that employment with [Pure Power]. Pure Power Boot Camp, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 514. Case 1:16-cv-09873-VEC Document 64 Filed 10/27/17 Page 25 of 31 20 OCP is not identical to MultiCam in every detail, or that the Government owns patents that allegedly cover OCP, does not affect the reasonableness of Section 6.3 of the Santee License.

  2. Brown & Brown, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Theresa A. Johnson, et al., Respondents. (AD No. CA 13-00340)

    Brief

    Filed May 6, 2015

    Plaintiffs not only overreached in drafting and imposing the restrictive covenants, they overreached in enforcing them. - 53 - Servs., Inc. v. Micucci, 118 A.D.3d 1404 (4th Dep't 2014) (requiring employee to sign employment agreement containing restrictive covenants as an initial condition of continued employment is alone sufficient to deny partial enforcement); Fullman, 24 Misc. 3d 1214(A) at *6 (declining partial enforcement where the former employer imposed the restrictive covenant as an initial condition of employment); Elexco Land Servs., Inc. v. Hennig, No. 11-CV-00214(A)(M), 2011WL9368970, at *4-5 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2011) (declining partial enforcement simply because the covenant as a whole overreached); Earthweb, Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 2d 299, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (same); Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d at 509 (denying partial enforcement where restraint was drafted by employer's attorneys, and employee was required to sign agreement as a condition of continued employment). In sum, the Appellate Division properly considered the timing of the imposition of the restraints, and given the undisputed proof that Plaintiffs used dominant bargaining power and coercive tactics against Ms. Johnson, it did not abuse its discretion in declining to permit partial enforcement.

  3. Reis, Inc. et al v. Lennar Corp. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document

    Filed December 23, 2015

    In each of the cases cited by Defendants, the records stolen had no commercial retail value. GEO Grp., Inc. v. Cmty. First Servs., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45654 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012) (trade secrets); Trustforte Corp. v. Eisen, 10 Misc. 3d 1064(A) (Sup. Ct. 2005) (customer lists); Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (same). By contrast, here Reis lost control of a commodity having an established retail value.

  4. Giuffre v. Maxwell

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document

    Filed December 1, 2015

    “The statement must be targeted at the specific standards of performance relevant to the plaintiff’s business and must impute conduct that is ‘of a kind incompatible with the proper conduct of the business, trade, profession or office itself.’” Thompson, 855 F.Supp.2d at 77 (quoting Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F.Supp.2d 489, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)). Here, it is impossible to determine a link between the January 3 or 4 Statements and Plaintiff’s profession, because no profession is alleged.

  5. Reis, Inc. et al v. Lennar Corp. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document

    Filed November 25, 2015

    Consequently, the court affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ conversion claim. Id.; see also Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (conversion does not lie where defendant merely downloaded plaintiffs’ client list; “[Defendant] possessed only a copy of the client list and did not, in any way, limit or otherwise deprive [plaintiff] of possession or use of that list.”).

  6. Ergo Media Capital, LLC et al v. Bluemner

    OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 39 Response in Support of Motion . Document

    Filed June 19, 2015

    Ct. App. 2013) (where, as here, employee is at will, “no inference of discrimination can reasonably be drawn from the mere lack of conclusive evidence of misconduct by the employee”). Instead, in contrast to Defendant’s discrimination claims in the California Action, the elements of Plaintiffs claims, including for breach of the NDA include: (1) Plaintiff’s legal ownership of property over which Defendant had unauthorized dominion (Phansalkar v. Andersen Weinroth & Co., L.P., 175 F. Supp. 2d 635 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (conversion)); (2) existence of an agreement, adequate performance by Mr. Gordon, breach, and damages (Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (breach of contract )); and (3) Defendant’s breach of her fiduciary duty to Mr. Gordon (Ritani, LLC v. Aghjayan, 880 F.Supp.2d 425, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (breach of duty of loyalty)). Nothing to be decided in the California Action concerns any of these points.

  7. The People of the State of New York by Andrew M. Cuomo,, Respondent,v.Maurice R. Greenberg, et al., Appellants.

    Brief

    Filed May 28, 2013

    The recoveries sought by the NY AG qualify as --damages" because they "'focus on the plaintiff and provide "make whole,' con1pensatory n1onetary relief; restitution, by contrast, concentrates on the defendant-preventing unjust enrichment, disgorging wrongfully held gains, and restoring them to the plaintiff." Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489,534 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (applying New York law) (citation omitted); see American Federal Group, Ltd. v. Rothenberg, 136 F.3d 897,907 n.7 (2d Cir. 1998) (explaining that under New York law, ""damages ... con1pensate for a claimant's loss" while a ""restitutionary" remedy prevents a defendant's "'unjust enrichment as measured by his ill-gotten gain."). Further, the NY AG cannot seek restitution from Appellants as it is undisputed that they did not sell any AJG stock during the relevant period and United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that imposes broader injunctive relief than that sought by the NY AG. R. 3985-96, 13999-140 13; see Seneci, 817 F.2d at I 017 (holding NY AG had no cognizable interest in pursuing injunctive relief in federaJ court where injunction on same subject matter had been entered by state court); see also New York v. Holiday Inns. Inc., 656 F. Supp. 675,678 (W.D.N.Y. 1984) (holding NY AG had no cognizable interest in seeking injunction where private

  8. Enzo Biochem, Inc., et al v. Amersham PLC, et al

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 307 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 15, 2013

    See Mocca Lounge, Inc. v. Misak, 94 A.D.2d 761, 763, 462 N.Y.S.2d 704, 706-07 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983); Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Strauss Paper Co., Inc. v. RSA Exec. Search, Inc., 260 A.D.2d 570, 571, 688 N.Y.S.2d 641, 642-43 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999).

  9. Tyco International, et al v. Kozlowski

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 145 MOTION in Limine Number 8 to Exclude Testimony of Undisclosed Witnesses., 141 MOTION in Limine Number 6 to Exclude Payments or Other Benefits Received

    Filed August 7, 2012

    No. 112 at 5) But, as the Second Circuit and courts in this district have explained, “[l]ower New York courts … have found disloyalty not to be ‘substantial’ only where the disloyalty consisted of a single act, or where the employer knew of and tolerated the behavior”—two inquiries that have nothing to do with Kozlowski’s accomplishments as CEO of Tyco. Phansalkar v. Andersen Weinroth & Co., L.P., 344 F.3d 184, 201-02 & n.12 (2d Cir. 2003) (collecting cases); Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Colliton v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 08 CIV 0400 (NRB), 2008 WL 4386764, at * 6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2008).4 4 To be sure, the Second Circuit explained its conclusion that disgorgement was proper in Phansalkar by noting that the employee’s “disloyalty was not limited to a single, isolated incident, but rather occurred repeatedly, in nearly every transaction on which he worked.” 344 F.3d at 202.

  10. Awtry v. Glassdoor, Inc.

    RESPONSE

    Filed March 4, 2016

    , 514 U.S. 334 (1995) ............................................................ 1 McVicker v. King, 266 F.R.D. 92 (W.D. Pa. 2010)........................................................................ 14 Music Group Macao Comm. Offshore Ltd. v. Does, 82 F. Supp. 3d 979 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...... 7, 17 Piping Rock Ptnrs. v. David Lerner Assocs., Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ........... 16 Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Automattic, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2013) .................................................................................................................................................... 19 Sony Music Ent’mt. Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ................................ 7 SPX Corp. v. Doe, 253 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Ohio 2003) ........................................................... 19 Summit Bank v. Rogers, 206 Cal. App. 4th 669 (2012) ................................................................. 18 Xcentric Ventures, LLC v. Arden, No.