This is not the document you are looking for? Use the search form below to find more!

Report home > Psychology

Brad Wardell sues employee for one million dollars

4.20 (5 votes)
Document Description
Brad Wardell of stardock systems sues employee for one million dollars USD for quitting.
File Details
  • Added: August, 15th 2012
  • Reads: 4363
  • Downloads: 3
  • File size: 90.76kb
  • Pages: 11
  • Tags: stardock, brad wardell, elemental, war of magic, fallen enchantress, sins of a solar empire, galactic civilizations
  • content preview
Submitter
  • Name: Jack Jackerson
Embed Code:

Add New Comment




Showing 1 comment

by Keith Henckle on August 15th, 2012 at 01:45 pm
It appears that Stardock is suing Alexandra Miseta because she quit, without notice, and deleted the marketing materials for the game Elemental causing the developers to have to go in at the last second and recreate it which took time away from the final weeks of working on the game with very bad consequences for the game.
Related Documents

Academic Earth - One Million Visits

by: armida, 8 pages

Academic Earth - One Million Visits

How I Make Over $1000 Dollars A Month With PAID TO CLICK

by: Movieshdnow, 1 pages

How I Make Over $1000 Dollars A Month With PAID TO CLICK

Public Liability Insurance for a Roofer

by: ervinwilliam122, 1 pages

Public Liability Insurance is something that is being spoken about more and more these days especially with the current climate of people holding other people liable for things like injury or ...

Microcontroller 8051

by: colin, 42 pages

Microcontroller 8051 Contents: Introduction Block Diagram and Pin Description of the 8051 Registers Memory mapping in ...

A New Way of Thinking About Employee Motivation

by: rika, 1 pages

Human beings are complex and motivation is a state that does not lend itself to simple answers. Just as a biologist uses a microscope to study microorganisms, an employer needs a lens to help ...

What A Trillion Dollars Looks Like

by: theodor, 12 pages

How Much is a Trillion? Inquiring minds want to know What does one TRILLION dollars look like? All this talk about “stimulus packages” and “bailouts”... ...

Lyon Jasmine Woodlands Apartments for Rent Brochure Smyrna, GA

by: valentina, 7 pages

Lyon Jasmine Woodlands Apartments Printable Brochure - Smyrna Apartments 2200 Woodlands Dr. Smyrna, GA 30080 Ph: (866) 675-1842 Lyon Jasmine Woodlands Apartments Smyrna ...

Predictive Model of Insolvency Risk for Australian Corporations

by: samanta, 8 pages

This paper describes the development of a predictive model for corporate insolvency risk in Australia. The model building methodology is empirical with out-of- sample future year test sets. The ...

Pay Day Loans: For you to Run in the Opposing Direction.

by: staceyparks615, 1 pages

Just about everyone has received unexpected bills and expenses that have prompted your ex to seek money once they hadn't planned on doing so. For the people with money in the traditional bank or good ...

Pay Day Loans: For you to Run in the Opposing Direction.

by: rickeyzimmer24, 1 pages

Just about everyone has received unexpected bills and expenses that have prompted your ex to seek money once they hadn't planned on doing so. For the people with money in the traditional bank or good ...

Content Preview
2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN


STARDOCK SYSTEMS, INC
.,
a Michigan corporation,








Case No.

Plaintiff,





Hon.
v.

ALEXANDRA MISETA,
an individual,


Defendant.


Paul P. Asker (P45098)

Stacy L. Jitianu (P74873)
ASKER PERLMUTER PLC
32000 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 275
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
(248) 419-5400

___________________________________________________________________________/

COMPLAINT


NOW COMES Plaintiff Stardock Systems, Inc., by and through its attorneys, Asker
Perlmuter, PLC, and for its Complaint against Defendant Alexandra Miseta, states as follows:
Parties, Jurisdiction And Venue
1. Plaintiff STARDOCK SYSTEMS, INC. ("Plaintiff") is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Michigan.
2. Defendant ALEXANDRA MISETA ("Defendant") is an individual who, upon information
and belief, resides in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 because Plaintiff's
claim arises under the laws of the United States.
1

2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 2
4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1367(a) because the claims are so related to Plaintiff's federal claim that they form
part of the same case or controversy.
5. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because Defendant
resides in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Background Facts

6. Plaintiff is a software developer, distributor and publisher which develops, designs, licenses
and distributes consumer and business software and PC games.
7. Defendant was employed by Plaintiff from approximately June 4, 2007, through August 3,
2010.
8. On or about June 5, 2007, Defendant entered into a legally binding Non-Disclosure
Agreement ("NDA") (Exhibit 1) with Plaintiff whereby Defendant agreed:
a. That all works and technologies developed during the course of employment were the
sole and exclusive property of Plaintiff;

b. That all confidential information ("Confidential Information"), specifically including
data relating to products developed, licensed, and/or distributed by Plaintiff, remained
the sole and exclusive property of Plaintiff;

c. Not to improperly use or disclose any Confidential Information; and
d. To return all Confidential Information to Plaintiff.
9. While employed by Plaintiff, Defendant worked as Marketing Manager.
10. As Marketing Manager, Defendant was responsible for marketing and promotional efforts
and the production of extensive marketing materials and data for computer programs and
games distributed, published, developed and/or designed by Plaintiff.
11. At all times during and after Defendant's employment, these efforts, materials and data
remained the sole and exclusive property of Plaintiff.
2

2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 3
12. Defendant was also required to gather voluminous marketing data, perform web analytics,
and generate reports thereon ("Analytics").
13. The Analytics were critical to Plaintiff's business.
14. At all times during and after Defendant's employment, the Analytics remained the sole and
exclusive property of Plaintiff.
15. Defendant was also responsible for maintaining information relating to all trade and
marketing shows which Plaintiff attended and planned to attend in the future ("Trade Show
Information").
16. At all times during and after Defendant's employment with Plaintiff, the Trade Show
Information remained the sole and exclusive property of Plaintiff.
17. During several months leading to the date which Defendant terminated her employment,
Defendant was responsible for marketing the worldwide release of Plaintiff's greatly
anticipated computer game, Elemental: War of Magic ("Elemental").
18. Defendant's marketing responsibilities for Elemental included the creation of extensive
marketing materials, such as a media guide, internet keywords, press releases, marketing
plans, and various other promotional data and materials ("Elemental Materials").
19. The Elemental Materials held great value to Plaintiff, as they were critical to the market
success of Elemental.
20. Defendant was aware of the value the Elemental Materials had to Plaintiff because she had
prepared similar materials for the launch of several other games for Plaintiff, all of which
were commercial, professional and financial successes.
21. On or before August 3, 2010, Defendant decided to quit her job with Plaintiff.
22. On or about August 3, 2010, Defendant in fact quit her job with Plaintiff without notice.
3

2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 4
23. Just before quitting, Defendant deleted, destroyed, and/or stole the Elemental Materials.
24. Defendant also deleted, destroyed and/or stole all of Plaintiff's Analytics.
25. Defendant also deleted, destroyed and/or stole all of Plaintiff's Trade Show Information.
26. Plaintiff was thus forced to expend more than $5,000 assessing the damage caused by
Defendant's actions and attempting to restore the Elemental Materials, Analytics, and Trade
Show Information.
27. Additionally, the interruption in availability of the Elemental Materials caused Plaintiff to
lose more than $1,000,000 in profits.
28. The date Defendant deleted, destroyed and/or stole Plaintiff's Analytics, Elemental Materials
and Trade Show Information was approximately three (3) weeks before the launch of
Elemental.
29. As a result of the loss of the Elemental Materials and Analytics, Plaintiff was unable to
complete marketing efforts vital to the success of Elemental.
30. Additionally, Plaintiff had to spend vital time leading up to the release of Elemental
attempting to re-create the Elemental Materials, rather than programming, debugging and
otherwise readying Elemental for release.
31. As a result of the loss of the Elemental Materials, and the detraction from programming,
debugging and other responsibilities, Elemental was unsuccessful in the marketplace, earning
a fraction of its anticipated profits and causing Plaintiff damages of over $1,000,000.
32. After quitting, Defendant also failed and refused to return her laptop computer ("Laptop")
owned by Plaintiff.
33. Defendant also ran several side businesses during work hours, using Plaintiff's computer and
while she was being paid to work for Plaintiff.
4

2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 5
Count I - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)
34. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 33 above as
if set forth in their entirety herein.
35. Defendant knowingly caused the transmission of a program, code and/or command to
Plaintiff's computer which caused the destruction of data and information contained thereon.
36. Plaintiff's computer is used in interstate commerce.
37. Defendant did not have authorization to destroy the data and information of Plaintiff.
38. Defendant's actions impaired the availability of Plaintiff's data and information.
39. Plaintiff was forced to spend an amount exceeding $5,000 assessing the damage caused by
Defendant's actions and attempting to restore the data and information.
40. Plaintiff lost more than $1,000,000 in revenue due to the interruption in the availability of the
data and information.
41. Defendant's conduct constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a Judgment in
favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, awarding Plaintiff:
(1) the costs of conducting an assessment of the damage caused by Defendant;
(2) the cost of restoring the data and information;
(3) lost revenue and all other consequential damages resulting from the interruption of
availability of Plaintiff's data and information;
(4) interest, costs and attorney fees; and
(5) all other relief deemed justified by the Court.
Count II - Common Law Conversion
42. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 41 above as
if set forth in their entirety herein.
5

2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 6
43. At all times during and after Defendant's employment, Plaintiff owned and had the right to
immediate possession of the Elemental Materials, Analytics and Trade Show Information.
44. Defendant intentionally and willfully dispossessed Plaintiff of, and intentionally and willfully
destroyed, the Elemental Materials, Analytics and Trade Show Information.
45. The Elemental Materials, Analytics and Trade Show Information held a value to Plaintiff of
more than $1,000,000, and were critical to the market success of Elemental, as well as other
current and future products created by Plaintiff.
46. Plaintiff also owned and had the right to immediate possession of the Laptop.
47. Defendant intentionally and willfully dispossessed Plaintiff of the Laptop.
48. Defendant's conduct constituted an unlawful conversion of Plaintiff's property, resulting in
damages in an amount exceeding $1,000,000, exclusive of interest, costs and attorney fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a
Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, awarding Plaintiff:
(1) monetary damages in excess of $1,000,000 including Plaintiff's actual, incidental and
consequential damages;
(2) exemplary damages stemming from Defendant's willful acts;
(3) interest, costs and attorney fees; and
(4) such further relief deemed justified by this Court.
Count III - Statutory Conversion
49. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48 above as
if set forth in their entirety herein.
50. At all times during and after Defendant's employment, the Elemental Materials, Analytics,
Trade Show Information and Laptop remained the sole and exclusive property of Plaintiff.
6

2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 7
51. Defendant knowingly and intentionally stole, concealed and destroyed the Elemental
Materials, Analytics, Trade Show Information and Laptop.
52. The Elemental Materials, Analytics, Trade Show Information and Laptop had a monetary
value to Plaintiff of more than $1,000,000, and were critical to the market success of
Elemental, as well as other current and future products created by Plaintiff.
53. Defendant's intentional theft and destruction constituted an unlawful statutory conversion of
Plaintiff's property, for which Plaintiff is entitled to damages in excess of $1,000,000, trebled
pursuant to MCL 600.2919a, plus interest, costs and attorney fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a
Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, awarding Plaintiff:
(1)
monetary damages in excess of $1,000,000, trebled, including Plaintiff's
actual, incidental and consequential damages;
(2)
exemplary damages stemming from Defendant's willful acts;
(3)
interest, costs and attorney fees; and
(4)
such further relief deemed justified by the Court.
Count IV - Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
54. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 53 above as
if set forth in their entirety herein.
55. Defendant was a supervisor and manager of several employees of Plaintiff.
56. As the Marketing Manager, Defendant stood in a fiduciary relationship to Plaintiff because
Plaintiff placed its confidence in her, and entrusted her with its marketing and promotional
efforts.
7

2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 8
57. As a fiduciary, Defendant owed numerous duties to Plaintiff, including the duties of loyalty,
honesty, due care, good faith, and fair dealing, and the duty to act in the best interest of
Plaintiff.
58. By deleting, destroying and/or stealing the Elemental Materials, Analytics and Trade Show
Information weeks before the release of Elemental, Defendant acted in bad faith and abused
and betrayed her position of trust and confidence with Plaintiff.
59. Defendant also acted in bad faith and abused and betrayed her position of trust and
confidence with Plaintiff by running several side businesses during work hours, using
Plaintiff's computer and while she was being paid to work for Plaintiff.
60. Defendant's conduct constitutes a breach of her fiduciary duties.
61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has sustained damages
exceeding $1,000,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a Judgment in
favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, awarding Plaintiff:
(1) monetary damages in excess of $1,000,000, including Plaintiff's actual, incidental
and consequential damages;
(2) interest, costs and attorney fees; and
(3) such further relief deemed justified by the Court.
Count V - Breach Of Contract - Non-Disclosure Agreement
62. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 61 above as
if set forth in their entirety herein.
63. On or about June 4, 2007, Defendant entered into a legally binding NDA with Plaintiff.
Exhibit 1.
8

2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 9
64. Through the NDA, Defendant promised not to disclose any of Plaintiff's Confidential
Information, promised to use Plaintiff's Confidential Information for the sole and exclusive
benefit of Plaintiff, and promised that she would return to Plaintiff, all Confidential
Information. Id.
65. Defendant breached the NDA by failing to use the Confidential Information for the sole and
exclusive benefit of Plaintiff.
66. Defendant further breached the NDA by failing to return all Confidential Information.
67. For these breaches, the NDA entitles Plaintiff to recover all costs and expenses from
Defendant, including attorneys' fees, as well as actual, incidental, consequential and other
monetary damages recoverable at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a Judgment in
favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, awarding Plaintiff:
(1) monetary damages in excess of $1,000,000, including Plaintiff's actual, incidental
and consequential damages;
(2) interest, costs and attorney fees; and
(3) such further relief deemed justified by the Court.

Respectfully submitted,
ASKER PERLMUTER, PLC

Dated: July 30, 2012


/s/ Paul P. Asker r
PAUL P. ASKER (P45098)
STACY L. JITIANU (P74873)
Attorneys for Defendant
32000 Northwestern Highway, Suite 275
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334
(248) 419-5400

9

2:12-cv-13345-SFC-RSW Doc # 1-1 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 10

Download
Brad Wardell sues employee for one million dollars

 

 

Your download will begin in a moment.
If it doesn't, click here to try again.

Share Brad Wardell sues employee for one million dollars to:

Insert your wordpress URL:

example:

http://myblog.wordpress.com/
or
http://myblog.com/

Share Brad Wardell sues employee for one million dollars as:

From:

To:

Share Brad Wardell sues employee for one million dollars.

Enter two words as shown below. If you cannot read the words, click the refresh icon.

loading

Share Brad Wardell sues employee for one million dollars as:

Copy html code above and paste to your web page.

loading