DEFAMATION. DEFENDANT'S VERDICT

• Pages: 10-11

CONTRACT

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Contract – Plaintiff’s estate and plaintiff company

contend defendant former stockholder violated

non-compete agreements, breached fiduciary

duty, and misappropriated trade secrets when he

set up competing company in same business –

Defendant asserts plaintiff knew and consented to

defendant establishing company and any

agreements between defendant and plaintiff

company were voided when plaintiff failed to pay

fees per terms of agreement.

Broward County, NJ

In this contract case, the plaintiffs, the estate of

the founder and the company he founded,

asserted that the defendants breached a

confidentiality and non-compete agreement,

breached fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs,

committed tortious interference with the plaintiffs’

business relationships, committed fraud and

conversion, and had misappropriated trade

secrets. The defendant denied all of the plaintiffs’

claims.

At the time of his death, the plaintiff individual was

the sole shareholder of a mill working business

founded in 1993 in Dania Beach. The company

made doors, frames, hardware and other related

products for construction projects. At one point, the

plaintiff and defendant individuals, who were broth-

ers, were both shareholders in the plaintiff company

with the plaintiff individual owning a majority of the

company’s shares. Later, the plaintiff company

bought out the defendant individual and he moved

to North Carolina.

In 2007, the plaintiff company purchased the defen-

dant individual’s minority interest in the business for

$400,000 plus monthly consulting payments of

$17,333 which were to continue for a period of 54

months. At that time, on May 4, 2007, the parties

signed 3 agreements which memorialized the terms

of the stock purchase including a confidentiality and

non-compete agreement which contained restric-

tions on the defendant individual’s ability to engage

in competition with the plaintiff company through No-

vember 4, 2014. After the contracts were executed,

the plaintiff individual became ill with cancer in 2009

and asked the defendant to return to work at the

plaintiff company which he did in 2010. The plaintiffs

asserted that the defendant founded a company in

the same line of business, without the knowledge or

consent of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff company claimed that the defendant

breached the agreement by operating a competing

business; soliciting the plaintiff’s customers, suppliers,

and employees to work with his competing business

and transferring the defendant’s assets to his compet-

ing business. The plaintiffs asserted that the defen-

dants’ breaches resulted in damages to the plaintiffs.

The defendant asserted that he formed his new busi-

ness entity with the knowledge and approval of the

decedent plaintiff, his brother. Further, the defendant

maintained he was no longer bound by the agree-

ments because the plaintiff company had stopped

paying him certain monies under the contracts thus

breaching and voiding the agreements.

The jury found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that

the defendants had breached the confidentiality and

non-compete agreement, breached fiduciary duty,

committed tortious interference with business relation-

ships, committed fraud or conversion, or had misap-

propriated trade secrets. The jury returned a verdict in

favor of the defendant.

REFERENCE

Graef, et al vs. Graef, et al. Docket no.

CACE15009186; Judge Jack Tuter, 03-15-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Roger Slade of Haber Law PA

in Miami, FL. Attorney for defendant: Craig J.

Trigoboff of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. in Fort

Lauderdale, FL.

DEFAMATION

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Defamation – Conversion – Fraud – Plaintiff and

defendant involved in relationship which ended

with altercation during which police were called –

Plaintiff claims defendant falsely accused her of

assault and defamed her causing economic losses

and health issues – Defendant counterclaims

plaintiff was abusive and caused her emotional,

economic and psychological damages.

Cumberland County, NJ

In this matter, the plaintiff and defendant were

cohabiting in the plaintiff’s residence on and off

for 2 years with the intention of having a civil

ceremony to become life partners. Due to various

circumstances, primarily a disagreement around a

$60,000 debt, which the plaintiff claimed

belonged solely to the defendant, the parties

dissolved their relationship. On August 5, 2017,

during a disagreement over the joint purchase of

10

Volume 43, Issue 1, June, 2022 Subscribe Now