in the united states district court northern district … › view › img › 11347437 ›...
TRANSCRIPT
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Benjamin F. Joel,
Defendant.
CASE NO. ____________
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC (hereinafter “Morgan
Stanley” or “Plaintiff”), brings this complaint seeking injunctive relief to preserve
the status quo ante pending arbitration against its former employee, Defendant
Benjamin F. Joel (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Joel”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Joel is a former Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor who was assigned roughly
$177 million worth of client assets to service on behalf of Morgan Stanley. Joel
recently resigned his employment with Morgan Stanley, but not before absconding
with numerous forms of documentation containing Morgan Stanley’s confidential
and trade secret information related to its clients. Joel has already begun employment
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 1 of 26
2
with a direct competitor RBC Wealth Management, a division of RBC Capital
Markets, LLC (hereinafter “RBC”), and both before and after his resignation from
Morgan Stanley, Joel wrongfully solicited—and continues to solicit—several
Morgan Stanley customers. The type of information Joel took with him, and the
circumstances under which he took the information, lead to only one conclusion: in a
blatant attempt to gain an unfair competitive advantage, Joel took the information for
the improper purpose of soliciting Morgan Stanley’s clients to transfer their business
to his new employer RBC. Joel’s conduct not only violates his contractual obligations
not to remove Morgan Stanley’s confidential information, but it also constitutes a
misappropriation of Morgan Stanley’s trade secret property.
Similarly, Joel’s solicitations violate his enduring contractual obligations, and
the very same contract provides for injunctive relief as the sole remedy for these
violations. Accordingly, Morgan Stanley needs immediate injunctive relief to secure
the return of this highly proprietary information and prevent Joel from further
soliciting Morgan Stanley clients so that the status quo ante may be preserved pending
arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and to
protect its confidential and trade secret information.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 2 of 26
3
I. THE PARTIES
1. Morgan Stanley is a full service securities firm organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in
Purchase, New York. At all times relevant hereto, Morgan Stanley operated and
maintained an office located at 5565 Glenridge Connector, Atlanta, GA (the
“Glenridge branch office”).
2. Joel is a former employee and Financial Advisor of Morgan Stanley in
its Glenridge Branch. Joel resides in Atlanta, Georgia.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332
because the parties are diverse and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Joel’s conduct threatens
hundreds of Morgan Stanley client households, representing roughly $177 million
in client assets held in accounts at Morgan Stanley. These clients’ accounts generate
hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual revenues, and have generated hundreds
of thousands of dollars in profits for Morgan Stanley.
4. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and
(2) because Joel lives and worked for Morgan Stanley in this judicial District, and
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 3 of 26
4
most or all of the conduct alleged in this Complaint occurred within this judicial
District.
5. Venue is proper in this division under L.R. 3.1, N.D. Ga., because the
facts and circumstances giving rise to this action occurred in Fulton County, Atlanta,
Georgia.
III. THE FACTS
Joel’s Role at Morgan Stanley and Agreement with Morgan Stanley
6. Joel is a former Morgan Stanley employee. At the time he resigned from
Morgan Stanley, Joel was employed as a Financial Advisor.
7. In connection with his employment as a Financial Advisor at Morgan
Stanley, Joel was assigned roughly $177 million worth of client assets to service on
behalf of Morgan Stanley. Each year, the assets held at Morgan Stanley by these
clients generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenues and profits.
8. Morgan Stanley is a broker/dealer that offers investment services and
products, and has approximately 9.7 million client brokerage accounts nationwide.
Some of these clients have asset levels and needs extending beyond basic brokerage
services. Many of these types of clients were assigned to Joel for servicing.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 4 of 26
5
9. Financial Advisors, like Joel, work with Morgan Stanley’s clients to
help them set goals, conduct financial planning, and determine their financial
strategies. Financial Advisors can also help clients arrange to receive a personal
financial plan, which is a comprehensive analysis of their financial situation. They
also partner with other Morgan Stanley employees to provide clients with services
ranging from estate planning, to fixed income planning, to education and retirement
planning.
10. To enable Joel to service its clients, Morgan Stanley provided him with
access to Morgan Stanley’s extensive client records and information, including
clients’ transactional histories, account types, account balances, asset allocations,
income, liquid and total net worth, tax status, tax information, investment objectives,
and other personal financial information. Morgan Stanley paid Joel and provided
him with an opportunity to develop, cultivate, and maintain relationships with its
clients.
11. There is no public source available from which Joel (or anyone else)
could ascertain the identities and contact information of Morgan Stanley’s clients,
much less the high net worth clients he serviced. The identities of the clients assigned
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 5 of 26
6
to Joel at Morgan Stanley are not generally known to third parties, such as competitor
financial services firms.
12. The identities and contact information of Morgan Stanley’s clients
would be very valuable to competitors because this information would identify high
net worth clients who generate significant revenues and who have demonstrated a
need and desire for a heightened level of financial service. Morgan Stanley’s
competitors can unfairly benefit from this information because it would enable them
to target their financial products, services, and marketing efforts to a pre-selected
elite group of clients without the need to spend the significant amount of time,
money, and resources Morgan Stanley has spent to identify and develop such clients.
13. As a condition of initial employment at Morgan Stanley, all employees
who interact with clients are required to sign a confidentiality and non-solicitation
agreement. Like all such employees, Joel executed a confidentiality and non-
solicitation agreement when he began employment with Morgan Stanley, and from
time-to-time, he renewed his commitment by signing subsequent versions of those
agreements. As such, over the course of his employment with Morgan Stanley, on
numerous occasions, Joel signed the Morgan Stanley Wealth Management Joint
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 6 of 26
7
Production Arrangement Policy (the “JP Policy”) and Joint Production
Memorandum Agreement (the “JP Agreement”).
14. A true and correct copy of the JP Policy most recently executed by Joel
as maintained by Morgan Stanley in its files is attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated
herein by reference. The JP Policy is supported by consideration and is fully
enforceable. Joel executed the JP Policy in exchange for continued at-will
employment with Morgan Stanley and the compensation and other benefits he
received from Morgan Stanley, including the opportunity to participate in formal
teams and partnerships that allowed Joel to split revenue and receive additional
compensation from other advisor’s production.
15. In signing the JP Policy, Joel made two key promises, both of which he
subsequently breached in connection with his departure from Morgan Stanley. First,
he promised that he would not solicit Morgan Stanley’s customers, which includes
“initiation of any contact with clients for the purpose of conducting business with or
transferring accounts to any other person or firm that does business in any line of
business in which Morgan Stanley or any of its affiliates is engaged.” See id. at ¶ IV.
16. Moreover, Joel agreed that he would not solicit customers for a period
of 12 months after his employment ended with Morgan Stanley, for any reason. Id.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 7 of 26
8
17. Second, Joel agreed not to take or retain Morgan Stanley’s customer
information, which includes but is not limited to a “list of Morgan Stanley client
names and/or client contact information.” Id.
17. Additionally, as another condition of his employment, Joel certified his
agreement to abide by the terms of the Morgan Stanley Code of Conduct, a relevant
portion of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Code of Conduct defines
“confidential information” as information “that is not generally known to the public”,
including the “identity of our clients. . .” See Exhibit B, at 36. The Code of Conduct
further states, “[y]ou must protect all confidential information, regardless of its form
or format” and “only access confidential information that you need and are authorized
to see. . . .” Id. In addition, the Code of Conduct states: “[y]our obligation to protect
our confidential information continues even after your employment at Morgan Stanley
ends.” Id. at 37.
18. Morgan Stanley takes important action to preserve the confidentiality of
its client information. In addition to requiring that employees sign agreements such as
those described above, these steps include implementation of various policies and
procedures to preserve and safeguard confidential client information. For example,
Morgan Stanley trains its employees concerning their obligations to protect client
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 8 of 26
9
information. Morgan Stanley also has enacted a centralized management operation
that includes managers who are expressly responsible for monitoring outgoing
correspondence in order to protect against wrongful dissemination of its proprietary
information. Morgan Stanley also has an online system that is designed to detect and
flag outgoing emails that contain client information.
20. Despite these obligations, Joel not only removed and misappropriated
confidential Morgan Stanley information, including but not limited to Morgan Stanley
customer names, contact information, and account numbers, but also solicited clients
in an attempt to move their business away from Morgan Stanley before and after his
resignation from Morgan Stanley.
21. The restrictive covenants in Joel’s Agreement are reasonable and
necessary to protect Morgan Stanley’s legitimate interests. These legitimate interests
include (a) “trade secrets” as defined by the Georgia Trade Secrets Act of 1990 and
the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq. (“DTSA”)), and; (b)
valuable confidential business information that otherwise does not qualify as trade
secrets; (c) substantial relationships with Morgan Stanley’s customers; and (d) client
goodwill associated with Morgan Stanley’s ongoing business.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 9 of 26
10
Joel Breached His Contractual Obligations To Morgan Stanley Both Before And After Resigning, And Threatens To Continue Breaching
Those Obligations
28. Joel resigned from Morgan Stanley on May 24, 2019. See Exhibit C,
Joel’s resignation letter.
29. Following Joel’s last day of work, Morgan Stanley continues to
discover evidence indicating that Joel has not only removed client information in
violation of his contractual and trade secret obligations but also solicited numerous
Morgan Stanley customers.
30. Jonathan Linder, one of Joel’s partners at Morgan Stanley, spoke with
client V.B. at approximately 6:40 PM on May 24, 2019, the evening of Joel’s
resignation. Exhibit D, Declaration of Jonathan M. Linder, at ¶ 8. During that call,
V.B. informed Mr. Linder that Joel had told her the previous night (May 23, 2019)
that he, Joel, was leaving Morgan Stanley. Id.
31. Further, it is also clear that Joel has been soliciting many Morgan
Stanley customers after his resignation. Another advisor who worked with Joel at
Morgan Stanley, Candice Smith, has indicated that she has spoken to a number of
customers who have informed her that Joel had contacted them multiple times after
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 10 of 26
11
he resigned from Morgan Stanley. See Exhibit E, Declaration of Candice G. Smith,
at ¶ 15.
32. Several customers have informed Ms. Smith that Joel is making them
feel uncomfortable by continuously contacting them. Id. at ¶ 16. Clients have even
asked Ms. Smith for advice on the best method for the client to get Joel to stop
contacting her. Id. at ¶ 17. Additionally, at least one customer even told Ms. Smith
that Joel discouraged her from contacting Ms. Smith at Morgan Stanley, even after
the customer informed Joel that was her preferred course of action. Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.
33. Contacting clients multiple times and/or through multiple methods of
communication can amount to a solicitation. See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer,
Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 522 (9th Cir. 1993).
34. Joel has removed and misappropriated confidential Morgan Stanley
information, including but not limited to Morgan Stanley customer names, contact
information, and account numbers. Joel’s business was almost entirely paper-based,
and Joel did not generally use his computer or electronic calendar for his daily
business needs. Id. at ¶ 6. Instead, Joel used—almost exclusively—a rolodex for
client contact information and a wall calendar for appointments. Id. Upon Joel’s
resignation, members of the branch, including Candice Smith, inspected his office.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 11 of 26
12
Id. at 12. After a thorough search, the employees who inspected the office
determined that Joel must have taken the rolodex and wall calendar with him when
he resigned as those items were no longer in the office and the employees were
unable to locate them. Id. at ¶ 12.
35. Opposing counsel may attempt to direct the Court’s attention to the fact
that there is still a rolodex in Joel’s office, however, the rolodex that remains is a
much larger and older rolodex that Joel no longer used, and does not contain current
client information and is easily distinguishable from the missing rolodex by those
familiar with Joel’s office, such as Ms. Smith. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 12-13. Ms. Smith is
certain that the rolodex missing from the office contains most if not all of the Morgan
Stanley customers’ contact information Joel used to service the clients assigned to
him. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.
36. Similarly, Joel’s standard practice was to put all of his notes on “pink
slips” regarding client transactions and interactions in a box on his desk. Id. at ¶ 7;
Exhibit D, at ¶ 6. Joel used this box as his personal filing system, and would deposit
his notes into it and reference the notes in the box if anybody had questions about a
client transaction or integration. Id. These notes often contained action items for Ms.
Smith to handle, and they also included client names, account numbers, and
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 12 of 26
13
transaction details in addition to the action items. See Exhibit D, at ¶ 7. This box—
which was practically a fixture on Joel’s desk for years—is also missing from the
office. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8;
37. Not only was the box still on Joel’s desk the day before his resignation
from Morgan Stanley, but it was also full of notes. Id. Fortunately, Joel left one of
these pink slip notes that he would normally keep in the box in Ms. Smith’s
possession before he resigned, as his practice was to provide action items on the
notes for Ms. Smith to handle, and once Ms. Smith satisfied the action items, she
would return the notes to Joel who would promptly place them in his box. Id. at ¶
7. One such document is attached hereto for the Court’s review. See Exhibit F, pink
slip note. These notes contain not only around a dozen client names, but also several
account numbers for those clients and notes regarding account activity. See id.
38. Accordingly, Joel has removed and misappropriated a rolodex
comprised of current Morgan Stanley client contact information, a wall calendar
with appointments and client names, and a box replete with customer names, account
numbers, and transaction activity. These actions alone are serious breaches of Joel’s
continuing confidentiality obligations to Morgan Stanley that clearly entitle Morgan
Stanley to the injunctive relief agreed upon under such a circumstance in the
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 13 of 26
14
Agreements between Joel and Morgan Stanley. However, the pressing need for
immediate injunctive relief does not rest on the confidentiality breaches alone, but
is additionally buttressed by Joel’s numerous aforementioned solicitations of
Morgan Stanley customers both before and after his resignation on May 24, 2019.
Joel’s various and continuing violations have caused—and will continue to cause—
Morgan Stanley irreparable harm.
39. Recognizing that Joel’s conduct evidences several significant breaches
of his contractual obligations, that his conduct constitutes further threatened
contractual breaches and misappropriation of Morgan Stanley’s trade secrets, and
that he will not comply with his JP Policy unless he is ordered to do so, Morgan
Stanley seeks immediate injunctive relief, and contemporaneously with the filing of
this civil action, Morgan Stanley has commenced a FINRA arbitration seeking
permanent injunctive relief and damages. Pursuant to FINRA Rule 13804, Morgan
Stanley seeks interim injunctive relief in this civil action to preserve the status quo
ante pending arbitration.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 14 of 26
15
COUNT I
APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
40. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated by
reference herein with the same force and effect as if set forth in full below.
41. By virtue of the foregoing, Morgan Stanley has demonstrated a
sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, and that a balancing of the equities
favors the issuance of an injunction against Joel.
42. Unless Joel is temporarily and/or preliminarily enjoined from retaining
and using Morgan Stanley ’s confidential and trade secret information, Morgan
Stanley will continue to be irreparably harmed by: (a) disclosure and misuse of trade
secrets, client lists, and/or other confidential information that are solely the property
of Morgan Stanley and its clients; (b) loss of confidentiality of the information
contained in clients’ records, loss of confidentiality of clients’ financial dealings,
loss of confidence and trust of clients, loss of goodwill, and loss of business
reputation; (c) damage to office stability, and a threat to the enforcement of
reasonable contracts; and (d) present economic loss, which is unascertainable at this
time, and future economic loss, which is presently incalculable.
43. Morgan Stanley otherwise has no adequate remedies at law.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 15 of 26
16
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT
44. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated herein by
reference with the same force and effect as if set forth in full below.
45. Joel’s JP Policies are valid and enforceable contracts that are supported
by adequate consideration.
46. In the JP Policies and Morgan Stanley code of Conduct, Joel
acknowledged that as a consequence of his employment with Morgan Stanley, Joel
would be given access to Confidential Information about Morgan Stanley’s clients.
47. As described above, this information was provided to Joel not only at the
outset of his employment, but he also was provided with continuing access to an
evolving and constantly updating pool of information about the Morgan Stanley clients
he was assigned to service, all of which was essential to his ability to perform his duties
as a Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor.
48. Joel breached the Agreement by the above-described conduct.
49. Upon information and belief, Joel continues to violate his contractual
obligations, and will continue to violate these obligations in the future unless
restrained.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 16 of 26
17
50. Upon information and belief, Joel’s misappropriated Morgan Stanley’s
confidential information because has solicited Morgan Stanley’s clients in violation
of his JP Policies, and intends to continue to do so.
51. Joel’s breach of the JP Policies is willful, premeditated, and malicious.
52. As a consequence of the foregoing, Morgan Stanley has suffered and
will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which it lacks any adequate remedy at
law, as well as present economic loss and other incalculable financial loss.
53. Unless Joel is enjoined from the foregoing conduct, Morgan Stanley
will be irreparably harmed by: (a) disclosure of Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client
information, and other confidential account information that is solely the property
of Morgan Stanley; (b) loss of goodwill; and (c) present economic loss, which is
unascertainable at this time, and future economic loss, which is presently
incalculable.
COUNT III
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS
54. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 53 are incorporated herein by
reference with the same force and effect as if set forth in full below.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 17 of 26
18
55. The above-alleged facts constitute actual and threatened
misappropriation of trade secrets by Joel under the Georgia Uniform Trade Secrets
Act, Ga. Code, § 10-1-760, et seq. and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §
1836, et seq.).
56. Morgan Stanley assigned clients to Joel so that he could service them
on Morgan Stanley’s behalf. Morgan Stanley provided him with confidential
information solely for the purpose of performing his job at Morgan Stanley, and
continually updated that information throughout the years that Joel was employed.
57. Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client information is not generally
known by third parties, and is not readily ascertainable by proper means by third
parties.
58. Morgan Stanley derives significant economic and competitive
advantage in the financial services industry from maintaining the secrecy and
confidentiality of its trade secret client information.
59. Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client information, including the names,
addresses, phone numbers, account information, and other information concerning the
practice assigned to Joel, is subject to reasonable efforts by Morgan Stanley to maintain
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 18 of 26
19
its secrecy, and its employees are required to maintain the secrecy and/or
confidentiality of that information.
60. In addition, the names, addresses and contact information of Morgan
Stanley clients are protected from disclosure as personally identifiable information
under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and its implementing federal regulations,
commonly referred to as Regulation S-P. See 17 C.F.R. § 248. Even the fact that an
individual is a client of a specific financial institution – here, Morgan Stanley – is
protected from disclosure under Regulation S-P. 17 C.F.R. § 248.3. These federal
regulations underscore the highly confidential nature of financial services client
information.
61. Joel has improperly and without authorization misappropriated,
retained, and/or exploited Morgan Stanley’s trade secrets, including Morgan
Stanley’s confidential client information. Upon information and belief, he has done
so for the purposes of aiding his solicitation of clients to transfer their accounts from
Morgan Stanley to a competing firm with which he will likely become associated in
the future.
62. Joel’s continued retention of Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client
information, as alleged herein, constitutes actual and threatened misappropriation of
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 19 of 26
20
trade secrets pursuant to the Georgia Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the DTSA, and
is willful and malicious.
63. Because Joel’s unlawful conduct is ongoing, Morgan Stanley faces an
immediate threat of continuing irreparable harm, for which Morgan Stanley lacks
any adequate remedies at law.
64. Unless Joel is enjoined from the foregoing conduct, Morgan Stanley
will be irreparably harmed by: (a) disclosure of Morgan Stanley’s trade secret client
information, and other confidential account information that is solely the property
of Morgan Stanley; (b) loss of goodwill; and (c) present economic loss, which is
unascertainable at this time, and future economic loss, which is presently
incalculable.
COUNT IV
BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
65. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 64 are incorporated herein by
reference with the same force and effect as if set forth in full below.
66. The above-alleged facts constitute a breach of the Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 20 of 26
21
67. Georgia courts are consistent that “[e]very contract implies a covenant
of good faith and fair dealing in the contract's performance and enforcement.”
Secured Realty & Investments v. Bank of North Ga., 314 Ga.App. 628, 630(1)(b),
725 S.E.2d 336 (2012). Furthermore, the “implied covenant modifies and becomes
part of the provisions of the contract.” Layer v. Clipper Petroleum, Inc., 319 Ga.
App. 410, 419, 735 S.E.2d 65, 73 (2012) (quoting Myung Sung Presbyterian Church
v. North American Assoc. of Slavic Churches & Ministries, 291 Ga.App. 808,
810(2), 662 S.E.2d 745 (2008).
68. The cause of action of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing is “separate and distinct” from, and “may be pled simultaneously” with a
cause of action for breach of contract. Clark v. Aaron's, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 2d 1301,
1308 (N.D. Ga. 2012).
69. Joel has failed to perform his respective duties and obligations in good
faith under the contract, and therefore has breached his covenant of good faith and
fair dealing with Morgan Stanley.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, by virtue of the foregoing acts and conduct complained of
in Counts I through IV, Morgan Stanley respectfully requests entry of a temporary
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 21 of 26
22
restraining order against Joel pending the outcome of an arbitration hearing to be
held pursuant to Rule 13804 of the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure, and
respectfully requests:
(1) That the Court enjoin Joel, directly or indirectly, and whether alone
or in concert with others, from:
a. using, disclosing, or transmitting for any purpose, including the
solicitation or conducting of business with Morgan Stanley clients,
the information contained in the records of Morgan Stanley, or other
information pertaining to Morgan Stanley clients, including, but not
limited to, the names, addresses, email addresses, telephone
numbers, personal data and financial information of the clients
(excluding members of Defendant’s immediate families and any
customers who have signed account transfer forms); and
b. soliciting any business from any customer of Morgan Stanley whom
Defendant serviced at Morgan Stanley, and/or any customers whose
identities Defendant learned as a result of being a registered
representative with Morgan Stanley (the “Customers”), including
for the purpose of inviting, encouraging, or requesting the Customer
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 22 of 26
23
to divert business from Morgan Stanley (excluding members of
Defendant’s immediate families and any Customers who have
signed account transfer forms); and
c. destroying, erasing or otherwise making unavailable for further
proceedings in this matter, any records or documents (including data
or information maintained in computer files or other electronic
storage media) in Defendant’s possession or control which were
obtained from, or contain information derived from, any Morgan
Stanley records, which pertain to Morgan Stanley’s clients, or which
relate to any of the events alleged in the Complaint in this action
(2) That Defendant is compelled, directly or indirectly, and whether alone
or in concert with others, including any officer, agent, employee and/or representative
of Defendant’s new employer to provide to Morgan Stanley’s counsel any and all
records or information pertaining to Morgan Stanley’s clients or its business, and/or
which were obtained by Defendant as a result of being a registered representative with
Morgan Stanley, whether in original, copied, handwritten or any other form, and purge
any such records and information from his possession, custody, or control, within 24
hours of notice to Defendant or his counsel of the terms of the Court’s Order;
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 23 of 26
24
provided, however, that any records and information in computerized or electronic
form (including but not limited to personal computers, laptop computers, tablet
devices, iPhones, Android phones, mobile telephones and any other device in, or on,
which data can be electronically stored) shall be provided by Defendant to his counsel
within 24 hours of notice to Defendant or his counsel of the terms of the Court’s
Order, and that Defendant’s counsel shall preserve the integrity of such devices and
immediately make any and all such devices available for inspection and duplication
by Morgan Stanley’s counsel and/or computer forensic consultants.
(3) That the Court order the parties to proceed with an arbitration on the
merits: (a) before a duly appointed panel of arbitrators in accordance with Rule
13804 of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Code of Arbitration
Procedure; and (b) in accordance with the terms of paragraph V of Joel’s Agreement
with Morgan Stanley; and
(4) Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1(D)
The undersigned hereby certifies that this Complaint conforms to Local Rule
5.1(C) and was prepared in Times New Roman 14 point font.
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 24 of 26
25
Dated this 11th day of June, 2019.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John L. Monroe, Jr. John L. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Georgia Bar No. 516190 [email protected] Katherine P. Siuta O’Shea Georgia Bar No. 548704 [email protected] Ford & Harrison LLP 271 17th Street, NW Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone : 404-888-3808 Facsimile: 404-832-8734
- And –
Michael S. Taaffe, Esq. [email protected] Michael D. Bressan, Esq. [email protected] Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP 240 S. Pineapple Ave., Tenth Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: 941-364-2717 Facsimile: 941-366-3999 Admission Pro Hac Vice Pending
Attorneys for Plaintiff Morgan Stanley
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 25 of 26
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 11th day of June, 2019, I electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, using the electronic case filing system of the
Court. I also caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served
this day upon the following counsel for Defendant via United States Mail and email:
Thomas B. Lewis, Esq. Stevens & Lee PC Princeton Pike Corporate Center 100 Lenox Drive, Suite 200 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Email: [email protected]
/s/ John L. Monroe, Jr., Esq. John L. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Georgia Bar No. 516190 [email protected] Ford & Harrison LLP 271 17th Street, NW Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone : 404-888-3808 Facsimile: 404-832-8734
Attorney for Plaintiff Morgan Stanley
Case 1:19-cv-02657-TWT Document 1 Filed 06/11/19 Page 26 of 26