Ubeam Lawsuit

Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11
Page
1 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NORA LILY
DWECK,
4615 Oceanfront Walk
Marina del
Rey,
California
90292,
PLAINTIFF,
v. I CIVIL ACTION NO.
MEREDITH E.
PERRY,
83
Berkley
Avenue J URY TRIAL DEMANDED
Belle
Mead,
New
J ersey 08502,
DEFENDANT.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff,
Nora
Lily Dweck, by counsel,
as and for her
Complaint, individually
and
derivatively, against Defendant,
Meredith
Perry,
states and
alleges
as follows:
THE
PARTIES, J URISDICTION,
AND VENUE
1.
Plaintiff,
Nora
Lily
Dweck
(hereinafter "Dweck"),
is an individual who is a
citizen ofthe State ofCalifornia and who
presently
resides at 4615 Oceanfront
Walk,
Marina del
Rey,
California 90292.
2.
Defendant,
Meredith E.
Perry ("Perry")
is an individual
who, upon
information
and
belief,
is a citizen and resident ofthe State ofNew
J ersey
and resides at 83
Berkley Avenue,
Belle
Mead,
New
J ersey
08502.
3. This Court has
subject
matter
jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.
1332,
because
there is
complete diversity
of
citizenship
between the
parties
and the amount in
controversy
exceeds
$75,
000.00.
Page
2 of 25
4. This Court has
personal jurisdiction
over Defendant
Perry pursuant
to
applicable
Pennsylvania
law
including,
but not limited
to,
42 Pa. C.S.
5322,
in
that, among
other
things,
Perry
transacted business in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania,
caused harmand
injury by
acts
and omissions inthe Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania,
and otherwise
engaged
in conduct while a
student at the
University
of
Pennsylvania
and thereafter which
gives
rise to
personal jurisdiction
over her.
Venue is
proper
in this Court
pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.
1391(A)(2),
because a
substantial
part
ofthe events or omissions
giving
rise to the claims occurred inthis district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6. Inor about
September, 2006,
Dweck enrolled in and became a full-time student at
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Except
for a leave of
absence,
she
remained as a full-time student at the
University
of
Pennsylvania
until her
graduation
in
May,
2011.
7. Inor about
September,
2007, Perry
enrolled in and became a full-time student at
the
University
of
Pennsylvania
in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Perry
remained and continued as
a full-time student at the
University
of
Pennsylvania
until her
graduation
in
May,
2011.
8. While at the
University
of
Pennsylvania,
Dweck and
Perry
met each
other,
were
in the same
comedy troupe
known as Bloomers and for a
period
oftime
beginning
in or about
August 2010,
were
roommates,
and became close
personal
friends.
9. For several
years and,
most
particularly
in
2010,
after
they
became
roommates,
and the first
part
of
2011,
Dweck and
Perry spent
extensive time
together sharing
creative ideas
and
encouraging
each other to come forthwith creative ideas.
2
Page
3 of 25
10. At some time in 2010
during
her senior
year
at the
University
of
Pennsylvania,
Perry
had an idea for
creating
a different kind of
laptop charger.
11. Consistent with
past
and
ongoing practices, Perry
discussed her idea for a wireless
charger
with
Dweck, just
as
they
had
routinely
discussed their
respective thoughts
and ideas with
one another on numerous occasions
previously. They sought
to
encourage
one another and to
use their collective
energies, intelligence, wisdom,
and abilities to
expand upon
their
respective
thoughts
and ideas and to endeavor to create a useful
product.
12. After
discussing Perry's
initial
thoughts regarding
a
potential
wireless
charger,
Dweck and
Perry collaborated, brainstormed,
and
pooled
their intellectual and other
resources,
and worked
cooperatively together
to see whether the idea could be
developed
into a marketable
concept
and
product. They
named the
concept
and the nascent
product
that
they
were
working
on
collectively
"uBeam."
13. The uBeam
product
and
concept
was
generated
and evolved
through
Dweck's and
Perry's
collective and collaborative efforts.
They initiallyproceeded
as
equals,
as
partners
in the
process. They
held themselves out to others at least
during
the first five months of2011 as
equals
and
partners
in the
process
with
respect
to uBeam.
14. Dweck and
Perry developed
a
concept
ofa uBeam
"charge system."
That
charge
system
wouldhave two
components
the uBeam
Charge Station,
which is an
apparatus
which is
plugged
into a wall socket and emits
energy;
and the uBeam
Battery Adapter,
which is
plugged
into electronic devices and receives and absorbs
energy
fromthe
Charge
Station.
15. The uBeam
Charge
Station
is, by way
of
analogy,
like a
speaker
in a stereo
systemexcept,
instead of
emitting audio,
it emits ultrasound. Ultrasound is a formofsound
which can
ultimately
be converted into usable electrical
energy.
There is
potential
for ultrasound
3
Page
4 of 25
to be converted into usable
energy
withthe
help
ofan
energy
converter sometimes referred to or
known as a transducer.
16. The uBeam
product potentially represents
a substantial
improvement
and
advancement for the electronic
industry.
The uBeam
product,
if
developed
as envisioned
by
Dweck and
Perry working together, provides
a remote
charging modality
as an alternative to
electronic
charging
modalities
typically
used now
plugging
electronic
equipment
into a
charger, plugged
into an outlet.
Perry
and Dweck also
thought
of
multiple applications
including,
for
example,
medical
applications,
for uBeamwhich were to be included within and
protected bypatent
and included use ofinfrasound as a
possible
alternative to ultrasound.
17. The uBeam
product
and
approach
has the
potential
to revolutionize the electronics
industry.
18. The uBeam
product
and
approach
has the
potential
to be worth substantial
amounts, likely
in the tens ofmillions ofdollars.
19. In additionto the work which
they
did
collaboratively
and for their benefit
collectively
in terms of
developing
the uBeam
product
and
concept,
Dweck and
Perry
also
collaborated to
develop
a
marketing strategy.
That
marketing strategy included, among
other
things,
the
concept
of
having
both industrial and individual use models oftheir uBeam
product.
The industrial model would be intended for robust
usage
and commercial and
public areas,
whether coffee
shops,
book
stores,
train
stations, airports,
universities, apartment complexes,
or
otherwise. The
personal
model would be intended for
single-person
use in
homes, offices,
or
small businesses.
20. Atthe
University
of
Pennsylvania
there was in
2011,
and had been
during
a
number of
prior years,
a
competition
or contest known as PennVention. That is a
program
or
4
Page
5 of 25
competition
which is and has been held
annually by
the Weiss Tech
House,
which is a hub of
technological
innovation at the
University
of
Pennsylvania.
The Weiss Tech House
encourages
and
supports
students in the
creation, development,
and commercialization ofinnovative
technologies.
21. Each
year,
PennVention
accepts applications/proposals
fromthose who want to
participate
in the
program
and have innovative
inventions, technologies
or services which
they
want considered
during
the
competition.
Entrants must be interested in and
intending
to start a
business for their service or
technology.
22. Dweck and
Perry
entered the PennVention
competition
to be held in
April,
2011.
They
submitted uBeamfor evaluation and consideration
during
the PennVention
competition.
That submission was made
by
themas
partners, jointlypresenting
uBeam.
23. Prior to the PeimVention Final
Competition,
Dweck and
Perry
each
spent
considerable time and
energy
with
respect
to various
aspects
ofuBeam
including research,
development,
and creation ofbusiness and
marketing analyses
and
proposals
or
plans. They
each benefited fromthe work ofthe other and collaborated in their efforts.
24. With
respect particularly
to the PennVention
competition,
Dweck and
Perry
each
spent
a considerable amount oftime and
energy, using
their
abilities, collaborating
and
preparing
for the
presentation
to be made.
Among
other
things, they
co-authored a business
plan
which
they
submitted in an
early phase
or round ofthe
competition. They
also co-authored and
jointly
prepared
their PennVention PowerPoint
presentations. They
held themselves out to those
viewing
the
competition
and
evaluating
the
competitors
and
products
as a collaborative
team,
as
equal partners
inthe
process
with
respect
to uBeam.
During
the
competition, they
announced
publicly
that
they
were the "BeamTeam" and that their
product
was uBeam.
5
Page
6 of 25
25. As a result oftheir
joint
effort in
developing
and
presenting
uBeaminthe
PennVention
competition,
Dweck and
Perry
wonthe
$5,
000.00 First Prize.
They
also
jointly,
as
a
team,
received four other awards: the
Tapper
Innovation Connect
Award,
with each ofthem
receiving
a
round-trip plane
ticket to London,
hotel accommodations for two
nights,
$1,
000 for
expenses,
and a
private meeting
to discuss their invention and
product
withthe Chief
Technology
Officer and Senior Vice President of
Open
Innovation at Unilever
Plc.;
the
$3,
000
Design
for
Manufacturing Award,
awarded
by
Warminster-based
design
Circle, Inc.;
the
QVC
Consumer Innovation
Award,
which included
$1,
500 in cash and a one-hour
meeting
with a
buyer
fromthe West Chester-based
shopping
network;
and the $500 Audience Choice
Award,
given
out based on a vote
by
the
guests present
for the contest finals at the Weiss Tech House.
26. Dweck and
Perry
received those awards and
accepted
them
jointly. They
received themas a
team,
each as a
partner
withthe other.
27. As a result ofand fromtheir success inthe PennVention
competition,
the uBeam
product began receiving publicity
inthe media. There were favorable articles inthe local
press,
as well as favorable comments on the internet.
They
and uBeamwere also the
subject
ofone or
more radio features.
28. Dweck and
Perry,
as a
team,
were
pleased
to receive the
positive
feedback as it
appeared through
such
publications.
29. Dweck and
Perry
were the co-founders ofuBeam the
product,
the
strategy,
the
innovative
technology,
and the
opportunity. They
heldthemselves out to others as co-founders.
They
also held themselves out as
equal participants
inthe
project
and
equal participants availing
themselves ofthe
opportunity
before them.
6
Page
7 of 25
30. Dweck and
Perry, collectively, recognized
that
they
needed to take
appropriate
steps
to
protect
the intellectual
property rights relating
to uBeamand
any
derivatives fromit.
With
Perry's knowledge,
and
agreement,
Dweck
spent
substantial time inthat endeavor.
Among
other
things,
Dweck located and hired an
attorney specializing
in intellectual
propertyrights
and
obtaining protections
for such
rights. Through
Dweck's and
Perry's efforts, patent
counsel was
engaged
and a
provisional patent application
for the uBeam
product
was
prepared.
31. In accordance withtheir discussions and
agreements,
Dweck and
Perry,
collectively,
took
steps
to
protect
the uBeam
technology.
32.
They
submitted a
provisional patent application. Perry signed
the
provisional
patent application
for their uBeam
product
which
they
had
presented
at PennVention.
Perry
signed
the
provisional patent application
on behalf ofDweck and
Perry ostensibly
to
protect
their
shared and collective interests in uBeam.
33. In the context of
preparation
and submission ofthe
provisional patent application,
Dweck and
Perry
discussed the
assignment
ofthe
provisional patent
and all
right, title,
and
interest in uBeamand the
technology
to an
entity
which
Perry
and Dweck would
jointly
own. In
May 2011, Perry represented,
warranted and assured Dweck that that would be done.
They
agreed
that the
patent
wouldbe
assigned
and transferred to their
jointly
owned
entity.
34. Counsel
provided
the
patent
documents to
Perry
for
signature
to cause the
assignment
to be made. In late
May, 2010, Perry
assured Dweck that the
rights
to the
patent
had
been so
assigned. Perry
told Dweck that she
(Perry)
had
gone
to a
notary
who had notarized the
patent assignment
documents and that she
(Perry)
had in
turn,
sent the
signed assignment
documents to their
patent
counsel.
7
Page
8 of 25
35. Inthat same time
frame,
Dweck took the lead for herself and her
partner, Perry,
in
developing
a website for uBeam. She
acquired
domain
names, including uBeam.com,
and
uBeam.org.
She hired and
paid
others who worked with her to
develop
a
website,
uBeam.com.
36.
Initially,
Dweck and
Perry
had used
uBeam.org
as their
website,
as someone else
owned uBeam.com.
Through
Dweck's
efforts, they
were able to
acquire
the uBeam.comwebsite
and thereafter to use it.
37. The uBeam.comwebsite was
designed, developed,
and launched.
Perry
was
consulted
with, agreed to,
and
provided input
with
respect
to the website and the information and
materials to be included on it. Dweck and
Perry
both
provided, approved,
and endorsed the
content and
appearance
ofthe uBeam.comwebsite as
published.
38. The uBeam.comwebsite identifies Dweck and
Perry
as co-founders ofuBeam.
The website
includes, among
other
things,
the
following
statement
regarding
the co-founders:
"they
have filed a
provisional patent,
are
securing angel money,
and
finding
the
right
manufacturers to
bring
uBeamto market.
They
have created a small-scale
proof
of
concept
model,
but need better
equipment
for the actual
prototype. Perry
and Dweck are in the R&D
phase right now,
and
anticipate
a finalized
product by
Fall 2011."
39. On the
website,
there is a
photograph
ofDweck and
Perry together.
The
caption
to that
photograph
states "Meredith
Perry (left)
andNora
Dweck,
withtheir
invention,
uBeam."
40. The website and statements and
representations
on it have been available to the
public
for months. Dweck and
Perry individually
and
jointlypublished
materials onthe website
fully expecting
others to viewand
rely
on information on that website.
Among
other
things,
Perry
viewed the website as an
appropriate
tool to
promote
Dweck and
Perry's
effort and
opportunity
with
respect
to the uBeam
product.
8
Page
9 of 25
41. Dweck also
created,
with the assistance of
others,
the uBeam
logo
and uBeam
business cards for herself and for Ms.
Perry,
as well as a
pamphlet
which could be
distributed,
among
other
places,
at the "All
Things Digital"
Conference.
42. Dweck and
Perry
were invitedto attend a
prestigious
conference
featuring
innovative
technologies
known as the "All
Things Digital"
Conference to be held in
Palos,
Verdes, California,
that is oftentimes referred to as the "D Conference." At the D
Conference,
Dweck and
Perry collectively
and
collaboratively
were to have the
opportunity
to make a
presentation
oftheir uBeam
product.
The
purpose
ofthe
presentation
was, among
other
things,
to stimulate others to
provide
monies,
whether
equity, through loan,
or
otherwise,
for further
research, development,
and
marketing
ofuBeam.
43. In
anticipation
oftheir
participation
inthe D
Conference,
Dweck and
Perry
considered and concluded that it would be advisable for themto
present
themselves as
being part
ofa
formerly
established and documented
entity,
each with a title.
44. On
May 27, 2011, Perry
forwarded to Dweck an
Operating Agreement
for a
limited
liability company
which she had
prepared. According
to
Perry,
the document was
prepared
because she
"just
wanted us to have
something
for D."
45.
Perry
minimizedthe
importance
ofthe draft limited
liability company operating
agreement.
Inthat
regard,
she wrote to Dweck on
May 27,
2011 that "we can make a 'real one'
when we have more time to discuss stuff after D."
46. Inthe context oftheir
exchanges
and discussions about the limited
liability
company
and the
operating agreement
for
it, Perry
and Dweck also discussed the uBeam
product
and that the uBeam
product
would be owned
by
the limited
liability company.
9
Page
10 of 25
47. Inthe context ofthe discussions about
establishing
a limited
liability company,
Perry
told and assured Dweck that the
provisional patent,
for which documents
prepared by
patent
counsel were
being
submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the same time
frame,
was
being assigned
to the limited
liabilitycompany
which was
being
formed.
48. Inthe context ofthe discussions about
forming
a limited
liabilitycompany
and
the
operating agreement
for
it, Perry represented, informed,
and assured Dweck
that,
as a matter
ofcommon
practice,
the
primary
inventor
typically
receives a
substantially larger
stake in a start-
up entity
than does one who contributed lesser amounts to the invention and/or focused on
business, marketing,
and other
aspects
ofthe
enterprise
and
opportunity. Perry represented
to
Dweck
that,
inthe circumstances as
they existed,
a
person
in
Perry's position
would
typically
hold at least an 80%
membership
interest and a
person
in Dweck's
position
would
initially
hold
no more than a 20%
membership
interest inthe to be formed limited
liabilitycompany.
49. Inthe context of
establishing
a limited
liability company
and an
operating
agreement
for
it,
Dweck relied
upon Perry's statements, representations, warranties,
and
commitments
including
that Dweck's
equity
interest would increase and that
Perry's equity
interest would decrease ifDweck
participated
in
raising funding
for the
enterprise.
50. The
night
before Dweck and
Perry
flewto California for the D
Conference, Perry
and Dweck
signed
an
operating agreement
for
uBeam, LLC,
a Delaware limited
liability
company.
At that same
time, Perry
and Dweck
agreed
to
change
the
Operating Agreement right
after the D conference.
Perry
and Dweck
were,
and remain
as,
the sole members ofthat limited
liability company.
51.
By agreement
between
them, Perry
became and held herself out as Chief
Executive Officer of
uBeam,
LLC and Dweck became and held herself out as ChiefFinancial
10
Page
11 of 25
Officer ofuBeam,
LLC.
They presented
themselves as the co-founders ofand the
joint
owners
of
uBeam,
LLC.
52. Dweck would not have
agreed
to the establishment
of,
and would not have
agreed
to be a member of
uBeam, LLC,
and would not have
agreed
to have a 20%
membership
interest
and for
Perry
to have an 80%
membership
interest,
ifshe had known or had reason to believe
that
Perry's representations,
statements,
conduct and assurances as set forth in
Paragraphs 13, 24,
26, 29, 32-34, 37-40,
and 44-50 were not true and correct.
53. Dweck
reasonably
relied on
Perry's representations,
statements, commitments,
and assurances as set forth in
Paragraphs
13, 24, 26, 29, 32-34, 37-40,
and 44-50 above.
54. The D Conference was scheduled to be held and was held in
early
J une 2011 in
Rancho Palos
Verdes,
California.
55. Dweck and
Perry
each worked
together, devoting
substantial time and
energy
preparing
for the
presentation
that would be made at the D Conference.
They
worked
collaboratively
inthat
process.
56. In
J une, 2011,
Dweck and
Perry
attended the D Conference
together.
57. Consistent withtheir
agreement,
at the D
Conference, Perry
held herself out as
ChiefExecutive Officer and Dweck held herselfout as Chief Financial Officer.
They presented
themselves as the co-founders and the
joint
owners of
uBeam,
LLC and ofthe uBeam
product
and
concept.
58. As
co-founders, they appeared together
and
presented
at the D
Conference,
in a
public
forum,
the uBeam
product,
the
concept,
and the
opportunity. They
had withthemthe
working prototype
model which
they
had
developed
and
theypresented
that
through
a
demonstration.
Page
12 of 25
59. USA
Today published
an online article about Dweck and
Perry
and their
attendance and
presentation
at the D Conference. That online
article, captioned
"Meredith
Perry,
left,
and Nora Dweck at the All
Things Digital
Conference
demonstrating
their wireless
charging
system
uBeam." That article was also made available
through
a link
posted
on the uBeam.com
website.
60. After the D
Conference,
uBeamreceived additional media attention.
Perry
was
interviewed on National Public Radio. Atthat
time,
she
expressed
her viewthat
uBeam, LLC,
has the
potential
to become a billion dollar
company. Perry
also shared withthe listeners that
other
companies
were
seeking
or
encouraging uBeam,
LLC to license its
technology
to them.
61. A number ofinvestors as well as those who
provide grant money
have
expressed
an interest in
participating
in and
providing funding
for uBeam.
62. Ifintroduced into market
strategically
and
efficiently
and ifthe intellectual
property
ofthe uBeam
product
and derivatives thereof are
protected,
uBeamhas the
potential
to
generate significant
revenue and
profits
for
Perry
and Dweck.
63. There are various links and articles on the uBeamwebsite.
Among
other
things,
one states that "the uBeam
product
idea was
developed by
two recent
University
of
Pennsylvania
graduates."
64.
Perry
has
represented
to others that
uBeam,
LLC owns the
technology,
the
product,
and the
opportunity
known and referred to as uBeam.
Perry has, upon
information and
belief,
made
any
number of
presentations
inwhich the fundamental
assumption
ofthe
presentation
was that
uBeam,
LLC owns and controls the intellectual
property,
the
technology,
product,
and
opportunity
known as uBeam.
12
Page
13 of 25
65. There came a time after the D Conference when
Perry began
to exclude Dweck
frommatters
pertaining
to uBeam.
Perry
has
persisted
in that course since
J une,
2011.
66.
Perry has,
to this
date,
refused and failed to deliver the
assignment
ofthe
provisional patent
to Dw.'eck or to
any Dweck/Perry entity
or to otherwise transfer or
convey
it to
Dweck or to
any Dweck/Perry entity.
67. After the D
Conference, Perry
has takenthe
position
with Dweck that it is
she,
and she
alone,
who owns and is entitled to
uBeam,
the intellectual
property,
the
technology
relating thereto,
and the
opportunity presented by
it.
68.
Perry
has also failed and
refused, notwithstanding requests
from
Dweck,
to
provide
to Dweck basic information
requested regarding Perry's
activities
purportedly
on behalf
of
uBeam,
LLC.
Perry
has
consciously
and
intentionally
withheld that
information,
without
any
proper
basis for
doing
so.
69.
Perry deleted, removed,
or limited or cut offDweck's access to various files from
the
uBeam,
LLC shared
Dropbox
folder.
70.
Perry
has failed and to date refused to
provide
an
accounting
of
uBeam,
LLC's
accounts
including
a
listing
ofassets and revenues or information as to
expenses
and costs.
Perry
has failed to
provide any
assurance that uBeam's books and records are
being
maintained
at
all,
let alone
properly
maintained.
71.
Perry
has threatened to dissolve
uBeam,
LLC without
anyjustifiable
reason.
72. Dweck
provided
writtennotice to
Perry
ofconcerns that she has
regarding Perry's
conduct
including, among
other
things, Perry's
failure and refusal to
assign
and deliver the
assignment
ofthe
provisional patent, Perry's
failure and refusal to
provide
Dweck informationto
which she is
entitled,
and
Perry's wrongful
efforts to exclude Dweck and
deprive
her of
13
Page
14 of 25
information. Dweck has
similarly
made demand on
Perry
to initiate suit on behalf ofuBeam,
LLC
for, among
other
things,
breach of
fiduciary duty,
fraud,
and
misrepresentation,
deceit,
misappropriation,
and for
specific performance, injunctive
relief,
and otherwise as is
appropriate.
73. On
August
4, 2011,
the
day
after Dweck demanded that
Perry
conduct or cause to
be conducted an
appropriate investigation
with
respect
to
Perry's alleged wrongdoing, Perry
informed Dweck that she had conducted an
investigation
and found no
wrongdoing. Perry
refused in
writing
Dweck's demand that
uBeam,
LLC sue
Perry
for
appropriate
relief.
COUNT I
(Declaratory J udgment)
74. Dweck restates and
incorporates
herein
by
reference
Paragraphs
1-42, 54-56,
58-
59, 61-63,
and 65-67 above as
though fully
set forthhere.
75.
By
reason ofthe
foregoing,
Dweck and
Perry,
fromthe
beginning
oftheir
collaboration before
PennVention,
have been
partners
in a de
facto partnership.
That
partnership
has not been dissolved and continues. That
partnership
is hereinafter referred to as the "Dweck-
Perry Partnership."
76. The
Dweck-Perry Partnership
owns uBeam
including,
but not
necessarily
limited
to,
entitlement to all
rights,
title,
interest in or
to, rights
to
use, profits
from, inventory,
accounts
receivable, chattel, paper, proceeds
of
collateral,
and
products
of
collateral, pertaining
to the
uBeam
product
and
concept;
the
patent application
and
any
and all
patents
issued
therefrom, any
divisional
patent applications
or continuations ofthe
patent application
for the
technology
and
any patents
issued
therefrom;
the uBeam
technology
and intellectual
property;
the uBeam
mark;
the uBeamwebsite and domain
name;
and
any
and all derivatives of
any
ofthe
foregoing
(collectively
"uBeam
Property")
14
Page
15 of 25
77.
Perry
and Dweck are the
only partners
inthe
Dweck-Perry Partnership.
Each
owns a 50% interest therein.
78.
Perry
and Dweck and each ofthemare
general partners
and
managers
in and of
the
Dweck-Perry Partnership,
and have been since it first came into
being.
79.
Perry,
as a
manager
and as a
general partner
inthe
owes
fiduciary
duties to Dweck and to the
80. There is an actual
controversy
between Dweck and
Perry regarding
whether the
Partnership
exists
and,
if
so,
their
respective rights
inthe
Partnership,
their
respective obligations
as
general partners
and
managers
inthe
Partnership,
and with
respect
to the uBeam
Property
owned
by
the
Partnership.
81. Resolution ofthe
controversy
and
dispute
between Dweck and
Perry
with
respect
to the matters addressed inthis Count is
necessary
to ensure that Dweck and the
Dweck-Perry
Partnership's rights
are
adequately protected.
82. As a result ofthe actual
controversy
between the
parties
and
Perry's
refusal to
acknowledge
the
and the
parties' respective rights
and
obligations,
the
and Dweck have suffered and continue to suffer
damage.
83. Without a
judicial
declaration ofthe
respective rights
ofthe
parties
and the
Dweck and the
will continue to suffer
damage.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,
Nora L.
Dweck, respectfully prays
for
entry
of
judgment:
A.
Declaring
that:
The
exists,
with Dweck and
Perry
as
equal
general partners
in a
partnership;
and
(ii)
The
Partnership
owns the uBeam
Property (as defined);
and
15
Page
16 of 25
(iii) Perry
owes
fiduciary
duties to the
and to Dweck
including,
but not limited
to,
duties ofdue
care, loyalty, candor,
full
disclosure, good faith,
and fair
dealing;
and
(iv)
The
Partnership
owns the
pending patent application
and/or
provisional
patent relating
to the uBeam
product
and
concept;
and
(v)
Dweck is entitled to an
accounting
from
Perry respecting
all material
business and activities
pertaining
to the uBeam
product
and uBeam
concept
since J une
1, 2010;
and
(vi)
Such further declarations as the Court deems to be
just
and
proper;
and
B.
Awarding
to Dweck her
attorney's fees, expenses
and
costs;
and
C.
Granting
to Dweck such other and further reliefas the Court deems to be
just
and
proper.
COUNT II
(Breach
of
Fiduciary Duty)
(Brought by
Dweck
Individually
and on behalf of the
Dweck-Perry Partnership)
incorporates
herein
by
reference
Paragraphs 1-42, 54-56,
58-
59, 61-63,
65-67 and 74-83 above as
though fully
set forth here.
85.
Perry,
as a
general partner
and
manager
inthe
owes
fiduciary
duties to Dweck and to the
86.
Perry
has breached her
fiduciary
duties to Dweck and the
Dweck-Perry
Partnership by, among
other
things: failing
and
refusing
to
assign, transfer,
or otherwise deliver
to the
the uBeam
Property including
the uBeamintellectual
property
and
rights, title, interest,
and
patent
with
respect thereto; failing
to disclose to and
withholding
fromDweck material
information; making misrepresentations regarding
the
enterprise;
and
making misrepresentations
to Dweck
regarding Perry's
intentions with
respect
to
developing
the
uBeam
Property
and future
ownership
of same.
87. As a result of
Perry's
breaches of
fiduciary duty,
Dweck and the
Dweck-Perry
Partnership
have each sustained
damages
and are
likely
hereafter to continue to suffer
damages.
16
Page
17 of 25
88. In
breaching
her
fiduciary duties,
as
alleged herein, Perry
has acted
wantonly,
willfully, maliciously,
with
knowledge,
and with reckless
disregard
for Dweck's and the Dweck-
Perry Partnership's rights.
89. Dweck has
previously
demanded that
Perry
conduct a
proper investigation
and
take action
against
herself with
respect
to these
matters,
and
Perry
has declined to do so. In
any
event such demand would be futile.
Nora L.
Dweck, individually
and on behalf ofthe
Partnership,
respectfully prays
for
entry
of
judgment
in Plaintiffs favor and
against
Defendant,
Meredith
Perry,
for actual
damages
of
$1,000,000,
or such
greater
amount as is
proven
at
trial,
for
punitive
damages
of
$1,000,
000 or such other amount as is determined at
trial,
for
attorney's fees,
expenses,
and costs incurred
by Plaintiff,
and for such other and further reliefas is
just
and
proper
COUNT III
(Breach
of
Contract)
incorporates
herein
by
reference
58-
59,
and
61-63,
above as
though fully
set forthhere.
91. Dweck and
Perry
entered into an
agreement whereby
the uBeam
Property
was to
be
equally
owned
by
each of
them,
with
any
and all
assignments
and transfers to be undertaken
to ensure that that would be the case.
92. That
agreement, although
not in
writing,
was reached
through
the
parties
oral
communications and
by
their deeds and acts.
17
Page
18 of 25
93.
Perry
has failed and refused to fulfill her contractual
obligations
and
undertakings.
Perry has, instead,
claimed the uBeam
Property
as her own and denied Dweck her
rights
with
respect
thereto.
94. As a result of
Perry's
breaches of
contract,
Dweck has to date suffered and will
hereafter suffer
damages
in an amount to be determined at trial.
Nora L.
that
judgment
be entered in
her favor and
against Defendant,
Meredith
Perry,
for
compensatory damage,
in an amount to be
determined at
trial,
that she be awarded her
attorney's fees, expenses,
and
costs,
and that she be
awarded such other and further reliefas is
just
and
proper.
COUNT IV
(Breach
of Contract
Specific Performance)
incorporates
herein
by
reference
58-
59, 61-63,
and
90-94,
above as
though fully
set forthhere.
96. Dweck is entitled to an
equal ownership
interest with
Perry
inthe uBeam
Property.
97. Unless
Perry
is
required
to deliver to Dweck her
ownership
interest and to
acknowledge
Dweck's
rights,
Dweck will suffer harmfor which there is no
adequate remedy
at
law.
98. As a matter of
equity, specific performance
should be ordered
requiring Perry
to
deliver, convey, transfer,
and
assign
uBeam
Property
to Dweck such that Dweck and
Perry
each
own a 50% interest therein.
Nora L.
that the Court enter an
order
requiring Defendant,
Meredith
Perry,
to
specificallyperform
her
obligations by conveying,
18
Page
19 of 25
assigning, transferring,
and otherwise
delivering
to
Dweck, through appropriate
documentation,
a
50%
ownership
interest in the uBeam
Property,
that the Court award to Plaintiff,
Nora L.
Dweck,
her
and
costs,
and that the Court award to Plaintiff,
Nora L.
Dweck,
such other and further reliefas the Court deems to be
just
and
proper.
COUNT V
(Fraud/Fraudulent Inducement)
incorporates
herein
by
reference
Paragraphs
1-73 above as
though fully
set forth here.
100. With
respect
to and in the context ofdiscussions
leading up
to the formation of
uBeam, LLC, Perry
made statements and
representations,
as set forth in
Paragraphs 13, 24, 26,
29, 32-34, 37-40,
and
44-50, above,
which she knewat the time were not true. With
respect
to
and inthe context ofdiscussions
leading
to the formation of
uBeam, LLC, Perry
made
commitments which she had no intention of
keeping
or
fulfilling
then or in the
future,
which rise
to the level ofand are the
equivalent
offraudulent
misrepresentation, including
that which is set
forth in
Paragraphs
33-34 and 44-50 above.
101.
Perry
made the
misrepresentations,
statements,
and commitments referred to in
this Count
intending
and
seeking
to induce Dweck's reliance thereon and
intending
and
seeking
to induce Dweck to
agree
to the formation of
uBeam,
LLC and
reducing
her
ownership position
and interest in
uBeam, LLC, by accepting
a lesser
membership
interest in
uBeam,
LLC.
102. Dweck
reasonably
relied on
Perry's misrepresentations,
statements,
and
commitments, just
as
Perry sought.
Dweck relied on such to her
disadvantage
and harm.
103. Inso
conducting
herselftoward
Dweck, Perry
acted
wantonly, willfully,
and
maliciously, knowingly,
and withreckless
disregard
for Dweck's
rights.
19
Page
20 of 25
104. As a result of
Perry's
fraudulent
conduct,
Dweck has suffered and will hereafter
suffer
damages.
Nora L.
that
judgment
be entered in
her favor and
against
Defendant,
Meredith
Perry,
for
compensatory damages
in an amount to be
determined at trial,
but
reasonably
believedto be not less than
$1,000,000,
for
punitive damages
of
$1,000,
000 or such other amount as is determined at trial,
for her
attorney's fess, expenses,
and
costs,
and for such other and further reliefas is
just
and
proper.
COUNT VI
(Fraud Rescission)
incorporates
herein
by
reference
Paragraphs
1-73 and 99-104
above as
though fully
set forthhere.
106. Inthe
alternative,
Dweck seeks rescission of
uBeam,
LLC and all formation
documents with
respect
thereto.
Nora L.
that
judgment
be entered in
her favor and
declaring
that
uBeam,
LLC is null and void and ofno force and effect and was
void ab
initio,
and that the Court award to
Plaintiff,
Nora L.
Dweck,
such other and further relief
as the Court deems to be
just
and
proper.
COUNT VII
(Breach
of
Fiduciary Duty)
(Brought by
Dweck
Individually
and on Behalf of
uBeam, LLC)
incorporates
herein
by
reference
Paragraphs
1-73 above as
though fully
set forth here.
20
Page
21 of 25
108.
Perry,
as
manager
and member of
uBeam, LLC,
owes
fiduciary
duties to Dweck
and to
uBeam,
LLC.
109.
Perry
has breached her
fiduciary
duties to Dweck and
uBeam, LLC, among
other
things: failing
and
refusing
to
assign, transfer,
or otherwise deliver to
uBeam,
LLC the uBeam
Property, including
the uBeamintellectual
property
and
rights, title, interest,
and
patent
with
respect
thereto; failing
to disclose to and
withholding
fromDweck material
information;
and
making misrepresentations regarding
the
enterprise.
110. As a result of
Perry's
breaches of
fiduciary duty,
Dweck and
uBeam,
LLC have
sustained
damages
and are
likely
hereafter to continue to suffer
damages.
111. In
breaching
her
fiduciary
duties as
alleged herein, Perry
has acted
wantonly,
willfully, maliciously,
with
knowledge,
and with reckless
disregard
for Dweck's and
uBeam,
LLC's
rights.
112.
Dweck, individually
and on behalf of
uBeam,
LLC has
previously
demanded that
Perry
conduct a
proper investigation
and take action
against
herself with
respect
to these
matters,
and
Perry
has declined to do so. In
any
event such demand would be futile.
Nora L.
Dweck, individually
and on behalf of
uBeam, LLC,
respectfully prays
for
entry
of
judgment
in Plaintiffs favor and
against Defendant,
Meredith
Perry,
for actual
damages
of
$1,000,000,
or such
greater
amount as is
proven
at
trial,
for
punitive
damages
of
$1,000,
trial,
for
attorney's fees,
expenses,
and costs incurred
by Plaintiff,
and for such other and further relief as is
just
and
proper.
21
Page
22 of 25
COUNT VIII
(Breach
of
Fiduciary Duty Specific Performance)
(Brought by
Dweck
Individually
and on behalf of uBeam
LLC)
incorporates
herein
by
reference
Paragraphs
1-73 and 108-112
above as
though fully
set forthhere.
114. uBeamLLC is entitled
ownership
ofthe uBeam
Property.
115. Unless
Perry
is
required
to transfer to uBeam,
LLC the uBeam
Property
and to
acknowledge
Dweck's
rights
as a 50% owner
thereof,
Dweck and uBeamLLC will suffer harm
for which there is no
adequate remedy
at law.
116. As a matter of
equity, specific performance
should be ordered
requiring Perry
to
deliver, convey, transfer,
and
assign
the uBeam
Property
to
uBeam,
LLC and to
acknowledge
and
agree
that Dweck is a 50% member therein.
Nora L.
that the Court enter an
order
requiring Defendant,
Meredith
Perry,
to
specifically perform
her
obligations by conveying,
assigning, transferring,
and otherwise
delivering
to
uBeam, LLC, through appropriate
documentation,
the uBeam
Property
and to
acknowledge
and
agree
that Dweck is a 50% owner
therein,
that the Court award to
Plaintiff,
Nora L.
Dweck,
her
and
costs,
and that the Court award to
Plaintiff,
Nora L. Dweck such other and further relief as the
Court deems to be
just
and
proper.
COUNT IX
(Conversion)
(Brought by
Dweck
Individually
and on behalf of the
Dweck-Perry Partnership)
incorporates
herein
by
reference
Paragraphs 1-59, 61,
65-70
and 74-89 above as
though fully
set forth here.
22
Page
23 of 25
118.
Perry
has claimed sole
ownership
ofand all
right,
title,
and interest in and to the
uBeam
Property,
to the exclusion ofDweck and the
119.
Perry
has failed and refused to
assign
or otherwise transfer the uBeam
Property
to
Dweck and/or the
120.
Perry
has exercised and continues to exercise
wrongful
dominion and control over
the uBeam
Property
owned
by
her and Dweck. Dweck on her own behalf and on behalf ofthe
demanded
assignment
and
delivery
ofthe uBeam
Property.
Notwithstanding demand, Perry
has failed and refused to do so.
121.
Perry's
acts and omissions as
alleged
inthis Count were done
maliciously,
and with reckless
disregard
for Dweck's and the
Dweck-Partnership's rights.
Nora L.
that
judgment
be entered in
her favor and
against Defendant,
Meredith
Perry
for
in an amount to be
determined at
trial,
but
reasonably
believed to be at least
$1,000,000, plus punitive damages
of
$1,000,
trial, plus attorney's fees, expenses,
and
costs,
and such other and further reliefas is
just
and
proper.
COUNT X
(Conversion)
(Brought by
Dweck
Individually
and on behalf of
uBeam, LLC)
incorporates
herein
by
reference
Paragraphs
1-73 and 107-112
as
though fully
set forthhere.
123.
Perry
has claimed sole
ownership
ofand all
right,
title,
and interest in and to the
uBeam
Property,
to the exclusion ofDweck and
uBeam,
LLC.
124.
Perry
has failed and refused to
assign
or otherwise transfer the uBeam
Property
to
Dweck and/or
uBeam,
LLC.
23
Page
24 of 25
125.
Perry
has exercised and continues to exercise
wrongful
dominion and control over
the uBeam
Property.
Dweck on her own behalf and on behalf of
uBeam,
LLC demanded
assignment
and
delivery
ofthe uBeam
Property. Notwithstanding demand, Perry
has failed and
refused to do so.
126.
Perry's
acts and omissions as
alleged
inthis Count were done
maliciously,
and withreckless
disregard
for Dweck's and
uBeam,
LLC's
rights.
Nora L.
that
judgment
be entered in
her favor and
against Defendant,
Meredith
Perry
for
in an amount to be
determined at
trial,
but
reasonably
believed to be at least
$1,000,000, plus punitive damages
of
$1,000,
trial, plus attorney's fees, expenses,
and
costs,
and such other and further reliefas is
just
and
proper.
24
Page
25 of 25
J URY
DEMAND
Plaintiff,
Nora L.
Dweck,
respectfully
demands trial
byjury
as to all
claims, issues,
and
matters
properly
triable to a
jury
in this case.
Dated: November
10,
2011
Respectfully submitted,
0
DR
Pl
ER BIDDLE &
REATiLLP
A A. 41
l
Alrna--. Lesovitz
f
One
Logan Square
18th &
Cherry
Streets
Philadelphia,
PA
19103-6996
Telephone: (215)988-2700
Facsimile:
(215)988-2757
Email:
anna.lesovitz@dbr.com
Allen V. Farber
DRINKER BIDDLE &REATH LLP
1500 K
Street, N.W.,
Suite 1100
Washington,
D.C. 20005
Telephone:
202/230-5154
Telecopier:
202/230-5354
allen.farber@dbr.com
J ohn D.V. Ferman
DRINKER BIDDLE &REATH LLP
1500 K
Street, N.W.,
Suite 1100
Washington,
D.C. 20005
Telephone: 202/842-8800
Telecopier:
202/842-8465
J ohn.Ferman@dbr.com
Counsel
for Plaintiff
Nora
Lily
Dweck
25
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CsAA-1X14---/
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11
Page
1 of 3
QesIS 44 (Rev. 12/07)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
TheJ S 44 civil cover
sheetandthe information containedherein neither
replace
nor
supplement
the
filing
andservice
ofpleadings
orother
papers as requiredby
law, except as
provided
by
local rules of
court
This
form, approvedby
theJ udicial Conference ofthe UnitedStates in
September
1974,
is
required
for thc use ofthe Cleric of Court for thc
purpose
of
initiating
the civil docket sheet.
(SEE
INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Ovveck, Nora L.
Perry,
Meredith E.
(b) County
ofResidence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff Los Angeles, CA
County
ofResidence ofFirst Listed Defendant Somerset, NJ
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND
CONDEMNATION CASES. USE
THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.
(0 Attorney's (FirmName, Address, andTelephone Number) Attorneys
(IfKnown)
Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, One
Logan Square,
Ste. 200,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6906; Anna F. Lesovitz
III
II. BASIS OF J URISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP
OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Placean "X" in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
O
1
U.S. Government 0
3 Federal Question
PTE DEF PTF DEE
Plaintiff
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
Citizen of This State
0 1 CI I Incorporated
or
Principal Place 0 4 0 4
of Business In This State
0 2 U.S. Government 181 4 Diversity
Citizen ofAnother State Cg 2 181 2 Incorporated andPrincipal Place 0 5 CI 5
Defendant ofBusiness In Another Stale
(indicate Citizenship
ofParties in ltemIII)
Citizen or
Subject ofa CI 3 0 3 ForeignNation 0 6 0 6
Foreign Country
TAT NI A TTTIM CM QT TIT 1111.xt, ...v^ rl.... ra rs..I.A.
j...,
.;e.RorqrpRik..-1:::,
n,,,,,,,, ..T.;, :trOints,,,,i, 1.1ign,ii::::::::itulast,,,ctr,
4TORREITUREIBENATIITY4'4"c,'"i'ii'll'AN-36:141PTCY.,,,,,,,,, i,,, OTHEItiSTATAITESL'..'ii,
:i
O 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJ URY PERSONAL INJ URY 0 610 Agriculture 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400State Reapportionment
O 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane
o 362 Personal Injury 0 620Other Food &Drug CI 423 Withdrawal CT 4l0Antitrust
O 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane
Product Med. Malpractice 0 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 CI 430 Banks and
Banking
O 140
Negotiable
Instrument
Liability 0 365 Personal
Injury
ofProperty 21 USC 881 0 450 Commerce
0 150 RecoveryofOverpayment 0 320Assault, Libel & Product
Liability CI 630 Liquor Laws,tits..-dPROPERTACtRJ OITTSr, 0 460 Deportation
&Enforcementoftudgment
Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 640 R.R. &Truck 0 820 Copyrights CI 470 Racketeer Influencedand
0 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Injury
Product 0 650 Airline Regs. 0 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations
O 152 Recovery ofDefaulted
Liability Liability 0 660 Occupational
Cf 840Trademark 0 480 ConsumerCredit
'Student Loans 0 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 0 490Cable/Sat TV
(Excl. Veterans) 0 345 MarineProduct 0 370 Other Fraud CI 690 Other 0 810 SelectiveService
O 153 Recovery
of
Overpayment Liability 0 371 Truth inLending,
60aisnitititt.4ri13IATIOWtgitiittrigii79 rici4SOGIAVSEOUkITY,.CI 850 Securities/Commodities/
ofVeteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 380Other Personal 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 H1A (1395ff) Exchange
10 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage
Act 0 862Black Lung (923) 0 875 CustomerChallenge
R 190 Other Contract Product
Liability
0 385
PropertyDamage 01 720 Labor/Mgmt.
Relations 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410
O 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360Other Personal Product
Liability 0 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting CI 864 SSD TitleXVI CI 890 Other Statutory Actions
O 196 Franchise
Injury
&Disclosure Act 3.865 RS1
(405(g))
0 891
Agricultural
Acts
F.
i,,, ALD/ROFERTN111:::: i1itilti.E.CIVIERTGIITSSiiiiitiggii 3Z6qISONERRE1F1TI6jNVK' CI 740
Railway
Labor Act .1DtiTEDERiti.iiElAiSHITStit.'-i 13 892 Economic Stabilization Act
0 210 Land Condemnation 0 441 Voting C/ 510 Motions to Vacate CI 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 870Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff El 893 Environmental Matters
0 220 Foreclosure 0 442
Employment
Sentence 0 791 Empl. Ret. inc. or
Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act
0 230 Rent Lease &Ejectment 0 443
Housing/
Habeas
Corpus: Security
Act 0 871 IRSThird Party 0 895 Freedom ofInformation
0 240 Torts to Land Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act
0 245 Tort Product
Liability
0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death
Penalty ::::;:::.;:igtitIMMilgRATIONti.":1;T:H:.".. CI 900Appeal
ofFee Determination
0 290All Other Real Property CI 445Amer. w/Disabilities 0 540 Mandamus &Other 6 462 Naturalization
Application
Under
Equal
Access
Employment
0 550 Civil
Rights
CI 463 Habeas
Corpus
to J ustice
O 446 Amer. w/Disabilities 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 0 950
Constitutionality
of
Other 0 465 Other Immigration
State Statutes
O 440Other Civil
Rights
Actions
V. ORIGIN
(Place
an "X" in One BoxOnly) Appeal
to District
CiI 1 Original El 2
Removed from CI 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 CI 6 Multidistrict El 7
J ude
from
g
Transferred
from
Proceeding
State Court
Appellate
Court
Reopened
another district
(snecifv)
Litigation
J udgment
Magistrate
CiAtI15 IScCiii,Blute
under which
you
arc
filing (Do
not cite
jurisdictional
statutes unless
diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Brief
description
ofcause:
VII.
REQUESTED
IN El CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S CHECK YES
only
ifdemanded in
complaint:
COMPLAINT:
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23
1, 000,
000.00 J URY DEMAND: a Yes 0 No
VIII. RELATED
CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
J UDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE 7"7)... SIGNATURE OF ATTORaY OF RECORD.
11/10/11
RECEIPT AMOUNT APPLYING IFP
3i9E
MAG. J UDGE
Page
2 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
DWECK, NORA L.
CIVIL ACTION
V.
PERRY, MEREDITH E.
NO.
In accordance with the Civil J ustice
Expense
and
Delay
Reduction Plan of this
court,
counsel for
plaintiff
shall
complete
a Case
Management
Track
Designation
Formin all civil cases at the time of
filing
the
complaint
andservea
copy
onall defendants.
(See
1:03 ofthe
plan
set forthonthe reverse
side of this
form.)
In the event that a defendant does not
agree
with the
plaintiff regarding
said
designation,
that defendant
shall,
with its first
appearance,
submit to the clerk ofcourt and serve on
the
plaintiff
and all other
parties,
a Case
Management
Track
Designation
Form
specifying
the track
to which that defendant believes the case should be
assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
(a)
Habeas
Corpus
Cases
brought
under 28 U.S.C. 2241
through
2255.
(b)
Social
Security
Cases
requesting
reviewofa decision ofthe
Secretary
ofHealth
and Human Services
denying plaintiff
Social
Security
Benefits.
(c)
Arbitration Cases
required
to be
designated
for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2.
(d)
Asbestos Cases
involving
claims for
personal injury
or
property damage
from
exposure
to asbestos.
(e) Special Management
Cases that do not fall into tracks
(a) through (d)
that are
commonly
referred to as
complex
and that need
special
or intense
management by
the court.
(See
reverse side ofthis formfor a detailed
explanation
of
special
management
cases.)
(f)
Standard
Management
Cases that do not fall into
any
one ofthe other tracks.
X)
11/10/11
Anna F. Lesovitz Plaintiff,
Nora L. Dweck
Date
Attorney-at-law Attorney
for
215-988-1115
715-988-2757 anna.lesoviteadbr.com
Telephone
FAX Number E-Mail Address
(Civ. 660)
10/02
Transaction:
Page
3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DESIGNATION FORM to be used
by
counsel to indicate the
category
of the case for the
purpose
of
assignment
to
appropriate
calendar.
Address ofPlaintiff: 4615 Oceanfront Walk, Marina
del
Rey,
California 90292
Address of Defendant: 83 Berkley Avenue,
Belle Mead, New
J ersey
08502
Place of
Accident,
Incident or
(Use Reverse
Side ForAdditional
Space)
Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party
with
any parent corporation
and
any publicly
held
corporation owning
10% or more of its stock?
(Attach
two
copies
ofthe Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.
7.1(a))
Yes No
g
Does this case involve multidistrict
litigation possibilities?
Yesp No
DEg
RELATED CASE,
IF ANY
Case Number:
J udge
Date Terminated:
Civil cases are deemed related when
yes
is answered to any
ofthe
followingquestions:
I. Is this case related to
property
included in an earlier numbered suit
pending
or within one year previously
terminated action in this court?
Yesp NoKI
2. Does this case involve the same issue offact or growout ofthe same transaction as a
prior
suit
pending
terminated
action in this court?
Yes
El
Nogg
3. Does this case involve the
validity
or
infringement
ofa
patent already
in suit or any
earlier numbered case
pending
terminated action in this court?
Yes No/II
4. Is this case a second or successive habeas
corpus,
social
security appeal,
or
pro
se civil
rights
case filed
by
the same individual?
YesD NoM
CIVIL:
(Place
V in ONE CATEGORY
ONLY)
A. Federal
Question
Cases:
B.
Diversity
J urisdiction Cases:
I.
El
Indemnity
Contract,
Marine Contract,
and All Other Contracts I. LI Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
2.
El FELA
2.
0
Airplane
Personal
Injury
3.
0
J ones Act-Personal
Injury
3.
El
Assault,
Defamation
4.
0 Antitrust
4,
El Marine Personal
Injury
5.
0 Patent
5.
0 Motor Vehicle Personal
Injury
6.
El
Labor-Management
Relations
6.
0 Other Personal
Injury(Please
specify)
7.
0 Civil
Rights
7.
0 Products
Liability
8.
0 Habeas
Corpus
8.
0 Products
Liability
Asbestos
9.
El Securities
Act(s)
Cases
9.
0 All other
Diversity
Cases
10.
0
Social
Security
ReviewCases (Please specify)
11.
0 All other Federal
Question
Cases
(Please specify)
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check Appropriate Category)
1,
Anna F. Lesovitz,
counsel ofrecord do
hereby certify:
XI Pursuant to Local Civil Rule
53.2,
Section
3(c)(2),
that to the best of
my knowledge
and
belief,
the
damages
recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sumof
$150,
000.00 exclusive ofinterest and
costs;
Xi Reliefother than
monetary damages
is s.
ght.
DATE: 11/10/11 A.A
201161
Attorney-at-Law
Attorney
I, D.#
NOTE: A trial de novo will b- ial
byjuryonly
if
threbas
b-
compliance
with F.R.C.P. 38.
I
certify that,
to
my knowledge,
the within c ot related to any
case now
pending
or within one
year previously
terminatedaction in this court
except
as noted above.
I
DATE: 11/10/11
201161
Attorney-at-La
Attorney
I.D.#
CIV. 609
(6/08)

Ubeam Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ubeam Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11

You might also like