-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 1 of 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
NORA LILY DWECK,4615 Oceanfront WalkMarina del Rey, California
90292,
PLAINTIFF,
v. I CIVIL ACTION NO.
MEREDITH E. PERRY,83 Berkley Avenue JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDBelle
Mead, New Jersey 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, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff, Nora Lily Dweck (hereinafter "Dweck"), is an
individual who is a
citizen of the State of California 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 of the State of New Jersey
and resides at 83 Berkley Avenue,
Belle Mead, New Jersey 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.
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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 harm and injury by acts
and omissions in the 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 of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claims occurred in this district.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6. In or 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. In or 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 of
time 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 forth with creative
ideas.
2
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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 initially
proceeded as equals, as partners in the
process. They held themselves out to others at least during the
first five months of 2011 as
equals and partners in the process with respect to uBeam.
14. Dweck and Perry developed a concept of a uBeam "charge
system." That charge
system would have 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 from the
Charge Station.
15. The uBeam Charge Station is, by way of analogy, like a
speaker in a stereo
system except, instead of emitting audio, it emits ultrasound.
Ultrasound is a form of sound
which can ultimately be converted into usable electrical energy.
There is potential for ultrasound
3
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 4 of 25
to be converted into usable energy with the help of an 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 uBeam which
were to be included within and
protected by patent and included use of infrasound 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 of millions of dollars.
19. In addition to 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 of their 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. At the 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
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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 of innovative
technologies.
21. Each year, PennVention accepts applications/proposals from
those 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 uBeam for evaluation and consideration during the
PennVention competition.
That submission was made by them as partners, jointly presenting
uBeam.
23. Prior to the PeimVention Final Competition, Dweck and Perry
each spent
considerable time and energy with respect to various aspects of
uBeam including research,
development, and creation of business and marketing analyses and
proposals or plans. They
each benefited from the work of the other and collaborated in
their efforts.
24. With respect particularly to the PennVention competition,
Dweck and Perry each
spent a considerable amount of time 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 of the 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 in the process with respect to uBeam. During the
competition, they announced
publicly that they were the "BeamTeam" and that their product
was uBeam.
5
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 6 of 25
25. As a result of their joint effort in developing and
presenting uBeam in the
PennVention competition, Dweck and Perry won the $5,000.00 First
Prize. They also jointly, as
a team, received four other awards: the Tapper Innovation
Connect Award, with each of them
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 with the 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 from the 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 them as a team, each as a partner with the other.
27. As a result of and from their success in the PennVention
competition, the uBeam
product began receiving publicity in the media. There were
favorable articles in the local press,
as well as favorable comments on the internet. They and uBeam
were also the subject of one 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 of uBeam the product,
the strategy, the
innovative technology, and the opportunity. They held themselves
out to others as co-founders.
They also held themselves out as equal participants in the
project and equal participants availing
themselves of the opportunity before them.
6
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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
uBeam and any derivatives from it.
With Perry's knowledge, and agreement, Dweck spent substantial
time in that endeavor. Among
other things, Dweck located and hired an attorney specializing
in intellectual property rights 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 with their 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 of Dweck and
Perry ostensibly to protect their
shared and collective interests in uBeam.
33. In the context of preparation and submission of the
provisional patent application,
Dweck and Perry discussed the assignment of the provisional
patent and all right, title, and
interest in uBeam and 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 would be 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
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 8 of 25
35. In that 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.com website
and thereafter to use it.
37. The uBeam.com website 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 of the uBeam.com website as
published.
38. The uBeam.com website 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 uBeam to 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 of Dweck and Perry
together. The caption
to that photograph states "Meredith Perry (left) and Nora Dweck,
with their invention, uBeam."
40. The website and statements and representations on it have
been available to the
public for months. Dweck and Perry individually and jointly
published materials on the website
fully expecting others to view and 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
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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 invited to attend a prestigious
conference featuring
innovative technologies known as the "All Things Digital"
Conference to be held in Palos,
Verdes, California, that is often times 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 of their uBeam product. The purpose of the
presentation was, among other things,
to stimulate others to provide monies, whether equity, through
loan, or otherwise, for further
research, development, and marketing of uBeam.
43. In anticipation of their participation in the D Conference,
Dweck and Perry
considered and concluded that it would be advisable for them to
present themselves as being part
of a 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 minimized the importance of the draft limited
liability company operating
agreement. In that 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. In the context of their 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
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 10 of
25
47. In the context of the 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 liability company which
was being formed.
48. In the context of the discussions about forming a limited
liability company and
the operating agreement for it, Perry represented, informed, and
assured Dweck that, as a matter
of common 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 of the enterprise and
opportunity. Perry represented to
Dweck that, in the 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 in the to be formed
limited liability company.
49. In the 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 flew to 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 of that 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 Chief Financial
10
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 11 of
25
Officer of uBeam, LLC. They presented themselves as the
co-founders of and 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, if she 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 June 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 in that process.
56. In June, 2011, Dweck and Perry attended the D Conference
together.
57. Consistent with their agreement, at the D Conference, Perry
held herself out as
Chief Executive Officer and Dweck held herself out as Chief
Financial Officer. They presented
themselves as the co-founders and the joint owners ofuBeam, LLC
and of the 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 with them the
working prototype model which they had developed and they
presented that through a
demonstration.
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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, uBeam received additional media
attention. Perry was
interviewed on National Public Radio. At that time, she
expressed her view that uBeam, LLC,
has the potential to become a billion dollar company. Perry also
shared with the listeners that
other companies were seeking or encouraging uBeam, LLC to
license its technology to them.
61. A number of investors as well as those who provide grant
money have expressed
an interest in participating in and providing funding for
uBeam.
62. If introduced into market strategically and efficiently and
if the intellectual
property of the uBeam product and derivatives thereof are
protected, uBeam has the potential to
generate significant revenue and profits for Perry and
Dweck.
63. There are various links and articles on the uBeam website.
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 in which the
fundamental assumption of the
presentation was that uBeam, LLC owns and controls the
intellectual property, the technology,
product, and opportunity known as uBeam.
12
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 13 of
25
65. There came a time after the D Conference when Perry began to
exclude Dweck
from matters pertaining to uBeam. Perry has persisted in that
course since June, 2011.
66. Perry has, to this date, refused and failed to deliver the
assignment of the
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 taken the 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 of assets 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 any
justifiable reason.
72. Dweck provided written notice to Perry of concerns that she
has regarding Perry's
conduct including, among other things, Perry's failure and
refusal to assign and deliver the
assignment of the provisional patent, Perry's failure and
refusal to provide Dweck information to
which she is entitled, and Perry's wrongful efforts to exclude
Dweck and deprive her of
13
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 14 of
25
information. Dweck has similarly made demand on Perry to
initiate suit on behalf of uBeam,
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 Judgment)
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 forth here.
75. By reason of the foregoing, Dweck and Perry, from the
beginning of their
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 of the patent
application for the technology and
any patents issued therefrom; the uBeam technology and
intellectual property; the uBeam mark;
the uBeam website and domain name; and any and all derivatives
of any of the foregoing
(collectively "uBeam Property")
14
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 15 of
25
77. Perry and Dweck are the only partners in the Dweck-Perry
Partnership. Each
owns a 50% interest therein.
78. Perry and Dweck and each of them are 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 in the
Dweck-Perry Partnership,
owes fiduciary duties to Dweck and to the Dweck-Perry
Partnership.
80. There is an actual controversy between Dweck and Perry
regarding whether the
Partnership exists and, if so, their respective rights in the
Partnership, their respective obligations
as general partners and managers in the Partnership, and with
respect to the uBeam Property
owned by the Partnership.
81. Resolution of the controversy and dispute between Dweck and
Perry with respect
to the matters addressed in this Count is necessary to ensure
that Dweck and the Dweck-Perry
Partnership's rights are adequately protected.
82. As a result of the actual controversy between the parties
and Perry's refusal to
acknowledge the Dweck-Perry Partnership and the parties'
respective rights and obligations, the
Dweck-Perry Partnership and Dweck have suffered and continue to
suffer damage.
83. Without a judicial declaration of the respective rights of
the parties and the
Dweck-Perry Partnership, Dweck and the Dweck-Perry Partnership
will continue to suffer
damage.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, respectfully prays for
entry ofjudgment:
A. Declaring that:
The Dweck-Perry Partnership exists, with Dweck and Perry as
equalgeneral partners in a partnership; and
(ii) The Partnership owns the uBeam Property (as defined);
and
15
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 16 of
25
(iii) Perry owes fiduciary duties to the Dweck-Perry Partnership
and to Dweckincluding, but not limited to, duties of due care,
loyalty, candor, fulldisclosure, good faith, and fair dealing;
and
(iv) The Partnership owns the pending patent application and/or
provisionalpatent relating to the uBeam product and concept;
and
(v) Dweck is entitled to an accounting from Perry respecting all
materialbusiness and activities pertaining to the uBeam product and
uBeamconcept since June 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 relief as the Court
deems to be just andproper.
COUNT II
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)(Brought by Dweck Individually and on
behalf of the Dweck-Perry Partnership)
84. Dweck restates and 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 in the Dweck-Perry
Partnership, owes
fiduciary duties to Dweck and to the Dweck-Perry
Partnership.
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 Dweck-Perry Partnership the uBeam Property including the
uBeam intellectual property
and rights, title, interest, and patent with respect thereto;
failing to disclose to and withholding
from Dweck 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
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, individually and on behalf
of the Partnership,
respectfully prays for entry ofjudgment in Plaintiff s 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 relief as is just and
proper
COUNT III
(Breach of Contract)
90. Dweck restates and incorporates herein by reference
Paragraphs 1-42, 54-56, 58-
59, and 61-63, above as though fully set forth here.
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
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, respectfully prays 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 relief as is just and proper.
COUNT IV
(Breach of Contract Specific Performance)
95. Dweck restates and incorporates herein by reference
Paragraphs 1-42, 54-56, 58-
59, 61-63, and 90-94, above as though fully set forth here.
96. Dweck is entitled to an equal ownership interest with Perry
in the uBeam
Property.
97. Unless Perry is required to deliver to Dweck her ownership
interest and to
acknowledge Dweck's rights, Dweck will suffer harm for 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.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, respectfully prays that the
Court enter an
order requiring Defendant, Meredith Perry, to specifically
perform her obligations by conveying,
18
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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 attorney's fees, expenses, 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 V
(Fraud/Fraudulent Inducement)
99. Dweck restates and incorporates herein by reference
Paragraphs 1-73 above as
though fully set forth here.
100. With respect to and in the context of discussions 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 knew at the time
were not true. With respect to
and in the context of discussions 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 of and are the equivalent of fraudulent
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. In so conducting herself toward Dweck, Perry acted
wantonly, willfully, and
maliciously, knowingly, and with reckless disregard for Dweck's
rights.
19
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 20 of
25
104. As a result of Perry's fraudulent conduct, Dweck has
suffered and will hereafter
suffer damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, respectfully prays 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 believed to 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 relief as is just and
proper.
COUNT VI
(Fraud Rescission)
105. Dweck restates and incorporates herein by reference
Paragraphs 1-73 and 99-104
above as though fully set forth here.
106. In the alternative, Dweck seeks rescission of uBeam, LLC
and all formation
documents with respect thereto.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, respectfully prays that
judgment be entered in
her favor and declaring that uBeam, LLC is null and void and of
no 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)
107. Dweck restates and incorporates herein by reference
Paragraphs 1-73 above as
though fully set forth here.
20
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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 uBeam intellectual property and rights,
title, interest, and patent with
respect thereto; failing to disclose to and withholding from
Dweck 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.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, individually and on behalf
of uBeam, LLC,
respectfully prays for entry ofjudgment in Plaintiff s 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 relief as is just and
proper.
21
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 22 of
25
COUNT VIII
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Specific Performance)(Brought by Dweck
Individually and on behalf of uBeam LLC)
113. Dweck restates and incorporates herein by reference
Paragraphs 1-73 and 108-112
above as though fully set forth here.
114. uBeam LLC is entitled ownership of the 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
uBeam LLC 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.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, respectfully prays 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
attorney's fees, expenses, 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)
117. Dweck restates and incorporates herein by reference
Paragraphs 1-59, 61, 65-70
and 74-89 above as though fully set forth here.
22
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 23 of
25
118. Perry has claimed sole ownership of and all right, title,
and interest in and to the
uBeam Property, to the exclusion of Dweck and the Dweck-Perry
Partnership.
119. Perry has failed and refused to assign or otherwise
transfer the uBeam Property to
Dweck and/or the Dweck-Perry Partnership.
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 of the
Dweck-Perry Partnership demanded assignment and delivery of the
uBeam Property.
Notwithstanding demand, Perry has failed and refused to do
so.
121. Perry's acts and omissions as alleged in this Count were
done wantonly, willfully,
maliciously, and with reckless disregard for Dweck's and the
Dweck-Partnership's rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, respectfully prays 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 believed to be at least
$1,000,000, plus punitive damages of
$1,000,000 or such other amount as is determined at trial, plus
attorney's fees, expenses, and
costs, and such other and further relief as is just and
proper.
COUNT X
(Conversion)(Brought by Dweck Individually and on behalf of
uBeam, LLC)
122. Dweck restates and incorporates herein by reference
Paragraphs 1-73 and 107-112
as though fully set forth here.
123. Perry has claimed sole ownership of and all right, title,
and interest in and to the
uBeam Property, to the exclusion of Dweck and uBeam, LLC.
124. Perry has failed and refused to assign or otherwise
transfer the uBeam Property to
Dweck and/or uBeam, LLC.
23
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 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
ofuBeam, LLC demanded
assignment and delivery of the uBeam Property. Notwithstanding
demand, Perry has failed and
refused to do so.
126. Perry's acts and omissions as alleged in this Count were
done wantonly, willfully,
maliciously, and with reckless disregard for Dweck's and uBeam,
LLC's rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, respectfully prays 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 believed to be at least
$1,000,000, plus punitive damages of
$1,000,000 or such other amount as is determined at trial, plus
attorney's fees, expenses, and
costs, and such other and further relief as is just and
proper.
24
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 25 of
25
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Nora L. Dweck, respectfully demands trial by jury as
to all claims, issues, and
matters properly triable to a jury in this case.
Dated: November 10, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
0DR Pl ER BIDDLE & REATiLLP
A A. 41l
Alrna--. Lesovitz fOne Logan Square18th & Cherry
StreetsPhiladelphia, PA 19103-6996Telephone:
(215)988-2700Facsimile: (215)988-2757Email:
[email protected]
Allen V. FarberDRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP1500 K Street,
N.W.,Suite 1100Washington, D.C. 20005Telephone:
202/230-5154Telecopier: 202/[email protected]
John D.V. FermanDRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP1500 K Street,
N.W.,Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005Telephone: 202/842-8800Telecopier:
202/[email protected]
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 SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover
sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor
supplement the filing and service ofpleadings orother papers as
required by law, except as providedby local rules ofcourt This
form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in
September 1974, is required for thc use of the Cleric of Court for
thc purpose of initiatingthe civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS
ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTSOvveck, Nora L. Perry, Meredith
E.
(b) County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff Los Angeles, CA
County of Residence of First 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 THELAND
INVOLVED.
(0 Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (If Known)Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, One Logan
Square, Ste. 200,Philadelphia, PA 19103-6906; Anna F. Lesovitz
III
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) III.
CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "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
DEEPlaintiff (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 and Principal Place 0 5 CI 5Defendant of
Business In Another Stale
(indicate Citizenship of Parties in ltem III)Citizen or Subject
ofa CI 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6
Foreign CountryTAT NI A TT TIM 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, :iO 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL
INJURY 0 610 Agriculture 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 State
ReapportionmentO 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane o 362 Personal Injury 0
620 Other Food & Drug CI 423 Withdrawal CT 4l0 AntitrustO 130
Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice 0 625 Drug
Related Seizure 28 USC 157 CI 430 Banks and BankingO 140 Negotiable
Instrument Liability 0 365 Personal Injury of Property 21 USC 881 0
450 Commerce0 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel
& Product Liability CI 630 Liquor
Laws,tits..-dPROPERTACtRJOITTSr, 0 460 Deportation
&Enforcement oftudgment Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0
640 R.R. & Truck 0 820 Copyrights CI 470 Racketeer Influenced
and0 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product 0 650
Airline Regs. 0 830 Patent Corrupt OrganizationsO 152 Recovery of
Defaulted Liability Liability 0 660 Occupational Cf 840 Trademark 0
480 ConsumerCredit
'Student Loans 0 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health 0
490 Cable/Sat TV(Excl. Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product 0 370 Other
Fraud CI 690 Other 0 810 Selective Service
O 153 Recovery ofOverpayment Liability 0 371 Truth in Lending,
60aisnitititt.4ri13IATIOWtgitiittrigii79 rici4SOGIAVSEOUkITY,.CI
850 Securities/Commodities/ofVeteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle
0 380 Other Personal 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 H1A (1395ff)
Exchange
10 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage
Act 0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer ChallengeR 190 Other
Contract Product Liability 0 385 Property Damage 01 720 Labor/Mgmt.
Relations 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410O 195 Contract
Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal ProductLiability 0 730
Labor/Mgmt.Reporting CI 864 SSD Title XVI CI 890 Other Statutory
ActionsO 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 Act0
210 Land Condemnation 0 441 Voting C/ 510 Motions to Vacate CI 790
Other Labor Litigation 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff El 893
Environmental Matters0 220 Foreclosure 0 442 Employment Sentence 0
791 Empl. Ret. inc. or Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act0 230
Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security
Act 0 871 IRSThird Party 0 895 Freedom of Information0 240 Torts to
Land Accommodations 0 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act0 245 Tort Product
Liability 0 444 Welfare 0 535 Death Penalty
::::;:::.;:igtitIMMilgRATIONti.":1;T:H:.".. CI 900Appeal of Fee
Determination0 290 All Other Real Property CI 445 Amer.
w/Disabilities 0 540 Mandamus & Other 6 462 Naturalization
Application Under Equal Access
Employment 0 550 Civil Rights CI 463 Habeas Corpus to JusticeO
446 Amer. w/Disabilities 0 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 0
950 Constitutionality of
Other 0 465 Other Immigration State StatutesO 440 Other Civil
Rights Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Appeal to DistrictCiI 1
Original El 2 Removed from CI 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0
CI 6 Multidistrict El 7 Jude fromg Transferred from
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened
anotherdistrict
(snecifv) Litigation JudgmentMagistrate
CiAtI15 IScCiii,Blute under which you arc filing (Do not cite
jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief
description of cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN El CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P.
23 1, 000,000.00 JURY DEMAND: a Yes 0 No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)(See instructions):IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET
NUMBER
DATE 7"7)... SIGNATURE OF ATTORaY OF RECORD.11/10/11
RECEIPT AMOUNT APPLYING IFP 3i9E MAG. JUDGE
-
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR 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 Justice Expense and Delay Reduction
Plan of this court, counsel forplaintiff shall complete a Case
Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time
offiling the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See
1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverseside of this form.) In the
event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding
saiddesignation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance,
submit to the clerk of court and serve onthe plaintiff and all
other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying
the trackto 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 review of a decision of the
Secretary ofHealthand 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 fromexposure to asbestos.
(e) Special Management Cases that do not fall into tracks (a)
through (d) that arecommonly referred to as complex and that need
special or intense management bythe court. (See reverse side of
this form for a detailed explanation of specialmanagement
cases.)
(f) Standard Management Cases that do not fall into any one of
the other tracks. X)
11/10/11 Anna F. Lesovitz Plaintiff, Nora L. DweckDate
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:
Case 2:11-cv-07057-SD Document 1-1 Filed 11/10/11 Page 3 of
3UNITED 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 of Plaintiff: 4615 Oceanfront Walk, Marina del Rey,
California 90292
Address of Defendant: 83 Berkley Avenue, Belle Mead, New Jersey
08502
Place of Accident, Incident or(Use Reverse Side For Additional
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 of the Disclosure Statement Form in
accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a)) Yes Nog
Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?
Yesp NoDEg
RELATED CASE, IF ANY
Case Number: Judge Date Terminated:
Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of
the following questions:
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 NoKI2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or
grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within
one year previously terminated
action in this court?
YesEl Nogg3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement
of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or
within one year previously
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 Jurisdiction 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 Injury3. 0 Jones Act-Personal
Injury 3. El Assault, Defamation
4. 0 Antitrust 4, El Marine Personal Injury5. 0 Patent 5. 0
Motor Vehicle Personal Injury6. El Labor-Management Relations 6. 0
Other Personal Injury (Please
specify)7. 0 Civil Rights 7. 0 Products Liability8. 0 Habeas
Corpus 8. 0 Products Liability Asbestos
9. El Securities Act(s) Cases 9. 0 All other Diversity Cases
10. 0 Social Security Review Cases (Please specify)11. 0 All
other Federal Question Cases
(Please specify)ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check Appropriate Category)1, Anna F. Lesovitz, counsel of
record 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 sum of
$150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;Xi Relief other than
monetary damages is s. ght.
DATE: 11/10/11 A.A 201161Attorney-at-Law Attorney I, D.#
NOTE: A trial de novo will b- ial by jury only 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 terminated action in
this court
except as noted above.I
DATE: 11/10/11 201161Attorney-at-La Attorney I.D.#
CIV. 609 (6/08)