Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF HORRY ) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
)
)
MD Roofing and Coatings, LLC d/b/a MD ) C/A No. 2023-CP-26-
Roofing,
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) SUMMONS
)
Christopher Rodrigues and Brazen )
Roofing, LLC, )
)
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein, a copy of
which is hereby served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this Complaint upon the
subscriber, at the address shown below, within 30 days after service hereof, exclusive of the day of
such service, and if you fail to timely answer the Complaint, judgment by default or otherwise will be
rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
WINSLOW LAW, LLC.
By: s/L. Shawn Sullivan
Thomas W. Winslow, Esq. (S.C. Bar 73584)
L. Shawn Sullivan, Esq. (S.C. Bar 78501)
11019 Ocean Hwy
Pawleys Island, SC 29585
T: (843) 357-9301
F: (843) 357-9303
tom@winslowlawyers.com
shawn@winslowlawyers.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
September 22, 2023
Pawleys Island, South Carolina
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF HORRY ) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
)
MD Roofing and Coatings, LLC d/b/a )
MD Roofing, )
) C/A: 2023-CP-26-
)
Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINT
v. )
)
Christopher Rodrigues and )
Brazen Roofing, LLC, ) )
)
Defendants. ) )
____________________________________)
The Plaintiff, MD Roofing and Coatings, LLC d/b/a MD Roofing (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), brings
this Complaint against Christopher Rodrigues and Brazen Roofing, LLC (hereinafter “Defendants”),
based upon the allegations set forth below.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the
State of South Carolina.
2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Christopher Rodrigues (hereinafter “Rodrigues”) is
an adult individual resident of Horry County, South Carolina.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Brazen Roofing, LLC (hereinafter “Brazen”) is a
limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of South
Carolina.
4. At all times relevant hereto, all of the events complained of occurred in Horry County, State
of South Carolina.
5. Upon information and belief, this Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the issues set forth
in this case and personal jurisdiction over the parties.
Page 2 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917
FACTS
6. Plaintiff is a Roofing business - repairing, constructing, and removing roofs, siding, gutters,
and coatings.
7. Plaintiff provides goods and services to both residential homeowners and commercial
businesses.
8. The Plaintiff’s business’ success, in large part, depends upon the relationships developed
with its clients and customers.
9. Plaintiff depends on referrals from its customers, clientele, and suppliers.
10. Plaintiff is able to compete effectively in the business and has developed an excellent
reputation in the community because it has developed and maintained a body of confidential
and proprietary information as to its techniques, methods of operation, and clientele, in which
should not be used to compete against said Plaintiff’s business.
11. On or about June 8, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant Rodrigues executed a “Contractor
Engagement Letter” (hereinafter “the Contract”) attached herein as Exhibit A.
12. Pursuant to the Non-competition provision contained in the Contract, Defendant Rodrigues is
prohibited from “directly or indirectly, as employee, owner, sole proprietor, partner, director,
member, consultant, agent, founder, co-venturer, independent contractor, or otherwise, solely
or jointly with others, engage in any business that is in competition with the business of MD
Roofing within the following geographic area: HORRY AND GEORGETOWN COUNTIES”
for one and a half years after termination of the Contract.
13. Pursuant to the Non-solicitation provision contained in the Contract, Defendant Rodrigues is
prohibited from soliciting, diverting, or attempting to solicit or divert, any individual or
Page 3 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917
entity, including without limitation customers, potential customers, or employees, which he
came to know by way of his relationship with Plaintiff.
14. Furthermore, the Contract requires Defendant Rodrigues to notify any competing company
of the aforementioned provisions within the Contract.
15. Defendant Rodrigues terminated his relationship with Plaintiff on or about September 11,
2023.
16. Subsequent to the termination of the relationship, Plaintiff became aware of Defendant
Rodrigues’ new working relationship with Defendant Brazen, a business that directly
competes against Plaintiff.
17. Defendant Rodrigues has utilized confidential information and trade secrets during his
employment with Brazen to solicit employees and customers from Plaintiff’s business.
18. Defendant Brazen has notice of Defendant Rodrigues’ obligations under the Contract.
19. Defendant Brazen has utilized confidential information and trade secrets obtained during
Defendant Rodrigues’ relationship with Plaintiff to solicit employees and customers from
Plaintiff’s business.
20. The Defendants’ breach of the Contract is intentional, malicious, and in complete disregard
of the rights of Plaintiffs.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendants have used and will continue to use proprietary and
confidential information and trade secrets of the Plaintiff in furtherance of their operations.
22. Defendants have used the confidential and propriety information of Plaintiff for their
personal benefit at the Plaintiff’s detriment.
23. Pursuant to the Contract, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.
Page 4 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract – Defendant Rodrigues)
24. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
25. Plaintiff and Defendant Rodrigues entered into a valid and binding contract whereas Plaintiff
would supply Defendant with certain resources in exchange for Defendant procuring clients
for Plaintiff.
26. Defendant Rodrigues has breached several provisions included within the Contract,
including without limitation the Non-solicitation and Non-competition provisions.
27. Due to Defendant Rodrigues’ breach, Plaintiff has suffered actual, consequential, and
resulting damages in an amount to be determined by a trier of fact.
28. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the Contract.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Interference with a Contract – All Defendants)
29. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
30. Defendant Brazen intentionally hired Defendant Rodrigues for the purpose of competing
against Plaintiff.
31. Defendant Brazen intentionally used its agent, employee, and/or contractor Defendant
Rodrigues to solicit clients and employees of Plaintiff.
32. Defendant Brazen knew, or should have known, that Defendant Rodrigues had certain duties
and obligations pursuant to the Contract.
33. Defendant Brazen did, in fact, know about the Contract before retaining Defendant
Rodrigues as an agent, employee, and/or contractor.
Page 5 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917
34. Defendant Brazen intentionally interfered with the Contract to their benefit and to the
intentional damage/injury of the Plaintiff.
35. Defendant Rodrigues knew or should have known about active contracts between Plaintiff
and Plaintiff’s customers.
36. Defendant Rodrigues intentionally interfered with those contracts to the benefit of
Defendants and to the detriment of Plaintiff.
37. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and punitive damages.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Civil Conspiracy – All Defendants)
38. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
39. The Defendants conspired together for the purpose of injuring the Plaintiff, which caused
and continues to cause Plaintiff to suffer general and special damages.
40. As a result of Defendants combining together to cause injury to Plaintiff, not only has
Plaintiff suffered financial damages, but it has also suffered injury to its business reputation,
loss of its trade secrets, loss of its customer database, and other proprietary information.
41. Plaintiff is entitled to special damages to compensate for loss profits and damages resulting
from injury to its reputation, loss of trade secrets and proprietary information. Plaintiff is
further entitled to punitive damages and attorney fees and costs.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive Relief)
42. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
43. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the damage done and being done by the
Defendants. It is foreseeable that Defendants will continue to harm the Plaintiff.
Page 6 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917
44. The Plaintiff’s loss of customers, injury to reputation, loss of proprietary information, loss
of trade secrets, and loss of customer database cannot be adequately and accurately valued.
45. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm, damage, and injury unless the Defendants are restrained
and enjoined.
46. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction
of this Court enjoining Defendants from:
a. Competing with the Plaintiff for a period of eighteen (18) months;
b. Contacting any customer, client, employee, agent, or other person associated with the
Plaintiff;
c. Using any proprietary and confidential information and trade secrets of the Plaintiff;
d. Committing any other act that would violate the Non-Disclosure Agreements.
47. Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed in the absence of injunctive relief.
48. A balance of the equities favors Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.
49. Plaintiff is entitled to an Order awarding temporary and permanent injunctive relief, as well
as attorney fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court inquiries into the matters set forth above, grant
Plaintiff’s requested preliminary and permanent injunction, grant judgment in Plaintiff’s favor
against Defendants for actual, consequential, and resulting damages, for costs, attorney’s fees,
punitive damages, and any other relief that this Court may deem just and proper.
[Signature on Following Page]
Page 7 of 8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917
Respectfully submitted,
WINLSOW LAW, LLC.
s/L. Shawn Sullivan
Thomas W. Winslow (S.C. Bar 73584)
L. Shawn Sullivan (S.C. Bar 78501)
11019 Ocean Hwy
Pawleys Island, SC 29585
T: (843) 357-9301
F: (843) 357-9303
tom@winslowlawyers.com
shawn@winslowlawyers.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
September 22, 2023
Pawleys Island, South Carolina
Page 8 of 8
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF HORRY ) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) ) MD Roofing and Coatings, LLC d/b/a MD ) C/A No. 2023-CP-26- Roofing, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) SUMMONS ) Christopher Rodrigues and Brazen ) Roofing, LLC, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) TO: THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein, a copy of which is hereby served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this Complaint upon the subscriber, at the address shown below, within 30 days after service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service, and if you fail to timely answer the Complaint, judgment by default or otherwise will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. WINSLOW LAW, LLC. By: s/L. Shawn Sullivan Thomas W. Winslow, Esq. (S.C. Bar 73584) L. Shawn Sullivan, Esq. (S.C. Bar 78501) 11019 Ocean Hwy Pawleys Island, SC 29585 T: (843) 357-9301 F: (843) 357-9303 tom@winslowlawyers.com shawn@winslowlawyers.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF September 22, 2023 Pawleys Island, South Carolina ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF HORRY ) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) MD Roofing and Coatings, LLC d/b/a ) MD Roofing, ) ) C/A: 2023-CP-26- ) Plaintiff, ) ) COMPLAINT v. ) ) Christopher Rodrigues and ) Brazen Roofing, LLC, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ____________________________________) The Plaintiff, MD Roofing and Coatings, LLC d/b/a MD Roofing (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), brings this Complaint against Christopher Rodrigues and Brazen Roofing, LLC (hereinafter “Defendants”), based upon the allegations set forth below. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of South Carolina. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Christopher Rodrigues (hereinafter “Rodrigues”) is an adult individual resident of Horry County, South Carolina. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Brazen Roofing, LLC (hereinafter “Brazen”) is a limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of South Carolina. 4. At all times relevant hereto, all of the events complained of occurred in Horry County, State of South Carolina. 5. Upon information and belief, this Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the issues set forth in this case and personal jurisdiction over the parties. Page 2 of 8 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917 FACTS 6. Plaintiff is a Roofing business - repairing, constructing, and removing roofs, siding, gutters, and coatings. 7. Plaintiff provides goods and services to both residential homeowners and commercial businesses. 8. The Plaintiff’s business’ success, in large part, depends upon the relationships developed with its clients and customers. 9. Plaintiff depends on referrals from its customers, clientele, and suppliers. 10. Plaintiff is able to compete effectively in the business and has developed an excellent reputation in the community because it has developed and maintained a body of confidential and proprietary information as to its techniques, methods of operation, and clientele, in which should not be used to compete against said Plaintiff’s business. 11. On or about June 8, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant Rodrigues executed a “Contractor Engagement Letter” (hereinafter “the Contract”) attached herein as Exhibit A. 12. Pursuant to the Non-competition provision contained in the Contract, Defendant Rodrigues is prohibited from “directly or indirectly, as employee, owner, sole proprietor, partner, director, member, consultant, agent, founder, co-venturer, independent contractor, or otherwise, solely or jointly with others, engage in any business that is in competition with the business of MD Roofing within the following geographic area: HORRY AND GEORGETOWN COUNTIES” for one and a half years after termination of the Contract. 13. Pursuant to the Non-solicitation provision contained in the Contract, Defendant Rodrigues is prohibited from soliciting, diverting, or attempting to solicit or divert, any individual or Page 3 of 8 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917 entity, including without limitation customers, potential customers, or employees, which he came to know by way of his relationship with Plaintiff. 14. Furthermore, the Contract requires Defendant Rodrigues to notify any competing company of the aforementioned provisions within the Contract. 15. Defendant Rodrigues terminated his relationship with Plaintiff on or about September 11, 2023. 16. Subsequent to the termination of the relationship, Plaintiff became aware of Defendant Rodrigues’ new working relationship with Defendant Brazen, a business that directly competes against Plaintiff. 17. Defendant Rodrigues has utilized confidential information and trade secrets during his employment with Brazen to solicit employees and customers from Plaintiff’s business. 18. Defendant Brazen has notice of Defendant Rodrigues’ obligations under the Contract. 19. Defendant Brazen has utilized confidential information and trade secrets obtained during Defendant Rodrigues’ relationship with Plaintiff to solicit employees and customers from Plaintiff’s business. 20. The Defendants’ breach of the Contract is intentional, malicious, and in complete disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendants have used and will continue to use proprietary and confidential information and trade secrets of the Plaintiff in furtherance of their operations. 22. Defendants have used the confidential and propriety information of Plaintiff for their personal benefit at the Plaintiff’s detriment. 23. Pursuant to the Contract, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Page 4 of 8 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917 FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract – Defendant Rodrigues) 24. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 25. Plaintiff and Defendant Rodrigues entered into a valid and binding contract whereas Plaintiff would supply Defendant with certain resources in exchange for Defendant procuring clients for Plaintiff. 26. Defendant Rodrigues has breached several provisions included within the Contract, including without limitation the Non-solicitation and Non-competition provisions. 27. Due to Defendant Rodrigues’ breach, Plaintiff has suffered actual, consequential, and resulting damages in an amount to be determined by a trier of fact. 28. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the Contract. FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Interference with a Contract – All Defendants) 29. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 30. Defendant Brazen intentionally hired Defendant Rodrigues for the purpose of competing against Plaintiff. 31. Defendant Brazen intentionally used its agent, employee, and/or contractor Defendant Rodrigues to solicit clients and employees of Plaintiff. 32. Defendant Brazen knew, or should have known, that Defendant Rodrigues had certain duties and obligations pursuant to the Contract. 33. Defendant Brazen did, in fact, know about the Contract before retaining Defendant Rodrigues as an agent, employee, and/or contractor. Page 5 of 8 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917 34. Defendant Brazen intentionally interfered with the Contract to their benefit and to the intentional damage/injury of the Plaintiff. 35. Defendant Rodrigues knew or should have known about active contracts between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s customers. 36. Defendant Rodrigues intentionally interfered with those contracts to the benefit of Defendants and to the detriment of Plaintiff. 37. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and punitive damages. FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Civil Conspiracy – All Defendants) 38. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 39. The Defendants conspired together for the purpose of injuring the Plaintiff, which caused and continues to cause Plaintiff to suffer general and special damages. 40. As a result of Defendants combining together to cause injury to Plaintiff, not only has Plaintiff suffered financial damages, but it has also suffered injury to its business reputation, loss of its trade secrets, loss of its customer database, and other proprietary information. 41. Plaintiff is entitled to special damages to compensate for loss profits and damages resulting from injury to its reputation, loss of trade secrets and proprietary information. Plaintiff is further entitled to punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive Relief) 42. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 43. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the damage done and being done by the Defendants. It is foreseeable that Defendants will continue to harm the Plaintiff. Page 6 of 8 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917 44. The Plaintiff’s loss of customers, injury to reputation, loss of proprietary information, loss of trade secrets, and loss of customer database cannot be adequately and accurately valued. 45. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm, damage, and injury unless the Defendants are restrained and enjoined. 46. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction of this Court enjoining Defendants from: a. Competing with the Plaintiff for a period of eighteen (18) months; b. Contacting any customer, client, employee, agent, or other person associated with the Plaintiff; c. Using any proprietary and confidential information and trade secrets of the Plaintiff; d. Committing any other act that would violate the Non-Disclosure Agreements. 47. Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed in the absence of injunctive relief. 48. A balance of the equities favors Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. 49. Plaintiff is entitled to an Order awarding temporary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as attorney fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court inquiries into the matters set forth above, grant Plaintiff’s requested preliminary and permanent injunction, grant judgment in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendants for actual, consequential, and resulting damages, for costs, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and any other relief that this Court may deem just and proper. [Signature on Following Page] Page 7 of 8 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Sep 22 11:29 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605917 Respectfully submitted, WINLSOW LAW, LLC. s/L. Shawn Sullivan Thomas W. Winslow (S.C. Bar 73584) L. Shawn Sullivan (S.C. Bar 78501) 11019 Ocean Hwy Pawleys Island, SC 29585 T: (843) 357-9301 F: (843) 357-9303 tom@winslowlawyers.com shawn@winslowlawyers.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF September 22, 2023 Pawleys Island, South Carolina Page 8 of 8