Preview
All othe!
For mo: i
Bationsd
= Wr Fi
era
Law Division Motion Section rus Case Mana jement Dates for CALENDARS (A,B,C,
VER Shreha genre Dikiatinnde heard via Zoom
toa = FE TROMEZ
altho CNL
i
be heard In Person.
0520
$g4906_SelectTab/12
ny
Court Date: 7/2/2024 oN ‘MIE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS FILED
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION 4/15/2024 12:00 AM
IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC, etal. CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
2024L003999
Calendar, N
27249117
2024L003999
EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC, etal lo.
CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET - CASE INITIATION
A Civil Action Cover Sheet - Case Initiation shall be filed with the
complaint in all civil actions. The information contained herein
is for administrative purposes only and cannot be introduced into
evidence. Please check the box in front of the appropriate case
type which best characterizes your action. Only one (1) case type
may be checked with this cover sheet.
Jury Demand Q Yes @No
-ERSONAL INJURY/WRONGFUL DEATH
CASE TYPES: (FILE STAMP)
Q 027 Motor Vehicle
COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
Q 040 Medical Malpractice
CASE TYPES:
0 047 Asbestos
@ 002 Breach of Contract
QO 048 Dram Shop
Q 049 Product Liability
0070 Professional Malpractice
Q051 Construction Injuries (other than legal or medical)
Fraud (other than legal or medical)
(including Structural Work Act, Road @o7l
Consumer Fraud
Construction Injuries Act and negligence) Q072
Q 073 Breach of Warranty
0052 Railroad/FELA
0053 Pediatric Lead Exposure Q074 Statutory Action
Q 061 Other Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Please specify below.**)
0 063 Intentional Tort
Q075 Other Commercial Litigation
QO 064 Miscellaneous Statutory Action (Please specify below.**)
(Please Speci Below**) Q076 Retaliatory Discharge
0 065 Premises Liability OTHER ACTIONS
0078 Fen-phen/Redux Litigation
Q 199 Silicone Implant CASE TYPES:
02062 Property Damage
TAX & MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIES 2066 Legal Malpractice
CASE TYPES: Q077 Libel/Slander
Q 007 Confessions of Judgment Q079 Petition for Qualified Orders
Q 008 Replevin 2084 Petition to Issue Subpoena
Q 009 Tax Q 100 Petition for Discovery
Q015 Condemnation +
Q017 Detinue
Q 029 Unemployment Compensation
QO031 Foreign Transcript Primary Email pcnabhani@ gmail.com
0 036 Administrative Review Action
0 085 Petition to Register Foreign Judgment Secondary Email:
Q 099 All Other Extraordinary Remedies
By PeterC. Nabhani Tertiary Email
(Attorney) (Pro Se)
Pro Se Only: OI have read and agree to the terms of the Clerk'sO ice Electronic Notice Policy and choose to opt in to electronic notice
form the Clerk’s Office for this case at this email address:
IRIS Y. MARTINEZ, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Page 1 of 1
FILED
4/15/2024 12:00 AM
IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY, IL
2024L003999
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION Calendar, N
BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC., )
and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Case No. 2024L003999
EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC;
DONALD DeRIDDER;
ARCHIE DeRIDDER;
BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B. J.
RAMOS LOGISTICS;
DCI CARTAGE, INC.;
DAVE TOBECK;
EDGAR MIRANDA;
HM TRANSPORT, LLC;
HUGO CALERON, d/b/a HC
TRANSPORTATION;
LADELL TRUCKING; and
MURRY L. WRIGHT;
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND OTHER RELIEF
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC, an Indiana
corporation, and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., an Illinois corporation, by and through their
Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for their Complaint against the Defendants, EVERLY & CO., an
Indiana corporation, DONALD DeRIDDER; ARCHIE DeRIDDER; BENEDICTO J. RAMOS,
d/b/a B. J. RAMOS LOGISTICS; DCI CARTAGE, INC.; DAVE TOBECK; HM TRANSPORT,
LLC; EDGAR MIRANDA; HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION; LADELL
TRUCKING, an Illinois corporation; and MURRY L, WRIGHT, state as follows:
Parties and Jurisdiction
1 That BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. (hereinafter “Transportation”) is an
Indiana limited liability company, licensed and authorized to do business in the County of Cook,
State of Illinois (or jointly as Plaintiffs).
2 That BRITES CARTAGE, LTD. (hereinafter “Cartage”) is an Illinois corporation,
licensed and authorized to do business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois (or jointly as
Plaintiffs).
3 That EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC (hereinafter “Everly”) is an Illinois
corporation, doing business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and was formed in February
2022.
4. That ARCHIE DeRIDDER (hereinafter “Archie”), based on information and
belief, is one of two members of Everly.
5 That DONALD DeRIDDER (hereinafter “Donald”), based on information and
belief, is one of two members of Everly.
6. That DAVE’S CARTAGE, INC. (hereinafter “DCI”) is an Indiana corporation,
licensed and authorized to do business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and was financed
in 2007.
7
That DAVID H. TOBECK (hereinafter “Tobeck”), based on information and
belief, is the sole shareholder of DCI.
8 That BENEDICT J. RAMOS (hereinafter “Ramos”) is an individual doing
business in the County of Cook, using the name BJ Ramos Logistics.
9 That HM Transport, LLC (hereinafter “HM”’) is an Illinois limited liability
company, and is licensed to do business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and was formed
in 2018.
10. That EDGAR MARTINEZ (hereinafter “Edgar’’), based on information and
belief, is the only member of HM.
11. That LADELL TRUCKING, INC. (hereinafter “Ladell”) is an Indiana
corporation, licensed and authorized to do business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and
was formed in 2014.
12. That MURRY L. WRIGHT (hereinafter “Wright’”’), based on information and
belief, is the only member of Ladell.
13. That Hugo Calderon (hereinafter “Calderon”) is doing business as HC
Transportation.
14. That both jurisdiction and venue are proper in the County of Cook, State of
Illinois.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
15. That “Cartage” and “Transportation” provide a substantial variety of services,
since approximately 1979 and those include, but are not limited to excavation, hauling, trucking,
repairs, maintenance, and related services at its various facilities.
16. That Donald, Archie, Tobeck, Ramos, Edgar and Wright, are all individuals that
were at one time or another during the previous twenty (20) years employed by the Brites entities
as either employees or independent contractors on its behalf.
17. That during and/or subsequent to leaving their respective affiliations with Brites,
the individual Defendants formed various entities for which they have been and continue to
provide the same and/or like-kind services as were performed while working on behalf of the
Brites entities.
18. That on or about May 1, 2002, Archie was hired by Brites Entities, as a Union
driver.
19. That subsequently, in or about January 2005, Archie’s son, Donald, was hired by
Brites Entities as a Union driver.
20. That Archie and Donald continued driving for Brites Entities, until 2016, when
Donald began training as a dispatcher and assistant to the majority member of transportation,
Robert Fox.
21. That on and after 2016, Donald was taught the inner workings at both
Transportation and Cartage, including but not limited to contracts, pricing, job strategy,
dispatching, managing and access to any and all of the confidential records, trade secrets and
related information to operate the day-to-day business of both Transportation and Cartage.
22. That at all times relevant hereto, from April 2022 until the present, the Plaintiffs’
gross income has been reduced approximately Fifty Percent (50%) from the preceding years.
23. That the remaining Defendants and/or their respective companies began doing
business with the Plaintiffs, as follows:
Name Year
(a) DCI Cartage/Dave TOBECK 2008
(b) BJ Ramos 2012
(c) HM Transport/Edgar Miranda 2018
(d) Hugo Calderon d/b/a 2017
(e) Ladell Trucking/Murry Wright 2002
24. That beginning in the summer of 2021, and until October 2021, Donald’s
employment obligations were not being provided to the Plaintiffs and he resigned his position on
or about October 5, 2021.
COUNT I
Breach of Contract
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count I of their
complaint against DONALD DeRIDDER, individually, states as follows:
1-11. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 24
preceding Count I, as though fully stated herein.
12. That, at all times relevant hereto, and in particular, from 2016 until October 2021,
Donald was intimately and actively engaged in client relations, management, dispatch, pricing
and the day-to-day management of the Plaintiffs, having been taught the inner workings and
been made available to all confidential information relating to the Plaintiffs’ business.
13. That, at all times relevant hereto, from 2016, Donald had a substantial salary and
attendant perks, as well as day-to-day communications with Plaintiffs’ drivers and more
importantly, its customers.
14. That in or about March 2016 Donald and Brites entered into an oral agreement, at
Brites facilities, at which time Robert Fox offered Donald an expansion of his then existing
employment to a management position, with an increase in salary to in excess of Eighty
Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00) with annual raises, and benefits, including insurance, a company
credit card, and later also a company phone. This employment agreement continued to
incorporate Brite’s work rules.
15. Donald accepted the offer verbally, and accepted the position and attendant salary
and perks.
16. Since the acceptance of the offer referred to in paragraph 14 above, Donald
became privy to the Plaintiffs’ confidential and proprietary information as to trade secrets,
customer information, bank accounts of the Plaintiffs and its principals, union contracts, pension
fund obligations and written agreements with its drivers, the agreement also provided for, and
Donald had, a fiduciary obligation to protect the aforesaid confidential and proprietary
information.
17. That subsequent to Donald resigning his position with Brites, he was so advised,
in writing, on or after October 5, 2021, by one of Plaintiff's attorneys, to which he replied, on or
about October 15, 2021, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibits
A and B).
18. That subsequent thereto, in February 2022, based on information and belief,
Donald and Archie formed EVERLY, for the primary purpose of pursuing the customers and
business of the Plaintiffs’.
19. That soon thereafter on or about April 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs discovered that
Donald breached his oral agreement with the Plaintiffs, in that he initiated and entered into like-
kind agreements! with customers and other drivers that had written agreements with Brites or
referred them to Plaintiffs’ competitors.
20. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety of information, particularly the
pricing of the Plaintiffs’ were, are and continue to be breached by Donald (and others)..
21. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in
excess of $50,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against this Defendant, DONALD DeRIDDER, for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs.
COUNT II
Breach of Contract
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count II of their
complaint against DAVE’S CARTAGE, INC. and DAVID TOBECK, individually, state as
follows:
1-7. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count
las though fully stated herein.
8 That on or about February 18, 2008, Transportation, DCI and Tobeck entered into
a written agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and ma.de a part hereof as Exhibit C.
9 That the agreement provided for transportation brokerage services.
10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, DCI and Tobeck’s agreement was
automatically renewed, for periods of one year, subsequent to being executed (See Exhibit C,
para. 1).
11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, DCI indemnified Transportation,
from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see Exhibit C, para. 6).
+ It is presently unknown if the agreements with any or all third parties were oral, in writing, or both.
5
12. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, DCI and Tobeck agreed to the
following:
“11. Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation.
Neither party may disclose the terms of this Agreement to a third party without
the written consent of the other party except (1) as required by law or regulation;
(2) disclosure is made to its parent, subsidiary or affiliate company; or (3) to
facilitate rating or auditing of transportation charges by an authorized agent and
such agent agrees to keep the terms of the Agreement confidential. CARRIER
will not solicit traffic from any shipper, consignor, consignee or customer of
BROKER where (1) the availability of such traffic first became known to
CARRIER as a result of BROKER’s efforts, or (2) the traffic of the shipper,
consignor, consignee or Customer of BROKER was first tendered to CARRIER,
by BROKER. If CARRIER breaches this Agreement and directly or indirectly
solicits traffic from customers of BROKER and obtains traffic from such
customers during the term of this Agreement or for twelve (12) months
thereafter, CARRIER shall be obligated to pay BROKER, for a period of fifteen
(15) months thereafter, a sales commission in the amount of thirty-five percent
(35%) of the transportation revenue resulting from traffic transported by
CARRIER for the Customer, and CARRIER shall provide BROKER with all
documentation requested by BROKER to verify its transportation revenue.
12. Sub-Contract Prohibition.
CARRIER specifically agrees that all freight tendered to it by BROKER shall be
transported on equipment operated only under the authority of CARRIER, and
that CARRIER shall not in any manner sub-contract, broker, or in any other
form, arrange for the freight to be transported by a third party without the prior
written consent of BROKER.”
13. That DCI has violated the terms of this agreement, and in particular, paragraphs
11 and 12, as set forth in the preceding paragraph, by working for Everly doing work for an
entity known as Hanson, beginning in June 2021.
14. That in April 2022, Tobeck left his position with Brites.
15. That subsequent to April 2022 (and/or prior thereto) DCI breached its agreement
by providing services via Donald, Archie, Everly, or others, to the former customers of Brites or
its competitors.
16. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety of information, particularly the
pricing of the Plaintiffs were, are, and continue to be breached.
17. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in
excess of $50,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against this Defendant, DAVE’S CARTAGE, INC, and DAVID TOBECK. for an amount in
excess of $50,000, plus costs.
COUNT Il
Breach of Contract
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count III of their
complaint against BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J. RAMOS LOGISTICS, state as follows:
1-6. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count I
unts as though fully stated herein.
7
That on or about September 1, 2017, Transportation and Ramos entered into a
written agreement, a copy of which is Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D.
8 That the agreement provided for Transportation brokerage services and equipment
leasing.
9 That this agreement was never terminated by the parties.
10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Ramos indemnified Transportation,
from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see Exhibit D, paras. 14.1
to 14.5)
11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Ramos agreed to the following:
“24. CONFIDENTIALITY AND TRADE SECRETS
24.1 Protection of Confidential Matters.
Contractor acknowledges that any list of Carrier’s Customers is a valuable,
special, and unique asset of the business of carrier. Contractor agrees that
during and after the term of this Agreement Contractor’s workers: (i) will not
disclose the list of Carrier’s Customers or any part thereof to any third party for
any reason without carrier’s prior written consent; (i) will preserve as
“Confidential Matters” all trade secrets, know-how and information relating to
carrier’s business, forms, processes, developments, sales and promotional
systems, prices and operations, which information may be obtained from tariffs,
contracts, freight bills, letters, reports, disclosures, reproductions, books,
records, or other contractors, and other sources of any kind resulting from this
agreement; and (iii) will regard the Confidential Matters as the sole property of
carrier, and will not publish, discloser or disseminate the same to others without
the written consent of Carrier. In the event of any material breach or threatened
material breach by any of Contractor’s of this section, Carrier will be entitled to
an injunction, restraining Contractor’s workers from disclosing, in whole or in
part, the list of Carrier’s Customers, and all other Confidential Matters. Carrier
will be irreparably damaged if Contractor commits any material breach of this
provision. Accordingly, in addition to any other legal or equitable remedies that
may be available to Carrier, Contractor agrees that Carrier will be able to seek
and obtain immediate injunctive relief in the form ofa temporary restraining
order without notice preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction against
contractor’s workers to enforce this confidentiality provision and that carrier
will not be required to post any bond or other security and will not be required to
demonstrate any actual injury or damage to obtain injunctive relief from the
courts. Nothing in this section should be construed as prohibiting Carrier from
pursuing any remedies available to Carrier at law or in equity for the material
breach including the recovery of monetary damages from Contractor.”
24.2 Notice Required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)
To the extent the Confidential Matters constitute "trade secrets" under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1839(3), Carrier provides the following notice to Contractor pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1833(b )(3 ): An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable
under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret
that is made in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official,
either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney, solely for the purpose of reporting
or investigating a suspected violation of law; or is made in a complaint or other
document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under
seal. An individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation for reporting a suspected
violation of law may disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual
and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, if the individual
files any document containing the trade secret under seal, and does not disclose
the trade secret, except pursuant to court order.”
12. That in or about April 2022, Ramos ceased working for Brites, and violated the
terms of the agreement with Brites, in particular, paragraphs 24.1 and 24.2, as set forth in the
preceding paragraph, by performing work via Donald, Archie, Everly, and/or other third parties,
to the former customers of Brites an/or its competitors. utilizing Brites’ confidential and
proprietary information, and solicitation other Brites brokers and owner-operators to perform
services for Everly.
13. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety information, particularly the pricing
of the Plaintiffs’ were, are and continue to be breached.
14. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in
excess of $50,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against this Defendant, BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J RAMOS LOGISTICS, for an
amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs.
COUNT IV
Breach of Contract
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count IV of their
complaint against HM TRANSPORT, LLC state as follows:
1-6. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 9, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count I
as though fully stated herein.
7
That on or about April 2, 2018, Transportation entered into a written agreement
with HM, a copy of which is Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit E.
8 That the agreement provided for Transportation brokerage services and equipment
leasing.
9 That this agreement was never terminated by the parties.
10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, HM’s indemnified Transportation,
from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see Exhibit E, para. 24).
11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, HM agreed to the following:
“24. CONFIDENTIALITY AND TRADE SECRETS
24.1 Protection of Confidential Matters.
Contractor acknowledges that any list of Carrier’s Customers is a valuable,
special, and unique asset of the business of carrier. Contractor agrees that
during and after the term of this Agreement Contractor’s workers: (i) will not
disclose the list of Carrier’s Customers or any part thereof to any third party for
any reason without carrier’s prior written consent; (i) will preserve as
“Confidential Matters” all trade secrets, know-how and information relating to
carrier’s business, forms, processes, developments, sales and promotional
systems, prices and operations, which information may be obtained from tariffs,
contracts, freight bills, letters, reports, disclosures, reproductions, books,
records, or other contractors, and other sources of any kind resulting from this
agreement; and (iii) will regard the Confidential Matters as the sole property of
carrier, and will not publish, discloser or disseminate the same to others without
the written consent of Carrier. In the event of any material breach or threatened
material breach by any of Contractor’s of this section, Carrier will be entitled to
an injunction, restraining Contractor’s workers from disclosing, in whole or in
part, the list of Carrier’s Customers, and all other Confidential Matters. Carrier
will be irreparably damaged if Contractor commits any material breach of this
provision. Accordingly, in addition to any other legal or equitable remedies that
may be available to Carrier, Contractor agrees that Carrier will be able to seek
and obtain immediate injunctive relief in the form ofa temporary restraining
order without notice preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction against
contractor’s workers to enforce this confidentiality provision and that carrier
will not be required to post any bond or other security and will not be required to
demonstrate any actual injury or damage to obtain injunctive relief from the
courts. Nothing in this section should be construed as prohibiting Carrier from
pursuing any remedies available to Carrier at law or in equity for the material
breach including the recovery of monetary damages from Contractor.”
24.2 Notice Required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)
To the extent the Confidential Matters constitute "trade secrets" under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1839(3), Carrier provides the following notice to Contractor pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1833(b )(3 ): An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable
under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret
that is made in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official,
either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney, solely for the purpose of reporting
or investigating a suspected violation of law; or is made in a complaint or other
document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under
seal. An individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation for reporting a suspected
violation of law may disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual
and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, if the individual
files any document containing the trade secret under seal, and does not disclose
the trade secret, except pursuant to court order.”
13. That in or about April 2023, HM ceased working for Brites, and violated the
terms of the agreement with Brites, in particular, paragraphs 24.1 and 24.2, as set forth in the
preceding paragraph, by performing work via Donald, Archie, Everly, and/or other third parties,
to the former customers of Brites an/or its competitors. utilizing Brites’ confidential and
proprietary information.
14. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety information, particularly the pricing
of the Plaintiffs’ were, are and continue to be breached.
15. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in
excess of $50,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against this Defendant, HM TRANSPORT, LLC, for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs.
COUNT V
Breach of Contract
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count V of their
complaint against HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION, state as follows:
10
1-6. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 13, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count
las though fully stated herein.
7
That on or about May 1, 2017, Transportation entered into a written agreement
with Calderon, a copy of which is Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit F.
8 That the agreement provided for Transportation brokerage services.
9 That this agreement was never terminated by the parties.
10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Calderon indemnified
Transportation, from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see
Exhibit F, paras. 11, 12, and 13).
11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Calderon agreed to the following:
“12. Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation. Unless otherwise set forth in
Appendix A, neither party may disclose the terms of this Agreement to a third
party without the written consent of the other party, except (1) as required by
law or regulation; (2) disclosure is made to its parent, subsidiary or affiliate
company; or (3) to facilitate rating or auditing of transportation charges by an
authorized agent and such agent agrees to keep the terms of the Agreement
confidential. CARRIER will not accept traffic either directly or indirectly from
any shipper, consignor, consignee or customer of BROKER where: (1) the
availability of such traffic first became known to CARRIER asa result of
BROKER’s efforts; or (2) the traffic of the shipper, consignor, consignee or
customer of BROKER was first tendered to CARRIER by BROKER. If
CARRIER breaches this Agreement and moves shipments obtained from such
parties during the term of this Agreement or for twelve (12) months thereafter
without utilizing the services of BROKER, CARRIER shall be obligated to pay
BROKER, for a period of fifteen (15) months thereafter, commissions in the
amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the transportation revenue resulting from
traffic transported in violation of this provision, and CARRIER shall provide
BROKER with all documentation requested by BROKER to verify such
transportation revenue. CARRIER shall not utilize BROKER’s or the
Customer’s name or identity in any advertising or promotional communications
without written confirmation of BROKER consent.
13. Sub-Contract Prohibition. CARRIER specifically agrees that all
freight tendered to it by BROKER shall be transported on equipment operated
only under the authority of CARRIER, and that CARRIER shall not in any
manner sub-contract, broker, or in any other form arrange for the freight to be
transported by a third party without the prior written consent of BROKER. In
the event that CARRIER breaches this provision, CARRIER shall remain
directly liable to BROKER as if CARRIER transported such freight under its
own authority in accordance with this provision, and shall further hold harmless
and indemnify BROKER from any and all loss, liability, damage, claim, fine,
cost or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or in any
11
way related to the use of any subcontractor in violation of this provision
regardless of whether arising from the conduct or omissions of CARRIER, the
subcontractor, or any other third party. If CARRIER in any manner sub-
contracts, brokers, or otherwise arranges for freight to be transported by a third
party, in addition to any other rights and remedies available to BROKER,
BROKER may, in its sole discretion, pay the underlying carrier directly, which
payment will relieve BROKER of any and all payment obligations to CARRIER
with respect to such load.”
12. That Calderon in or about April 2022, ceased working for Brites, and violated the
terms of the agreement with Brites, in particular, paragraph 12, as set forth in the preceding
paragraph, by performing work via Donald, Archie, Everly, and/or other third parties, to the
former customers of Brites an/or its competitors. utilizing Brites’ confidential and proprietary
information.
13. That prior to ceasing work for Brites, in or about April 2022, on information and
belief, Calderon also violated the parties’ agreement, in particular paragraph 13, by sub-
contracting work from third-parties, in particular, Everly.
14. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety information, particularly the pricing
of the Plaintiffs were, are and continue to be breached.
15. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in
excess of $50,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against this Defendant, HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION, for an amount in
excess of $50,000, plus costs.
COUNT VI
Breach of Contract
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count VI of their
complaint against LADELL TRUCKING, INC. state as follows:
1-6. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 11, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count
las though fully stated herein.
7
That on or about June 5, 2017, Ladell entered into a written agreement, a copy of
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit G.
8 That the agreement, included, but was not limited to, a provision providing for
Transportation to refer brokerage services to Ladell.
9 That this agreement was never terminated by the parties.
12
10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Ladell indemnified Transportation,
from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see Exhibit F, pars. 11,
12, and 13).
11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Ladell agreed to the following:
“12. Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation. Unless otherwise set forth in
Appendix A, neither party may disclose the terms of this Agreement to a third
party without the written consent of the other party, except (1) as required by
law or regulation; (2) disclosure is made to its parent, subsidiary or affiliate
company; or (3) to facilitate rating or auditing of transportation charges by an
authorized agent and such agent agrees to keep the terms of the Agreement
confidential. CARRIER will not accept traffic either directly or indirectly from
any shipper, consignor, consignee or customer of BROKER where: (1) the
availability of such traffic first became known to CARRIER asa result of
BROKER’s efforts; or (2) the traffic of the shipper, consignor, consignee or
customer of BROKER was first tendered to CARRIER by BROKER. If
CARRIER breaches this Agreement and moves shipments obtained from such
parties during the term of this Agreement or for twelve (12) months thereafter
without utilizing the services of BROKER, CARRIER shall be obligated to pay
BROKER, for a period of fifteen (15) months thereafter, commissions in the
amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the transportation revenue resulting from
traffic transported in violation of this provision, and CARRIER shall provide
BROKER with all documentation requested by BROKER to verify such
transportation revenue. CARRIER shall not utilize BROKER’s or the
Customer’s name or identity in any advertising or promotional communications
without written confirmation of BROKER consent.
13. Sub-Contract Prohibition. CARRIER specifically agrees that all
freight tendered to it by BROKER shall be transported on equipment operated
only under the authority of CARRIER, and that CARRIER shall not in any
manner sub-contract, broker, or in any other form arrange for the freight to be
transported by a third party without the prior written consent of BROKER. In
the event that CARRIER breaches this provision, CARRIER shall remain
directly liable to BROKER as if CARRIER transported such freight under its
own authority in accordance with this provision, and shall further hold harmless
and indemnify BROKER from any and all loss, liability, damage, claim, fine,
cost or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or in any
way related to the use of any subcontractor in violation of this provision
regardless of whether arising from the conduct or omissions of CARRIER, the
subcontractor, or any other third party. If CARRIER in any manner sub-
contracts, brokers, or otherwise arranges for freight to be transported by a third
party, in addition to any other rights and remedies available to BROKER,
BROKER may, in its sole discretion, pay the underlying carrier directly, which
payment will relieve BROKER of any and all payment obligations to CARRIER
with respect to such load.”
13
12. That in or about April 2022, Ladell ceased working for Brites, and violated the
terms of the agreement with Brites, in particular, paragraph 12, as set forth in the preceding
paragraph, by performing work via Donald, Archie, Everly, and/or other third parties, to the
former customers of Brites and/or its competitors. utilizing Brites’
confidential and proprietary information.
13. That prior to ceasing work for Brites, in or about April 2022, on information and
belief, Ladell also violated the parties’ agreement, in particular paragraph 13, by sub-contracting
work from third-parties, in particular, Everly.
14. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety information, particularly the pricing
of the Plaintiffs were, are and continue to be breached.
15. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in
excess of $50,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against this Defendant, LADELL TRUCKING, INC., for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus
costs.
COUNT VII
Interference With a Contract
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count VII of their
complaint against EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC; DONALD DeRIDDER; ARCHIE
DeRIDDER; BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J. RAMOS LOGISTICS; DAVE’S CARTAGE,
INC; HM TRANSPORT, LLC; HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION; and
LADELL TRUCKING, INC., state as follows:
1-22. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the Facts Common to All Counts as though fully stated
herein.
23. That on or about March 16, 2018, Transportation and Cartage, entered into two
written agreements with one of its customers, HANSON MATERIAL SERVICE, INC.
(hereinafter “Hanson”), copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibits
Hand JD).
24. That Defendants had actual knowledge of this agreement as a substantial amount
of Plaintiffs’ day-to-day business, was by, and/or on behalf of, Hanson and others.
25. That the Defendants named in this Count, intentionally or unjustifiably induced
the Plaintiffs’ clients, including, but not limited to Hanson and others, such as Kamkade, RJR
14
Trucking, and Olthoff, Inc., and ARS Transportation Company to breach their agreements with
the Plaintiffs, by communicating with, and soliciting business from, Brites’ customers.
26. That in certain instances, insurance for the Defendants named in this Count, was
procured and received by the Defendants under Plaintiffs’ master policies.
27. The Defendants named in this Count, through their wrongful acts stated above,
have caused Brites’ customers to breach their agreements with Plaintiffs, causing damages in
excess of $50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against these Defendants, EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC; DONALD DeRIDDER;
ARCHIE DeRIDDER; BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J. RAMOS LOGISTICS; DAVE’S
CARTAGE, INC; HM TRANSPORT, LLC; HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC
TRANSPORTATION; and LADELL TRUCKING, INC. for an amount in excess of $50,000,
plus costs.
COUNT VII
Interference With a Business
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count VIII of their
complaint against EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC; DONALD DeRIDDER; ARCHIE
DeRIDDER; BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J. RAMOS LOGISTICS; DAVE’S CARTAGE,
INC; HM TRANSPORT, LLC; HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION; and
LADELL TRUCKING, INC. state as follows:
1-23. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of Count VII, as though fully stated herein.
24. That the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES
CARTAGE, LTD., based on its business relations with its customers, including but not limited to
Hanson, and others, such as Kamkade, RJR Trucking, and Olthoff, Inc., ARS Transportation
Company, had a reasonable expectation of continuing its ongoing business relationships with all
of its customers.
25. That the Defendants named in this Count, all had actual knowledge
Preview
All othe! For mo: i Bationsd = Wr Fi era Law Division Motion Section rus Case Mana jement Dates for CALENDARS (A,B,C, VER Shreha genre Dikiatinnde heard via Zoom toa = FE TROMEZ altho CNL i be heard In Person. 0520 $g4906_SelectTab/12 ny Court Date: 7/2/2024 oN ‘MIE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS FILED COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION 4/15/2024 12:00 AM IRIS Y. MARTINEZ BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC, etal. CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY, IL 2024L003999 Calendar, N 27249117 2024L003999 EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC, etal lo. CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET - CASE INITIATION A Civil Action Cover Sheet - Case Initiation shall be filed with the complaint in all civil actions. The information contained herein is for administrative purposes only and cannot be introduced into evidence. Please check the box in front of the appropriate case type which best characterizes your action. Only one (1) case type may be checked with this cover sheet. Jury Demand Q Yes @No -ERSONAL INJURY/WRONGFUL DEATH CASE TYPES: (FILE STAMP) Q 027 Motor Vehicle COMMERCIAL LITIGATION Q 040 Medical Malpractice CASE TYPES: 0 047 Asbestos @ 002 Breach of Contract QO 048 Dram Shop Q 049 Product Liability 0070 Professional Malpractice Q051 Construction Injuries (other than legal or medical) Fraud (other than legal or medical) (including Structural Work Act, Road @o7l Consumer Fraud Construction Injuries Act and negligence) Q072 Q 073 Breach of Warranty 0052 Railroad/FELA 0053 Pediatric Lead Exposure Q074 Statutory Action Q 061 Other Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (Please specify below.**) 0 063 Intentional Tort Q075 Other Commercial Litigation QO 064 Miscellaneous Statutory Action (Please specify below.**) (Please Speci Below**) Q076 Retaliatory Discharge 0 065 Premises Liability OTHER ACTIONS 0078 Fen-phen/Redux Litigation Q 199 Silicone Implant CASE TYPES: 02062 Property Damage TAX & MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIES 2066 Legal Malpractice CASE TYPES: Q077 Libel/Slander Q 007 Confessions of Judgment Q079 Petition for Qualified Orders Q 008 Replevin 2084 Petition to Issue Subpoena Q 009 Tax Q 100 Petition for Discovery Q015 Condemnation + Q017 Detinue Q 029 Unemployment Compensation QO031 Foreign Transcript Primary Email pcnabhani@ gmail.com 0 036 Administrative Review Action 0 085 Petition to Register Foreign Judgment Secondary Email: Q 099 All Other Extraordinary Remedies By PeterC. Nabhani Tertiary Email (Attorney) (Pro Se) Pro Se Only: OI have read and agree to the terms of the Clerk'sO ice Electronic Notice Policy and choose to opt in to electronic notice form the Clerk’s Office for this case at this email address: IRIS Y. MARTINEZ, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Page 1 of 1 FILED 4/15/2024 12:00 AM IRIS Y. MARTINEZ CIRCUIT CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY, IL 2024L003999 COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION Calendar, N BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC., ) and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2024L003999 EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC; DONALD DeRIDDER; ARCHIE DeRIDDER; BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B. J. RAMOS LOGISTICS; DCI CARTAGE, INC.; DAVE TOBECK; EDGAR MIRANDA; HM TRANSPORT, LLC; HUGO CALERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION; LADELL TRUCKING; and MURRY L. WRIGHT; Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND OTHER RELIEF NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC, an Indiana corporation, and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., an Illinois corporation, by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for their Complaint against the Defendants, EVERLY & CO., an Indiana corporation, DONALD DeRIDDER; ARCHIE DeRIDDER; BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B. J. RAMOS LOGISTICS; DCI CARTAGE, INC.; DAVE TOBECK; HM TRANSPORT, LLC; EDGAR MIRANDA; HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION; LADELL TRUCKING, an Illinois corporation; and MURRY L, WRIGHT, state as follows: Parties and Jurisdiction 1 That BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. (hereinafter “Transportation”) is an Indiana limited liability company, licensed and authorized to do business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois (or jointly as Plaintiffs). 2 That BRITES CARTAGE, LTD. (hereinafter “Cartage”) is an Illinois corporation, licensed and authorized to do business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois (or jointly as Plaintiffs). 3 That EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC (hereinafter “Everly”) is an Illinois corporation, doing business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and was formed in February 2022. 4. That ARCHIE DeRIDDER (hereinafter “Archie”), based on information and belief, is one of two members of Everly. 5 That DONALD DeRIDDER (hereinafter “Donald”), based on information and belief, is one of two members of Everly. 6. That DAVE’S CARTAGE, INC. (hereinafter “DCI”) is an Indiana corporation, licensed and authorized to do business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and was financed in 2007. 7 That DAVID H. TOBECK (hereinafter “Tobeck”), based on information and belief, is the sole shareholder of DCI. 8 That BENEDICT J. RAMOS (hereinafter “Ramos”) is an individual doing business in the County of Cook, using the name BJ Ramos Logistics. 9 That HM Transport, LLC (hereinafter “HM”’) is an Illinois limited liability company, and is licensed to do business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and was formed in 2018. 10. That EDGAR MARTINEZ (hereinafter “Edgar’’), based on information and belief, is the only member of HM. 11. That LADELL TRUCKING, INC. (hereinafter “Ladell”) is an Indiana corporation, licensed and authorized to do business in the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and was formed in 2014. 12. That MURRY L. WRIGHT (hereinafter “Wright’”’), based on information and belief, is the only member of Ladell. 13. That Hugo Calderon (hereinafter “Calderon”) is doing business as HC Transportation. 14. That both jurisdiction and venue are proper in the County of Cook, State of Illinois. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 15. That “Cartage” and “Transportation” provide a substantial variety of services, since approximately 1979 and those include, but are not limited to excavation, hauling, trucking, repairs, maintenance, and related services at its various facilities. 16. That Donald, Archie, Tobeck, Ramos, Edgar and Wright, are all individuals that were at one time or another during the previous twenty (20) years employed by the Brites entities as either employees or independent contractors on its behalf. 17. That during and/or subsequent to leaving their respective affiliations with Brites, the individual Defendants formed various entities for which they have been and continue to provide the same and/or like-kind services as were performed while working on behalf of the Brites entities. 18. That on or about May 1, 2002, Archie was hired by Brites Entities, as a Union driver. 19. That subsequently, in or about January 2005, Archie’s son, Donald, was hired by Brites Entities as a Union driver. 20. That Archie and Donald continued driving for Brites Entities, until 2016, when Donald began training as a dispatcher and assistant to the majority member of transportation, Robert Fox. 21. That on and after 2016, Donald was taught the inner workings at both Transportation and Cartage, including but not limited to contracts, pricing, job strategy, dispatching, managing and access to any and all of the confidential records, trade secrets and related information to operate the day-to-day business of both Transportation and Cartage. 22. That at all times relevant hereto, from April 2022 until the present, the Plaintiffs’ gross income has been reduced approximately Fifty Percent (50%) from the preceding years. 23. That the remaining Defendants and/or their respective companies began doing business with the Plaintiffs, as follows: Name Year (a) DCI Cartage/Dave TOBECK 2008 (b) BJ Ramos 2012 (c) HM Transport/Edgar Miranda 2018 (d) Hugo Calderon d/b/a 2017 (e) Ladell Trucking/Murry Wright 2002 24. That beginning in the summer of 2021, and until October 2021, Donald’s employment obligations were not being provided to the Plaintiffs and he resigned his position on or about October 5, 2021. COUNT I Breach of Contract NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count I of their complaint against DONALD DeRIDDER, individually, states as follows: 1-11. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 24 preceding Count I, as though fully stated herein. 12. That, at all times relevant hereto, and in particular, from 2016 until October 2021, Donald was intimately and actively engaged in client relations, management, dispatch, pricing and the day-to-day management of the Plaintiffs, having been taught the inner workings and been made available to all confidential information relating to the Plaintiffs’ business. 13. That, at all times relevant hereto, from 2016, Donald had a substantial salary and attendant perks, as well as day-to-day communications with Plaintiffs’ drivers and more importantly, its customers. 14. That in or about March 2016 Donald and Brites entered into an oral agreement, at Brites facilities, at which time Robert Fox offered Donald an expansion of his then existing employment to a management position, with an increase in salary to in excess of Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00) with annual raises, and benefits, including insurance, a company credit card, and later also a company phone. This employment agreement continued to incorporate Brite’s work rules. 15. Donald accepted the offer verbally, and accepted the position and attendant salary and perks. 16. Since the acceptance of the offer referred to in paragraph 14 above, Donald became privy to the Plaintiffs’ confidential and proprietary information as to trade secrets, customer information, bank accounts of the Plaintiffs and its principals, union contracts, pension fund obligations and written agreements with its drivers, the agreement also provided for, and Donald had, a fiduciary obligation to protect the aforesaid confidential and proprietary information. 17. That subsequent to Donald resigning his position with Brites, he was so advised, in writing, on or after October 5, 2021, by one of Plaintiff's attorneys, to which he replied, on or about October 15, 2021, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibits A and B). 18. That subsequent thereto, in February 2022, based on information and belief, Donald and Archie formed EVERLY, for the primary purpose of pursuing the customers and business of the Plaintiffs’. 19. That soon thereafter on or about April 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs discovered that Donald breached his oral agreement with the Plaintiffs, in that he initiated and entered into like- kind agreements! with customers and other drivers that had written agreements with Brites or referred them to Plaintiffs’ competitors. 20. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety of information, particularly the pricing of the Plaintiffs’ were, are and continue to be breached by Donald (and others).. 21. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in excess of $50,000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against this Defendant, DONALD DeRIDDER, for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs. COUNT II Breach of Contract NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count II of their complaint against DAVE’S CARTAGE, INC. and DAVID TOBECK, individually, state as follows: 1-7. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count las though fully stated herein. 8 That on or about February 18, 2008, Transportation, DCI and Tobeck entered into a written agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and ma.de a part hereof as Exhibit C. 9 That the agreement provided for transportation brokerage services. 10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, DCI and Tobeck’s agreement was automatically renewed, for periods of one year, subsequent to being executed (See Exhibit C, para. 1). 11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, DCI indemnified Transportation, from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see Exhibit C, para. 6). + It is presently unknown if the agreements with any or all third parties were oral, in writing, or both. 5 12. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, DCI and Tobeck agreed to the following: “11. Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation. Neither party may disclose the terms of this Agreement to a third party without the written consent of the other party except (1) as required by law or regulation; (2) disclosure is made to its parent, subsidiary or affiliate company; or (3) to facilitate rating or auditing of transportation charges by an authorized agent and such agent agrees to keep the terms of the Agreement confidential. CARRIER will not solicit traffic from any shipper, consignor, consignee or customer of BROKER where (1) the availability of such traffic first became known to CARRIER as a result of BROKER’s efforts, or (2) the traffic of the shipper, consignor, consignee or Customer of BROKER was first tendered to CARRIER, by BROKER. If CARRIER breaches this Agreement and directly or indirectly solicits traffic from customers of BROKER and obtains traffic from such customers during the term of this Agreement or for twelve (12) months thereafter, CARRIER shall be obligated to pay BROKER, for a period of fifteen (15) months thereafter, a sales commission in the amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the transportation revenue resulting from traffic transported by CARRIER for the Customer, and CARRIER shall provide BROKER with all documentation requested by BROKER to verify its transportation revenue. 12. Sub-Contract Prohibition. CARRIER specifically agrees that all freight tendered to it by BROKER shall be transported on equipment operated only under the authority of CARRIER, and that CARRIER shall not in any manner sub-contract, broker, or in any other form, arrange for the freight to be transported by a third party without the prior written consent of BROKER.” 13. That DCI has violated the terms of this agreement, and in particular, paragraphs 11 and 12, as set forth in the preceding paragraph, by working for Everly doing work for an entity known as Hanson, beginning in June 2021. 14. That in April 2022, Tobeck left his position with Brites. 15. That subsequent to April 2022 (and/or prior thereto) DCI breached its agreement by providing services via Donald, Archie, Everly, or others, to the former customers of Brites or its competitors. 16. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety of information, particularly the pricing of the Plaintiffs were, are, and continue to be breached. 17. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in excess of $50,000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against this Defendant, DAVE’S CARTAGE, INC, and DAVID TOBECK. for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs. COUNT Il Breach of Contract NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count III of their complaint against BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J. RAMOS LOGISTICS, state as follows: 1-6. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count I unts as though fully stated herein. 7 That on or about September 1, 2017, Transportation and Ramos entered into a written agreement, a copy of which is Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D. 8 That the agreement provided for Transportation brokerage services and equipment leasing. 9 That this agreement was never terminated by the parties. 10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Ramos indemnified Transportation, from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see Exhibit D, paras. 14.1 to 14.5) 11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Ramos agreed to the following: “24. CONFIDENTIALITY AND TRADE SECRETS 24.1 Protection of Confidential Matters. Contractor acknowledges that any list of Carrier’s Customers is a valuable, special, and unique asset of the business of carrier. Contractor agrees that during and after the term of this Agreement Contractor’s workers: (i) will not disclose the list of Carrier’s Customers or any part thereof to any third party for any reason without carrier’s prior written consent; (i) will preserve as “Confidential Matters” all trade secrets, know-how and information relating to carrier’s business, forms, processes, developments, sales and promotional systems, prices and operations, which information may be obtained from tariffs, contracts, freight bills, letters, reports, disclosures, reproductions, books, records, or other contractors, and other sources of any kind resulting from this agreement; and (iii) will regard the Confidential Matters as the sole property of carrier, and will not publish, discloser or disseminate the same to others without the written consent of Carrier. In the event of any material breach or threatened material breach by any of Contractor’s of this section, Carrier will be entitled to an injunction, restraining Contractor’s workers from disclosing, in whole or in part, the list of Carrier’s Customers, and all other Confidential Matters. Carrier will be irreparably damaged if Contractor commits any material breach of this provision. Accordingly, in addition to any other legal or equitable remedies that may be available to Carrier, Contractor agrees that Carrier will be able to seek and obtain immediate injunctive relief in the form ofa temporary restraining order without notice preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction against contractor’s workers to enforce this confidentiality provision and that carrier will not be required to post any bond or other security and will not be required to demonstrate any actual injury or damage to obtain injunctive relief from the courts. Nothing in this section should be construed as prohibiting Carrier from pursuing any remedies available to Carrier at law or in equity for the material breach including the recovery of monetary damages from Contractor.” 24.2 Notice Required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3) To the extent the Confidential Matters constitute "trade secrets" under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), Carrier provides the following notice to Contractor pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1833(b )(3 ): An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that is made in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney, solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal. An individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation for reporting a suspected violation of law may disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, if the individual files any document containing the trade secret under seal, and does not disclose the trade secret, except pursuant to court order.” 12. That in or about April 2022, Ramos ceased working for Brites, and violated the terms of the agreement with Brites, in particular, paragraphs 24.1 and 24.2, as set forth in the preceding paragraph, by performing work via Donald, Archie, Everly, and/or other third parties, to the former customers of Brites an/or its competitors. utilizing Brites’ confidential and proprietary information, and solicitation other Brites brokers and owner-operators to perform services for Everly. 13. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety information, particularly the pricing of the Plaintiffs’ were, are and continue to be breached. 14. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in excess of $50,000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against this Defendant, BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J RAMOS LOGISTICS, for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs. COUNT IV Breach of Contract NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count IV of their complaint against HM TRANSPORT, LLC state as follows: 1-6. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 9, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count I as though fully stated herein. 7 That on or about April 2, 2018, Transportation entered into a written agreement with HM, a copy of which is Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit E. 8 That the agreement provided for Transportation brokerage services and equipment leasing. 9 That this agreement was never terminated by the parties. 10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, HM’s indemnified Transportation, from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see Exhibit E, para. 24). 11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, HM agreed to the following: “24. CONFIDENTIALITY AND TRADE SECRETS 24.1 Protection of Confidential Matters. Contractor acknowledges that any list of Carrier’s Customers is a valuable, special, and unique asset of the business of carrier. Contractor agrees that during and after the term of this Agreement Contractor’s workers: (i) will not disclose the list of Carrier’s Customers or any part thereof to any third party for any reason without carrier’s prior written consent; (i) will preserve as “Confidential Matters” all trade secrets, know-how and information relating to carrier’s business, forms, processes, developments, sales and promotional systems, prices and operations, which information may be obtained from tariffs, contracts, freight bills, letters, reports, disclosures, reproductions, books, records, or other contractors, and other sources of any kind resulting from this agreement; and (iii) will regard the Confidential Matters as the sole property of carrier, and will not publish, discloser or disseminate the same to others without the written consent of Carrier. In the event of any material breach or threatened material breach by any of Contractor’s of this section, Carrier will be entitled to an injunction, restraining Contractor’s workers from disclosing, in whole or in part, the list of Carrier’s Customers, and all other Confidential Matters. Carrier will be irreparably damaged if Contractor commits any material breach of this provision. Accordingly, in addition to any other legal or equitable remedies that may be available to Carrier, Contractor agrees that Carrier will be able to seek and obtain immediate injunctive relief in the form ofa temporary restraining order without notice preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction against contractor’s workers to enforce this confidentiality provision and that carrier will not be required to post any bond or other security and will not be required to demonstrate any actual injury or damage to obtain injunctive relief from the courts. Nothing in this section should be construed as prohibiting Carrier from pursuing any remedies available to Carrier at law or in equity for the material breach including the recovery of monetary damages from Contractor.” 24.2 Notice Required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3) To the extent the Confidential Matters constitute "trade secrets" under 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), Carrier provides the following notice to Contractor pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1833(b )(3 ): An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that is made in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney, solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal. An individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation for reporting a suspected violation of law may disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, if the individual files any document containing the trade secret under seal, and does not disclose the trade secret, except pursuant to court order.” 13. That in or about April 2023, HM ceased working for Brites, and violated the terms of the agreement with Brites, in particular, paragraphs 24.1 and 24.2, as set forth in the preceding paragraph, by performing work via Donald, Archie, Everly, and/or other third parties, to the former customers of Brites an/or its competitors. utilizing Brites’ confidential and proprietary information. 14. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety information, particularly the pricing of the Plaintiffs’ were, are and continue to be breached. 15. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in excess of $50,000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against this Defendant, HM TRANSPORT, LLC, for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs. COUNT V Breach of Contract NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count V of their complaint against HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION, state as follows: 10 1-6. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 13, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count las though fully stated herein. 7 That on or about May 1, 2017, Transportation entered into a written agreement with Calderon, a copy of which is Attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit F. 8 That the agreement provided for Transportation brokerage services. 9 That this agreement was never terminated by the parties. 10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Calderon indemnified Transportation, from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see Exhibit F, paras. 11, 12, and 13). 11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Calderon agreed to the following: “12. Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation. Unless otherwise set forth in Appendix A, neither party may disclose the terms of this Agreement to a third party without the written consent of the other party, except (1) as required by law or regulation; (2) disclosure is made to its parent, subsidiary or affiliate company; or (3) to facilitate rating or auditing of transportation charges by an authorized agent and such agent agrees to keep the terms of the Agreement confidential. CARRIER will not accept traffic either directly or indirectly from any shipper, consignor, consignee or customer of BROKER where: (1) the availability of such traffic first became known to CARRIER asa result of BROKER’s efforts; or (2) the traffic of the shipper, consignor, consignee or customer of BROKER was first tendered to CARRIER by BROKER. If CARRIER breaches this Agreement and moves shipments obtained from such parties during the term of this Agreement or for twelve (12) months thereafter without utilizing the services of BROKER, CARRIER shall be obligated to pay BROKER, for a period of fifteen (15) months thereafter, commissions in the amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the transportation revenue resulting from traffic transported in violation of this provision, and CARRIER shall provide BROKER with all documentation requested by BROKER to verify such transportation revenue. CARRIER shall not utilize BROKER’s or the Customer’s name or identity in any advertising or promotional communications without written confirmation of BROKER consent. 13. Sub-Contract Prohibition. CARRIER specifically agrees that all freight tendered to it by BROKER shall be transported on equipment operated only under the authority of CARRIER, and that CARRIER shall not in any manner sub-contract, broker, or in any other form arrange for the freight to be transported by a third party without the prior written consent of BROKER. In the event that CARRIER breaches this provision, CARRIER shall remain directly liable to BROKER as if CARRIER transported such freight under its own authority in accordance with this provision, and shall further hold harmless and indemnify BROKER from any and all loss, liability, damage, claim, fine, cost or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or in any 11 way related to the use of any subcontractor in violation of this provision regardless of whether arising from the conduct or omissions of CARRIER, the subcontractor, or any other third party. If CARRIER in any manner sub- contracts, brokers, or otherwise arranges for freight to be transported by a third party, in addition to any other rights and remedies available to BROKER, BROKER may, in its sole discretion, pay the underlying carrier directly, which payment will relieve BROKER of any and all payment obligations to CARRIER with respect to such load.” 12. That Calderon in or about April 2022, ceased working for Brites, and violated the terms of the agreement with Brites, in particular, paragraph 12, as set forth in the preceding paragraph, by performing work via Donald, Archie, Everly, and/or other third parties, to the former customers of Brites an/or its competitors. utilizing Brites’ confidential and proprietary information. 13. That prior to ceasing work for Brites, in or about April 2022, on information and belief, Calderon also violated the parties’ agreement, in particular paragraph 13, by sub- contracting work from third-parties, in particular, Everly. 14. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety information, particularly the pricing of the Plaintiffs were, are and continue to be breached. 15. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in excess of $50,000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against this Defendant, HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION, for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs. COUNT VI Breach of Contract NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count VI of their complaint against LADELL TRUCKING, INC. state as follows: 1-6. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 11, 15, 16, and 17 preceding Count las though fully stated herein. 7 That on or about June 5, 2017, Ladell entered into a written agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit G. 8 That the agreement, included, but was not limited to, a provision providing for Transportation to refer brokerage services to Ladell. 9 That this agreement was never terminated by the parties. 12 10. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Ladell indemnified Transportation, from any losses, plus attorney’s fees, in the event of it being breached (see Exhibit F, pars. 11, 12, and 13). 11. That pursuant to the terms of this agreement, Ladell agreed to the following: “12. Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation. Unless otherwise set forth in Appendix A, neither party may disclose the terms of this Agreement to a third party without the written consent of the other party, except (1) as required by law or regulation; (2) disclosure is made to its parent, subsidiary or affiliate company; or (3) to facilitate rating or auditing of transportation charges by an authorized agent and such agent agrees to keep the terms of the Agreement confidential. CARRIER will not accept traffic either directly or indirectly from any shipper, consignor, consignee or customer of BROKER where: (1) the availability of such traffic first became known to CARRIER asa result of BROKER’s efforts; or (2) the traffic of the shipper, consignor, consignee or customer of BROKER was first tendered to CARRIER by BROKER. If CARRIER breaches this Agreement and moves shipments obtained from such parties during the term of this Agreement or for twelve (12) months thereafter without utilizing the services of BROKER, CARRIER shall be obligated to pay BROKER, for a period of fifteen (15) months thereafter, commissions in the amount of thirty-five percent (35%) of the transportation revenue resulting from traffic transported in violation of this provision, and CARRIER shall provide BROKER with all documentation requested by BROKER to verify such transportation revenue. CARRIER shall not utilize BROKER’s or the Customer’s name or identity in any advertising or promotional communications without written confirmation of BROKER consent. 13. Sub-Contract Prohibition. CARRIER specifically agrees that all freight tendered to it by BROKER shall be transported on equipment operated only under the authority of CARRIER, and that CARRIER shall not in any manner sub-contract, broker, or in any other form arrange for the freight to be transported by a third party without the prior written consent of BROKER. In the event that CARRIER breaches this provision, CARRIER shall remain directly liable to BROKER as if CARRIER transported such freight under its own authority in accordance with this provision, and shall further hold harmless and indemnify BROKER from any and all loss, liability, damage, claim, fine, cost or expense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or in any way related to the use of any subcontractor in violation of this provision regardless of whether arising from the conduct or omissions of CARRIER, the subcontractor, or any other third party. If CARRIER in any manner sub- contracts, brokers, or otherwise arranges for freight to be transported by a third party, in addition to any other rights and remedies available to BROKER, BROKER may, in its sole discretion, pay the underlying carrier directly, which payment will relieve BROKER of any and all payment obligations to CARRIER with respect to such load.” 13 12. That in or about April 2022, Ladell ceased working for Brites, and violated the terms of the agreement with Brites, in particular, paragraph 12, as set forth in the preceding paragraph, by performing work via Donald, Archie, Everly, and/or other third parties, to the former customers of Brites and/or its competitors. utilizing Brites’ confidential and proprietary information. 13. That prior to ceasing work for Brites, in or about April 2022, on information and belief, Ladell also violated the parties’ agreement, in particular paragraph 13, by sub-contracting work from third-parties, in particular, Everly. 14. That the agreement(s) to protect the propriety information, particularly the pricing of the Plaintiffs were, are and continue to be breached. 15. That as a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have been damaged, for sums in excess of $50,000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against this Defendant, LADELL TRUCKING, INC., for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs. COUNT VII Interference With a Contract NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count VII of their complaint against EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC; DONALD DeRIDDER; ARCHIE DeRIDDER; BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J. RAMOS LOGISTICS; DAVE’S CARTAGE, INC; HM TRANSPORT, LLC; HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION; and LADELL TRUCKING, INC., state as follows: 1-22. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the Facts Common to All Counts as though fully stated herein. 23. That on or about March 16, 2018, Transportation and Cartage, entered into two written agreements with one of its customers, HANSON MATERIAL SERVICE, INC. (hereinafter “Hanson”), copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibits Hand JD). 24. That Defendants had actual knowledge of this agreement as a substantial amount of Plaintiffs’ day-to-day business, was by, and/or on behalf of, Hanson and others. 25. That the Defendants named in this Count, intentionally or unjustifiably induced the Plaintiffs’ clients, including, but not limited to Hanson and others, such as Kamkade, RJR 14 Trucking, and Olthoff, Inc., and ARS Transportation Company to breach their agreements with the Plaintiffs, by communicating with, and soliciting business from, Brites’ customers. 26. That in certain instances, insurance for the Defendants named in this Count, was procured and received by the Defendants under Plaintiffs’ master policies. 27. The Defendants named in this Count, through their wrongful acts stated above, have caused Brites’ customers to breach their agreements with Plaintiffs, causing damages in excess of $50,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., and each of them, pray this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against these Defendants, EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC; DONALD DeRIDDER; ARCHIE DeRIDDER; BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J. RAMOS LOGISTICS; DAVE’S CARTAGE, INC; HM TRANSPORT, LLC; HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION; and LADELL TRUCKING, INC. for an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs. COUNT VII Interference With a Business NOW COME the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., by and through their Attorney, Peter Nabhani, and for Count VIII of their complaint against EVERLY & CO. TRANSPORT, LLC; DONALD DeRIDDER; ARCHIE DeRIDDER; BENEDICTO J. RAMOS, d/b/a B.J. RAMOS LOGISTICS; DAVE’S CARTAGE, INC; HM TRANSPORT, LLC; HUGO CALDERON, d/b/a HC TRANSPORTATION; and LADELL TRUCKING, INC. state as follows: 1-23. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of Count VII, as though fully stated herein. 24. That the Plaintiffs, BRITES TRANSPORTATION, LLC. and BRITES CARTAGE, LTD., based on its business relations with its customers, including but not limited to Hanson, and others, such as Kamkade, RJR Trucking, and Olthoff, Inc., ARS Transportation Company, had a reasonable expectation of continuing its ongoing business relationships with all of its customers. 25. That the Defendants named in this Count, all had actual knowledge