ACCXX COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. ENIGMACOM NETWORKS, INC., DOMINIC LICATTA, CLAY REICHE, CHRISTOPHER NEWBURY

Outcome: case dismissed

Description: Description According to Party: This lawsuit was instituted by the Plaintiff, ACCXX COMMUNICATIONS (AC). AC was a Delaware company and a registered FL foreign corporation. Its primary purpose was long distance telephone service. Michael Conway was the Managing Member of AC. He also owned and operated another company called THE BOX. The defendants were employed by AC to do work for THE BOX. THE BOX marketed a service invented by Conway called “accurate message delivery” or “controlled message delivery,” also known in the telecom industry as turbo call. Conway invested a significant sum into invention, development and marketing of the Turbo Call. To market the product Conway hired the defendants. Defendant Licata was an IT manager. Defendant Reiche was employed as a senior software engineer developer. Defendant Newbury was in charge of sales. Both Licata and Reiche executed an employee Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreements with Conway. The Plaintiff stated that Defendant Licata gained entry to the Conway home and removed personal and intellectual property. Also while in employment Defendant Licata had authority to use his Employer’s credit card for business purposes. However, Licata made unauthorized purchases for which he never reimbursed his employer Conway. Additionally the defendants appropriated and concealed Plaintiff’s equipment. Furthermore, the defendants have stolen intellectual property from AC, specifically the “Turbo Call.” The Plaintiff requested the court to grant a Writ of Replevin and for the Defendant to deliver the property. The Plaintiff stated the property was being wrongfully detained by the defendants. The defendants came into possession of the property by the unauthorized purchasing of the merchandise with Plaintiff’s credit card and through a conspiracy to appropriate the Plaintiff’s property and cause the Plaintiff harm. The Plaintiff demanded judgment for (1) immediate possession of the wrongfully appropriated property; (2) for money damages; (3) for lost profits as a result of the unlawful detention; (4) for repair costs to the above-described property; (5) for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred; (6) for any equitable relief the court would deem appropriate; (7) for trial by jury. Plaintiff’s cause of action was for Writ of Replevin, Injunction, Fraud, Civil Racketeering, Civil Conspiracy, Quantum Meruit and Breach of Contract. The judge ordered the clerk to issue a prejudgment Writ of Replevin. Afterwards the Plaintiff filed a notice for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.