throbber
Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: _______________
`
`R2 Medical Clinic, P.C., a Colorado Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Daniel Lann, M.D., an Individual,
`Denver Stretch Institute, Inc. d/b/a Denver Sports Recovery, a Colorado Corporation,
`Katie McConnell, an Individual,
`David Raday, Jr., an Individual
`Optimization Clinics, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Corporation and
`
`Does 1 through 10,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R2 Medical Clinic (
`
`
`
`), by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby
`
`submits its Verified Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order
`
`Permanent Injunctive Relief Complaint
`
`against Defendants Daniel Lann, M.D.
`
`,
`
`Denver Stretch Institute, Inc. d/b/a Denver Sports Recovery
`
`, Katie McConnell
`
`(McConnell), David Raday, Jr.
`
`, Optimization Clinics, LLC,1 and Does 1through 10
`
`Defendant
`
`, and states as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Optimization Clinic, LLC, is a corporation owned and operated by Raday that conducted business with R2. Any
`reference to Raday shall also be a reference to Optimization Clinic, LLC.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 20
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`While working for R2, Raday and McConnell conspired with Lann, DSR, Optimization
`
`Clinics, LLC, and Does 1 -
`
`relationships and
`
`patient
`
`those patients, which R2 has spent
`
`significant resources developing, including investing in computer software systems to store
`
`confidential patient information that is not known to the public and paying compensation to Raday
`
`and McConnell for their work with R2. R2, through its contractual relationship with Raday and
`
`McConnell,
`
` scheduling patient appointments,
`
`s, including its HubSpot, a patient retention
`
`management system, and Simple Practice, an electronic medical records management facility,
`
`which together store patient medical information. These computer systems
`
`secret and confidential patient information including paperwork, lab results, medical charts and
`
`notes, patient medications, upcoming appointments, phone tracking consultations, record review,
`
`treatment plans, and patient email contacts.
`
`Raday and McConnell voluntarily terminated their contractual relationships with R2 and,
`
`afterwards, although they are not medical doctors and cannot provide medical treatment to patients
`
`without supervision from a medical doctor, each performed medical procedures on
`
`Erik Natkin, D.O.
`
`developed a relationship with Lann, DSR, Optimization Clinics, LLC, and Does 1 -
`
`patients, consistent with the treatment plan R2 developed for those patients
`
`,
`
`patients,
`
`computer systems. Raday and McConnell exceeded their authorized use when they accessed those
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 20
`
`R2 computer systems and have used and are using R2 patient information, in conjunction with
`
`Lann, Optimization Clinics, LLC, DSR and Does 1-
`
`.
`
`Raday and McConnell, each previously signed
`
`the leases for the buildings where R2 had its Arvada and Greeley clinics and after terminating their
`
`contractual relationship with R2, they demanded that R2 leave the clinics within three (3) days,
`
`despite R2 having paid rent for both clinic locations for well over one year.
`
`Raday and McConnell later retracted their demands that R2 leave within three (3) days and
`
`allowed R2 to remain in the clinics for the month of April because R2 had already paid rent.
`
`However, Raday and McConnell tried to pay the rent for the month of April so that a new provider
`
` in the same
`
`clinics. Raday subsequently allowed R2 access to the Arvada, Colorado clinic, but McConnell
`
`refuses --
`
` -- to provide R2 full access to the Greeley,
`
`Colorado clinic, in essence locking R2 out of the Greeley, Colorado clinic and prohibiting R2
`
`from physically accessing the medical equipment, controlled substances and its physical patient
`
`files contained in the clinic. Since the beginning of April, R2 was able to contact six (6) patients
`
`to schedule appointments in the Greeley clinic for medical visits and/or to pick up medication but
`
`had to cancel those appointments
`
`Those patients have not re-scheduled their appointments with R2 and presumably have established
`
`care with Defendants at their new clinic.
`
`appointments with R2, which was routinely done by Raday and McConnell as part of their work
`
`with R2. R2 has since made efforts to contact those patients in April 2022, who regularly scheduled
`
`monthly follow-up appoints with R2, the patients responded
`
`ies about setting their
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 20
`
`follow-up appoints with vague and noncommittal responses and some do not return R2 telephone
`
`calls about setting follow-up appointments. Other patients tell R2 that they are going with Raday
`
`and/or McConnell, despite neither of them being able to provide medical treatment without a
`
`medical doctor like Lann and DSR providing medical supervision for medical procedures they
`
`may perform.
`
`R2 brings claims against Defendants for violation of the Stored Communications Act, 18
`
`U.S.C. §§2701 et seq
`
` violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §1839
`
`D
`
`, violation of the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, C.R.S. §7-74-
`
`civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets, and tortious interference with business expectancy.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`1.
`
` This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including
`
`Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and is brought pursuant to the Stored
`
`U.S.C.
`
`D
`
`. The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`§§2701 et seq. and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18
`
`1343, and 1337.
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise to the instant claims occurred within
`
`this District and Defendants reside in this District.
`
`3.
`
`The Court has supplemental pendent jurisdiction for the Colorado Uniform Trade
`
`Secrets Act, C.R.S. §7-74-
`
`sappropriate trade secrets, and
`
`tortious interference with contract and business expectancy claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367
`
`because the violations of federal laws alleged are substantial and pendent causes of action derived
`
`from a common nucleus of operative facts.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 20
`
`The Parties
`
`4.
`
`R2 is a Colorado Professional Corporation organized in December 2020, with its
`
`principal place of business in Denver, Colorado and has additional clinics in Aurora, Greeley and
`
`Arvada. R2, through Dr. Erik Natkin, D.O., provides regeneration and rejuvenation treatments to
`
`optimize its patients health. Specifically, Plaintiff provides health optimization services including
`
`hormone therapies, nutrition and supplementation, among other anti-aging treatments.
`
`5.
`
`Lann is a licensed medical doctor affiliated with DSR and
`
`patients looking to stay in the game, optimize their health and stay active
`
`hormones, using a variety of means including bioidentical therapies, pellets, injections and/or
`
`2 Lann directly competes with Dr. Natkin and R2 for patients to whom they provide
`
`substantially similar medical care.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Denver Stretch Institute, Inc. d/b/a/ Denver Sports Recovery
`
` is
`
`a Colorado corporation with its primary place of business in Denver, Colorado. DSR claims that
`
`restore function so that anyone can experience injury recovery and improved physical
`
`3 DSR employs Lann as one of its medical providers. DSR is a competitor of R2
`
`as to the type of services they provide for their patients.
`
`7.
`
`Greeley, Colorado, and was contracted by Plaintiff as a Medical Assistant/Patient Liaison from
`
`January 2021 to April 2022.
`
`
`2 See https://www.denversportsrecovery.com/providers/daniel-lann-md-facep (last accessed April 15, 2022).
`3 See https://www.denversportsrecovery.com/about (last accessed April 15, 2022).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 20
`
`8.
`
`Colorado and was contracted by Plaintiff as a Medical Assistant/Patient Liaison from January 2021
`
`to April 2022.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Optimization Clinic, LLC, is a Colorado Limited Liability Company
`
`formed in November 2020. Upon information and belief, Optimization Clinic, LLC is wholly
`
`owned and operated by David Raday, Jr.
`
`10.
`
`Does 1 through 10, upon information and belief, may be medical doctors or medical
`
`provides who serve as medical supervisors for Defendants Raday and McConnell, and that directly
`
`compete with R2 for patients for whom they provide substantially similar medical treatments.4
`
`II.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`R2 contracted with Raday and McConnell, gave them access to its patients
`and computer systems, which contained
`confidential and private patient
`information, not known to the public
`
`
`
`11.
`
`In August 2020, Raday approached Dr. Natkin and requested that he take over as
`
`-employing clinic, ReliveMD, which ceased to exist, and R2
`
`contracted with Raday in January 2021.
`
`12.
`
`R2 also contracted with McConnell in January 2021 and she also previously worked
`
`for ReliveMD.
`
`13.
`
`R2 paid Raday and McConnell for their work at R2 and to assist with recruiting and
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`medicine also includes a clinic located at 1279 S. Cherokee St., Denver, CO
`which appears to be a competitor to R2, providing hormone therapy to patients, among other services. See
`https://www.facebook.com/people/Integrated-Medical-Arts/100032453426768 (Last accessed April 20, 2022).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 20
`
`14.
`
`Raday worked at
`
` clinics in Arvada, Aurora and occasionally Denver and
`
`McConnell worked at the Greeley and Arvada clinic locations. Both signed personally for the
`
`leases of the Arvada and Greeley clinics.
`
`15.
`
`Raday and McConnell became the
`
`primary contacts for
`
` patients, which included answering simple questions, scheduling
`
`appointments, performing lab draws and therapeutic phlebotomies and refilling and distributing
`
`medication (including controlled substances such as testosterone). Raday and McConnell called
`
`R2 patients, setting their next appointment
`
`computer systems to ensure
`
`accurate patient information was updated. R2 gave Raday and McConnell access to use two
`
`separate computer facilities which Plaintiff utilizes in its business: 1) HubSpot, a client retention
`
`management system used for marketing, tracking e-mail messages, tracking conversations
`
`between staff, assigning tasks to one another, and distribution of treatment plans that are emailed
`
`to the patient; and 2)
`
`medical information was stored including labs, charts, medical notes and information regarding
`
`medications and all patient demographic information including, but not limited to, address, phone
`
`numbers, email.
`
`16.
`
`R2 ensures the information contained in the two (2) computer systems remains
`
`confidential due to the value to the practice by not being known publicly and because the R2 patient
`
`medical information contained in those systems are protected health information.
`
`17.
`
`R2 utilizes the computer systems and the information contained therein in the
`
`practice of medicine for its patients, which includes prescribing testosterone and other controlled
`
`substances that are used in interstate or foreign commerce.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 20
`
`18.
`
`R2 also uses an app through which Raday and McConnell were supposed to make
`
`phone number. Raday and McConnell were only authorized to make calls with their mobile phones
`
`using the app, not directly contacting patients.
`
`19.
`
`R2 had a regular procedure its employees followed when patients would come into
`
`the clinic for either appointments or to pick up medication. Prior to the patient departing the clinic,
`
`the medical assistant or other employee interacting with the patient (generally Raday and
`
`McConnell in the Arvada and Greeley clinics), would set a follow-up appointment for the patient
`
`for the next month. The follow-up appointments were to review lab results with Dr. Natkin, draw
`
`blood to conduct lab tests, pick up medication or to discuss their treatment plans.
`
`20.
`
`Throughout 2021, at the end of each
`
`full with patient appointments made the month prior by Raday, McConnell and other employees.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants Raday and McConnell utilized the two computer facilities, Hub Spot
`
`and Simple Practice, when setting up those
`
`Defendants Raday and McConnell Conspired to
`C.
`patients, misappropriate R2
`patients begin treating with Lann, DSR and Does 1 through 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`ood will with its
`
`22.
`
`In early March 2022, Dr. Natkin had a phone conversation with Defendant Raday
`
`and advised him that R2
`
` in
`
`clinics on a regular basis.
`
`wanted to be in the clinics.
`
`23.
`
`Throughout the month of March 2022,
`
`future patient
`
`appointments for the following month were not scheduled by Raday or McConnell as
`
`expectation of their jobs and as they regularly did previously. When Dr. Natkin reviewed the clinic
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 20
`
`calendars in the end of March, the calendars for both the Arvada and Greeley clinics had no future
`
`appointments scheduled for the month of April. Defendants Raday and McConnell were
`
`purposefully not scheduling follow-up appointments so that they could take Plaintif
`
`with them to their new provider, Lann, DSR, and/or Does 1 through 10.
`
`24.
`
`patient without any interaction with a Medical Provider and formal treatment plan for the patient.
`
`McConnell also performed multiple therapeutic phlebotomies without tany labs, patient intake
`
`forms, consent forms or provider-
`
`
`
`25.
`
`On March 29, 2022, Raday requested a meeting with Dr. Natkin which he set for
`
`April 1, 2022. Dr. Natkin was not aware of the purpose of the meeting and was surprised when
`
`both Raday and McConnell appeared at the meeting. Raday and McConnell advised Dr. Natkin
`
`of their resignation from R2 during that meeting.
`
`26.
`
`Raday advised Dr. Natkin that Raday was working with his father and a family
`
`friend on their own clinic. McConnell affirmed that she was going to work with Raday in that
`
`clinic.
`
`27.
`
`that he performed work for R2 was April 1, 2022, and
`
`
`
`28. When Dr. Natkin realized his patients did not have appropriate follow-up
`
`appointments scheduled, he and/or his staff contacted them to set up appointments that should have
`
`already been scheduled by Raday and McConnell
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 20
`
`staff were evasive or ambivalent
`
`about setting up future appointments.
`
`29.
`
`At least one other patient failed to show up for her appointment at R2
`
`when Dr. Natkin inquired, he discovered that Lann had prescribed the same medication for that
`
`patient that she had taken while a patient of R2, which was part of the confidential treatment plan
`
`created by R2, only days after the patient missed the R2 appointment.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants Raday and McConnell, as the main points of contact for patients, were
`
`aware of how to access and confiscate
`
` regimens, medical appointments,
`
`blood tests and treatment plans and upon information and belief, were able to easily use that
`
`Lann, DSR and/or Does 1 through 10.
`
`31.
`
`facilities when they obtained patient contact information, treatment plans, medication and
`
`appointment regimens to take with them to Lann and his clinic, DSR and/or Does 1 through 10.
`
`D.
`Raday and McConnell conspired to deny R2 full access to the Greeley clinic, where
`monthly.
`
`
`32. When Raday resigned, he told R2 to vacate the Arvada clinic over a weekend and
`
`to be out by Monday, April 4, 2022. Dr. Natkin advised this was impossible as he had to have
`
`time to locate another clinic facility and move all of the equipment.
`
`33. McConnell also told R2 to vacate the Greeley clinic over a weekend and be out by
`
`Monday, April 4, 2022. She eventually changed her mind and decided he could stay until the end
`
`of April, but she refused to provide Dr. Natkin with access to the Greeley clinic, insisting that she
`
`had to get permission from the landlord to provide Dr. Natkin with the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 20
`
`and alarm access code to the building. McConnell still has not provided Dr. Natkin access to his
`
`clinic in Greeley, which contains testosterone, a controlled substance.
`
`34.
`
`R2 was able to contact six (6) patients to re-schedule their appointments in the
`
`Greeley clinic but had to cancel those appointments because R2 had no access to the Greeley clinic
`
`
`
`35. While McConnell has allowed R2 to remain in the Greeley clinic through the end
`
`of May, her refusal to provide Dr. Natkin the key and security system access code to the building
`
`is obstructing his ability to conduct patient appointments, medication pick-ups and to monitor the
`
`controlled substances kept at that location.
`
`36.
`
` making it seem like R2 simply closed its doors without
`
`notifying its patients. Even if patients show up to the Greeley Clinic, R2 cannot get into the clinic
`
`to treat them because McConnell has locked the clinic, and it essentially appears as if R2 is no
`
`longer operating its Greeley clinic. Defendants have and continue to interfere with
`
`
`
`relationship with Dr. Natkin, which took substantial time, effort and resources to cultivate.
`
`Defendants have also caus
`
` to either delay receiving treatment and/or
`
`medication from R2 or seek out similar services from another doctor such as Lann.
`
`37.
`
`she alone had f
`
` trade secrets, but was to use the information only for R2, not another clinic or for
`
`their own personal benefit.
`
`38.
`
`
`
`11
`
`.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 20
`
`E.
`
`
`39.
`
`Defendants have caused R2 irreparable harm to the good will R2 built with
`its patients
`relationships and expectancies with its patients.
`
`As a result of Defendant
`
`-up appointments for
`
`the month of April 2022, R2 has suffered and will continue to suffer significant irreparable harm.
`
`40.
`
`business model depended upon following patients closely through their course
`
`of treatment including frequent follow-up appointments with Medical Providers Dr. Natkin and
`
` to ensure their treatment is appropriate. In addition, most patients are
`
`scheduled for monthly medication pick-ups and labs to draw blood. Most patients had a monthly
`
`appointment at the clinic.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants schemed to take patients with them and locking R2 out of the Greeley clinic,
`
`Defendants ensured that
`
` business for the month of April would be nearly non-existent for the
`
`Greeley and Arvada clinics.
`
`42.
`
` Without having appropriate follow-up with their established provider, R2,
`
`Defendants ensured that
`
`patients would establish care with a new provider, Lann, DSR and/or
`
`Does 1 through 10, with whom Raday and McConnell are now associated.
`
`III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Violation of the Stored Communications Act
`(Against Defendants Raday and McConnell)
`
`R2 incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`R2 utilizes HubSpot as a facility through which electronic communication services
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`are provided. HubSpot sends electronic mail to
`
`patients including pertinent health
`
`information such as treatment plans.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 20
`
`45.
`
`Defendants Raday and McConnell were only authorized to use HubSpot and Simple
`
`Practice to follow R2
`
`set follow-up appointments for them.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants Raday and McConnell exceeded their authority to access
`
`computer facilities when they utilized the information contained therein to entice
`
`patients
`
`Does 1 through 10.
`
` new employer, Lann and DSR and/or
`
`47.
`
`Raday and McConnell violated 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a)(2) when they intentionally
`
`exceeded their authority to use
`
` computer facilities for purposes other than to schedule
`
`appointments with R2.
`
`48.
`
`R2 has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §1839
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`R2 incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendants have violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §1839)
`
`
`
` medical
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`D
`
`practice.
`
`51.
`
`The DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3) defines a trade secret as:
`
`All forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic,
`or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations,
`program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques,
`processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible,
`and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically,
`electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 20
`
`(A)
`The owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such
`information secret and
`
`The information derives independent economic value, actual or potential,
`from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable
`through proper means by another person who can obtain economic value
`from the disclosure or use of the information
`
`The information contained in the HubSpot and Simple Practice systems qualifies
`
`52.
`
`as a trade secret because it includes business information in the form of patient details, treatment
`
`plans, and medical notes that derive their own economic value as they are not generally known or
`
`ascertainable by another person not authorized by R2 to access the information.
`
`53.
`
`The treatment plans contained in R2
`
`assessment of patient medical needs and individualizes the services R2 offers. Those plans
`
`included specific medication recommendations, frequency of follow-up, periodic blood draws and
`
`other recommended procedures that all have their own economic value.
`
`54.
`
`R2 has taken measures to ensure the confidentiality of the information in the
`
`HubSpot and Simple Practice systems by limiting access to the systems to individuals who work
`
`for Plaintiff and by only allowing those authorized users to utilize the information to set future
`
`
`
`55.
`
` information, including but not limited to, treatment plans, prescriptions, lab reports and
`
`contact information to solicit patients to establish care with Lann, DSR and/or Does 1 through 10.
`
`56.
`
`As a direct and proximate
`
`DTSA, Plaintiff
`
`has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 20
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Violation of the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, C.R.S. §7-74-
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Colorado defines a trade secret as,
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`The whole or any portion or phase of a scientific or technical information, design,
`process, procedure, formula, improvement, confidential business or financial
`information, listing of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, or other
`information relating to any business or profession which is secret and of value.
`
`secret from becoming available to persons other than those selected by the owner
`to have access thereto for limited purposes.5
`
`The two systems R2 utilizes clearly both contain trade secrets as they not only
`
`59.
`
`contain basic contact information of
`
`s patients, but also treatment plans, progress notes and
`
`other medical data specific to
`
`patients. R2 keeps those trade secrets confidential as R2 limits
`
`those individuals who have access to the systems and limits the reasons for which they can access
`
`the information contained in those systems.
`
`60.
`
`Defendants Raday and McConnell misappropriated
`
`trade secrets when they
`
`took information in the two systems and utilized them to contact
`
`patients in an effort to
`
`transfer their care to Defendant Lann, DSR and/or Does 1 through 10..
`
`61.
`
`Lann and DSR are using
`
`trade secrets to poach
`
`patients without the
`
`express or implied consent of R2 and Defendants knew that Raday and McConnell improperly
`
`obtained R2
`
`
`
`62.
`
`As a direct and proximate
`
`R2 has suffered and
`
`continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`
`5 C.R.S. §7-74-102(4) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 20
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Civil Conspiracy to Misappropriate Trade Secrets
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`R2 incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`of the minds; 3) on an object to be accomplished or a course of action to be followed; 4) one or
`
`more overt unlawful acts are performed; and
`
`6
`
`65.
`
`Here, Raday and McConnell, acted in concert by not scheduling
`
`patients for
`
`follow-up appointments for the month of April 2022 and beyond, and instead used the information
`
` patients, including but not limited to contact information, treatment plans, medications to
`
` new employer, Lann, DSR and/or Does 1 through 10.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants also acted in concert to decide to lock R2 out of the Greeley clinic so
`
`R2 could not treat its Greeley, Colorado patients in that clinic; making it necessary for patients to
`
`seek treatment from another provider
`
`and Raday made sure that any R2 patients began seeing the new provider, Lann
`
`67.
`
`and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Tortious Interference with Contract and Business Expectancy
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`68.
`
`
`6 Ziegler v. Inabata of Am., Inc. 316 F. Supp. 2d 908, 918. (D. Colo. 2004).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 20
`
`69.
`
`them to their new employer, Plaintiff
`
`eeley and Denver clinics had 30% growth.
`
`70.
`
`-patient relationship with
`
`monitor progress, distribute medication, and provide additional follow-up as needed to attain
`
`treatment goals.
`
`71.
`
`failing to follow protocol in setting up future appointments for the month of April and beyond and
`
`locking R2 out of the Greeley Colorado clinic.
`
`72.
`
`-long treatment
`
`regimens wherein they were closely monitored by Dr. Natkin.
`
`73.
`
`revenue and non-
`
`74.
`
`
`
`will continue to suffer damages due to interference with business expectancy.
`
`SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Accounting and Constructive Trust
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`As employees of R2, Raday and McConnell
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`systems, HubSpot and Simple Practice only in the course of completing their duties
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 20
`
`77.
`
`order to
`
`through 10.
`
`78.
`
`As a result of abusing their employment relationship with R2 by stealing its
`
`proprietary patient contact and treatment details, the revenue they and all
`
`Defendants acq
`
`79.
`
`
`
`through
`
`10, R2 has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff R2 Medical Clinic, P.C. respectfully requests that the Court
`
`enter judgment in its favor and against Defendants Raday, McConnell, Lann, DSR, Optimization
`
`Clinics, LLC, and Does 1 through 10 on Plaintiff s claims as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Grant a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
`
`against: Defendants David Raday, Jr., Katie McConnell, Daniel S. Lann, Denver
`
`Sports Recovery, Optimization Clinics, LLC and Does 1 through 10, as follows:
`
`1. Require Defendants to immediately provide R2 access to the Greeley
`
`Colorado clinic;
`
`2. Require Defendants to
`
`information, including but not limited to patient contact information,
`
`medical reports, treatment plans, lab tests and any other information they
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 20
`
`format.
`
`3.
`
`contact and/or treat any R2 patient;
`
`4. Require Defendants to provide a list of all R2 patients they contacted since
`
`March 15, 2022 to the date of the Temporary Restraining Order;
`
`5. Require Defendants to account for all income they received and/or billed to
`
`R2 patients who were treated since April 1, 2022, to the date of the
`
`Temporary Restraining Order and hold that money in a constructive trust
`
`bank account until this matter can be heard by the Court.
`
`B.
`
`Awarding Plaintiffs damages to the full extent proved to compensate for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`losses and continued losses resulting from Defendant misappropriation of
`
`;
`
`C.
`
`Awarding Plaintiff exemplary damages for Defendant
`
`fraudulent acts in willful
`
`determined at trial;
`
`D.
`
`Awarding Plaintiff its
`
`in violation C.R.S. § 7-74-104, to be
`
`18 U.S.C. §
`
`1836(b)(3)(D) and 18 U.S.C. §2707(b)(3) and any general and compensatory
`
`damages as proved; and
`
`E.
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`I, Dr. Erik Natkin, Owner of R2 Medical Clinic, Inc., swear and affirm under penalty
`of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that I have read the foregoing
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof to be true, except as to the
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01000-RM Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 20
`
`matters therein state to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters
`I believe them to be true.
`
`________________________________
`Dr. Erik Natkin, D.O.
`Owner, R2 Medical Clinic, P.C.
`
`04/25/22
`Dated: ________________
`
`25th
`Dated this ___ day of April, 2022.
`
`CAMPBELL LITIGATION, P.C.
`
`By: /s/Stacey A. Campbell
`Stacey A. Campbell
`Shana D. Velez
`1410 N. High Street
`Denver, Colorado 80218
`Tel: (303) 536-1833
`Email: stacey@campbell-litigation.com
` shana@campbell-litigation.com
` ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`20
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket