Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 1
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 1
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S):
`KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C.
`
`By: LANCE S. FORBES, ESQUIRE
`ATTY ID NO: 021132003
`
`SAMANTHA M. SPINELLI, ESQUIRE
`By:
`ATTY ID NO.: 126072015
`
`1040 KINGS HIGHWAY NORTH
`SUITE 600
`
`CHERRY HILL, NJ 08034
`856—667—3113 - Phone
`
`856—667-4003 - Fax
`
`File NO.: 996.81058
`___._____fl________________________fi
`
`CENTRAL JERSEY, CML,
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S):
`CENTRAL JERSEY CML, LLC
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`V .
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`TRENTON VICINAGE
`
`DOCKET NO.
`
`KAUSHIK PATEL, ASHWIN
`CHAUDHARY, DIPEN PATEL, YOGESH
`PATEL, VIPUL PATEL, GULU PURI,
`NILESH PATEL, DANNY SAPARIA,
`SURESH PATEL, ATUL PATEL; XYZ,
`
`JOHN
`1—5, ABC, LLC 1—5,
`CORP.
`DOES l—lO; AND JANE DOES 1—10,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`(Jury Trial Demanded)
`
`Plaintiff, Central Jersey CML, LLC ("CJ CML"), by and
`
`through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint
`
`against defendants, Kaushik Patel, Ashwin Chaudhary, Dipen Patel,
`
`Yogesh Patel, Vipul Patel, Gulu Puri, Nilesh Patel, Danny
`
`Saparia, Suresh Patel, Atul Patel; XYZ, Corp.
`
`1—5, ABC, LLC 1—5,
`
`John Does 1—10; and Jane Does 1—10 (collectively "Defendants");
`
`and in support thereof, aver as follows:
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 1
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S):
`KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C.
`
`By: LANCE S. FORBES, ESQUIRE
`ATTY ID NO: 021132003
`
`SAMANTHA M. SPINELLI, ESQUIRE
`By:
`ATTY ID NO.: 126072015
`
`1040 KINGS HIGHWAY NORTH
`SUITE 600
`
`CHERRY HILL, NJ 08034
`856—667—3113 - Phone
`
`856—667-4003 - Fax
`
`File NO.: 996.81058
`___._____fl________________________fi
`
`CENTRAL JERSEY, CML,
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S):
`CENTRAL JERSEY CML, LLC
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`V .
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`TRENTON VICINAGE
`
`DOCKET NO.
`
`KAUSHIK PATEL, ASHWIN
`CHAUDHARY, DIPEN PATEL, YOGESH
`PATEL, VIPUL PATEL, GULU PURI,
`NILESH PATEL, DANNY SAPARIA,
`SURESH PATEL, ATUL PATEL; XYZ,
`
`JOHN
`1—5, ABC, LLC 1—5,
`CORP.
`DOES l—lO; AND JANE DOES 1—10,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`(Jury Trial Demanded)
`
`Plaintiff, Central Jersey CML, LLC ("CJ CML"), by and
`
`through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint
`
`against defendants, Kaushik Patel, Ashwin Chaudhary, Dipen Patel,
`
`Yogesh Patel, Vipul Patel, Gulu Puri, Nilesh Patel, Danny
`
`Saparia, Suresh Patel, Atul Patel; XYZ, Corp.
`
`1—5, ABC, LLC 1—5,
`
`John Does 1—10; and Jane Does 1—10 (collectively "Defendants");
`
`and in support thereof, aver as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID: 2
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID: 2
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This is a complaint for treble damages and under the
`
`antitrust laws of the United States, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1 et seq.
`
`This court has jurisdiction over the action under 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 15, 22, 26 due to the result of defendants' violations of
`
`the Sherman Act
`
`(15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1, 2), and the Clayton Act
`
`(15
`
`U.S.C.
`
`§ 14).
`
`PARTIES
`
`The plaintiff, CJ CML,
`
`is a limited liability company
`
`organized and operating under the laws of the State of New
`
`Jersey, and organized for the purposes of operating a
`
`Central Manufacturing Location in the Trenton area (the
`
`location for the facility having been vetted and the sales
`
`process commenced to acquire the real property on which it
`
`would be situated — but terminated prior to closing due to
`
`the anti—competitive actions of the defendants).
`
`The plaintiff is in the business of management and
`
`operations of a baking facility which distributes product to
`
`various local Dunkin Donuts stores.
`
`Defendants, Kaushik Patel, Ashwin Chaudhary, Dipen Patel,
`
`Yogesh Patel, Vipul Patel, Gulu Puri, Nilesh Patel, Danny
`
`Saparia, Suresh Patel, Atul Patel are individuals and
`
`members possessing ownership interests in the SJ CML.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID: 3
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID: 3
`
`XYZ Corp.
`
`1—5 were, upon information and belief, business
`
`entities that conducted business with plaintiff, CJ CML
`
`and/or defendants.
`
`ABC, LLC 1—5 were, upon information and belief, business
`
`entities that conducted business with plaintiff, CJ CML
`
`and/or defendants.
`
`John Does 1-10 were, upon information and belief,
`
`individuals, and/or,
`
`the officers, directors, shareholders,
`
`employees, agents and/or assigns of the corporation(s)
`
`and/or limited liability companies that conducted business
`
`with plaintiff, CJ CML and/or defendants.
`
`Jane Does 1—10 were, upon information and belief,
`
`individuals, and/or,
`
`the officers, directors, shareholders,
`
`employees, agents and/or assigns of the corporation(s)
`
`and/or limited liability companies that conducted business
`
`with plaintiff, CJ CML and/or defendants.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Initial Startup of South Jersey CML, Relevant Market, Market
`Share and
`
`Power of the CJ CML Members
`
`10.
`
`The South Jersey CML, LLC ("SJ CML"),
`
`is a limited liability
`
`company organized and operating under the laws of the State
`
`of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located
`
`at 130 Benigno Blvd, Bellmahr, NJ 08031.
`
`11.
`
`The SJ CML is in the business of management and operations
`
`of a baking facility which distributes product to various
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID: 4
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID: 4
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Dunkin Donuts located in the general Bellmar, New Jersey
`
`area.
`
`The SJ, CML is a 53,000 square food bakery manufacturing
`
`plant that produces donuts and other bakery products for
`
`Dunkin Donuts stores.
`
`Although the SJ, CML exclusively deliver to Dunkin Donuts,
`
`Dunkin Brands has no ownership interest in the facility.
`
`Instead the members of the SJ CML are franchisees of Dunkin
`
`Brands.
`
`The South Jersey CML, LLC operates under an Approved Bakery
`
`Manufacturing Agreement,
`
`(ABMA) with Dunkin Brands. The ABMA
`
`is a third party manufacturing agreement with Dunkin Brands
`
`and is not a franchise agreement between both parties.
`
`Alexander McCourt,
`
`the principal of plaintiff, CJ CML, was
`
`hired by Dunkin Brands in July 2011 to be a Manufacturing
`
`Operations Manager with his markets covering from Northern
`
`Virginia up through the Lehigh Valley, PA and the Southern
`
`New Jersey Region up through Freehold, NJ.
`
`16.
`
`During his time of employment with Dunkin Brands, Mr.
`
`McCourt became acquainted with Saliesh Patel
`
`("Sam") and
`
`Paresh Patel
`
`("Paresh"),
`
`two members of the SJ CML who
`
`solicited Mr. McCourt's assistance in 2011 in helping them
`
`build a larger Central Manufacturing Location:
`
`the South
`
`Jersey CML.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID: 5
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID: 5
`
`l7.
`
`The purpose of the formation of the SJ CML was to service
`
`the 10 Dunkin Donut stores of Sam and Paresh and an
`
`additional 72 stores owed by other franchisees in the South
`
`Jersey market.
`
`l8.
`
`Over the next several years, Mr. McCourt helped guide the
`
`newly formed SJ CML and its' franchisees with 82 stores
`
`through the project development and approval process with
`
`Dunkin Brand.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`The SJ CML facility opened in July of 2014 with the first
`
`group of 27 stores that were receiving supply of product on
`
`the first day of operation.
`
`Throughout the following several months,
`
`the facility
`
`struggled to bring the remaining 55 stores on board.
`
`As the SJ CML continued to struggle,
`
`the SJ CML board of
`
`directors decided to recruit Mr. McCourt to take over the
`
`enterprise as it was operating at a loss of several hundred
`
`thousand dollars monthly.
`
`22.
`
`Mr. McCourt resigned his position with Dunkin Brands and
`
`assumed the role of Plant Manager/Company Business Manager
`
`at the SJ CML in the first week of November 2014, and over
`
`the next eighteen (18) months was able to add an additional
`
`100 stores bringing the supplied store total to over 185.
`
`23.
`
`Through his efforts, Mr. McCourt contributed to the success
`
`of the SJ CML by taking it from operating at a net loss to
`
`generating in excess of $200,000.00 per month in positive
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 6
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID: 6
`
`cash flow, or from an estimated $4 million in sales annually
`
`to in excess of $12 million.
`
`24.
`
`The SJ CML serviced an area of approximately 555 stores,
`
`with 150 + receiving their product from smaller kitchens and
`
`through other means.
`
`Of the remaining 400+ stores in the
`
`general Bellmahr geographic market area, SJ CML services in
`
`excess of 50% of those stores and, consequently, possesses
`
`significant market share and is able to exercise broad
`
`market power.
`
`The Central Jersey CML ("CJ CML") Conceptualization and Attempted
`Formation
`
`25. Alexander McCourt thereafter stepped down from his position
`
`with SJ CML in early 2016 with the intention of opening his
`
`own Central Manufacturing Facility,
`
`the CJ CML,
`
`in the
`
`Trenton region.
`
`26. While there would be a large market share in the Central
`
`Jersey region that the CJ CML could service that did not
`
`receive product from the SJ CML, it still would pose a
`
`competitive threat to the SJ CML.
`
`27.
`
`Through a business associate, Christopher Fifis, Mr. McCourt
`
`discovered an opportunity to apply for payroll tax credits
`
`with the New Jersey Economic Development Association (EDA).
`
`28. After several months of Due Diligence, Mr. McCourt
`
`approached several Dunkin franchisees from the SJ CML and
`
`asked if they wanted to partner with him on the project with
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID: 7
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID: 7
`
`the knowledge that having a franchisee would be necessary to
`
`receive approval
`
`from Dunkin Brand.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Mr. McCourt started building a development
`
`team that would
`
`help in obtaining the necessary tax credits.
`
`Through a business associate, Mr. Fifis, Mr. McCourt was
`
`introduced to Robert Prunetti the President and CEO of the
`
`MID Jersey Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Prunetti helped to
`
`coordinate a meeting with the Mayor of Trenton, NJ, Eric
`
`Jackson to promote the opening of the CJ CML as a great
`
`economic opportunity for the city.
`
`31.
`
`After several meetings with Mayor Jackson and members of his
`
`administration, a location was vetted and identified for the
`
`new manufacturing plant. Mayor Jackson was in full support
`
`of the project as this new facility would create
`
`approximately 171 full time jobs within the city of Trenton,
`
`as well as boost city tax ratable revenue.
`
`CJ CML completed the application for the EDA to obtain
`
`valuable tax credits under the NJGROW program.
`
`In Mid October 2016 the CJ CML was granted $18.9 million in
`
`NJGROW credits over 10 years to build the CML in the Trenton
`
`area.
`
`While the payroll tax credits were granted for the creation
`
`of approximately 171 jobs, any unused credits could be sold
`
`in the open market through CJ CML's payroll company, ADP.
`
`The converted tax credits were estimated to generate 12 to
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 8
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID: 8
`
`14 million in revenue over ten years.
`
`35.
`
`This gave the newly formed CJ CML a competitive edge over
`
`other CMLs in the market because it could build a state of
`
`the art manufacturing plant that would utilize automation to
`
`increase quality and improve labor efficiencies that would
`
`equate to lower pricing to the consumer, not to mention it
`
`would save the member stores on delivery costs as it would
`
`be geographically situated to service the needs of Central
`
`Jersey, and other surrounding areas.
`
`36.
`
`Mr. McCourt met with the board of directors of the SJ CML on
`
`multiple occasions beginning in June of 2016 in an effort to
`
`include the members of the SJ CML in the new venture and
`
`explained the benefits of optimizing service and logistics
`
`by partnering in a proposed Central Jersey CML location
`
`Trenton, New Jersey.
`
`3'7.
`
`Mr. McCourt explained the benefits of the CJ CML to supply
`
`fresher products at a better price to the members of both
`
`CMLs as many of the stores supplied from the SJ CML were
`
`located within a geographic region that could be serviced by
`
`the CJ CML in the Trenton area.
`
`38.
`
`Mr. McCourt engaged in protracted discussions with the
`
`members of the SJ CML regarding their participation in the
`
`Central Jersey location; however,
`
`the negotiations
`
`ultimately went nowhere because several of the members of
`
`the SJ CML demanded unrealistic ownership interests in the
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID: 9
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID: 9
`
`LLC without making commensurate capital contributions to
`
`acquire those desired interests.
`
`39.
`
`Despite the obvious cost savings and potential for shared
`
`prosperity,
`
`the SJ CML and its members ultimately rejected
`
`the attempts made by Mr. McCourt
`
`to include them in the CJ
`
`CML project.
`
`40.
`
`During this time period, certain members of the SJ CML were
`
`making duplicitous representations to all parties concerned
`
`regarding their intentions in participating in the business
`
`start—up,
`
`including to Mr. McCourt and representative(s) of
`
`Brand.
`
`41.
`
`This included meetings with Brand representative(s) at which
`
`time representations were made that the SJ CML would
`
`contribute member stores to the start—up of the central
`
`location — all while the majority of the collective
`
`membership of the SJ CML was actively trying to sabotage the
`
`deal behind the scenes. Sam Patel and Paresh Patel attended
`
`this meeting with Dunkin Brands Senior Vice President of
`
`Manufacturing.
`
`The Horizontal "Group Boycott" and The Anti-Competitive Letter
`
`42.
`
`In the letter dated October 27, 2016 sent to Brand, with
`
`copies to the franchisee leadership team, and signed by 11
`
`of the 12 SJ CML members/ managers of the SJ CML,
`
`the
`
`members requested an immediate review of the CJ CML project
`
`stating the following,
`
`in relevant part:
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 10
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 10
`
`The creation of a Trenton facility will
`directly impact
`[SJ CML's] business
`operations and potentially cause them to
`suffer significant monetary losses.
`
`***
`
`There is certainly no basis to damage loyal
`Dunkin' supporters who continue to work to
`improve the product and service.
`SJ CML is
`certainly willing and able to handle
`additional capacity needs.
`[SJ CML] verily
`believes that they could add significant
`additional capacity,
`thus making the need for
`the Trenton facility superfluous.
`
`See a true and correct copy of the October 22, 2016
`Anti—Competitive Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit “A."
`
`43. This was an overt action taken by the members of the SJ CML,
`
`who possessed market share power,
`
`to persuade and/or coerce
`
`Brand to either not enter into business with CJ CML or to
`
`make the terms so onerous that it would be impossible for CJ
`
`CML to meet the requirements,
`
`thereby eliminating any
`
`competitive threat the central location might pose to SJ
`
`CML .
`
`44.
`
`It is clear and indisputable that the CJ CML new baking
`
`facility would optimize service and efficiency which would
`
`then benefit the consumers through cost savings.
`
`45.
`
`It is also obvious from the October 27, 2016 correspondence
`
`that SJ CML recognized that it might suffer monetary losses
`
`and face stiff competition from the CJ CML which could
`
`deliver a cheaper product to customers in the same
`
`overlapping and contiguous business markets.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID: 11
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID: 11
`
`46.
`
`The obvious business threat being that the member/managers
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`of the SJ CML would experience a decrease in production
`
`because the new facility could service Dunkin Franchises in
`
`and around the Trenton area, as well as, potentially, Dunkin
`
`Franchises in the South Jersey area.
`
`Additionally,
`
`the location of the new facility would benefit
`
`local Dunkin Franchises through a decrease in product and
`
`delivery prices which in turn would pass cost savings on to
`
`customers.
`
`It would appear that the members of the SJ CML feared that
`
`if the CJ CML were able to fulfill the needs of Brand at a
`
`lower price,
`
`they would have to decrease their prices to
`
`compete in the common market or otherwise suffer other
`
`losses.
`
`The express purpose of Anti—Trust
`
`laws is to encourage free
`
`and open competition in the market.
`
`This conspiracy in the form of the horizontal agreement of
`
`SJ CML members/managers to use their market power and
`
`intervene in fair market competition in this manner
`
`constitutes a group boycott
`
`in violation of Federal and
`
`State Anti—Trust Laws.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 12
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID: 12
`
`COUNT I
`
`Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the
`
`Clayton Act —
`
`Conspiracy to Monopolize, Attempted Monopolization, and
`Monopolization —
`
`Horizontal "Group Boycott"
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff re—alleges and incorporates by reference the
`
`averments of the preceding paragraphs set forth above as if
`
`included herein at length.
`
`Defendants have conspired to monopolize the relevant markets
`
`in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
`
`(15 U.S.C.
`
`§
`
`2).
`
`Plaintiff has a direct private cause of action against the
`
`defendants pursuant
`
`to Section 4 of the Clayton Act
`
`(15
`
`U.S.C. §15).
`
`Defendants' aforesaid conspiracy to monopolize the relevant
`
`markets has consisted, among other things, of defendants
`
`conspiring to engage in the above—alleged predatory and/or
`
`anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy to
`
`monopolize the relevant markets.
`
`Specifically,
`
`the defendants, exercising market share and
`
`power, attempted to thwart
`
`the creation and opening of the
`
`CJ CML through a group boycott by sending the
`
`Anti-Competitive letter to Dunkin Brand.
`
`See Exhibit "A."
`
`Upon information and belie,
`
`the defendants willfully planned
`
`and engaged in these actions, as alleged above, which
`
`constitutes violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
`
`(15
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID: 13
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID: 13
`
`U.S.C. §2) and the Clayton Act
`
`(15 U.S.C. §15).
`
`57.
`
`The defendants actions were anti—competitive and predatory
`
`and were undertaken with the specific intent to inhibit
`
`competition, control prices and create and maintain the SJ
`
`CML's monopoly in servicing Dunkin stores in the relevant
`
`geographic market region.
`
`58.
`
`Recently, one of the named defendants, Gulu Puri made an
`
`express admission against interest that he and the other
`
`defendants conspired to send the Group Boycott
`
`Anti—Competitive letter to Dunkin brands because they feared
`
`the competition that the CJ CML would pose to the SJ CML,
`
`especially given the involvement of Mr. McCourt who had
`
`previously demonstrated that he could grow such an operation
`
`quickly, efficiently, and at a significant profit.
`
`59.
`
`The defendants also feared that the CJ CML would be able to
`
`offer product to customers at a savings and with greater
`
`efficiency because it could populate its facility with state
`
`of the art automation through the NJ GROW funding and could
`
`consequently pass savings on to the end user.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`That would threaten to make SJ CML either,
`
`lower its prices
`
`and cut into its profits in order to compete, or to risk
`
`losing customers due to pricing concerns.
`
`The SJ CML possessed in excess of 50% of the relevant market
`
`share and by far the largest market share in the relevant
`
`geographic region and it used this market power in a direct
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 14
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 14
`
`attempt to thwart
`
`the opening of the CJ CML by coercing
`
`Dunkin brands to make the approval process for the CJ CML
`
`unattainable and by imposing approval requirements,
`
`including, but not limited to,
`
`the CJ CML needing to have an
`
`initial 85 stores participating at opening — a requirement
`
`not only unrealistic and unattainable, but also one that had
`
`not been imposed on any other CML in New Jersey,
`
`including
`
`the SJ CML, which started with only 27 stores.
`
`The defendants' actions have unlawfully injured competition
`
`in and adversely effected commerce in the relevant
`
`geographic market region.
`
`The defendants' concerted actions,
`
`in violation of Section 2
`
`of the Sherman Act, and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, have
`
`proximately caused injury to the plaintiff by depriving it
`
`of the opportunity to obtain approval from Dunkin brand, a
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`pre—requisite to the creation of the CJ CML.
`
`64.
`
`The defendants'
`
`intentional actions have effectively
`
`inhibited the CJ CML from competing in the relevant market
`
`and, as a result, plaintiff has suffered damages estimated
`
`to be at least $40 million (including the loss of the $18.9
`
`million tax credits and future anticipated profits).
`
`65.
`
`The defendants'
`
`intentional actions have resulted in
`
`excluding competition in the relevant market, monopolizing
`
`said market for their benefit and increased prices to
`
`consumers in the relevant market.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID: 15
`Case 3:17-cv-12706—MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID: 15
`
`66.
`
`The defendants'
`
`intentional actions in thwarting the ability
`
`of the CJ CML to open and compete in the relevant market
`
`were willful, wanton, reckless and egregious in nature.
`
`67. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages,
`
`including an
`
`amount up to three times the amount of its actual damages,
`
`attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Section 4 of the
`
`Clayton Act
`
`(l5 U.S.C.
`
`§ 15).
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Central Jersey CML, LLC demands
`
`judgment in its favor and against the defendants for compensatory
`
`damages,
`
`treble damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and
`
`costs, estimated in total to be in excess of $120 million, and
`
`all other relief this court deems just and appropriate.
`
`COUNT II
`
`Violations of the New Jersey Anti—Trust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-1 et
`seq.
`
`68. Plaintiff re—alleges and incorporates by reference the
`
`averments of the preceding paragraphs set forth above as if
`
`included herein at length.
`
`69.
`
`The defendants have engaged in an unlawful contract,
`
`combination or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade
`
`and/or commerce in the State of New Jersey in violation of
`
`N.J.S.A. 56:9—3.
`
`70.
`
`The defendants have monopolized, or attempted to monopolize,
`
`or combined or conspired with each other to monopolize trade
`
`and/or commerce in the State of New Jersey in violation of
`
`N.J.S.A. 56:9-4.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID: 16
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID: 16
`
`71.
`
`Defendants' aforesaid unlawful combination and conspiracy to
`
`restrain commerce in the relevant market
`
`in New Jersey has
`
`consisted, among other things, of defendants' conspiring to
`
`engage in predatory and/or anticompetitive conduct for the
`
`purpose of restraining commerce.
`
`72.
`
`Specifically,
`
`the defendants, exercising market share and
`
`power, attempted to thwart
`
`the creation and opening of the
`
`CJ CML through a group boycott by sending the
`
`Anti—Competitive letter to Dunkin Brand.
`
`See Exhibit "A."
`
`73.
`
`Defendants' actions have injured competition and adversely
`
`affected commerce and business activities within the State
`
`of New Jersey.
`
`74.
`
`Defendants' actions have had the following adverse effects,
`
`among others, on the relevant markets:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`reduced output within the relevant markets; and
`
`increased or maintained a heightened price of product
`
`within the relevant markets.
`
`75.
`
`Defendants' actions have proximately caused injury to the
`
`plaintiff by thwarting its attempt to compete in the
`
`relevant markets and, as a result,
`
`the plaintiff has
`
`suffered damages to its's business in excess of $40 million.
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to an award of damages,
`
`including an
`
`amount up to three times the amount found as actual damages,
`
`reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
`
`56:9—l2(a).
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID: 17
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID: 17
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Central Jersey CML, LLC demands
`
`judgment in its favor and against the defendants for compensatory
`
`damages,
`
`treble damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and
`
`costs, estimated in total to be in excess of $120 million, and
`
`all other relief this court deems just and appropriate.
`
`QQEHI_lll
`
`Tortious Interference
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`Plaintiff re—alleges and incorporates by reference the
`
`averments of the preceding paragraphs set forth above as if
`
`included herein at length.
`
`The defendants' conduct as alleged herein give rise to
`
`common law liability for intentional interference with
`
`contractual relations and intentional interference with
`
`prospective economic advantage and/or prospective
`
`contractual or business relations.
`
`79.
`
`At all relevant times, plaintiff either had, or possessed a
`
`reasonable expectation of having, contractual relations with
`
`third parties,
`
`including, but not limited to, Dunkin Brands,
`
`relating to the formation of the CJ CML facility and
`
`business enterprise.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`The foregoing business and contractual relations would have
`
`provided economic and their benefits to the plaintiff but
`
`for the defendants'
`
`tortious and anticompetitive conduct.
`
`At all relevant times, upon information and belief,
`
`the
`
`defendants knew of the CJ CML's valid and legally
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID: 18
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID: 18
`
`enforceable contractual and prospective contractual
`
`relationships with third parties,
`
`including, but not limited
`
`to, Dunkin Brands.
`
`82.
`
`The defendants willfully engaged in the foregoing acts and
`
`practices with the intent to induce breach or interruption
`
`of the plaintiff's existing and prospective contractual and
`
`economic relationships with third parties.
`
`83.
`
`The defendants' deliberate and primary purpose in engaging
`
`in some,
`
`if not all, of the foregoing acts and practices was
`
`to disrupt the plaintiff's prospective and economic
`
`relationships with third parties.
`
`84.
`
`The foregoing acts and practices and the defendants'
`
`deliberate anticompetitive and tortious conduct directly
`
`resulted in actual breaches and/or disruptions of the
`
`plaintiff's existing and prospective contractual and
`
`business relationships with third parties,
`
`including, but
`
`not limited to, Dunkin Brands.
`
`85.
`
`The foregoing acts of the defendants and their
`
`anticompetitive and tortious conduct directly and
`
`proximately caused CJ CML to suffer injury and damage.
`
`86.
`
`The defendants committed these tortious acts with deliberate
`
`and actual malice,
`
`ill—will and specific knowledge that
`
`their actions constituted outrageous, willful and wanton
`
`disregard of the plaintiff's rights.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID: 19
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID: 19
`
`WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Central Jersey CML, LLC demands
`
`judgment
`
`in its favor and against the defendants for compensatory
`
`damages,
`
`treble damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and
`
`costs, estimated in total to be in excess of $120 million, and
`
`all other relief this court deems just and appropriate.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Civil Conspiracy
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`Plaintiff re—alleges and incorporates by reference the
`
`averments of the preceding paragraphs set forth above as if
`
`included herein at length.
`
`The defendants conspired, as alleged,
`
`to commit unlawful and
`
`anticompetitive acts, or to do lawful acts in an unlawful
`
`manner.
`
`89.
`
`One or more of the defendants,
`
`in furtherance of their
`
`illegal conspiracy committed an overt act in furtherance of
`
`the aims of the conspiracy,
`
`including, but not limited to,
`
`the issuance of the Group Boycott Anti—Competitive letter.
`
`See Exhibit "A."
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered actual
`
`injury,
`
`in excess of $40
`
`million, as a proximate result of the overt acts committed
`
`by one or more of the defendants in furtherance of the
`
`conspiracy by the defendants.
`
`.WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Central Jersey CML, LLC demands
`
`judgment in its favor and against the defendants for compensatory
`
`damages,
`
`treble damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID: 20
`Case 3:17-cv-12706-MAS—DEA Document 1 Filed 12/06/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID: 20
`
`costs, estimated in total to be in excess of $120 million, and
`
`all other relief this court deems just and appropriate.
`
`JURY DEMAND AND DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all matters
`
`raised in this Complaint and hereby designates Lance S. Forbes,
`
`Esquire and Samantha Spinelli, Esquire as trial counsel.
`
`KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C.
`
`By :
`
`Date:
`
`December 6, 2017
`
`“0””
`“W 7
`-
`..M.~.aw..~~_~wnw.w~l
`11/
`_—-————-_;7..-"——,.L——————————————-———
`L ce”Sfi/Forbes, Esquire
`
`<?i€ornéy
`
`“MM”
`
`for Plaintiff
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
