Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 15
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`RANA TECHNOLOGIES ENTERPRISES,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff, RANA Technologies Enterprises (“RTE”), by and through undersigned counsel,
`
`brings this action against L3Harris Technologies Inc.1 (“L3Harris”) and hereby states as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THIS CASE
`
`1.
`
`This dispute arises from L3Harris’ (1) tortious interference with employment
`
`contracts between RTE and its employees, (2) tortious interference with non-compete
`
`agreements between RTE and its former employees, (3) breach of a non-disclosure agreement
`
`with RTE, (4) breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and (5) aiding and
`
`abetting a breach of the fiduciary duties between RTE and its employees.
`
`2.
`
`L3Harris is an American technology company that produces electronic systems
`
`and equipment for use in the government, defense, and commercial sectors.
`
`3.
`
`Since November 14, 2011, L3Harris has partnered with RTE, an Afghan
`
`information and communications technology company, for the promotion of L3Harris products
`
`and services in Afghanistan.
`
`4.
`
`In early 2016, the parties executed a renewal of an International Representative
`
`Agreement, effective from November 14, 2015, with the same terms and conditions as the
`
`agreement the parties originally executed in November 2011.
`
`
`1 Harris Corporation and L3 Technologies merged on June 29, 2019 to become L3Harris.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 15
`
`5.
`
`Prior to this dispute, RTE became aware that two of its senior employees, David
`
`Shah (“Shah”) and Syed Balkhi (“Balkhi”), started their own company, Arianna Professional
`
`Logistics Services (“APLS”), and that APLS was a current subcontractor under L3Harris.
`
`6.
`
`In addition, RTE learned that Shah and Balkhi were actively recruiting other RTE
`
`employees to join APLS. Shortly thereafter, Shah and Balkhi were terminated from employment
`
`with RTE.
`
`7.
`
`RTE immediately notified L3Harris that two former employees, Shah and Balkhi,
`
`cofounded APLS and were in violation of non-compete agreements with RTE.
`
`8.
`
`In addition, RTE informed L3Harris that a number of its current employees were
`
`now working at APLS.
`
`9.
`
`RTE provided a list of the 25 employees who had recently given their notice of
`
`resignation to RTE, thus their employment contracts with RTE remained in effect. RTE further
`
`demanded that L3Harris take reparative action by removing APLS from its employ.
`
`10.
`
`In response, L3Harris asked RTE to provide an additional list detailing any RTE
`
`employees working for APLS who had left RTE within the last two years.
`
`11.
`
`L3Harris further assured RTE that its employees, both current and former, would
`
`be “immediately removed from the project.”
`
`12.
`
`Days later, RTE alerted L3Harris of another former employee who had joined
`
`APLS, Sarwar Hakimi (“Hakimi”), noting that Hakimi, Shah, and Balkhi were all in violation of
`
`non-compete agreements with RTE.
`
`13.
`
`In late November 2015, approximately one week after renewing the International
`
`Representative Agreement with RTE, L3Harris project manager, Andrew Allan, contacted
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 15
`
`Balkhi to arrange an exclusive meeting between L3Harris and APLS to discuss an ongoing
`
`L3Harris project, “Enterprise Sustainment Program.”
`
`14.
`
`From early November 2015 through April 2017, L3Harris continued to engage
`
`with APLS, awarding the company numerous subcontracts despite ongoing objections from
`
`L3Harris’ established partner, RTE.
`
`15.
`
`As shown herein, L3Harris initiated a scheme designed to forge a relationship
`
`with APLS and, ultimately, encouraged RTE’s employees to abandon RTE and continue working
`
`solely for L3Harris through APLS.
`
`16.
`
`In this action, RTE seeks relief for its substantial loss in profits due to L3Harris’
`
`intentional and improper engagement with APLS, resulting in the demise of an ongoing
`
`partnership between RTE and L3Harris.
`
`PARTIES
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff, RANA Technologies Enterprises, is a limited liability company,
`
`established according to the laws of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan with its principal place
`
`of business at 221 Shaheed Square, Shahr-e-Naw, Kabul, Afghanistan, whose members are all
`
`United States citizens domiciled in Virginia.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant, L3Harris Technologies, is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 1025 W. NASA Boulevard, Melbourne, FL 32919, U.S.A.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`19.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because RTE and L3Harris are citizens of different States and the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 15
`
`20.
`
`This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over L3Harris pursuant to NY
`
`CPLR § 302 because the cause of action arose from L3Harris’ regular transaction of business in
`
`New York and at all relevant times in question its principal place of business was at 1680
`
`University Avenue, Rochester, New York 14610.. This Court may also exercise personal
`
`jurisdiction because the parties have expressly agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`21.
`
`Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c)(2), as a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in
`
`the Western District of New York. Venue in this Court is also proper because the parties have
`
`expressly agreed that any litigation that arises shall be conducted in Monroe County, New York.
`
`FACTS
`
`22.
`
`In early 2016, the parties executed the International Representative Agreement
`
`(the “IRA”), with an effective date of November 14, 2015, wherein RTE was appointed as sales
`
`representative for the promotion and marketing of L3Harris’ products and services in
`
`Afghanistan.
`
`23.
`
`The IRA was initially executed as a one-year renewal, with the same terms and
`
`conditions as the parties’ original and ongoing representative agreement initiated in 2011.
`
`24.
`
`Prior to its expiration, the parties extended the IRA to remain in effect through
`
`March 31, 2017, all other terms and conditions remaining unchanged. A true and correct copy of
`
`the IRA, including the original 2011 agreement and 2016 extension, is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`25.
`
`In addition to the IRA, the parties were bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement
`
`(the “NDA”), executed on March 16, 2015 and later amended on February 10, 2016, which
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 15
`
`governed the disclosure and receipt of proprietary information between the parties. A true and
`
`correct copy of the NDA is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`26.
`
`Section 4 of the NDA details in pertinent part:
`
`The party receiving the Proprietary Information shall make use of the Proprietary
`Information to be used solely for the purpose of exploring or maintaining a future
`or current contractual relationship between the parties:
`All Harris products and services in support of Field Service Support, installation,
`and training.
`
`27.
`
`Further, the NDA also included a provision prohibiting the solicitation and/or hire
`
`
`
`of either party’s employees. Specifically, section 16 of the NDA provides in pertinent part:
`
`Non-Solicitation. Neither Party shall recruit, solicit, or otherwise attempt to hire
`or hire, directly or indirectly, the employees of the other during the term of this
`Agreement without the prior written permission of the other Party.
`
`28.
`
`On or about November 4, 2015, prior to this dispute, RTE learned that two of its
`
`senior employees, Shah and Balkhi, had formed their own company, APLS, and that APLS was
`
`currently subcontracting for L3Harris.
`
`29.
`
`On or about November 5, 2015, Shah and Balkhi were terminated from
`
`employment with RTE.
`
`30.
`
`On November 7, 2015, RTE notified L3Harris of its recently acquired knowledge
`
`of a company, APLS, cofounded by two former RTE employees, Shah and Balkhi. RTE
`
`additionally noted that APLS was primarily comprised of current RTE employees, and attached
`
`a list identifying 25 employees at APLS who had recently given their notice of resignation to
`
`RTE, thus their employment contracts with RTE remained in effect.
`
`31.
`
`RTE also stated it had recently become aware that APLS was subcontracting for
`
`L3Harris on the Enterprise Sustainment Program, a project that was previously awarded to RTE
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 15
`
`and was being overseen by Shah and Balkhi before their termination. RTE demanded that
`
`L3Harris take reparative action by immediately removing APLS from its employ.
`
`32.
`
`Upon information and belief, Shah and Balkhi, while overseeing the Enterprise
`
`Sustainment Program for RTE, utilized their inside knowledge of RTE’s inner workings to
`
`secure an award for APLS.
`
`33.
`
`On November 13, 2015, in an email from its associate general counsel, L3Harris
`
`acknowledged RTE’s request, stating in pertinent part:
`
`In order to address the current situation, Harris requests that you provide a list of
`all RANA employees with post-employment restrictions (and the duration of each
`restriction) who left employment with RANA during the past two years. Harris
`will use this information to determine if any former RANA employees are working
`for [APLS] or another Harris subcontractor on the Afghanistan Enterprise
`Sustainment project in violation of their post-employment restrictions and, if so, to
`ensure these former RANA employees will be immediately removed from the
`project.
`
` A
`
` true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`34.
`
`On November 16, 2015, RTE alerted L3Harris of another former employee who
`
`had joined APLS, Sarwar Hakimi, noting that Hakimi, Shah, and Balkhi were all former
`
`employees in violation of their two-year non-compete agreements with RTE. RTE also included
`
`a list of approximately 115 additional RTE employees who were currently assigned to L3Harris’
`
`projects; however, their affiliation with APLS had not yet been verified.
`
`35.
`
`From November 7-16, 2015, RTE notified L3Harris of a total of 28 APLS
`
`employees known to be in violation of employment terms with RTE. Of the total, 25 were in
`
`violation of employment contracts and the remaining three, Shah, Balkhi, and Hakimi, were in
`
`violation of the two-year non-compete agreements.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 15
`
`36.
`
`Each of the employees noted above had been or remained employed under
`
`identical fixed-term employment contracts with RTE. A true and correct copy of such fixed-
`
`term employment contract is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`37.
`
`Relevant to the 25 employees still under contract with RTE at the time, pages 2-3
`
`of their fixed-term employment contracts contained the following terms regarding termination:
`
`Termination of Contract: The nature of termination will be performed in three
`manners:
`Resignation: If the employee terminates the employment contract he/she must give
`30 days’ written notice to the Company. Employee may be required to perform
`his/her duties and will be paid the regular salary up to the date of termination but
`shall not receive severance allowance.
`Termination: If the Employee is found to be violating the employment contract or
`in breach of policies and procedures, and/or his/her performance is not satisfactory
`the company shall immediately terminate the contract and have no obligations
`towards salary, bonus, and any other payments to the employee.
`Layoff: The Company may terminate the Employee’s employment with one week
`pay to the Employee should any of the following events occur:
`(a) The position is no longer necessary or when a business slow-down occurs;
`(b) The sale of substantially all of the Company’s assets to a single purchaser
`or group of associated purchasers, or
`(c) The sale, exchange, or other disposition in one transaction of the majority
`of the Company’s outstanding corporate shares;
`(d) The Company’s decision to terminate its business or liquidate its assets;
`(e) The merger or consolidation of the Company with another company; or
`(f) Bankruptcy.
`
`On the other hand, Shah, Balkhi, and Hakimi, who had already left RTE,
`
`38.
`
`remained subject to the non-compete agreements incorporated within the fixed-term employment
`
`contracts, detailing in pertinent part:
`
`Restriction on Post Employment Compensation: For a period of TWO years
`after the end of employment, the employee shall not control, consult to or be
`employed by any business similar to that conducted by the company, either by
`soliciting any of its accounts or by operating within Employer’s general trading
`area.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 15
`
`39.
`
`Upon entering into the IRA with L3Harris effective November 14, 2015, RTE
`
`initiated performance in reliance upon L3Harris’ express acknowledgment of the conflict with
`
`APLS and subsequent promise to take immediate action.
`
`40.
`
`In accordance with the IRA, L3Harris awarded various subcontracts to RTE
`
`involving training, maintenance, and support services in Afghanistan. Subcontracts awarded to
`
`RTE during the time period relevant to this dispute were, inter alia, phases I and II of the
`
`Enterprise Sustainment Program, detailing in pertinent part:
`
`Contract
`
`Contract Number
`
`Service Provided
`
`Amount
`
`Enterprise
`Sustainment for Level
`III Maintenance
`Requirements in
`Afghanistan: Phase I
`Enterprise
`Sustainment for Level
`III Maintenance
`Requirements in
`Afghanistan: Phase II
`
`
`
`25930
`
`25930
`
`$574,600.00
`
`$507,000.00
`
`Provide training,
`maintenance, and spare
`parts support for the
`Afghan National
`Security Forces (ANSF)
`Provide training,
`maintenance, and spare
`parts support for the
`Afghan National
`Security Forces (ANSF)
`
`41.
`
`Prior to forming APLS, Shah and Balkhi oversaw performance on the Enterprise
`
`Sustainment Program on behalf of RTE.
`
`42.
`
`Further, each had unrestricted access to RTE’s technical solutions and pricing
`
`information which, upon information and belief, was used to solicit and secure the Enterprise
`
`Sustainment Program and other subcontracts for APLS.
`
`43.
`
`On November 24, 2015, ten days after executing the IRA with RTE, L3Harris
`
`project manager, Andrew Allan, contacted Balkhi via email to arrange an exclusive meeting
`
`between L3Harris and APLS, stating:
`
`The meeting on Saturday is for myself, Chris and either you or [Shah] to meet the
`General to discuss the enterprise sustainment program. I do not want any more
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 15
`
`people than necessary to be at this meeting if possible, with us 4 and the security
`that will be 4 possibly 5 people in the Generals [sic] office.
`
`44.
`
`On January 30, 2016, RTE contacted L3Harris in regard to the expiration and
`
`renewal dates of its subcontracts, including the aforementioned, consistent with past conduct
`
`between the parties.
`
`45.
`
`On February 1, 2016, L3Harris informed RTE that each of its current
`
`subcontracts, including the Enterprise Sustainment Program, were to be completed by June 30,
`
`2016, at which time RTE was to vacate the work sites to allow for incoming replacements. In
`
`addition, L3Harris asserted it would not be extending the subcontracts with RTE.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, the subcontracts awarded to RTE during the span of
`
`the IRA were subsequently transferred to APLS in lieu of modification or renewal.
`
`47.
`
`On or about December 13, 2016, RTE was notified that L3Harris awarded the
`
`entirety of its subcontracts to RTE’s competitors, including APLS, and that RTE’s bids were not
`
`accepted.
`
`48.
`
`On April 24, 2017, L3Harris notified RTE that its representation under the
`
`ongoing IRA was no longer needed and that L3Harris was taking “a rest” from its partnership
`
`with RTE.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, the General Services Administration (GSA)
`
`awarded a contract to L3Harris, for approximately $500,000,000.00, shortly before L3Harris
`
`extinguished the IRA and its ongoing partnership with RTE. L3Harris, upon information and
`
`belief, subcontracted APLS for performance on its contract with the GSA.
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, L3Harris continued to solicit and employ APLS
`
`while contemporaneously bound to the terms and conditions of the IRA and the NDA until
`
`ultimately extinguishing its ongoing relationship with RTE.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 15
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT I
`
`Tortious Interference with RTE’s Employment Contracts
`
`RTE repeats and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if
`
`51.
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`52.
`
`On November 7, 2015, RTE explicitly notified L3Harris that two of its former
`
`employees, Shah and Balkhi, cofounded APLS and were currently subcontracting for L3Harris.
`
`53.
`
`In the same email, RTE provided a list of 25 current RTE employees who had
`
`moved to APLS while still under contract with RTE.
`
`54.
`
`Based on L3Harris’ acknowledgement and response to RTE on November 13,
`
`2015, L3Harris had knowledge, at all relevant times, of the existing employment contracts
`
`between RTE and the 25 specified employees at APLS.
`
`55.
`
`L3Harris intentionally and improperly procured a breach of those employment
`
`contracts by disregarding the validity of the contracts and continuing to solicit business from
`
`APLS.
`
`56.
`
`Specifically, L3Harris’ email to Balkhi, on November 24, 2015, denotes that
`
`L3Harris intended to lure employees away from RTE to secretly discuss details of various
`
`subcontracts with APLS, including the Enterprise Sustainment Program, in direct contrast to
`
`L3Harris’ representations to RTE on November 13, 2015 that all RTE employees working for
`
`APLS would be “immediately removed from the project.”
`
`57.
`
`L3Harris’ interference with the existing contracts between RTE and the 25 APLS
`
`employees harmed RTE’s ability to perform its existing subcontracts and allowed L3Harris to
`
`improperly utilize the 25 APLS employees without compensating RTE.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 15
`
`58.
`
`L3Harris’ interference also resulted in RTE’s loss in profit on its existing
`
`subcontracts which were ultimately diverted to APLS.
`
`59.
`
`Further, L3Harris continued to profit from those 25 employees’ use of
`
`confidential and proprietary information gained as employees of RTE, which harmed RTE’s
`
`ability to compete for subcontracts and caused RTE to suffer a loss in profits.
`
`COUNT II
`
`Tortious Interference with Non-Compete Agreements between RTE and the Former
`RTE Employees at APLS
`
`RTE repeats and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if
`
`60.
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`61.
`
`L3Harris intentionally and improperly procured a breach of the non-compete
`
`agreements embedded in the employment contracts of Shah, Balkhi, and Hakimi, the former
`
`RTE employees who left for APLS.
`
`62.
`
`On November 16, 2015, RTE emailed L3Harris a list indicating that Shah, Balkhi,
`
`and Hakimi were former RTE employees, now at APLS, who remained subject to the terms of a
`
`non-compete agreement with RTE.
`
`63.
`
`Such agreement prohibited the three from engaging in a contractual relationship
`
`with “any business similar to that conducted by [RTE], either by soliciting any of its accounts or
`
`by operating within [RTE]’s general trading area.”
`
`64.
`
`Express knowledge of the non-compete agreement barred L3Harris from
`
`interfering with the same; thus, L3Harris’ continued interference with those employees’
`
`obligations under a valid non-compete agreement resulted in irreparable harm to RTE.
`
`65.
`
`The November 24, 2015 email exchange between L3Harris and Balkhi, discussed
`
`in paragraph 31, indicates that L3Harris intended to disregard RTE’s objection to L3Harris’
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 15
`
`relationship with APLS. The exchange occurred more than a week after L3Harris was notified
`
`of Shah, Balkhi, and Hakimi’s relationship with RTE, yet there is no indication of L3Harris’
`
`intent to “immediately remove” any current or former RTE employees from its projects as
`
`promised on November 13, 2015.
`
`66.
`
`L3Harris was aware at all relevant times of the two-year non-compete agreements
`
`between RTE and its former employees, yet L3Harris continued to solicit work from APLS for
`
`over a year, ultimately awarding the majority of its subcontracts to APLS by December 2016.
`
`67.
`
`The non-compete agreements were executed and enforced to prevent RTE’s
`
`employees from utilizing confidential strategies and information as competitors immediately
`
`upon resignation.
`
`68.
`
`As a result of L3Harris’ interference, L3Harris harmed RTE’s ability to compete
`
`for subcontracts and caused RTE to suffer a loss in profits, including profits accrued by L3Harris
`
`from improperly utilizing RTE’s former employees without compensating RTE.
`
`COUNT III
`
`Breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement
`
`RTE repeats and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if
`
`69.
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`70.
`
`Pursuant to the non-solicitation provision of the NDA, L3Harris was expressly
`
`prohibited from engaging in the solicitation and ultimate hiring of APLS once notified of its
`
`employees’ current and former employment with RTE.
`
`71.
`
`Such acts constituted a material breach of the express agreement between RTE
`
`and L3Harris, executed for the purpose of protecting the very information that was improperly
`
`obtained by L3Harris as a result of the breach.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 15
`
`72.
`
`L3Harris materially breached the NDA by continuing to solicit and employ APLS
`
`throughout the time period relevant to this dispute.
`
`73.
`
`L3Harris’ improper dealings with APLS allowed L3Harris to access RTE’s
`
`confidential pricing information through Shah, Balkhi, and Hakimi, thus allowing L3Harris to
`
`profit unjustly by lowering their cost of subcontracting by employing APLS in lieu of RTE.
`
`74.
`
`The non-solicitation provision of the NDA clearly demonstrates the parties’
`
`acknowledgement that such loss would certainly occur in the event of a breach. Thus, as a direct
`
`result of L3Harris’ material breach, L3Harris harmed RTE’s ability to perform its existing
`
`subcontracts, improperly utilized current and former RTE employees without compensating
`
`RTE, harmed RTE’s ability to compete for additional subcontracts, and caused RTE to suffer a
`
`loss in profits.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Breach of the Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
`
`RTE repeats and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if
`
`75.
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`76.
`
`The IRA executed between RTE and L3Harris implicitly required each party to
`
`act in good faith throughout the course of performance, thus prohibiting either party from acting
`
`in a manner that would deprive the other party of the right to receive the benefits under the IRA.
`
`77.
`
`L3Harris materially breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing,
`
`injuring the rights of RTE, by contracting with APLS after becoming aware of its employees’
`
`relationship with RTE.
`
`78.
`
`On November 13, 2015, L3Harris assured RTE that it would act in accordance
`
`with its “Standards of Business Conduct,” published and incorporated into the IRA, as to the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 15
`
`removal of all current and former RTE employees from L3Harris’ projects. L3Harris took no
`
`such action and, instead, continued to award subcontracts to APLS throughout the duration of the
`
`IRA until ultimately extinguishing its ongoing partnership with RTE altogether.
`
`79.
`
`As a direct result of L3Harris’ breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair
`
`dealing, L3Harris harmed RTE’s ability to perform its existing subcontracts, improperly utilized
`
`current and former RTE employees without compensating RTE, harmed RTE’s ability to
`
`compete for additional subcontracts, and caused RTE to suffer a loss in profits.
`
`COUNT V
`
`Aiding and Abetting a Breach of the Fiduciary Duties between RTE
`and the Current RTE Employees at APLS
`
`RTE repeats and incorporates by reference each and every paragraph above as if
`
`80.
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`81.
`
`L3Harris’ continued soliciting of APLS as a subcontractor resulted in repeated
`
`violations on the part of RTE’s then-current employees working for APLS, including breaching
`
`the fiduciary duty owed to RTE.
`
`82.
`
`The relationship between employer and employee, here being RTE and its then-
`
`current employees working for APLS, supports the development of trust between the two,
`
`outside of the four corners of a contract, amounting to a fiduciary duty.
`
`83.
`
`L3Harris substantially assisted in, encouraged, and procured a breach of a
`
`fiduciary duty between RTE and such employees by failing to remove APLS from its projects
`
`and, instead, benefitting from the fruits of their disloyalty to RTE.
`
`84.
`
`By encouraging these employees to abandon a fiduciary duty owed to RTE,
`
`L3Harris unjustly profited from APLS’ use of confidential and proprietary information derived
`
`from RTE, harmed RTE’s ability to perform its existing subcontracts, improperly utilized current
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-06343-CJS Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 15
`
`RTE employees without compensating RTE, harmed RTE’s ability to compete for additional
`
`subcontracts, and caused RTE to suffer a loss in profits.
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, RTE respectfully prays for judgment and requests that this Court grant
`
`the following relief:
`
`a)
`
`
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`Damages on the First Count in an amount to be determined at trial for L3Harris’
`tortious interference with the employment contracts of current RTE employees at
`APLS;
`
`Damages on the Second Count in an amount to be determined at trial for
`L3Harris’ tortious interference with the non-compete agreements of former RTE
`employees at APLS;
`
`Damages on the Third Count in an amount to be determined at trial for L3Harris’
`breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement;
`
`Damages on the Fourth Count in an amount to be determined at trial for L3Harris’
`breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under the IRA;
`
`Damages on the Fifth Count in an amount to be determined at trial for L3Harris’
`aiding and abetting a breach of the fiduciary duties owed by current RTE
`employees to RTE;
`
`f)
`
`Attorney’s fees and costs; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 26, 2020
`Rochester, New York
`
`g)
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CALIHAN LAW PLLC
`
`
`By: s/Robert B. Calihan
`Robert B. Calihan
`16 East Main Street
`Rochester, New York 14604
`Tel: (585) 281-2593
`rcalihan@calihanlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff RANA
`Technologies Enterprises
`
`
`
`15
`
`