Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`SNAP MEDICAL INDUSTRIES, LLC
`545 Metro Place South, Suite 100
`Dublin, OH 43017,
`
`and
`
`NANCY STAMPS
`545 Metro Place South, Suite 100
`Dublin, OH 43017,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Judge
`
`Magistrate Judge
`
`
`JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
`HEREON
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`FOCUS HEALTH GROUP, INC.
`5802 Kingston Pike
`Knoxville, TN 37919,
`
`and
`
`FRED MCBEE
`1015 Westmoreland Blvd.
`Knoxville, TN 37919
`
`and
`
`BETH CROSS
`1118 Lipscomb Dr.
`Brentwood, TN 37027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Now come Plaintiffs Snap Medical Industries, LLC (“Snap”) and Nancy Stamps
`
`
`
`(collectively with Snap, “Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel, and for their Complaint state as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`SNAP MEDICAL INDUSTRIES, LLC
`545 Metro Place South, Suite 100
`Dublin, OH 43017,
`
`and
`
`NANCY STAMPS
`545 Metro Place South, Suite 100
`Dublin, OH 43017,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Judge
`
`Magistrate Judge
`
`
`JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
`HEREON
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`FOCUS HEALTH GROUP, INC.
`5802 Kingston Pike
`Knoxville, TN 37919,
`
`and
`
`FRED MCBEE
`1015 Westmoreland Blvd.
`Knoxville, TN 37919
`
`and
`
`BETH CROSS
`1118 Lipscomb Dr.
`Brentwood, TN 37027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Now come Plaintiffs Snap Medical Industries, LLC (“Snap”) and Nancy Stamps
`
`
`
`(collectively with Snap, “Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel, and for their Complaint state as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 2
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Defendant Focus Health Group, Inc. (“Focus”) is a Tennessee corporation with
`
`its principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Fred McBee is an owner and officer of Focus, and upon information
`
`and belief, is a resident of Tennessee.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Beth Cross is an employee of Focus, and upon information and
`
`belief, is a resident of Tennessee.
`
`4.
`
`Snap is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of business in
`
`Dublin, Ohio.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Ms. Stamps is the President of Snap, and is currently a resident of Florida.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Venue is appropriate in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as Plaintiffs
`
`reside in the Southern District of Ohio, and this is the judicial district in which a substantial part
`
`of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth below occurred.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because
`
`there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy
`
`exceeds $75,000. Additionally, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
`
`because a federal question has been presented, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental
`
`jurisdiction).
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`Snap Develops an Epinephrine Convenience Kit
`
`8.
`
`Nancy Stamps, RN, is a Registered Nurse with decades of clinical experience
`
`caring for patients in various settings.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 3
`
`9.
`
`In the course of her clinical experience, Ms. Stamps recognized that escalating
`
`costs of epinephrine auto-injectors (used to treat anaphylactic emergencies) created a significant
`
`problem for both patients and care-givers alike.
`
`10.
`
`As a result, and relying upon her years of clinical experience, Ms. Stamps
`
`formed Snap to produce, market and sell epinephrine convenience kits.
`
`11.
`
`These kits are FDA registered.
`
`Snap Enters Into a Sales Distribution Agreement with Focus
`
`12.
`
`In order to aid in marketing and selling the convenience kits that Snap had
`
`created, on or about November 10, 2015, Snap entered into a nonexclusive Sales Distribution
`
`Agreement (“Agreement”) with Focus. A true and accurate copy of the Agreement is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`13.
`
`Under the Agreement, Snap appointed Focus as a distributor, which Focus
`
`accepted, and Focus agreed to exercise its best efforts to promote the sale of the Snap products.
`
`14.
`
`However, Snap also reserved to itself the right under the Agreement to assist
`
`Focus with sales, to handle or conclude a sale or other transaction, to contact potential customers,
`
`and to solicit business. In other words, Snap was permitted to make direct sales and marketing
`
`of its products.
`
`15.
`
`Shortly after executing the Agreement, Snap and Focus began working
`
`together to develop packaging and marketing materials for Snap’s products. This included
`
`working with Snap’s graphic design and content consultants to create package design, verbiage
`
`and content, as well as content for advertising and marketing.
`
`16.
`
`Snap also worked with an FDA consultant to create specific Instructions for
`
`Use and product labeling for the Snap products.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 4
`
`17.
`
`Throughout the course of the Agreement, Snap and Focus further worked
`
`together to develop and refine the sales pitch and marketing materials for the Snap products.
`
`18.
`
`Under the Agreement, the results of this and other joint work became the
`
`exclusive property of Snap, and anything created by Focus under the Agreement was to be
`
`deemed a “work for hire” under the Copyright Act. Ex. A, ¶ 8.7.
`
`19.
`
`As a result of directly participating
`
`in
`
`the development of product
`
`improvements and/or new products, the development of Instructions for Use of the product(s),
`
`the development of product packaging, as well as the development of marketing and sales
`
`materials and strategies, Focus gained access to Snap’s confidential information. In fact, Mr.
`
`McBee, Ms. Cross, and others at Focus routinely attended meetings or participated in calls with
`
`third parties contracted to provide packaging strategies, product information and development,
`
`and marketing content.1
`
`20.
`
`Because it was anticipated that Focus would have access to this confidential
`
`information, the Agreement explicitly protected that information. Ex. A, ¶ 13.1.
`
`Ms. Stamps Promotes both Snap Products and Focus Products
`
`21.
`
`During the course of the Agreement, Ms. Stamps not only promoted Snap’s
`
`products, but, acting as a good business partner, she also assisted in the promotion of various
`
`Focus products as well.
`
`22.
`
`Ms. Stamps opened doors to customers that Focus did not or would not
`
`otherwise have had access to.
`
`23.
`
`For example, Snap had an existing relationship with Managed Health Care
`
`Associates, Inc. (“MHA”), the country’s largest alternate site GPO. Ms. Stamps was able to get
`
`1 Upon information and belief, the principal owners of Focus are Fred McBee, Tracy Thompson,
`and Doug Berry, along with their respective children.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 5
`
`Focus’s product(s) listed with MHA, resulting in significant sales for Focus that continues to this
`
`day. Ms. Stamps also established a relationship with the wholesaler Henry Schein.
`
`24.
`
`In recognition of these efforts, in February 2017, Focus agreed to pay Ms.
`
`Stamps a ten percent (10%) commission on gross profits. This would include, for example, a
`
`commission on all sales made via MHA.
`
`25.
`
`To date, however, Focus has not paid Ms. Stamps a commission as promised.
`
`Focus Proposes a Licensing Agreement.
`
`From 2016 until 2018, the business relationship between Snap and Focus
`
`26.
`
`seemed to be going smoothly. However, in late 2018 or early 2019, that relationship began to
`
`deteriorate.
`
`27.
`
`In December 2018, Focus, by and through Mr. McBee, reached out to Snap to
`
`propose a licensing agreement whereby Focus would produce and sell a product that was
`
`essentially identical to Snap’s product. The only difference between the two would be the NDC
`
`labeler code2 and product branding.
`
`28.
`
`In fact, in January 2019, Mr. McBee drove to Columbus, Ohio to present his
`
`idea to Ms. Stamps. Mr. McBee demonstrated how the licensed product could be used by Focus
`
`to “play a pricing game” with its major wholesalers and government contracts. Although Ms.
`
`Stamps indicated that Snap may have some level of general interest in a licensing agreement, it
`
`had no interest in playing a “pricing game,” and was instead more interested in continuing with
`
`the promotion and sale of Snap’s products under the then-current Agreement.
`
`
`2 Drug products are identified and reported using a unique, three-segment number, which serves
` See https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-
`as a universal product
`identifier.
`databases/national-drug-code-directory.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 6
`
`29.
`
`However, during this visit, Ms. Stamps did suggest that it might be a
`
`possibility for Focus to purchase Snap. Mr. McBee responded that he had no interest in buying
`
`her company, but that he did intend to take it over.
`
`30.
`
`In February 2019, Mr. McBee broached the subject of a licensing agreement
`
`again, setting up a call between himself, his attorney (Alan Hall), as well as co-owners Mr.
`
`Thompson and Mr. Berry. Ms. Stamps indicated that Snap had little interest in licensing its
`
`products, primarily due to the issues that had been occurring, including lack of sales strategy,
`
`lack of inventory management, inconsistent sales reporting and customer complaints regarding
`
`Focus billing practices. Snap also had no interest in participating in Focus’s “pricing game.”
`
`31.
`
`In March 2019, Mr. McBee once again raised the subject of a licensed product
`
`in a telephone conference call with Ms. Stamps, joined by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Berry. Again,
`
`Snap rejected the idea.
`
`32.
`
`In addition, during this same time period, Mr. McBee, Ms. Cross, and others at
`
`Focus asked Snap to print package cartons with the Focus branding and a Focus NDC labeler
`
`code. Snap declined that request.
`
`33.
`
`Mr. McBee, Ms. Cross, and others at Focus also began requesting detailed
`
`product information about the Snap products, including marketing materials and access to Snap’s
`
`product images.
`
`34.
`
`Snap provided Focus access to its image library, and also sent marketing
`
`materials, including product comparisons, to Focus at its request.
`
`35.
`
`It is no coincidence that, during this same time period when Focus and its
`
`principals were pushing a licensing agreement, Snap saw a dramatic decrease in Focus’s efforts
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 7
`
`to market and sell Snap’s products, as well as a dramatic decrease in Focus’s willingness to
`
`provide necessary reporting of Snap’s product sales.
`
`36.
`
`During this time, Snap also experienced a lack of adequate inventory
`
`management on the part of Focus, inappropriate and unprofessional behavior on the part of Mr.
`
`McBee, and a personal relationship between Mr. McBee and Ms. Cross which caused a negative
`
`impact on Snap and its business.
`
`Snap Terminates the Agreement.
`
`37.
`
`As a result of the decline in marketing, participation, reporting, and sales by
`
`Focus, along with unprofessional and inappropriate behavior, and the repeated insistence on a
`
`separate licensing agreement, Snap terminated the Agreement with Focus on May 1, 2019. As a
`
`result, the effective date of the termination was June 1, 2019.
`
`38.
`
`Under the terms of the Agreement, Focus could conclude any pending sales
`
`and shipment efforts. However, Focus was not permitted to make new sales after the termination
`
`and was required to return Snap’s property and any remaining inventory.
`
`39.
`
`Rather than returning Snap’s property and the unused inventory following
`
`termination of the Agreement, Focus instead continued to make new additional sales.
`
`40.
`
`In May and June 2019, through numerous conference calls initiated by Focus,
`
`Focus misled Snap into believing that it wanted to continue to purchase Snap products and serve
`
`mutually agreed upon customers. Ultimately, however, this proved to be a sham intended merely
`
`to delay Snap from taking action while Focus continued developing its copycat products, secured
`
`its URL, epinephrineprofessional.com, and began marketing its competitive product.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 8
`
`Focus Interferes with Snap’s Business Relationships.
`
`41.
`
`Unbeknownst to Snap, during the time that Focus was seeking a licensing
`
`agreement from Snap, it was also misrepresenting itself as an exclusive supplier of Snap’s
`
`product.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, one of the reasons Focus did this was to try to
`
`preclude Snap from making direct sales of its own product, which was expressly permitted under
`
`the Agreement.
`
`43.
`
`In fact, and as one example, at some point prior to May 31, 2019, Focus
`
`communicated with the Minnesota Multistate Contracting Alliance for Pharmacy (“MMCAP”)
`
`about contracting for the distribution of the Snap product, falsely representing Focus as an
`
`exclusive distributor of Snap products.
`
`44.
`
`As a result of these false representations, MMCAP contracted with Focus as a
`
`sole award and Snap lost its ability to sell its products to MMCAP members until the Focus
`
`contract expires.
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, these false representations of being an exclusive
`
`distributor for Snap continued even after Snap terminated the Agreement in May 2019.
`
`46.
`
`In addition, Focus failed to notify its wholesaler and GPO customers that it was
`
`no longer a distributor of Snap products. This caused confusion in the marketplace,
`
`disadvantaging Snap in the sale of its products.
`
`Focus Unfairly Competes with Snap.
`
`47.
`
`The Focus products that Mr. McBee presented in January 2019—the products
`
`that were in all relevant respects identical to Snap’s products—are the same products that Focus
`
`began marketing and selling almost immediately after the termination of the Agreement.
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 9
`
`48.
`
`Focus used Snap’s confidential information—protected under the terms of the
`
`Agreement—to create its competing product. More specifically, Focus and its principals used
`
`the confidential information they gained from participating in the development of Snap’s
`
`product(s), including but not limited to: what was to be included in the kits, and why; how to put
`
`together instructions for use, and what information should be included; as well as content for
`
`marketing and sales.
`
`49.
`
`In marketing and selling its copycat products, Focus falsely represented them
`
`as an improvement and replacement to Snap’s products, thereby improperly suggesting to its
`
`customers that the Focus product was a continuation of the Snap product that was no longer
`
`available.
`
`50.
`
`In July 2019, Focus, continuing to sell Snap products, contacted its wholesaler
`
`customers and improperly reduced the pricing for Snap products.
`
`PART I: SNAP’S CLAIMS
`
`COUNT ONE
`Tortious Interference with Business Relationships
`(Against Defendants McBee and Cross)
`
`Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.
`
`Defendants McBee and Cross knew or should have known that, under the
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Agreement, Focus was a nonexclusive distributor of Snap’s products. Defendants also knew or
`
`should have known that Snap retained its right under the Agreement to assist Focus with sales, to
`
`handle or conclude a sale or other transaction, to contact potential customers, or to solicit
`
`business.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants intentionally, and/or with reckless disregard, falsely represented
`
`Focus to be an exclusive distributor of Snap’s products to prospective customers of Snap.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 10
`
`54.
`
`Defendants intentionally and/or with reckless disregard, failed to notify
`
`Focus’s wholesaler customers that Focus was no longer a distributor of Snap products.
`
`55.
`
`As a result of those false representations, Snap lost sales and was otherwise
`
`precluded from contracting with certain customers.
`
`56.
`
`In addition, Defendants intentionally and/or with reckless disregard, reduced
`
`pricing on Snap products without authorization after termination of the Agreement.
`
`57.
`
`As a result of the price reduction, Snap has lost revenue for sales of Snap
`
`products.
`
`58.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ tortious interference,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT TWO
`Tortious Interference with Business Relationships
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.
`
`After termination of the Agreement, Defendants intentionally and/or with
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`reckless disregard, urged at least one customer of Snap products to discontinue their relationship
`
`with Snap and to instead purchase Focus products, falsely claiming that Snap had breached a
`
`contract and/or acted inappropriately.
`
`61.
`
`After termination of the Agreement, Defendants also made false and/or
`
`misleading representations to customers about Focus’s products and their relation to the Snap
`
`products. These false and/or misleading representations had the effect of leading those
`
`customers to believe that Focus’s products were an improvement of Snap’s products and/or that
`
`the Snap products would no longer be available.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 11
`
`62.
`
`As a result of those false and/or tortious representations, Snap lost sales and
`
`was otherwise precluded from contracting with certain customers.
`
`63.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ tortious interference,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT THREE
`Common Law Unfair Competition
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.
`
`After the Agreement had been terminated, Defendants sought to substitute
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`Focus’s copycat products for the Snap products with the customers that they had previously been
`
`dealing with.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants used Snap’s confidential information to create, market, and sell
`
`Focus’s copycat products. More specifically, Defendants used the confidential information they
`
`gained from participating in the development of Snap’s products, including but not limited to:
`
`the design of both a standard and EMS specific kit, what was to be included in the kits, and why;
`
`how to put together instructions for use, and what information should be included; as well as
`
`content for marketing and sales.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants then made false and/or misleading representations to those
`
`customers about Focus’s products and their relation to the Snap products. These representations
`
`had the effect of leading those customers to believe that Focus’s products were an improvement
`
`of Snap’s products and that the Snap products would no longer be available.
`
`68.
`
`As a result of the Defendants’ unfair competition, Plaintiff has been damaged
`
`in an amount to be proven at trial. In addition, Defendants’ unfair competition warrants the
`
`imposition of injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 12
`
`COUNT FOUR
`Unfair Competition – 15 U.S.C. § 1125
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.
`
`After the Agreement had been terminated, Defendants sought to substitute
`
`
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`Focus’s copycat product for the Snap product with the customers that they had previously been
`
`dealing with.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants used Snap’s confidential information to create, market, and sell
`
`Focus’s copycat products. More specifically, Defendants used the confidential information they
`
`gained from participating in the development of Snap’s products, including but not limited to:
`
`the design of both a standard and EMS specific kit, what was to be included in the kits, and why;
`
`how to put together instructions for use, and what information should be included; as well as
`
`content for marketing and sales.
`
`72.
`
`Defendants then made false and/or misleading representations to those
`
`customers about Focus’s products and their relation to the Snap products. These representations
`
`had the effect of leading those customers to believe that Focus’s products were an improvement
`
`of Snap’s products and that the Snap products would no longer be available.
`
`73.
`
`As a result of the Defendants’ unfair competition, Plaintiff has been damaged
`
`in an amount to be proven at trial. In addition, Defendants’ unfair competition warrants the
`
`imposition of injunctive relief.
`
`COUNT FIVE
`Deceptive Trade Practices – R.C. 4165.02
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.
`
`74.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 13
`
`75.
`
`After the Agreement had been terminated, Defendants sought to substitute
`
`Focus’s copycat products for the Snap products with the customers that they had previously been
`
`dealing with.
`
`76.
`
`Defendants used Snap’s confidential information to create, market, and sell
`
`Focus’s copycat products. More specifically, Defendants used the confidential information they
`
`gained from participating in the development of Snap’s products, including but not limited to:
`
`the design of both a standard and EMS specific kit, what was to be included in the kits, and why;
`
`how to put together instructions for use, and what information should be included; as well as
`
`content for marketing and sales.
`
`77.
`
`Defendants then made false and/or misleading representations to those
`
`customers about Focus’s products and their relation to the Snap products. These representations
`
`had the effect of leading those customers to believe that Focus’s products were an improvement
`
`of Snap’s products and that the Snap products would no longer be available.
`
`78.
`
`As a result of the Defendants’ unfair competition, Plaintiff has been damaged
`
`in an amount to be proven at trial. In addition, Defendants’ unfair competition warrants the
`
`imposition of injunctive relief.
`
`COUNT SIX
`Unjust Enrichment
`(Against Focus)
`
`Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.
`
`After termination of the Agreement, Focus improperly retained Snap’s
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`products.
`
`81.
`
`Rather than returning the unused products to Snap, Focus sold the products,
`
`retaining all of the profits therefrom.
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 14
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`As such, a benefit was conferred by Snap upon Focus.
`
`Focus had knowledge of the benefit conferred by Snap.
`
`Under the circumstances, it would be unjust to allow Focus to retain the
`
`benefits conferred by Snap without payment.
`
`85.
`
`In addition, Focus used Snap’s confidential information to create, market, and
`
`sell its copycat products. More specifically, Focus and its principals used the confidential
`
`information they gained from participating in the development of Snap’s products, including but
`
`not limited to: the design of both a standard and EMS specific kit, what was to be included in the
`
`kits, and why; how to put together instructions for use, and what information should be included;
`
`as well as content for marketing and sales.
`
`86.
`
`Focus knew that this confidential information had been developed at Snap’s
`
`cost, and knew that by using that information, a benefit would be conferred upon it.
`
`87.
`
`Under the circumstances, it would be unjust to allow Focus to retain the
`
`benefits conferred by Snap without payment.
`
`88.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the unjust enrichment, Snap has been
`
`damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`COUNT SEVEN
`Conversion
`(Against Focus)
`
`Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.
`
`Following termination of the Agreement, Focus wrongfully used Snap’s
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`confidential information to create, market, and sell its copycat products. More specifically,
`
`Focus and its principals used the confidential information they gained from participating in the
`
`development of Snap’s products, including but not limited to: the design of both a standard and
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 15
`
`EMS specific kit, what was to be included in the kits, and why; how to put together instructions
`
`for use, and what information should be included; as well as content for marketing and sales.
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`The confidential information used by Focus was (and is) Snap’s property.
`
`Focus has failed and wrongfully refused to return Snap’s property and has
`
`otherwise wrongfully refused to discontinue use of that property.
`
`93.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conversion, Plaintiff has been
`
`damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`PART II: MS. STAMPS’ CLAIMS
`
`COUNT EIGHT
`Breach of Contract
`(Against Focus)
`
`Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.
`
`During the course of the Agreement, Ms. Stamps assisted in the promotion of
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`various Focus products.
`
`96.
`
`Ms. Stamps opened doors to customers that Focus did not or would not
`
`otherwise have had access to.
`
`97.
`
`For example, Ms. Stamps was able to get Focus’s product(s) listed with MHA,
`
`resulting in significant sales for Focus that continues to this day.
`
`98.
`
`In recognition of these efforts, in February 2017, Focus agreed to pay Ms.
`
`Stamps a ten percent (10%) commission on gross profits. This would include a commission on
`
`all sales made via MHA.
`
`99.
`
`100.
`
`To date, however, Focus has not paid Ms. Stamps a commission as promised.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the breach of contract, Ms. Stamps has been
`
`damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 16
`
`COUNT NINE
`Unjust Enrichment
`(Against Focus)
`
`Plaintiffs restate the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.
`
`During the course of the Agreement, Ms. Stamps assisted in the promotion of
`
`101.
`
`102.
`
`various Focus products.
`
`103.
`
`Ms. Stamps conferred a benefit upon Focus by, among other things, opening
`
`doors to customers that Focus did not or would not otherwise have had access to.
`
`104.
`
`For example, Ms. Stamps was able to get Focus’s product(s) listed with MHA
`
`and Henry Schein, resulting in significant sales for Focus that continues to this day.
`
`105.
`
`106.
`
`Focus had knowledge of the benefit conferred by Ms. Stamps.
`
`Under the circumstances, it would be unjust to allow Focus to retain the benefit
`
`conferred by Ms. Stamps without payment.
`
`107.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the unjust enrichment, Ms. Stamps has been
`
`damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Snap Medical Industries, LLC and Nancy Stamps seek
`
`judgment against Defendants Focus Health Group, Inc., Fred McBee, and Beth Cross, jointly and
`
`severally, for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding $75,000; for an award of punitive
`
`damages; attorney fees and costs; prejudgment interest; and for all and any other relief, legal or
`
`equitable, as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Case: 2:20-cv-05557-SDM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/23/20 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 17
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Jonathan P. Corwin
`James E. Arnold (0037712)
`Jonathan P. Corwin (0075056)
`
`ARNOLD & CLIFFORD, LLP
`115 West Main Street, 4th Floor
`Columbus, Ohio 43215
`Tel: (614) 460-1600
`Email: jarnold@arnlaw.com
` jcorwin@arnlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Snap Medical Industries,
`LLC and Nancy Stamps
`
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable herein.
`
`
`
`s/ Jonathan P. Corwin
`Jonathan P. Corwin
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
