IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION. Civil Action No. 09-CV-367

Similar documents
Case KG Doc 1 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/18 Page 1 of 11 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 1:19-cv DLI-SJB Document 1 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1

Case 7:18-cv NSR Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vs.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

Case 1:16-cv SMV-WPL Document 1 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 2:12-cv RCJ -GWF Document 1 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case 2:17-cv JMV-SCM Document 1 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

Case 2:12-cv CCC-JAD Document 1 Filed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case: 3:15-cv wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 01/28/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff R.J. Zayed ( Plaintiff or Receiver ), through his undersigned counsel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Case 3:12-cv HZ Document 23-1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#: 87

8:18-cv DCC Date Filed 01/03/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

IN CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION. v. CASE NO. COMPLAINT

Case 4:18-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 01/04/18 Page 1 of 13

4:10-cv TLW Date Filed 03/18/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12

CUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA. Plaintiff, v. Case No. COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Filing # E-Filed 05/23/ :26:50 PM

Defendant. Case 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv DAK Document 2 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:17-cv SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : :

Case 1:13-cv DJC Document 1 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:18-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2018 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case: 0:17-cv HRW Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/13/17 Page: 1 of 16 - Page ID#: 1

I c~~ U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JUDGMENT

Case 3:17-cv VAB Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. v. ) Civil Action No.

2:13-cv CWH Date Filed 06/26/13 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

: : : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff Impulse Marketing Group, Inc., by its attorneys, Klein, Zelman, Rothermel &

8:17-cv RFR-FG3 Doc # 1 Filed: 05/26/17 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Case 4:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/02/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/30/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case 4:14-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/17/14 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1

Case 5:14-cv FB-JWP Document 1 Filed 10/16/14 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:14-cv HU Document 1 Filed 04/01/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Case 1:08-cv Document 1 Filed 10/21/2008 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case 3:11-cv WGY Document 168 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 4:10-cv TSH Document 1 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 3:13-cv AC Document 1 Filed 03/09/13 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

The petitioning creditors ( Petitioners ) in the above referenced involuntary Chapter 11

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/03/ :08 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2016

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 13

Case 2:16-cv JEO Document 1 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 12

Case No.: CLASS ACTION. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1692, ET SEQ.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv CMA-CBS Document 22 Filed 02/17/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed 07/14/17 Page 1 of 18

INTRODUCTION. TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("UBER" or "Defendant") pursuant to North Carolina's Unfair and

Case 1:13-cv NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:10-cv EEF-JCW Document 1 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 13

Courthouse News Service

Case 2:99-cv SCB Document 1 Filed 05/12/1999 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. : : Plaintiffs, : : vs.

Case 1:99-mc Document 465 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 141 Filed: 12/06/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1455

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:16-cv SPB Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Case 3:12-cv IEG-BGS Document 1 Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Courthouse News Service

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Northern Division COMPLAINT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2014 EXHIBIT

Case 0:14-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2014 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/03/18 Page 1 of 12

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 12/19/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 3 Filed: 02/22/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:3

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 111 Filed: 09/19/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1029

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 3:17-cv PK Document 1 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:18-cv SJF-SIL Document 1 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 9:18-cv DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2018 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE#

Case 1:16-cv UU Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2016 Page 1 of 14

Case 3:18-cv B Document 1 Filed 05/08/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1

Case 1:16-cv CBA-SMG Document 1 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

Case: 3:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/20/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No.

Case 2:18-cv JAW Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/11/ :43 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/11/2017

Case 8:18-cv PWG Document 1 Filed 08/21/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 4:16-cv RGE-SBJ Document 59 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:18-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2018 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. IN AND FOR DUVAL f} C A. Plaintiff, Case No. COMPLAINT

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Civil Action No. 09-CV-367 LENDINGTREE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MORTECH, INC., Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY DEMAND Nature of the Action 1. This is an action seeking injunctive relief that would enjoin Defendant Mortech, Inc. ( Mortech from violating the terms of a valid and existing contract between Mortech and Plaintiff LendingTree, LLC ( LendingTree. 2. The dispute in this matter arises out of a contract in which Mortech agreed, with limited exceptions, not to make certain of its services available for use with LendingTree s competitors. Mortech has entered into a relationship with Google Inc. ( Google that contravenes the express language of Mortech s agreement with LendingTree.

Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. There is complete diversity of citizenship. LendingTree is a Delaware LLC whose sole member, LendingTree Holdings Corp., resides in Delaware. LendingTree s principal place of business is in North Carolina. Mortech is a Nebraska corporation with its principal place of business in Nebraska. The amount in controversy requirement is satisfied as the pecuniary result of an injunction, though difficult to determine, would be worth substantially more than $75,000 to LendingTree. 4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this district. Moreover, the contracts at issue in this litigation state that LendingTree and Mortech have agreed that any dispute arising under those contracts are to be governed exclusively by the laws of the State of North Carolina and would be heard in state or federal courts located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Factual Allegations 5. LendingTree is a leading online mortgage loan aggregator, operating a website that provides customers with conditional mortgage loan offers from lenders in LendingTree s network. LendingTree provides these offers by forwarding various information provided by customers to lenders who evaluate that information and return conditional loan terms. Generally, this process takes as few as five minutes. 6. LendingTree works with Mortech, a company that provides a technology solution known as a pricing engine that assists LendingTree s lenders in generating conditional loan offers. 2

7. LendingTree considers Mortech to be its preferred provider for pricing engine services. Although it is LendingTree s lenders, rather than LendingTree itself, that contract directly with Mortech for its services, LendingTree prefers that lenders work with Mortech. Consequently, Mortech provides pricing engine services to more LendingTree lenders than any other pricing engine vendor. 8. LendingTree routinely provides Mortech with confidential information regarding LendingTree s customers and lenders. To protect the confidentiality of this information, LendingTree and Mortech executed a confidentiality agreement in April 2008. The confidentiality agreement prohibits both parties from disclosing to a third party information treated as confidential, proprietary, or a trade secret. 9. In November 2008, LendingTree requested that Mortech sign an amendment to their confidentiality agreement that would limit Mortech s ability to make its pricing engine services available for use with other online loan aggregators. Mortech signed what the parties called an Addendum Agreement incorporating this change. 10. The Addendum Agreement provides that, subject to a limited exception, Mortech would not post or otherwise provide data associated with an offer for a loan product directly to any online loan aggregator. 11. In consideration of Mortech s promise, LendingTree agreed to forgo various payments due to it under the confidentiality agreement. LendingTree also agreed to offer its customers the product, pricing, lead management and eligibility solutions of [Mortech] when offering such services to its clients and customers. LendingTree has at all times adhered to its responsibilities under the Addendum Agreement. 3

12. Following the establishment of this agreement, LendingTree sought Mortech s input on the development of new LendingTree products and services that, without the Addendum Agreement, it would not have discussed with Mortech. LendingTree tasked its executive responsible for product innovation to discuss with Mortech a variety of ideas for new LendingTree services. As recently as June 23, 2009, representatives from LendingTree and Mortech met to evaluate a number of ideas that LendingTree is currently developing and intends to bring to market in the future. 13. LendingTree recently learned that Google imminently plans to launch a loan aggregation service in late August or early September of this year that would compete directly with LendingTree. LendingTree has also learned that Mortech intends to make its pricing engine services available for use with Google s new service and will send information related to mortgage loan offers to be displayed to consumers on Google s website. 14. LendingTree obtained screen shots of the trial version of Google s service that further indicate that, like LendingTree s service, Google will provide customers with conditional loan offers in addition to lenders contact information. 15. Mortech has already breached the Addendum Agreement by providing data related to mortgage loan offers to Google in connection with Google s beta test of its new product. 16. Upon learning that Mortech intended to violate the Addendum Agreement, LendingTree executive Robert Harris immediately contacted Donald Kracl, the President of Mortech. On August 13, 2009, Kracl told Harris that Mortech had agreed to work with Google s loan aggregation service and to provide that service with data regarding lenders wholesale loan rates. On August 18, 2009, Kracl and Harris spoke again, and Kracl said that Mortech intended 4

to provide Google s service with retail loan rates. Later that same day, Kracl returned to his original story and told Harris that Mortech would be providing Google with wholesale loan rates. In none of these conversations did Kracl deny that Mortech had agreed to make its pricing engine services available, whether with respect to wholesale or retail prices, for use with Google s service. 17. In the course of its collaboration with Google, Mortech will inevitably disclose the confidential, proprietary, and secret information that it has about LendingTree. In reliance upon the Addendum Agreement, LendingTree provided Mortech with substantial information regarding LendingTree s ideas for future products. LendingTree has sought, including through the Addendum Agreement itself, to keep this information confidential. Mortech will undoubtedly use this information during the course of its relationship with Google and such disclosure will irreparably damage LendingTree s future business. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Breach of Contract 18. LendingTree restates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-17 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 19. By providing Google with pricing data associated with an offer for a loan product, Mortech has directly violated the express terms of the Addendum Agreement. LendingTree has complied with the Addendum Agreement and the Confidentiality Agreement in all respects. 20. Unless Mortech is temporarily restrained and preliminarily and permanently enjoined from breaching the Addendum Agreement, LendingTree will suffer immediate, substantial, and irreparable harm, including: 5

A. the disclosure of confidential, proprietary, and secret information regarding LendingTree s future products; and B. the loss of future LendingTree customers. 21. Because of this immediate, substantial, and irreparable harm, and because LendingTree cannot determine a specific amount in damages, LendingTree seeks temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff LendingTree, LLC respectfully prays for judgment as follows: 1. That the Court find Mortech to be in breach of contract, in contravention of the common laws of the State of North Carolina; 2. That the Court enter an order enjoining, on a temporary, preliminary, and permanent basis, Mortech from violating the terms of the Addendum Agreement, including any and all actions Mortech may undertake to make its pricing engine services available for use with Google s online loan aggregation service, and any and all disclosures of LendingTree s confidential information; 3. That the Court award LendingTree attorneys fees; and 4. That the Court grant LendingTree such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff LendingTree, LLC respectfully requests that its claim against Mortech, Inc. be tried before a jury. 6

Respectfully submitted, this 25th day of August, 2009. LENDINGTREE, LLC By: s/ Joey H. Foxhall Mark Vasco North Carolina Bar No. 27048 Joey H. Foxhall North Carolina Bar No. 31530 ALSTON & BIRD LLP Bank of America Plaza 101 S. Tryon Street, Suite 4000 Charlotte, North Carolina 28280 (704 444-1000 telephone (704 444-1111 facsimile mark.vasco@alston.com email joey.foxhall@alston.com email Attorneys for Plaintiff LendingTree, LLC Of counsel: Robert P. Haney, Jr. New York Attorney Registration No. 1933837 C. William Phillips New York Attorney Registration No. 1885573 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10018 Telephone: (212 841-1000 Facsimile: (212 841-1010 Email: rhaney@cov.com cphillips@cov.com Attorneys for LendingTree, LLC 7