Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NOW COMES Plaintiff LISA WOOD by and through her attorney Douglas A.
McKinney, hereby brings the following complaint for injunctive relief against defendants
LITTLE CAESARS, INC., MICHAEL ILITCH and RONALD ILITCH for (i) breach of
contract; (ii) misappropriation of trade secrets; (iii) breach of fiduciary duties; and (iv)
negligence in failing to protect or defend the trade secret and intellectual property of
1. Plaintiff’s action arises out of defendant LITTLE CAESARS ENTERPRISES, INC its
agents, owners and employees of their fiduciary and contractual duties owed to
1
2. Defendant ILITCH HOLDINGS, INC is a Michigan Corporation with its principal place
4. Defendant Little Caesars, Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of business
5. The Defendant Michael Ilitch is a resident of the city of Bingham Farms, County of
6. Defendant ILITCH HOLDINGS, INC. a Michigan Corporation with its principal place
9. The Defendants’ acts giving rise to this dispute occurred in whole or in part within
the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan and, on information and
belief, Defendants regularly conduct business within the City of Detroit, County of
10. Although the harm caused by Defendants’ wrongful acts is not fully ascertainable,
Plaintiff’s damages exceed $25,000, exclusive of costs, interest and attorney fees.
11. This Court has jurisdiction since this action is between parties of the same state and
2
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
12. Plaintiff. Lisa Wood developed a restaurant concept that involved a unique process
13. At the insistence of Ronald Ilitch, son of Defendant Michael Ilitch, this concept was
and business strategies, and various other intellectual properties were described to
the agents and attorneys of Defendant Little Caesars including its president David
15. In addition Plaintiff provided Defendant Little Caesars art work and proposed menus
for her business concept “Pizza On The Water” and/or “Pizza By Boat” through its
16. This information concerning was highly confidential and not known in the public
domain.
17. The Defendants made specific promises to the Plaintiff Lisa Wood that including but
not limited to the concept, slogans and artwork created by Plaintiff would be
protected by the use of trademark and/or copyright laws for future use and Plaintiff
18. That in reasonable reliance upon these expressed promises the Plaintiff described in
detail her concept, the slogans she had developed and turned over to Defendant the
3
19. It had been represented by Defendants that all necessary legal steps had been or
would be taken to secure trademark and/or copyright protection for this intellectual
property.
20. It was further represented that the concept described as “Pizza On The Water”
and/or “Pizza By Boat” would be promoted as a new marketing method for which the
Plaintiff would earn royalties as other corporate stores and franchisee stores
promotion to wit: “Ahoy! Little Caesars is afloat now you can get pizza pizza by
22. In addition the Plaintiff was to receive at no costs at least four franchise locations in
Michigan to her for the purpose of further marketing and development of the concept
“Pizza On The Water” and/or “Pizza By Boat” and utilization of the slogans and the
23. That in furtherance of this agreement Plaintiff assigned her trademark and/or
24. Thereafter at the direction of Defendants’ agent David Scarvano Plaintiff began
study to determine the water traffic on the waterways in the Detroit Metro area and
to search for appropriate locations for the franchise stores to utilize the “Pizza On
25. In July 2004 the full commitment of support was obtained from Defendant Michael
4
26. Shortly after this commitment the relationship between the Plaintiff and Ronald IIitch
terminated.
27. Due to injury and trauma the Plaintiff was unable to continue to actively pursue the
opening of the franchise stores of Defendant and could no longer continue to aid in
the development of the concept “Pizza On The Water” and/or “Pizza By Boat” for a
period of time.
28. After a substantial period of recovery Plaintiff inquired as to the current status of the
29. Plaintiff was informed that Defendant was balking at going forward with the
agreements made.
30. Thereafter, Plaintiff learned that a competing pizza company began to utilize the
31. Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant defend the intellectual property assigned to
Defendant.
33. Plaintiff was informed that the Defendant may not have protected the unique
34. Plaintiff is fearful that Defendant may not have properly protected the intellectual
property she assigned to Defendant and that she may now be left with no ability to
35. Upon information and belief In August 2004 Defendants through their agents seized
items of personal property of the Plaintiff and the same have not been returned,
5
COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT
36. Plaintiff, Lisa Wood re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
1 through 35, inclusive, of its Complaint as though completely set forth herein.
37. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a contract for the protection, development
and marketing of the business concept “Pizza On The Water” and/or “Pizza By
Boat”.
38. That Plaintiff has performed all of her contractual obligations including but not
39. The Defendants have breached the contract by failing to protect the intellectual
property of the Plaintiff providing four (4) fully functioning franchises with the
“Pizza On The Water” and/or “Pizza By Boat” and marketing and promoting the
40. As a proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the contract Plaintiff has been
damaged including but not limited to the following failure to commence the
business “Pizza On The Water” and “Pizza By Boat” protect by trademark and/or
41. That the amount in controversy exceeds Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100
Defendants as shall be found from the proofs in excess of Twenty Five Thousand and
6
00/100 ($25,000.00) dollars plus cost interest and attorney fees and such other relief
COUNT II
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
42. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
intellectual property including a business concept, slogans, research and art work
developed by her.
44. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the promises and representations of the
Defendants.
45. Defendants promises and representations were either false when made or
has been and will continue to be irreparably injured since a competitor has began
use of the intellectual property developed by Plaintiff and upon information and
47. That the amount in controversy exceeds Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100
the proofs in excess of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 ($25,000.00) dollars plus
7
cost interest and attorney fees and such other relief this Court shall deem just
COUNT III
48. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
49. The Defendants came into possession of the intellectual property of the Plaintiff
50. Defendants have breached each and every one of the foregoing duties:
51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of his fiduciary duties
owed to Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and
damages including but not limited to loss profits and lost royalties.
amount as shall be found from the proofs in excess of Twenty Five Thousand and
00/100 ($25,000.00) dollars plus cost interest and attorney fees and such other relief
8
COUNT IV
NEGLIGENCE
52. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
53. Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiff to perform business function in keeping
54. Defendants knew that the Plaintiff was relying upon the Defendants to protect her
55. Defendants breached their duties including but not limited to failing to protect and
56. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants the Plaintiff
has been damaged including but not limited to the use by a competitor of the
found from the proofs in excess of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 ($25,000.00)
dollars plus cost interest and attorney fees and such other relief this Court shall deem
COUNT V
CONPIRACY
57. Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
9
58. That for some time prior to August 2, 2004 with the permission of Ronald Ilitch
59. At the same time Plaintiff also maintained a separate residence in the City of
60. That on or about August 2, 2004 the Plaintiff was removed from the Troy ,
61. Also contained in the Troy, Michigan home was evidence of a crime that had
62. That on or about August 2, 2004 upon information and belief the Defendants
through their agents, servants and/or employees refused entry into the home of
63. That for approximately 3 days thereafter upon information and belief the personal
64. The Defendants have now asserted that the written contracts executed by the
65. Upon information and belief the purpose of these actions were intended to
conceal the full extent of the crimes committed on that date and time and to
sever the contractual relationship between the parties to the point of deniability.
66. To allow the Defendants to deny the existence of the contracts through
10
67. That the actions of the Defendants demonstrates an agreement to secure the
Troy, Michigan home of Ronald Ilitch and conceal and or destroy property owned
by the Plaintiff.
68. That as a direct and proximate result of the actions taken by the Defendants the
Plaintiff has been damaged including but not limited to the following ways:
found from the proofs in excess of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 ($25,000.00)
dollars plus cost interest and attorney fees and such other relief this Court shall deem
Respectfully submitted,
By:______________________________
Douglas A. McKinney (P35430)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
P. O. Box 214145
Auburn Hills, MI 48321-4145
(248)601-1689
Dated: November 24, 2008
11