P. 1
Oberhofer v Macco Complaint

Oberhofer v Macco Complaint

|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Cory Liebmann

More info:

Published by: Cory Liebmann on Sep 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/21/2013

pdf

text

original

(

(

STATE OF WISCONSIN

CIRCUIT COURT

MILWAUKEE COUNTY

SARAH M. OBERHOFER 610 EAST DEAN ROAD MILWAUKEE, WI 53217 Plaintiff, vs. MACCO FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 1138 MAIN STREET GREEN BAY, WI 54301; and JOHNMACCO 1874 OLD VALLEY ROAD DE PERE, WI 54115-3370 Defendants.

Case No.: 09-CV-014613 Classification: 30106 30303

,
26
AMENDED COMPLAINT

FILEO C\VILOlV'SIO!1,...

26
\

.lK ",' l

zmo

-JOHNBARRE1T

Clerk of Cifcuit COUrt....J

Plaintiff, Sarah M. Oberhofer, by her attorneys, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., complains as follows:

THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Sarah M. Oberhofer, is an adult individual who resides in

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, at 610 East Dean Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53217. 2. Defendant Maceo Financial Group, Inc. ("MFG") is a Wisconsin

corporation with its principal place of business located at 1138 Main Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301. James J. Maceo, Sr., 1138 Main Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301, is MFG's registered agent for service of process. MFG engages in substantial and not isolated business in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

WH017089663.1

.(

3.

Defendant John Macco is an adult individual who resides in Brown

County, Wisconsin, at 1874 Old Valley Road, De Pere, Wisconsin 54115-3370. Defendant Macco engages in substantial and not isolated business activity in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.

Defendant MFG is subject to this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to Wis.

Stat. § 801.05(1)(c) and (1)(d). 5. Defendant Macco is subject to this Court's jurisdiction pursuant to Wis.

Stat. § 801.05(1)(a), (1)(b) and (l)(d). 6. Venue is proper in Milwaukee County Circuit Court pursuant to Wis. Stat.

§ 801.50(2)(a) and (c) in that the claim arose in Milwaukee County and Defendant does

substantial business in Milwaukee County. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Defendant MFG is a wealth management company offering financial and

investment guidance to individuals and businesses . 8. MFG. 9. Plaintiff is a licensed financial advisor specializing in financial planning. Defendant John Macco is owner, president and manager of Defendant

.

asset management, and investments for individuals and businesses. 10. In 2008, Plaintiff was employed by RBC Wealth Management as a

financial advisor. 11. While at RBC Wealth Management, Plaintiff enjoyed business

relationships with her clients that were established through years of hard work and commitment to her clients' financial wellbeing.
2
WHD/7089663 I

12.

In order to entice Plaintiff to end her employment relationship with RBC

Wealth Management, Defendant John Macco, as president and owner of MFG, offered Plaintiff the following terms of employment with his company: ,a. b. c. d. 13. a 5% equity stake in MFG; responsibility for a book of business containing $25 million in assets; a quarterly $5,000 bonus; and a salary of $60,000 per year.

Additionally, in connection with Plaintiff s transfer of client accounts

from RBC Wealth Management to MFG, Defendant Macco further committed to ensure payment of contract buyout, IRA and account closing fees. 14. In reliance on Defendant Macco's promises, Plaintiff terminated her

employment with RBC Wealth Management and began working at MFG on or about December 8, 2008. 15. Less than two months later, Plaintiffs employment with MFG was

terminated without cause on February 3, 2009. 16. As a result, Plaintiff lost clients due to the sudden change of events.
COUNT ONE: BREACH OF CONTRACT - MFG

17.

Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1

through 16 as if set forth fully herein. 18. At all relevant times, the promises made by Defendant Macco were fully

enforceable contractual obligations, as the relationship entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant MFG was marked by offer, acceptance and consideration. The engagement constituted an enforceable contract between the parties under which MFG is obligated to perfonn.

3
WHD17089663 I

(

19. At all relevant times, Plaintiff satisfactorily performed her duties and

MFG has not been excused from its contractual duties. 20. MFG has breached the employment contract between the parties. MFG's

breach of contract has caused Plaintiff to suffer monetary damages, including without limitation a loss of benefits owed under the contract and consequential damages such as lost clients and lost revenues, as well as expenses and attorneys' fees, which will continue to accrue to Plaintiffs detriment.
COUNT TWO: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - MFG AND MACCO

21.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 20 as if set forth fully herein. 22. Defendants should have reasonably expected that Defendant Maceo's

promises would induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character by Plaintiff. 23. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Defendant Maceo's promises of

employment and associated benefits. 24. 25. Defendants induced Plaintiffs reliance to Plaintiffs detriment. Plaintiff terminated her employment with RBC Wealth Management and

notified her clients of her new employment with MFG. Plaintiff informed her clients of the benefits they would receive, as promised by MFG, if they transferred their accounts to MFG. Plaintiff transferred numerous clients to MFG. 26. In the end, Defendants did not make good on the benefits promised to

Plaintiff or in relation to her clients, and in fact caused Plaintiff harm in that Plaintiff's sudden and unjustified termination caused certain of her clients to transfer their accounts elsewhere. 4

(
27.

{'
\

MFG is estopped from disputing any portion of Plaintiffs claims related

to the promises made to her by Defendant Maceo, its owner, president and manager.

28.

Defendant Maceo is estopped from disputing any portion of Plaintiffs

claims related to the promises he made to her.

COUNT THREE: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP - JOHN MACCO
29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 28 as if set forth fully herein.

30.

Defendant Maceo knew that Plaintiff enjoyed a business relationship with

her clients at RBC Wealth Management. 31. Defendant Maceo intended to disrupt the performance of those

relationships and his actions were not privileged or justified.

32.

Defendant Maceo's conduct in making false promises and terminating

Plaintiffs employment shortly after she began working for MFG prevented performance of Plaintiffs business relationship with her clients and/or made performance thereof more expensive or difficult.

33.

Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant Maceo's conduct in that certain of her

clients terminated their business relationships with her due to Defendant Maceo's conduct. 34. harm. Defendant Maceo's conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs

COUNT FOUR: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT - JOHN MACCO
35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 34 as if set forth fully herein.

5
WHD!7089663.1

36.

Prior to joining MFG in December 8, 2008, Plaintiff maintained an

employment relationship with RBC Management. 37. Defendant Maceo intentionally made false promises of employment and

associated benefits to Plaintiff to interfere with Plaintiff s employment relationship with RBC Management. 38. Defendant Maceo was not privileged to interfere with Plaintiff s

employment relationship. 39. Plaintiff was hanned by Defendant Macco's intentional conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sarah M. Oberhofer, demands judgment in her favor, including an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, consequential damages, actual costs and attorneys' fees, as well as such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Dated this 21st day of April. 2010. WtIYTE HIRSCHBOECK DUDEK S.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff Sarah M. Oberhofer

P.O. ADDRESS: 555 East Wells Street Suite 1900 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-273-2100

William E. Hughes III State Bar No. 1014965 Theresa E. Essig State Bar No. 1056024

6
WHD17089663.1

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->