You are on page 1of 10

SGOPY

IN TI.ITJ SUPERIOR COIJRT OF'|I,IE STATE OF WASIIINGTON


IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OII ]'FIURSTON COTJN'|Y
I'IOSI AIvILiRICA CORPORAl'lON. a
Clololaclo Corporation . NO.
MOTION FOR TDMPORARI'
IIESTRAINING ORDBR AC,t ;',iS r
DEFENDANT BRENT DAVII)
SIMCOSKY
Plaintitl
ll rent DlLlitl Sincoskv.
Delendant.
I. RIILIEF RITQUESTED
I) laiutil'J'moves the corrt lbr a temporaty restrair.ring order restraining defendanl r.
,lrt:
(a) intellbring with plaintilfs contracts or prospective econonric relations;
(b) posting
on r.veb sites, sending lettels or otherwise cliscr,tssing in any r.vay anv lalse or.
mislc'acling infbrtrtation about pltrintiffor its Board ol'llilectors or its errrployees. endors
()r'attOrnc)'s:
(c) doing ally other act or thing calculated to. tending to. or likely to unfhirl_v cotrp )tc
with the plaintilT or to unlairly hann the valne ol'plaintiffs stock. and for an ,rcler'1o
shorv causc r.vhv delcndant should not be so restr.ained during the pendency olthis action.
l,l
tt
;:: .i
!\
MO']'ION I]OR'l'EMPORAI{Y RESTITAININC OI{DER
ACAINST DEFENDAN T BRENT DAVID SIMCOSKY
.I
i\,lccormack Inl!:lcrlual l)ropeltl [-it\
IJusinu
.r
i.:lr.
6l7l.cc:',r cll
Serltl.' WA 9r i(19
20(,.lli l.llllSR
2(,
II. STATIiMIINT OF FACTS
Dcl'enclaut has threatcuecl hodily harm to plaintil'fs Boald ol'Directors. For cxanrple.
.1.'Ii'ndant tllleirtens Irlrrrn in saying:
"MURPHY
AND BOD WILL LEARN THE I{ARD WAY WHAT A
BUTTFUCI(ING ISI!I!"
De lenclants also. lbr cxarnple" tlrreatens ph1,'sical harm to lvlt. Murphl,
(breakirrg
Iingers
altcl scxual nssault):
-'u\nd
it loolts lilic IVITJRPIJY intends to
givc
me the fingor so I intend to hreak it off tnd
shove it un his DUNIII ASSII!! LOL LOL"
I)eclaration o1'1-inrothy B. IVlcCoruraek, l'hrexts of Phvsical Violence Exhibits 1 - ltl
(chart
shorving statemellts rrade hy delendant).
.
De1'eflclant threatens to extort and blacknrail plaintiff r"rnless plaintilT "buys o11"
clef'elrclant. Iot' examplo. cleltndant. rcfbrring to "custonrers" and threatenilrg to contact
"c
ustol1]ers" \vfote:
"r\r'c
investors scared altel seeing hor.v MURPIIY scrcwcd CAFEW holders? TIMII IS
IttINNING OtiTlll lLcgistering rveb sites this lr,eek and putting togcther lettcrs arrd
iu lornration sl.reets Ibr ntailingl!1"
Del'cnclant rrses extottion as a meatls Lo stop his sntear clnrpaign:
"I WILL NOT STOP TINTII, TIII] \A-A.RRANTS ARIJ I]XTENDED OR tr'M PAID
WFIAT THEIR VALUE WOULD HAVE I}EEN IN SAY 2 Yf,ARS!I:!'
"Well
I intencl to rcmind potential custonlers and the contpetition olthat past"
Dcf'enclant also threatens blackmail (asking for $1.50 per expircd rvarrant) by strrring
he rvill create defamatoty u,ebsites regalding Host, Nlr. Murphy and Board oI Directors. But hc
rvill'osell" thc lvcbsitcs to Murphl'for a cost.
-l'1c1,
mayb SOmeboy shoLrld tell Murphy I'll scll the iights to my rveb site idea ol'
$1.50 a rvarrant? (Evcn
though thcyle giving warrants ar.vay with $1.95 strike price)
!
woulcl
go
arvay and no,er mention the rvord Enerlumc. Host, MurDhv, ctc againll! :
L,
MO'IION FOR TDIVIPORARY RES I'ItAININC OITDER
ACAINSI' DI]IJENDANI' t]IiENT DAVI D SIMCOSKY -2
illccornrack lnlcllcctual I'ropertv l.r$
Businoss Ltw
617 Lee Strccl
Scrtllc. WA 911 1 09
-rO6-1Rl
I{liSS
.)
",
lil
Li
t.
Ll
ll
l,
Li,
:l I
1ll
:;l
Declaration ol IinroLhy B. McCoruracl<. Blacknrail / Extofiion Exhibits I - 24 (chart shorving
stilicllrin ts rnuclc hr rielerrLllrrrt).
Def'endant specillcally threatens to danrage plaintifT property, including the value oi'its
slocli. plaintitT's contlactual relations and plaiutifl's prospective economic relatioils.
l)cl'enclant. lor exanrple, thleatens to colltact "distlibukrrs" antl
"customers",
he tlrreatens,
"Oh, those are the ones l'll be emailing next!l:)"
"LESSON:
DON'T FUCK WITH BRENTSKI'S MONEY!!!l!:!:"
Det'enclant also threatcns to "scare arvay potentini custonrers" with email/letter oampaigrr:
"Wilh thc Llteniet aud a Lrusiness listing (r.vhich I did pay 1br) one can e
'lail
thc correct
'lilks
c-asily. Ivly costs is verv little.....what is the costs to llnerlume when I scare away
potcnrial
cusromer.s u,irh the
lhis
sMEAR cAlvtPAIGN] !!???"
Also clclcndant threatens to contact plaintills "beta cuslor.ner list".
"Oh
ancl I lrave a copl' ol'1,our bcta cuslonter list and a list ol attendees liom tlrc
tradeslrolvs vou'r,e beeri to. So" they ge1 the l-IOST/Murph1, history as rvell. And here's
the great parl ol' the story: I don't have ro LIE or even cmbellish to cleete FEAR.
LINCERTAINI'Y and DOLJBT;
just
a rehash ol fhcts over the last 2 years is painliLl
enoughl! l!"
Declaration of
'l'imotlry
B. McCornrack. Thleats to Damage Properly Exhibits I - 89 (chart
showing statenlents nrade by defendant); sec also Del'arlation Exhibits i
,50;
Vulgal Llnguage
Irxhihits I
-
47.
Def'endant u,as advised 10 stop my plaintifls corpomte counsel. i)eclaration o1'linrothy
B. Mc('on.r.racli. Eshibit 2. Delenclant has r.villfirlly disrcgarded his r.varning.
Without an injunctiou clelenclant will stop at nolhing 1o harm plaintill and its boald ol
dircctols ancl its crLstomers. clistributors. venclors. potential customers, agents and attonieys.
III. STATEMENT OF THD ISSUE
MOTION I'OR TE]VIPOI{ARY RESTRAININC ORDER
A(IAINST DlltrtrNDANT BI{hNl' DAVID SIMCOSKY
-3
N4ccolI]rrck lntellccl(al l]ropcrt]
Busincss L,arv
617 Lcc Strcet
Scrttlc. WA 9lt 109
206..i8l.lt888
.r.l
)
tu
ri
_t,l
1l--
lt)
I'
t;
t
:1
2.,t
)" t,
::.1
!:t
Whethel deltntlarrt shor.rld be temporarily restrained liom defarning ancl otlrelrvise
lralassing plaintill'until the matlel can be lreald at a ptelintinary iniunction hearing rvhen
delbndant has overtly tlueatened to harnr the business rclationships ol'plaintitf and is cloirrg so for
an aclur ittedly imploper purpose?
IV. EVIDENCE ITELIED UPON
This ntotion is based on the attached dcclaration ol plaintiffs Counsel, Tinothy B.
lvlc('ormack aucl tlre atlached exiribits ancl the declaration of Mike Malota.
V. LEGAL AUTHORITY
'[
hc lbllo."ving legal authority is applicable to plaintifls motion.
Goncral Authority lbr TRO
'fhe
issuance ol a restraining older or plelirrinary injunction" and its scope. is u,ithin the
broacl discrction ol' the court tt.r [ashion zr rcnrecly appropriate tr: the palticular facts and
circrrmstanoes as r,vcll as the equities oi tlre casc.. LenholJ t. Birclt Buy Reol [,.sttte.22 \I'n.App.
70.74-75.5ti7 P.2d 1087, l0c)0 (1978).
Rtqterr t Gunter,3l Wn.App.27,30.640 P.2d 36.38
( 1 9ti2); ,rce a/.rr.r RCW 7 .40.020 and CR 65(b).
-fhe
lhctors consiclered include the chalacter of the intcrcst to be protected, the adequacy
of injunctive reliel relativc to other rer.nedies. possible rnisconduct b1, the opposing pertv. the
lclativc hardship to cither part1, il'the reliel is granted or clenied. the intelests oI other partics. and
llre public. arrcl tire practicalit_v', o1'enfbrcing it. Lanhof/ v. Birch Bul,Real Estota.22 Wn.App.70,
74-75.587 P.2d 1087, 1090- 91 (1978).
A temporaly restrairring older ol plelinrirrarv injunction may only be granted upon
lll'oof
that the applicant has a clear legal or eqLritable right and a i,l,ell glounded fear of inrnrediate
invasiorl 01'that righl. and that the acts complained o1'nrust be causing or will caltse the applicant
i\4OI'lON I1)R 1 l-TM POIU\RY RLS I IIAIN INC ORDEII.
/\C.\ lNSl' DIIFIINDANT Ll R ENT ll^ Vl D SI MCOSKY -.1
lvlccornrnck lntcllectual Propcrtl l.irrr
i]rrsiness l. \\
(r
l7 Lec Strcct
Scatllc. W,,\ 93 I09
206. iti Ltil(,i8
LC
1i
12.
Il
Irl
l.-'
Ir"
IH
?1)
2t
t.i
&ctual and substantial in
jury.
E..q., lstltrtritut S. S Co.
y.
Ncttionul l'[urine Eng. l]anct'. ,,1.s:;oc.,41
Wn.2d 106. 117-18.241 P.2d 549.556 (1952).
'I'he
courl in its clisclelion nral,rvaive the tiling ofa Lrond or the posting ofsecuritv, RCW
26.0q.060(5
).lvhich
it normallv does.
'l'enrporary
restraining orders ancl prelin.rinary injunctions rnay be obtained wilhout notice
to tlre opposing party. but only uncler limited circumstances C.'ornlnr: & Sons, htc. v. fufcl\rutnuru.
tl Wn.App.441.443" 506 P.2d 1328, Li30- 3l
(1973) (1'llO without notice is oka,v when it is
shor.r,n to tlle court by specific and complehensive lactual allegation that there is a critical and
irnrnediate need lbr the pl'otection of persons or propcrty).
Tvnes of Conduct that Can Be Enioined
Ail tvpes o1'misconduct nray be enjoined, including:
l.'[irlls. Bra'k]anar t llctuil
(llerks
Llnion,53 Wn.2d 17, 19.330 P.2d 314.315 (1958)
(restraining
tolts).
2. De(iulatoly. disparaging. or libelous statemeuts. In ra !\..lutiage of Olson.69 Wn.App.
621.850 P.2c1 527
(19g3)(father
enioined liom niaking dispalaging tenrali(s about mother in
prcsence ol theil children: court re.iected argument tl-rat restraining orcler violated fhther's I'reeclom
of speech); Dickson v Dickson, 12 Wash.App. 18i, 529 P.2d 476, certiorar; clenied 96 S.Ct. 53,
423 U.S. 832. 46 L.Ed.2cl 49. rehearing danietl 96 S.Ct. 406.423 tJ.S. 991,46 L.Ed.2d 311.
rcviev deniar.l (Wash. 1974) (hrjunctivc relief ll oiri defamatory or libelous conduct is applicable
when there is a recurling type iuvasion. the need lor multiple damage actions to asscrt tlte
clclcnclant's lights. an imnrinent tlrrcat olcontinlred ernotional ancl physical ttaunra, and ditlicLtlty
Larv of Defalnrtion
lJncler Washington law one is liatrle fbL any defanratory statements that are untrue. When
the untrue stalerrcnts are clirecteci at sorneone's trade or business then one does not even need to
MOI'ION FOR TEMPOIIARY RI'STRAININC ORDIR
AGAINS-I I)I]F EN DANT B RT..:NI' DAV ID SI ]\4COSKY
.5
N'lccormilck Irrtellectual l'rope()' l-ar\
[]usincss Las
617 I-c. Slreet
Scritle- W.,\ 91i 109
206.31.l1 .l{,1fi8
i
"l
ptovc
(lanrages.
In Washington State. the tlanrages are presuntccl. Sae c.g., ivkri:on rla Frunce,
Ltd. r. l,ldi.t Otri!, lnc.. 126 Wash. App. 34, 108 P.3d 787 (Wash. App. 2005) (holding
that
pl'cstlrlled damages Lo a pdvate plaintifT lbr defamation r,vithout ploof of actual malicc are
available undel Washington larv)
Defiulation is not protected by the Filst Amendment. Bcauharnuis t. lllinois. :143 U.S.
250, 72 S.Ct. 725.96 l,.Ed.glq (1951). ("Libelous
utterances not being
."virl.rin
thc' area ol
constitntionally protected speech, it is umecessary, either lor us or fbr the State courts. to
consider the issues betind the plrrase 'clear
alld present danger.' Certainly no one rvould contend
that obscene speech" lbr exatnple. nray be punished only upon a showitlg of such circrunstances.
Litrel. as,uve hayc seen. is in the sante class."): hr re Man'iage of Olson.69 Wn.App, 621,850
}'].2d 527 (l99iXfhthcr
enjoinecl li'om making disparaging remarks about mother in presence
of
tircir cliilclrcnl courl re.iected algunrcnt that rcstraining order violnted father's fi'eedom olspeech).
Given thc crcdible thlcats of phvsicral violence to persons and thc credible threats to
clantagc property (incJLrcling
defamation peL se and interference with contracts and prospective
economic telations) ar.rd the lotal lack ofany possible legal delense and tlre irreversible harnr that
r.vill clone if deltndant is allolved to rampage and givcn the I'act that clcl'endant rvill sufl.cr tro
harm fi'om being restrained it is proper and necessary that thc court issue the recJuested telrporary
restrain ing olclcr.
VI. PROPOSEI) OIIDER
A proposed orclel granting the relief requested accompanies this nrotion.
Datcd this day ol
,
1007.
BY:
Timothy B. McCormack, WSBA # 28074
t,a
i1
1,3
t.j
ti,
ll
,r4
i: t:
IVIOl'ION FOR TEMPORARY RESTITAININC ORDER
A(;AIN51'DEFENDANT BITENT DAVID SiMCOSKY -6
l\,lcCormack Inlellcqtrlitl Propcrt) I ir\
Ilusincss [,i!$
617 t.ce Strect
Scanlc. WA 981{)9
206..',r81 ,8{t88
!
,)
3
4
5
6
]
3
9
j
t.l
i1
12
13
i4
:15
1f.
i1
l!i
19
!10
22
2
-4,
24
il6
::-jri
Mccornlack Intellectual Properly Law
Business Law
617 Lee St.
Seattle, WA 98109
p. 206.381.8888/
l'. 206.381-1988
u:gL.VeCiELnstit.crqL$rr
MOTION I:OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
ACAINST DI]FENDANT BRENT DAVID SIMCOSKY.T
Mccormack Intellectual Propen], Lr\r
Business Law
61 7 Lec StrEet
Seattle. WA 98109
206.381.8888
i
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
i0
11
12
13
1{
15
16
1-l
1B
19
2A
2t
22
23
24
25
:6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASLIINGTON
IN AND }-OR TI.IE COUNTY OF TFIURS'|ON COLTNTY
HOST AMERICT\ CORPORA'IION, a
Colorado Corporatio[
,
Plaintiff,
BRENT DAVID SIMCOSKY AI(A DAVID
BRENT SIMCOSKY,
Defendant.
llhe parties to lhis action IIEREBY STIPLq-ATE to
against defendant.
NO.07-2-01732-5
P-EIWIANENT STIPULATED
IN.IUNCTION
the following Permanent Injunction
D. Brent Simcosky
AMERICA CORPORATION
By its:
g
_", t r- it
-t
Date
siP I I
2007
BETTY J. GOIILD
lvl.Cormack In tdl leclu al Propert)' l ,a$
Busincss L,aF PS
617 Lee Slrcet
Scittle, WA 98109
206.3R r.8888
20{,.illl.1938
PERMANONT STIPULATT,D INJUNCTION
.
I
Based on the consent ofthe parties and the court,s olr.t goodjudgmen!
il is Ordered:
1. Defendant and any officers, agents, sewalts, empioyees, and attorneys, and all other
petsons in active concert and participation
with defendant who receive actual notice of
this order, are enjoined from:
interfering with plainliffs contracts or prospective
economic relations;
posting on web sites, sending letters or otherwise discussing in any way
information about plaintiff
or its Board of Directors or its employees.
vendors, channel partners or attomeys;
13
12
19
26
6.
4.
),
2.
c. doing any other act or thing caiculated to, rending to, or likely to unfairly
compete l\,ith the plaintiff or to unf'airly liarm the value of plaintiff
s stock;
Defendant will agree never to mention HOST again, publically,
to anyone ever again
outside his own attomeys, unless by court order; Defendant rvill noi appear or
otJrerwise participate
in any message boards or discussion foruns that are affiliated
with or that specificaily discuss HOS'I or its affiliates or successors oL assisns.
Defendant agrees to sign a Clarjfication Letter regarding misrepresentation of specific
facts about the plaintiff ar:d any iniemperate or offensive communications for which
he was responsible in the form attached to the parties settlement agreement The Ietter
will be sent to David Murphy, the Host America Board of Directors, Channei
Partners; plaintiff
may use or discuss the letter with alyone in its effort ro mitigate
any damage caused by defendant or as might othenvise be required by law.
Each side r.vill bear their own costs and attomeys, fees, except as noted.
The case wil.l be removed from the court's docket and be considered dismissed ancl
adjudicated
but the courr wili retain
jurisdiction
for enforcement ofthis injunction and.
any
judgment
that mighl be filed pursrlant to the parties settlemeflt agreement; counsel
for plaintiffwill
retain subpoena power for compliance purposes;
If this injunction is violated, upon a good cause showing to rhe court, the {bllorving
sanctions against the defendant
r,vill
be imposed:
2C
21
24
25
).
PERlVIANENT STIPULATED TNIUNCTION -2 ivlccormack Intcllectual Properq, Lsrv
Business Lirlv PS
617 Lee Street
Seanle, WA 98109
206.18t.8888
206.i8r. r988
1
2
3
4
b.
c.
d.
Payment
of attorneys' fees and costs for any follow-up enforcement
aclion;
Surrender
ofany and all personal
computers;
Agreement to rlot use the Intemet for t0 years,
unless for work; and
Damages in the amount of$250,000 and
$25,000 in attomeys' fees (in
form of consent judgment).
5
6
,7
I
9
10
11
t2
13
1d
15
!6
r1
18
19
2_A
2L
23
24
25
26
21
2A
This order shall go
this Court.
into effect immediately and shalt remain in effecL until funhet order ol
{
ANNE
HIRSCH
SIIPERIOR COT]RT ruDGE
Presented
by:
Timothy B. McCormack,
WSBA # 28074
McCormack lntellectual
property
Law
Business Law PS
617 Lee St.
Seattle, WA 98109
p. 206.38 1.8888/ 1'. 206.38 1-1988
tim@McCormacklesal.
com
D. Brent Simcosky
Date
Date
PERMANENT
STIPULATED
'VUNCTION
-3 Mccormack Intellcctual Propcty Law
Business Lsrv PS
617 Lee Street
seqttlg wA 98109
206.381.8888