ENV Tech v. Suchard

Filing 163

ORDER approving 159 Stipulated Judgment for Permanent Injunction. Case terminated. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 2/20/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

5

ANTHONY L. HALL, ESQ., NV Bar #5977
ahal1(a)hollandhart.com
DORA V. LANE, ESQ., NV Bar #8424
[e-mail]
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
5441 Kietzke Lane, Second Floor
Reno, Nevada 89511
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

6

Attorneys for P laintifJENVTECH, INC.

7

MARK A. GOODMAN, ESQ., NV Bar #10357
mark. goodman.esg (a),gmail.com
GOODMAN LAW CENTER
348 Mill Street
Reno, NV 89501
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1
2
3
4

8
9
10

11
1-<

-

0
0
f.I.;
'U
p<

Attorneys for Defendants
TALMOR SUCHARD, SENTRO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13

::i

.... 0"""

o-lOE-<Q)V)

~

14

~@>

15

~

~

C/}
Q)~

Ci~Z

~Q)o
"",.!:4
5 .t)

::i

ENVTECH, INC., a Nevada Corporation,

16

CASE No: 3:11-CV-OOS23-HDM-WGC

Plaintiff,

Q)

ORDER GRANTING

::r::Q)~

g

17

'T
'T

18

,....,
V)

19
20

STIPULATED JUDGMENT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

vs.
TALMOR SUCHARD, an individual,
SENTRO TECHNOLOGIES, LTD, a
foreign company; and SENTRO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company

21

Defendants.

22
23

Plaintiff EnvTech, Inc. ("Plaintiff' or "EnvTech") and Defendants Talmor Suchard

24

("Suchard"), and Sentro Technologies, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their

25

undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:

26

1.

EnvTech provides cleaning solutions for oil and gas refIneries, specializing in

27

HF alkylation cleaning and neutralization and other types of unit process equipment

28

decontamination. In the course of its business, EnvTech has developed and uses proprietary
1

1

chemical formulas, processes, and other highly confidential and/or trade secret information.

2

EnvTech hired Suchard in or about January 2005. His responsibilities for EnvTech included

3

visiting clients, pitching work, and overseeing EnvTech's cleaning processes.

4

2.

As part of his employment with EnvTech, Suchard signed an at-will

5

Employment Agreement and a Trade Secret and Non-Competition Agreement (the "TSNCA").

6

The Employment Agreement generally obligated Suchard during his employment and

7

thereafter to avoid soliciting EnvTech's employees and independent contractors, to maintain

8

the confidentiality of EnvTech's confidential information, not to solicit EnvTech's clients,

9

business associates, or referral sources to do business with him or to cease doing business with

10

EnvTech, and not to provide any service or lend any aid to any of EnvTech's clients. Under

11

the TSNCA Suchard agreed during his employment and for five years thereafter not to disclose

12

EnvTech's confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information and not to "engage or

13

participate in any competitive activity relating to the subject matter . . . of his hiring by"

14

EnvTech.

15

3.

EnvTech believes that during his employment and after he was terminated in

16

May 2011 up to the present, Suchard breached and is continuing to breach the Employment

17

Agreement and TSNCA. More specifically, EnvTech asserts that during his employment with

18

EnvTech, Suchard worked on behalf of other companies, solicited business from EnvTech's

19

clients on behalf of himself and other companies, and used EnvTech's time, equipment,

20

resources, and confidential and proprietary information to further his own fmancial interests

21

and those of other business entities.

22

Suchard continues to impermissibly (i) compete against EnvTech, (li) contact its customers,

23

and (iii) use EnvTech's confidential and proprietary information to procure customers and

24

work on behalf of and through two competing businesses that he created - Sentro

25

Technologies, Ltd. (an Israeli company) and Sentro Technologies, LLC (a Nevada company).

26

Suchard is a 50% owner and director of both Sentro Technologies, Ltd. and Sentro

27

Technologies, LLC.

28

4.

EnvTech further asserts that, after his termination,

On or about June 22, 2011, EnvTech filed a lawsuit against Suchard in the
2

1

Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada, in Case No. CVI1-01850 (the

2

"Nevada Litigation"). The Nevada Litigation was ultimately removed to the United States

3

District Court, District of Nevada, where it was docketed as Case No. 3:11-cv-00523-HDM-

4

RAM. In or about August 2012, EnvTech filed a First Amended Complaint, naming Sentro

5

Technologies, Ltd. and Sentro Technologies, LLC as additional parties to the Nevada

6

Litigation. In the Nevada Litigation, Suchard eventually answered EnvTech's lawsuit and

7

denied all liability. Sentro Technologies, Ltd. initially moved to quash jurisdiction, but later

8

withdrew its motion, proclaiming intent not to respond to the Nevada Litigation in any fashion.

9

On or about November 29,2012, the Court entered a preliminary injunction against Suchard,

10

precluding him from engaging in certain activities precluded by his employment agreements

11

with EnvTech, directly or indirectly through his affiliates.

12

5.

EnvTech and Defendants have agreed to resolve this matter on terms

13

memorialized in a separate settlement agreement between the parties.

14

Stipulated Judgment for Permanent Injunction shall affect the rights and obligations set forth in

15

the parties' settlement agreement

16

6.

Nothing in this

Without admitting liability, Suchard states that he has (directly or indirectly

17

through his

18

decontamination, cleaning, or neutralization of HF Alkylation process equipment to third

19

parties (including EnvTech clients and/or prospective clients). Without admitting liability,

20

Suchard also states that he has (directly or indirectly through his affiliates) solicited entities

21

that are current or prospective EnvTech clients, referral sources, or business affiliates to do

22

business with Suchard (directly or with his affiliates). Without admitting liability, Suchard

23

further states that he has (directly or indirectly through his affiliates) provided chemical

24

cleaning services to entities that are current or prospective clients ofEnvTech.

25

7.

affiliates)

provided and/or

attempted to

provide

services

related to

Accordingly, as part of the settlement between EnvTech and Defendants, the

26

parties have agreed to the entry of a permanent injunction precluding Suchard and Sentro

27

Technologies, LLC (and the individuals and entities referenced in Paragraph 8 below).

28

Accordingly, the parties agree that Suchard (and the individuals and entities referenced in
3

1

Paragraph 8 below) are permanently enjoined from:

2

a) Using in any way, or disclosing to anyone, any of EnvTech's

3

confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information, including but

4

not limited to EnvTech's strategic planning information, the chemical

5

formulas and procedures it has developed to service its customers,

6

identities or information on its customers including attributes,

7

preferences, and the unique processes and procedures EnvTech has

8

developed to service its customers. (Suchard will use commercially

9

available products to perform chemical cleaning services and will not
create his own chemical cleaning blends.);

10
11

b) Sending out or transmitting any letters or other forms of

12

communication to oil refineries stating that EnvTech's chemicals

13

contain carcinogens and/or that EnvTech falsifies its Material Safety

~~~

14

Data Sheets;

~§>

15

c) Holding themselves out to anyone as affiliated with EnvTech or using

j~
o ~ 0
Q)

16

EnvTech's name, trademarks, literature or documents for any purpose

~

17

whatsoever;

H

0
0

.-<

~

'"d

~O,.......
"';'0,.......
"';'QV)

~

Q)~

~~Z

~Q)6
~Q)~
...-;

,.......
"<j"<jV)

d) Engaging in decontamination, cleaning, or neutralization of HF

18

Alkylation process equipment of any kind;

19
20

e) Soliciting or encouraging any person or entity with whom EnvTech

21

has done business while Suchard was employed with EnvTech to cease

22

doing business with EnvTech or to do any business with Defendants

23

(or any entity or individual with whom Defendants are affiliated) with

24

respect to decontamination, cleaning, or neutralization of HF

25

Alkylation process equipment of any kind.

26

8.

The provisions of this Stipulated Judgment for Permanent Injunction shall apply

27

to Suchard, Sentro Technologies, LLC, Sentro Technologies, Ltd. (as Suchard is a 50% owner

28

and Director of Sentro Technologies, Ltd., and acts in active concert with Sentro Technologies,
4

1

Ltd.).

2

officers, agents, servants, and employees, as well as any other persons who are in active

3

concert or partiCipation with any of these individuals or entities.

4

The Stipulated Judgment for Permanent Injunction shall also apply to Defendants'

9.

Upon entry of the order approving this Stipulated Judgment for Permanent

5

Injunction, the case will be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorney's

6

fees and costs.

7

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED.

8
9

Dated:

2

,2014.
ANTHONY L HALL, ESQ., NY Bar #5977
DORA V. LANE, ESQ., NV Bar #8424
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
5441 Kietzke Lane, Second Floor
Reno, Nevada 89511
Tel: [phone]; Fax.: [phone]
Attorneys/or PlaintijfENVTECH, INC

10

11

8
0

12

f:L;
'1:i
.-r

13

~g::

E-0 trl
CIJ 0\
~oo

14

,...,0;>oIig

Dated;).,

L~
I

~

15

~

@...:1~

-<

0

;j~

0

g

~b~
~

,2014.

MARK A. GOODMAN, ESQ., NV Bar #10357
GOODMAN LAW CENTER
348 ,Mill Street
Reno, NV 89501
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]

16
17

Attorneys for Defendants
TALMOR SUCHARD, SENTRO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

,.....;

'<t
'<:t
I.()

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED:

21

The Court, having reviewed the foregoing Stipulated Judgment for Permanent

22

Injunction, all papers and pleadings on file with the Court, and the evidence presented to the

23

Court during the November 29, 2012 hearing on EnvTech's Amended Motion for Preliminary

24

Injunction, finds that EnvTecb. has suffered an irreparable injury, which cannot be redressed by

25

remedies available at law. The Court further finds that the balance of hardships between the

26

parties warrants the issuance of a permanent injunction in EnvTech's favor, and that the public

27

interest would not be disserved by the entry of a permanent injunction.

28
5

1
2

Accordingly, the Court hereby approves the parties' Stipulated Judgment for Pennanent
Injunction.

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

February 20, 2014
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

6
7

6525520~LDOCX

8
9
10

11
;...,

12

0

0
,......
~

'"'0
I>-q,.-<

13

~aslrl

14

~ 8
Q)~~

15

..<0,........
~

CZl 0\

o(l

o~

~

Q)

o~

j~ q

o ......

16

Q)

~Q)~
......

~

17

'1"
'1"

18

,........

lrl

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28
6