ABT, Inc. v. Sportsfield Specialties, Inc et al

Filing 523

ORDER granting ABT's Motion for Treble Damages. Accordingly, the damages awards assessed to defendants for violating the UDTPA (Sportsfield - $559,061.00; Mr. Juszczyk - $46,588.50) are hereby trebled. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 8/4/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(cbb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL DOCKET NO. 5:09CV119-V
ABT, INC.,

)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PETER JUSZCZYK and
)
SPORTSFIELD SPECIALTIES, INC., )
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16

THIS MATTER is before the Court on ABT’s Motion For Treble Damages of the award
for violation of the Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”) pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§75-16.1
Section 75-16 provides in pertinent part:
If any person shall be injured or the business of any person, firm or
corporation shall be broken up, destroyed or injured by reason of any
act or thing done by any other person, firm or corporation in violation
of the provisions of this Chapter, such person, firm or corporation so
injured shall have a right of action on account of such injury done,
and if damages are assessed in such case judgment shall be
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for
treble the amount fixed by the verdict.”

N.C. GEN . STAT . § 75-16 (2011) (emphasis added). The phrase “treble the amount fixed by the
verdict” has been interpreted to mean “damages proximately caused by a violation of §75-1.1 shall
be trebled” as opposed to damages on every claim that happens to arise in the case. See Gray v.
North Carolina Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 529 S.E.2d 676, 684-85 (N.C. 2000) (emphasis in original);

1

ABT’s counsel moved for the UDTPA award to be trebled orally following announcement of
the verdict and release of the jury.

Johnson v. Colonial Life & Accidental Ins. Co., 618 S.E.2d 867, 871-72 (N.C.App.2005).
Here, the jury found that Sportsfield and Mr. Juszczyk committed the following acts:
(a) Misappropriated ABT's trade secret information by acquiring, using or disclosing
such information;
(b) Downloaded, retained, transferred and disclosed ABT's confidential, proprietary
or trade secret information internally or to its business partners;
(c) Copied or used ABT, Inc.'s confidential information or trade secrets to advance
its / his own business interests;
As to Sportsfield only:
(d) Forwarded or transmitted ABT's confidential information or trade secrets to
Sportsfield's business partner ACO Polymer Products, Inc. to unfairly compete
against ABT;
(e) Despite knowing that Peter Juszczyk was subject to a Noncompetition
Agreement, pursued and hired him for the purpose of competing unfairly with ABT
by soliciting customers with whom he had previously solicited at ABT using ABT’s
information; and
(f) Despite knowledge of Peter Juszczyk’s contractual obligations to ABT to refrain
from soliciting former ABT. customers or using ABT confidential information or
trade secrets, Sportsfield or its employees solicited such customers or used such
information to unfairly compete against ABT.
As to Mr. Juszczyk only:
(d) Used a computer or computer network without ABT, Inc.'s authority, with the
intent to alter or erase computer data, computer programs, or computer software;
(e) Used a computer or computer network without ABT, Inc.'s authority, with the
intent to make an unauthorized copy; and
(f) Despite knowledge of his contractual obligations to ABT, Inc. to refrain from
soliciting his former ABT, Inc. customers or using ABT confidential information or
trade secrets, Peter Juszczyk solicited such customers and used such information to
unfairly compete against ABT, Inc.

(Documents ##517,518)
It is well established in North Carolina that the conduct specifically found by the jury as fact
may support liability under the UDTPA. See United Labs., Inc. v. Kuykendall, 370 S.E.2d 375, 38889 (N.C. 1988) (rejecting argument that the UDTPA is limited to cases involving consumers only;
UDTPA claim may stem from a dispute concerning enforcement of a non-compete and tortious
Page 2 of 3

interference and parties’ attendant conduct); Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equip., LLC,
2002 WL 31002955, *16-17 (N.C.Super.) (UDTPA claim may be implicated by tortious interference
and violations of the NC Trade Secret Protection Act for misappropriation). Consequently, the
undersigned finds, as a matter of law, that the respective factual bases for liability as to both
Defendants constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices in or affecting commerce. See Gray, 529
S.E.2d at 681. Therefore, a treble award of the UDTPA verdict amounts is required. See Walker
v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 515 S.E.2d 727 (N.C. App.1999) (“Treble damages are assessed
automatically upon a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1.”); Bhatti v. Buckland, 400 S.E.2d 440,
442 (N.C. 1991); Atl. Purchasers, Inc. v. Aircraft Sales, Inc., 705 F.2d 712, 715 (4th Cir.1983)
(“award of treble damages is a right of the successful plaintiff”).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that ABT’s Motion For Treble Damages is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the damages awards assessed to Defendants for violating the UDTPA [Sportsfield –
$559,061.00; Mr. Juszczyk – $46,588.50] are hereby trebled.

Signed: August 4, 2011

Page 3 of 3