VIZANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC et al v. WHITCHURCH et al

Filing 213

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS VIZANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND JOSEPH BIZZARRO "FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FINAL MONEY JUDGMENT, AND PERMANENT INJUCTION" (DOC. 118) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. T HE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS JULIE P. WHITCHURCH AND JAMIE DAVIS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 174) AGAINST VIZANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND JOSEPH BIZZARRO IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN... SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 1/8/16. 1/8/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE DEFENDANT, EMAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VIZANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
et al.
v.
JULIE P. WHITCHURCH, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 15-431

ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2016, for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
(1)

the motion of plaintiffs Vizant Technologies, LLC

and Joseph Bizzarro “for Partial Summary Judgment, Final Money
Judgment, and Permanent Injunction” (Doc. # 118) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part;
(2)

the motion of plaintiff Vizant Technologies, LLC

for summary judgment in its favor is GRANTED against defendants
Julie P. Whitchurch and Jamie Davis on Count III of the
Complaint (alleging breach of contract) except to the extent
that Count III is premised on:
(a)

the allegation that Vizant Technologies,

LLC suffered “resulting damage” to its
relationship with Tacoma Screw Products; and
(b)

the allegation that defendants breached

their contractual obligations by emailing
members of the Board of Directors of Vizant

Technologies, LLC to communicate their concerns
about financial mismanagement within the
company;
(3)

the motion of plaintiff Vizant Technologies, LLC

for summary judgment in its favor is GRANTED against defendants
Julie P. Whitchurch and Jamie Davis on Count IV of the Complaint
(alleging misappropriation of trade secrets);
(4)

the motion of plaintiffs Vizant Technologies, LLC

and Joseph Bizzarro is GRANTED against defendants Julie P.
Whitchurch and Jamie Davis on Count V of the Complaint (alleging
defamation)to the extent that Count V is based on the following
statements:
(a) “I’m calling you out. You’re a
. . . cheat Joe Bizzarro”;
(b) “You have no intention of paying
the full commissions, never have”;
(c) Joseph Bizzarro “has ‘enhanced’
his reporting to the board so the
true financial state of the company
is far more positive than the
reality”;
(d)

Joseph Bizzarro is “a cheat”;

(e) Joseph Bizzarro is “a fraud [and]
his resume and credentials are
fabricated”;
(f) Joseph Bizzarro “is stealing from
his employees, stealing from his
clients, stealing from his alliance
partners . . . and committing a fraud
on the Georgia court system”;
-2-

(g) Vizant Technologies, LLC, Frank
Seidman, Lane Wiggers, Joseph
Bizzarro, other Vizant employees, and
Vizant’s counsel “have engaged in a
vicious, calculated, and illegal
conspiracy to accuse, frame, and
victimize the defendants. They have
manufactured evidence, extorted the
Defendants, committed perjury and
subornation of perjury, threatened a
witness, and sought the illegal
incarceration of the Defendants”; and
(h) References contained in the
YouTube videos created by defendants
and on the website to the existence
of a Ponzi scheme at Vizant
Technologies, LLC.
(5)

the motion of plaintiffs Vizant Technologies, LLC

and Joseph Bizzarro for summary judgment is GRANTED against
defendants Julie P. Whitchurch and Jamie Davis on Count VI of
the Complaint (alleging tortious interference with existing and
prospective business relationships) except to the extent that
Count VI rests on the allegation that defendants’ conduct caused
Tacoma Screw Products to decline to enter into a service
agreement with Vizant;
(6)

the motion of plaintiffs Vizant Technologies, LLC

and Joseph Bizzarro is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the
conversion of the April 29, 2015 preliminary injunction against
defendants Julip P. Whitchurch and Jamie Davis into a permanent
injunction which is set forth in a separate order entitled
“Permanent Injunction”;

-3-

(7)

the motion of plaintiffs Vizant Technologies, LLC

and Joseph Bizzarro “for Partial Summary Judgment, Final Money
Judgment, and Permanent Injunction” is otherwise DENIED;
(8)

the motion of defendants Julie P. Whitchurch and

Jamie Davis for summary judgment (Doc. # 174) against Vizant
Technlogies, LLC and Joseph Bizzarro is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part;
(9)

the motion of defendants Julie P. Whitchurch and

Jamie Davis for summary judgment is GRANTED against Vizant
Technologies, LLC on Count III of the Complaint (alleging breach
of contract) insofar as Count III is based on defendants’
communication of their concerns to Vizant’s Board of Directors;
(10) the motion of defendants Julie P. Whitchurch and
Jamie Davis for summary judgment is GRANTED against Vizant
Technologies, LLC on Count VIII of the Complaint (alleging
conversion);
(11) the motion of defendants Julie P. Whitchurch and
Jamie Davis for summary judgment is GRANTED against Vizant
Technologies, LLC and Joseph Bizzarro on Counts I (alleging
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)), II (alleging violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1962(d)), VII (alleging abuse of process), IX (alleging
fraud), and X (alleging civil conspiracy) of the Complaint; and

-4-

(12) the motion of defendants Julie P. Whitchurch and
Jamie Davis for summary judgment against Vizant Technlogies, LLC
and Joseph Bizzarro is otherwise DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Harvey Bartle III
J.

-5-