This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Business Law
Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage
Breach of Duty of Loyalty

Lisa Arinwine dba F&E Aircraft Maintenance LLC v. Ravindra Sundar, New Tech Aircraft Services Inc.

Published: Jul. 7, 2012 | Result Date: May 17, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC471505 Verdict –  $246,000

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John J. Perlstein
(Law Office of John J. Perlstein)

Daniel A. Reisman
(Reisman & Reisman)


Defendant

Allan Claybon

Al Mohajerian
(Mohajerian APLC)


Experts

Plaintiff

David J. Weiner M.B.A., AM
(technical)

Facts

Defendant Ravindra Sundar was an employee of F&E Aircraft Maintenance, LLC (owned by Lisa Arinwine). While still employed by F&E, Sundar participated in the formation of a competing company, New Tech Aircraft Services, Inc. with two partners. Sundar and New Tech then entered into direct competition with F&E, all while F&E still employed Sundar.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff asserted that defendant Ravindra Sundar breached his duty of loyalty by directly competing with his employer by acting as an agent for a competing corporation, defendant New Tech Aircraft Services, Inc. Accordingly, plaintiff asserted claims for intentional interference with prospective economic relations against both Sundar and New Tech.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied any improper interference. Defendants claimed Sundar did not breach any duty of loyalty, as he did not actively participate in any activities of New Tech to acquire AirFrance as a client. Defendants further claimed New Tech did not participate in any unfair or illegal mode of competition. Further, Ravindra Sundar cross-complained against F&E asserting claims for unpaid overtime and unpaid wages while performing duties as a flight mechanic for F&E.

Result

$246,000 for plaintiff on complaint. $0 for cross-complainant Ravindra Sundar on cross-complaint. F&E proved that there was an explicit mutual agreement between Sundar and F&E that he would be paid $500 a day for each day he traveled on flights, and that agreement included overtime.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Dec. 21, 2010.

Deliberation

2.5 hours

Length

3.5 days


#122913

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390