Vibra–Tech Engineers, Inc. v. Kavalek
| Decision Date | 29 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 08–2646 (JEI/AMD). |
| Citation | 849 F.Supp.2d 462 |
| Parties | VIBRA–TECH ENGINEERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Scott KAVALEK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Earp Cohn by: Edward F. Borden, Jr., Cherry Hill, NJ, Law Offices of John J. Master, Jr. by: John Joseph Master, Jr., Haddonfield, NJ, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiff, Vibra–Tech Engineers, Inc.
Leonard, Sciolla, Hutchison, Leonard & Tinari, LLP by: Hugh J. Hutchison, Moorestown, NJ, for Defendant, Scott Kavalek.
Jackson Lewis LLP by: Alexander Nemiroff, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants, Roberta Kavalek, Integrated Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., and Geotech Instruments, Inc.
Stark and Stark, PC, by: Andrew John Podolski, Princeton, NJ, for Defendant, Charles Bauman.
OPINION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)(1)
This case involves claims by Vibra–Tech Engineers, Inc. (“Vibra–Tech”) that Defendants Scott and Roberta Kavalek (collectively “the Kavalek Defendants”) breached employment agreements, violated the duty of loyalty, converted Vibra–Tech's property, and engaged in a civil conspiracy in order to benefit their own competing corporations, Geotech Instruments, Inc. (“Geotech”) and Integrated Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (“IGS”).1 Vibra–Tech seeks compensatory, punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees. A twelve-day bench trial commencing on January 11, 2012 was held. The Court now issues this Opinion in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). 2
On June 3, 2010, the attorney for Defendants entered a stipulation which stated, inter alia:
A. Scott Kavalek and Roberta Kavalek, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of defendants Integrated Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (“IGS”) and Geotech Instruments, Inc. (“Geotech”) (collectively, the “Kavalek Defendants”), knowingly and purposefully changed, manipulated, tampered with and withheldevidence that was contrary to the factual and legal contentions they have advanced in this action;
B. In so doing, Scott Kavalek and Roberta Kavalek acted with the intent and purpose to deceive both the court and the other parties to this action; and
C. After performing the acts of tampering, Scott Kavalek and Roberta Kavalek then engaged in a series of acts to conceal and cover up the actions they had taken. These included giving false deposition testimony, filing and supplying false affidavits and declarations under oath, and causing their counsel to make a series of false representations to the court, most of which were made in the Kavaleks' presence.
The Kavaleks' response to legitimate discovery requests mirrored the conduct they displayed while employed by Vibra–Tech and, in the case of Scott Kavalek, while bound by a two-year non-compete agreement.
Vibra–Tech asserts the following claims against Defendants Scott Kavalek, Roberta Kavalek, Geotech and IGS: (1) breach of fiduciary duties; (2) breach of employment agreements; (3) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; (4) tortious interference with existing business relationships; (5) conversion of property; (6) civil conspiracy; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) common law fraud; (9) tortious interference with Charles Bauman's employment agreement; and (10) consumer fraud under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.3
The following are stipulated facts as stated in the Joint Final Pre–Trial Order.
Vibra–Tech specializes in the measurement of vibrations in construction, quarry, and mining operations, and consults in the areas of liability seismology, blasting, efficiency, structure dynamics and geophysics. (Joint Final Pre–Trial Order, Part II, ¶ 1.) Vibra–Tech also provides methods, instrumentation, and expertise to minimize effects of blasting. ( Id.) Vibra–Tech maintains an office in New Jersey located at 500 A Campus Drive, RR 30, Mount Holly, NJ 08060. ( Id. ¶ 2.)
Scott Kavalek was employed by Vibra–Tech at the New Jersey office from April 1998 until his termination on May 30, 2008.4 Scott was hired as an Area Manager of the New Jersey office, and during his tenure at Vibra–Tech was made a Vice–President and elected to the Board of Directors. ( Id. ¶ 4.) Upon commencing employment with Vibra–Tech, Scott signed an employment agreement containing the following provisions:
2. During the time of his/her employment with Employer, Employee will devote his/her entire time and energy to the furtherance of the business of Employer and shall not, in any advisory or other capacity, work for any individual, firm, or corporation other than Employer with regard to matters that would conflict with the business of employer without first having obtained the written consent thereto of Employer duly executed by an executive officer of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landy v. Velez
...a fiduciary anyone with discretionary authority or responsibility in administering the employee benefit plan); Vibra–Tech Eng'rs, Inc. v. Kavalek, 849 F.Supp.2d 462 (D.N.J.2012) (stating that in New Jersey, an employee owes his employer a fiduciary duty of loyalty). Landy was a former emplo......
-
Kavod Pharm. v. Sigmapharm Labs. (In re Tri Harbor Holdings Corp.)
...remedy and one suitable for an employee's breach of duty of loyalty, even absent economic loss); Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. v. Kavalek, 849 F.Supp.2d 462, 489-90 (D.N.J. 2012) (companies privately owned by employees who breached duty of loyalty to their employer by engaging in self-dealing ......
-
Neuss v. Rubi Rose, L.L.C.
...et seq." Gillman v. Rakouskas, No. 16-4619, 2017 WL 379433, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2017) (citing Vibra-Tech Eng'rs, Inc. v. Kavalek, 849 F. Supp. 2d 462, 499-500 (D.N.J. 2012)). The PDA requires a plaintiff to demonstrateby clear and convincing evidence, that the harm suffered was the resul......
-
LM Ins. Corp v. All-Ply Roofing Co.
...a wanton and willful disregard of persons who foreseeably might be harmed by those acts or omissions. E.g., Vibra Tech Engineers, Inc. v. Kavalek, 849 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D.N.J. 2012), appeal dismissed (Aug. 21, 2012). Punitive damages may be recovered against an insurer upon a showing that th......