Host America v. Simcosky: Washington State - Thurston County Superior Court

8/11/2019 Host America v. Simcosky: Washington State - Thurston County Superior Court

1/10

SGOPY

IN TI.ITJ

SUPERIOR

COIJRT

OF'|I,IE

STATE

OF

WASIIINGTON

IN

AND

FOR

THE

COUNTY

OII ]'FIURSTON

COTJN'|Y

I'IOSI

AIvILiRICA

CORPORAl'lON.

a

Clololaclo

Corporation

.

NO.

MOTION

FOR

TDMPORARI'

IIESTRAINING

ORDBR

AC,t ;',iS r

DEFENDANT

BRENT

DAVII)

SIMCOSKY

Plaintitl

ll

rent

DlLlitl

Sincoskv.

Delendant.

I. RIILIEF

RITQUESTED

I) laiutil'J'moves

the

corrt

lbr

a temporaty

restrair.ring

order restraining

defendanl

r.

,lrt:

(a)

intellbring

with

plaintilfs

contracts

or

prospective

econonric relations;

(b)

posting

on

r.veb

sites,

sending lettels

or otherwise

cliscr,tssing in

any

r.vay

anv

lalse

or.

mislc'acling

infbrtrtation

about

pltrintiffor

its

Board

ol'llilectors

or

its

errrployees.

endors

()r'attOrnc)'s:

(c)

doing

ally other

act or

thing

calculated to.

tending to. or

likely

to unfhirl_v

cotrp )tc

with

the plaintilT

or to unlairly

hann

the valne

ol'plaintiffs

stock. and

for

an ,rcler'1o

shorv

causc

r.vhv

delcndant

should not

be so restr.ained

during the

pendency

olthis

action.

l,l

tt

;:: .i

\

MO']'ION I]OR'l'EMPORAI{Y

RESTITAININC

OI{DER

ACAINST DEFENDAN

T BRENT DAVID SIMCOSKY

.I

i\,lccormack

Inl :lcrlual

l)ropeltl [-it\

IJusinu

.r

i.:lr.

6l7l.cc:',r cll

Serltl.' WA

9r i(19

20(,.lli l.llllSR

2(,


2/10

II.

STATIiMIINT

OF

FACTS

Dcl'enclaut

has threatcuecl

hodily

harm

to

plaintil'fs

Boald

ol'Directors.

For cxanrple.

.1.'Ii'ndant tllleirtens

Irlrrrn

in

saying:

"MURPHY

AND

BOD

WILL

LEARN

THE I{ARD WAY

WHAT A

BUTTFUCI(ING

ISI I "

De lenclants

also. lbr cxarnple" tlrreatens

ph1,'sical

harm to lvlt.

Murphl,

(breakirrg

Iingers

altcl scxual nssault):

-'u\nd

it loolts

lilic

IVITJRPIJY

intends

to

givc

me

the fingor so

I

intend to hreak

it off

tnd

shove

it

un

his

DUNIII

ASSII LOL LOL"

I)eclaration

o1'1-inrothy

B.

IVlcCoruraek,

l'hrexts

of

Phvsical Violence

Exhibits

1

-

ltl

(chart

shorving statemellts

rrade hy delendant).

.

De1'eflclant

threatens to

extort

and

blacknrail

plaintiff

r"rnless

plaintilT

"buys

o11"

clef'elrclant.

Iot' examplo.

cleltndant. rcfbrring

to

"custonrers"

and

threatenilrg

to

contact

"c

ustol1]ers" \vfote:

"r\r'c

investors

scared altel

seeing

hor.v MURPIIY

scrcwcd

CAFEW holders? TIMII

IS

IttINNING

OtiTlll

lLcgistering rveb

sites

this

lr,eek

and

putting

togcther lettcrs

arrd

iu

lornration

sl.reets

Ibr

ntailingl 1"

Del'cnclant

rrses

extottion

as

a

meatls Lo stop

his

sntear

clnrpaign:

"I

WILL

NOT

STOP

TINTII,

TIII] \A-A.RRANTS

ARIJ

I]XTENDED

OR tr'M PAID

WFIAT

THEIR

VALUE

WOULD

HAVE I}EEN

IN

SAY 2 Yf,ARS I: '

"Well

I

intencl

to rcmind

potential

custonlers and

the contpetition

olthat

past"

Dcf'enclant

also

threatens blackmail

(asking

for

$1.50

per

expircd

rvarrant)

by strrring

he

rvill

create defamatoty u,ebsites

regalding

Host,

Nlr.

Murphy

and Board

oI Directors.

But

hc

rvill'osell"

thc lvcbsitcs

to

Murphl'for

a cost.

-l'1c1,

mayb SOmeboy

shoLrld

tell

Murphy

I'll

scll

the

iights to

my

rveb

site

idea

ol'

$1.50

a

rvarrant?

(Evcn

though thcyle

giving

warrants

ar.vay with

$1.95

strike

price)

woulcl

go

arvay and no,er mention

the

rvord Enerlumc.

Host,

MurDhv,

ctc

againll

:

L,

MO'IION FOR TDIVIPORARY

RES

I'ItAININC OITDER

ACAINSI' DI]IJENDANI' t]IiENT DAVI

D

SIMCOSKY -2

illccornrack lnlcllcctual I'ropertv

l.r$

Businoss

Ltw

617

Lee

Strccl

Scrtllc.

WA 911 1 09

-rO6-1Rl

I{liSS


3/10

.)

",

lil

Li

t.

Ll

ll

l,

Li,

:l

I

1ll

:;l

Declaration ol IinroLhy

B.

McCoruracl


4/10

.r.l

)

tu

ri

_t,l

1l--

lt)

I'

t;

t

:1

2.,t

)" t,

::.1

:t

Whethel

deltntlarrt

shor.rld be

temporarily

restrained

liom defarning

ancl

otlrelrvise

lralassing

plaintill'until

the

matlel can

be

lreald

at

a

ptelintinary

iniunction hearing rvhen

delbndant

has

overtly

tlueatened

to

harnr

the business

rclationships

ol'plaintitf

and

is cloirrg so

for

an

aclur

ittedly imploper purpose?

IV. EVIDENCE

ITELIED

UPON

This

ntotion

is

based

on the

attached

dcclaration ol

plaintiffs

Counsel,

Tinothy

B.

lvlc('ormack aucl tlre atlached exiribits

ancl the declaration of Mike

Malota.

V.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

'[

hc lbllo."ving

legal authority

is

applicable

to

plaintifls

motion.

Goncral

Authority

lbr

TRO

'fhe

issuance

ol a restraining

older or

plelirrinary

injunction"

and

its

scope. is

u,ithin

the

broacl

discrction

ol' the

court tt.r

[ashion zr

rcnrecly

appropriate tr:

the

palticular

facts

and

circrrmstanoes

as

r,vcll

as

the equities

oi

tlre

casc..

LenholJ

t.

Birclt

Buy Reol

[,.sttte.22

\I'n.App.

70.74-75.5ti7 P.2d

1087, l0c)0

(1978).

Rtqterr t Gunter,3l

Wn.App.27,30.640

P.2d 36.38

(

1

9ti2);

,rce

a/.rr.r

RCW

7 .40.020

and CR 65(b).

-fhe

lhctors

consiclered

include

the chalacter of

the

intcrcst to

be

protected,

the adequacy

of injunctive reliel

relativc

to

other

rer.nedies.

possible

rnisconduct

b1,

the opposing

pertv.

the

lclativc

hardship

to

cither

part1,

il'the reliel

is

granted

or clenied. the intelests

oI

other

partics.

and

llre

public.

arrcl

tire

practicalit_v',

o1'enfbrcing it. Lanhof/

v.

Birch

Bul,Real Estota.22 Wn.App.70,

74-75.587 P.2d

1087,

1090- 91

(1978).

A

temporaly restrairring older

ol

plelinrirrarv

injunction

may

only

be

granted

upon

lll'oof

that the

applicant

has a

clear

legal or

eqLritable

right

and

a

i,l,ell

glounded

fear of

inrnrediate

invasiorl

01'that righl.

and that the acts complained o1'nrust

be

causing or

will

caltse the applicant

i\4OI'lON I1)R 1 l-TM

POIU\RY RLS

I

IIAIN INC ORDEII.

/\C.\

lNSl'

DIIFIINDANT

Ll

R ENT

ll^

Vl

D SI MCOSKY

-.1

lvlccornrnck

lntcllectual Propcrtl l.irrr

i]rrsiness

l.

\\

(r

l7 Lec

Strcct

Scatllc.

W,,\

93 I09

206.

iti

Ltil(,i8


5/10

LC

1i

12.

Il

Irl

l.-'

Ir"

IH

?1)

2t

t.i

&ctual and substantial

in

jury.

E..q.,

lstltrtritut S. S Co.

y.

Ncttionul

l'[urine Eng. l]anct'.

,,1.s:;oc.,41

Wn.2d 106. 117-18.241

P.2d 549.556

(1952).

'I'he

courl

in

its

clisclelion nral,rvaive

the

tiling

ofa

Lrond or the

posting

ofsecuritv,

RCW

26.0q.060(5

).lvhich

it

normallv

does.

'l'enrporary

restraining orders

ancl

prelin.rinary injunctions

rnay be obtained

wilhout

notice

to

tlre opposing

party.

but

only

uncler

limited

circumstances

C.'ornlnr: &

Sons,

htc. v. fufcl\rutnuru.

tl

Wn.App.441.443"

506 P.2d 1328,

Li30-

3l

(1973)

(1'llO

without

notice

is

oka,v

when

it is

shor.r,n

to tlle court

by

specific and complehensive lactual

allegation that there

is

a

critical and

irnrnediate need lbr

the

pl'otection

of

persons

or

propcrty).

Tvnes

of

Conduct that

Can

Be Enioined

Ail tvpes o1'misconduct

nray be enjoined,

including:

l.'[irlls. Bra'k]anar

t

llctuil

(llerks

Llnion,53

Wn.2d

17,

19.330

P.2d

314.315

(1958)

(restraining

tolts).

2.

De(iulatoly.

disparaging.

or

libelous

statemeuts.

In ra \..lutiage of

Olson.69 Wn.App.

621.850

P.2c1

527 (19g3)(father enioined

liom

niaking

dispalaging tenrali(s about mother in

prcsence

ol theil

children: court re.iected argument

tl-rat

restraining

orcler

violated

fhther's

I'reeclom

of

speech); Dickson

v Dickson,

12

Wash.App.

18i, 529

P.2d 476,

certiorar; clenied

96

S.Ct.

53,

423

U.S.

832.

46

L.Ed.2cl 49. rehearing

danietl 96 S.Ct. 406.423

tJ.S.

991,46

L.Ed.2d 311.

rcviev

deniar.l

(Wash.

1974)

(hrjunctivc

relief

ll

oiri

defamatory

or

libelous

conduct

is applicable

when

there

is a

recurling type

iuvasion. the

need

lor

multiple damage actions to asscrt tlte

clclcnclant's lights.

an imnrinent tlrrcat

olcontinlred

ernotional ancl

physical

ttaunra, and ditlicLtlty

Larv of Defalnrtion

lJncler

Washington

law one is liatrle

fbL

any

defanratory statements that are untrue. When

the

untrue stalerrcnts are

clirecteci

at sorneone's trade or business then one does not even

need

to

MOI'ION FOR

TEMPOIIARY RI'STRAININC ORDIR

AGAINS-I

I)I]F

EN

DANT

B

RT..:NI'

DAV

ID

SI ]\4COSKY

.5

N'lccormilck Irrtellectual l'rope()' l-ar\

[]usincss

Las

617

I-c.

Slreet

Scritle- W.,\

91i

109

206.31.l1 .l{,1fi8


6/10

i

"l

ptovc

(lanrages.

In

Washington

State.

the

tlanrages

are

presuntccl.

Sae c.g.,

ivkri:on rla Frunce,

Ltd. r.

l,ldi.t

Otri ,

lnc.. 126 Wash.

App.

34,

108 P.3d 787

(Wash.

App.

2005)

(holding

that

pl'cstlrlled

damages

Lo

a

pdvate plaintifT

lbr

defamation

r,vithout

ploof

of

actual

malicc

are

available

undel Washington larv)

Defiulation

is not

protected

by the Filst Amendment.

Bcauharnuis t.

lllinois.

:143

U.S.

250,

72 S.Ct.

725.96

l,.Ed.glq

(1951).

("Libelous

utterances

not

being

."virl.rin

thc' area

ol

constitntionally

protected

speech, it

is

umecessary,

either lor

us or fbr the

State

courts.

to

consider the

issues

betind

the

plrrase

'clear

alld

present

danger.' Certainly

no one rvould contend

that

obscene speech"

lbr

exatnple.

nray be

punished

only

upon

a showitlg

of

such circrunstances.

Litrel.

as,uve hayc

seen.

is in

the sante

class."): hr

re Man'iage

of

Olson.69

Wn.App, 621,850

}'].2d

527

(l99iXfhthcr

enjoinecl

li'om

making

disparaging remarks about

mother

in

presence

of

tircir

cliilclrcnl courl

re.iected algunrcnt

that rcstraining

order

violnted

father's fi'eedom

olspeech).

Given thc

crcdible thlcats

of

phvsicral

violence

to

persons

and thc

credible threats

to

clantagc

property

(incJLrcling

defamation

peL

se and interference with

contracts and

prospective

economic telations)

ar.rd

the

lotal

lack

ofany

possible

legal delense

and tlre irreversible harnr

that

r.vill

clone

if

deltndant is

allolved

to

rampage

and

givcn the

I'act

that

clcl'endant

rvill

sufl.cr

tro

harm

fi'om

being restrained

it is

proper

and

necessary that thc court issue

the recJuested

telrporary

restrain ing

olclcr.

VI.

PROPOSEI)

OIIDER

A

proposed

orclel

granting

the

relief

requested

accompanies this

nrotion.

Datcd this

day

ol

,

1007.

BY:

Timothy

B. McCormack, WSBA # 28074

t,a

i1

1,3

t.j

ti,

ll

,r4

i: t:

IVIOl'ION FOR

TEMPORARY

RESTITAININC ORDER

A(;AIN51'DEFENDANT

BITENT

DAVID SiMCOSKY -6

l\,lcCormack

Inlellcqtrlitl

Propcrt)

I ir\

Ilusincss

[,i $

617 t.ce

Strect

Scanlc.

WA

981{)9

206..',r81

,8{t88


7/10

,)

3

4

5

6

]

3

9

j

t.l

i1

12

13

i4

:15

1f.

i1

l i

19

10

22

2

-4,

24

il6

::-jri

Mccornlack

Intellectual

Properly

Law

Business Law

617 Lee St.

Seattle, WA

98109

p.

206.381.8888/

l'.

206.381-1988

u:gL.VeCiELnstit.crqL$rr

MOTION I:OR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

ACAINST DI]FENDANT

BRENT

DAVID

SIMCOSKY.T

Mccormack

Intellectual Propen], Lr\r

Business

Law

61

7

Lec

StrEet

Seattle. WA 98109

206.381.8888


8/10

i

3

4

5

6

1

I

9

i0

11

12

13

1{

15

16

1-l

1B

19

2A

2t

22

23

24

25

:6

IN

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASLIINGTON

IN

AND

}-OR TI.IE

COUNTY

OF TFIURS'|ON COLTNTY

HOST

AMERICT\ CORPORA'IION,

a

Colorado

Corporatio[

,

Plaintiff,

BRENT DAVID SIMCOSKY

AI(A

DAVID

BRENT SIMCOSKY,

Defendant.

llhe

parties

to

lhis

action

IIEREBY

STIPLq-ATE to

against defendant.

NO.07-2-01732-5

P-EIWIANENT

STIPULATED

IN.IUNCTION

the following Permanent Injunction

D. Brent

Simcosky

AMERICA

CORPORATION

By

its:

g

_",

t

r- it

-t

Date

siP

I I

2007

BETTY J. GOIILD

lvl.Cormack

In tdl

leclu al

Propert)'

l

,a$

Busincss

L,aF

PS

617

Lee Slrcet

Scittle, WA 98109

206.3R r.8888

20{,.illl.1938

PERMANONT STIPULATT,D INJUNCTION

.

I


9/10

Based

on the

consent

ofthe

parties

and the

court,s

olr.t

goodjudgmen

il is Ordered:

1.

Defendant

and any

officers, agents,

sewalts,

empioyees,

and

attorneys,

and all

other

petsons

in

active

concert

and

participation

with

defendant

who receive actual

notice

of

this

order,

are enjoined

from:

interfering

with

plainliffs

contracts

or

prospective

economic

relations;

posting

on web

sites,

sending

letters

or

otherwise

discussing in any

way

information

about

plaintiff

or its

Board

of

Directors

or

its

employees.

vendors,

channel partners

or

attomeys;

13

12

19

26

6.

4.

),

2.

c.

doing

any

other act or thing

caiculated

to, rending

to,

or likely to unfairly

compete

l\,ith the plaintiff

or to

unf'airly

liarm the value

of

plaintiff

s

stock;

Defendant

will

agree

never

to

mention

HOST again,

publically,

to anyone ever

again

outside

his

own attomeys,

unless

by court

order;

Defendant

rvill noi appear

or

otJrerwise participate

in

any

message boards

or discussion

foruns

that are affiliated

with

or that

specificaily

discuss

HOS'I or its

affiliates

or successors

oL

assisns.

Defendant

agrees

to sign

a Clarjfication

Letter

regarding

misrepresentation

of specific

facts about

the

plaintiff

ar:d

any iniemperate

or offensive communications

for which

he

was responsible

in

the

form

attached

to

the

parties

settlement

agreement

The

Ietter

will

be

sent to

David

Murphy,

the

Host America

Board of

Directors,

Channei

Partners; plaintiff

may use

or discuss the

letter

with alyone

in its effort ro

mitigate

any damage

caused

by

defendant

or as

might othenvise

be required

by law.

Each

side

r.vill

bear their

own

costs

and attomeys,

fees,

except

as noted.

The case

wil.l

be removed

from

the

court's

docket and

be

considered

dismissed

ancl

adjudicated

but the courr

wili retain

jurisdiction

for

enforcement

ofthis injunction

and.

any

judgment

that

mighl

be

filed

pursrlant

to the

parties

settlemeflt agreement;

counsel

for

plaintiffwill

retain

subpoena

power

for

compliance purposes;

If

this

injunction

is

violated,

upon a

good

cause

showing to

rhe

court,

the

{bllorving

sanctions

against

the defendant

r,vill

be

imposed:

2C

21

24

25

).

PERlVIANENT

STIPULATED

TNIUNCTION

-2

ivlccormack Intcllectual Properq,

Lsrv

Business

Lirlv

PS

617 Lee

Street

Seanle,

WA

98109

206.18t.8888

206.i8r. r988


10/10

1

2

3

4

b.

c.

d.

Payment

of attorneys'

fees

and

costs for

any

follow-up

enforcement

aclion;

Surrender

ofany

and all

personal

computers;

Agreement

to

rlot

use the

Intemet

for

t0

years,

unless

for work;

and

Damages

in

the

amount

of$250,000

and

$25,000 in attomeys'

fees

(in

form

of

consent

judgment).

6

,7

I

9

10

11

t2

13

1d

15

6

r1

18

19

2_A

2L

23

24

25

26

21

2A

This

order

shall

go

this

Court.

into effect

immediately

and

shalt

remain

in

effecL until

funhet

order ol

{

ANNE

HIRSCH

SIIPERIOR

COT]RT

ruDGE

Presented

by:

Timothy

B.

McCormack,

WSBA

# 28074

McCormack

lntellectual

property

Law

Business

Law PS

617

Lee

St.

Seattle,

WA

98109

p.

206.38

1.8888/

1'.

206.38

1-1988

tim@McCormacklesal.

com

D.

Brent

Simcosky

Date

Date

PERMANENT

STIPULATED

'VUNCTION

-3

Mccormack

Intellcctual

Propcty

Law

Business Lsrv PS

617

Lee Street

seqttlg

wA

98109

206.381.8888

Documents

Host America v. Simcosky: Washington State - Thurston County Superior Court