Clifford Morris

1228 Merlot Dr.,

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Phone | Fax

Email

Appearing in pro per on behalf of Plaintiff in his capacity as the sole member.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

NOW COMES Clifford Morris, Plaintiff, and files this Original Complaint against Defendant, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

• PARTIES

1. Plaintiff ECO CHAR USA is a limited liability company registered under the laws of the State of Florida.
2. Defendant Willem Nicolaas van der Schyff is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of 12622 Driftwood Court, Lake Country BC, V4V 2M9 Canada.

• JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code § 1332 (diversity of citizenship). Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida while Defendant resides in Canada.
2. Venue is proper in this Court in accordance with 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b) which states that: “A civil action may be brought in – (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” The causes of action herein took place in the Middle District of Florida.

• STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Defendant is an ex-employee of Plaintiff, who was tasked with registering the two domains of the company: 1) www.springbokbraai.com; and 2) www.ecocharusa.com. 
2. Upon Defendant’s dismissal, he proceeded to modify the password and hold the domains hostage for extortion.
3. The evidence is abundantly clear that Plaintiff is the owner of the 2 domains and that the domains should be released back to the rightful owner.
4. While the website remains under the control of Defendant, it is in breach of trademark usage and should at the very least be taken down with immediate effect.
5. Defendant has no credible nor legal reasons to hold the domains under his control other than to use them for extortion.
6. Defendant continues to use Plaintiff’s domain for his own benefit.
7. Defendant has lied to Plaintiff’s business associates and clients that he is a partner of ECO CHAR USA and that he has a dispute with Clifford Morris, the sole member of ECO CHAR USA. Defendant is not a partner because the partnership does not exist. ECO CHAR USA is a limited liability company with a sole member.
8. Defendant’s actions have strained Plaintiff’s operations as well as profits because the company has been losing business as a result of the lies peddled by Defendant.

• CAUSES OF ACTION

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts and allegations in Paragraphs 1-12 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.
2. “To establish a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must plead the existence of a fiduciary duty, and the breach of that duty such that it is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages.” Traditions Senior Management, Inc. v. United Health Administrators, Inc., Case No. 8:12-cv-2321-T-30MAP, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division, citing  Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So. 2d 348, 353 (Fla. 2002).
3. As an employee of Plaintiff, Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff to act in a manner that protected the interests of Plaintiff. Defendant breached this duty when he lied to Plaintiff’s business associates and clients that he was a partner of ECO CHAR USA and that he had a dispute with Clifford Morris, his imagined “partner.”
4. Defendant knew that he was making false statements that he is a partner of ECO CHAR USA. As a result of the lies told by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered loss of business and profits.
5. Defendant is liable for breach of fiduciary duty and ought to pay damages to Plaintiff.

Unjust Enrichment

1. 1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts and allegations in Paragraphs 1-17 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.

• “The elements of a claim for unjust enrichment are: (1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff, (2) appreciation by the defendant of such benefit, and (3) acceptance and retention of such benefit by the defendant under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof. Henry M. Butler, Inc. v. Trizec Properties, Inc., 524 So. 2d 710, 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (citing 17 C.J.S. Contracts, § 6 (1955)). The above allegations construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs support a cause of action for unjust enrichment.” Hercules, Inc. v. Pages, 814 F. Supp. 79 (M.D. Fla. 1993).

1. Plaintiff granted Defendant access to the domains in good faith so that he could complete tasks assigned to him by his employer. Defendant retained and continues to retain possession of the domains after his employment was terminated despite multiple requests by Plaintiff to return them. Defendant does not own the domains. Plaintiff owns the domains. At all times, Defendant was acting on behalf of Plaintiff. Since the employment relationship between the parties is over, Defendant ought to return the domains but he continues to unjustly retain their possession.
2. “It is well settled in Florida that unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy and is, therefore, not available where there is an adequate legal remedy. Thus, to properly state a claim for unjust enrichment, a party must allege that no adequate legal remedy exists.” American Honda Motor v. Motorcycle Info Network, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (2005).
3. Plaintiff has tried to get Defendant to return the domains but he has blatantly refused to do so. Plaintiff has even filed a police report but he understands that the police cannot do anything as Defendant currently resides in Canada. He has no other remedy available in law.
4. Defendant is liable for unjust enrichment and ought to pay damages to Plaintiff.

Conversion

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the facts and allegations in Paragraphs 1-23 of this Complaint as though set out in full herein.
2. “Under Florida law, the elements of conversion are “(1) an act of dominion wrongfully asserted; (2) over another’s property; and (3) inconsistent with his ownership therein.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Hart, 2012 WL 1289731, *2-3 (S.D.Fla. Apr. 16, 2012) (citing Special Purpose v. Prime One, 125 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1099-1100 (S.D.Fla.2000) (citing Warshall v. Price, 629 So.2d 903, 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993))).” 
3. Defendant asserted wrongful dominance when he refused to return Plaintiff’s domains upon request. Defendant was granted possession of the domains by Plaintiff, which owns the domains. As the owner, Plaintiff has the right to ask for the domains back. Defendant is obligated to return the domains upon request by the owner.
4. Defendant is liable for conversion and ought to pay damages to Plaintiff.

• PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant it the following reliefs:

1. Grant judgment in favor of Plaintiff;
2. Issue an Order of Specific Performance compelling Defendant to return the domains of www.springbokbraai.com and www.ecocharusa.com and all related files back to Plaintiff;
3. Award Plaintiff damages for breach of fiduciary duty in the sum of $______;
4. Award Plaintiff damages for unjust enrichment in the sum of $________;
5. Award Plaintiff damages for conversion in the sum of $________;
6. Award Plaintiff punitive damages;
7. Award Plaintiff costs of this suit and attorney fees as allowed by law;
8. Award Plaintiff pre and post judgment interests;
9. Award Plaintiff such equitable relief as this Court deems fair; and
10. Award Plaintiff  such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.

Dated this ____ day of March, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Clifford Morris

Appearing in pro per on behalf of Plaintiff in his capacity as the sole member.

VERIFICATION

I, Clifford Morris, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.

_________________________________

(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)

Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of ___________________, 2022.

______________________________

Notary Public

________________________________________

(Printed name of Notary Public)

My Commission Expires: ____________________

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.