THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
SUPERIOR COURT
THE STUDSPERSECOND. COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BPD_EDGAR,
Defendant.
Case No.: RSC-CV-523
CIVIL COMPLAINT
Date Filed: 7/10/2022
COMPLAINT
StudsPerSecond, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby brings this
civil action and alleges as follows.
INTRODUCTION
1. BPD_Edgar, (“Defendant”) was employed by StudsPerSecond (“Plaintiff”)
on June 6, 2022, and obtained his driver certification.
2. As part of the onboarding process, Defendant became aware of all of the
requirements within the company handbook.
3. On or around July 7th, 2022, Defendant distributed clipboards to citizens
Iamthebestlaith, OHitsMILK, and SilverMaddog, contrary to the handbook.
4. Defendant was investigated by Plaintiff’s Office of Risk Management,
which concluded there was a violation contrary to policy. Defendant was
terminated.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. The State of Ridgeway Superior Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article
IV, Section 7 of the Ridgeway Constitution.
6. Venue is proper in this Court because the incident took place within
Ridgeway County.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff StudsPerSecond is a private company operating within the State of
Ridgeway.
8. Defendant BPD_Edgar is a resident of the State of Ridgeway, formerly
employed by Plaintiff.
COUNT 1
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
9. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated as reference as if
fully set forth herein.
10. Defendant’s employment with Plaintiff is of a contractual nature by virtue
of the Employee Handbook.
11. The Employee Handbook stipulates that “[Plaintiff] provides all its
employees with a clipboard to help Delivery Drivers keep track of where
they need to deliver packages to. Employees may not take a clipboard off the
team or distribute them to anyone.”
12. Defendant assented to the contractual obligations stated therein when he
accepted employment within the company. The company likewise assented
when they made the decision to hire the individual.
13. The Code of Conduct section amplifies the contractual relationship between
Plaintiff and its employees. Employees of Plaintiff are obligated to adhere to
Plaintiff’s Code, or it is possible that there will be workplace discipline.
14. Relevant to Paragraph 10, the Code states, “111 - Employees may not
distribute company-issued equipment to others.” Thus, Plaintiff expects of,
and Defendant agrees to, not distributing equipment in a contractual manner.
15. When Defendant distributed to Iamthebestlaith, OHitsMILK, and
SilverMaddog, the contract with Plaintiff was breached.
COUNT 2
(TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE)
16. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 15 are incorporated as reference as
if fully set forth herein.
17. Defendant’s conduct contrary to the Employee Handbook damaged
Plaintiff’s relationship with their clients by impeding the efficiency of
deliveries and also by removing necessary resources from the workplace
utilized by the company to maintain company-client relationships, while
further causing harm to those that were dealt and accepted clipboards.
18. Plaintiff’s private property is intended and authorized solely for the
possession of on-duty employees.
COUNT 3
(CIVIL CONSPIRACY)
19. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated as reference as
if fully set forth herein.
20. Defendant conspired with a number of other individuals to unlawfully
distribute company property to them, where both parties know that such an
action was prohibited.
21. There was a conspiracy to the extent that both Defendant and the third
parties he gave company property to mutually assented to and planned for,
Defendant to distribute company property.
22. The conspiracy between the parties deprived Plaintiff here of their legal
right to keep and possess property within the company.
COUNT 4
(TROVER)
23. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated as a reference
as if fully set forth herein.
24. Plaintiff’s Employee Handbook outlines the specific use for which
employees, of which Defendant was, may possess and use their property.
25. The Employee Handbook states that “Employees may not take a clipboard
off team or distribute them to anyone.”
26. Defendant had authorized possession of the clipboards for the sole purpose
of conducting business as outlined in the Handbook. However, by possessing
the clipboard for the purpose of distribution to the citizens, Defendant
exceeded his legal reason and justification as authorized by Plaintiff to
possess said property.
27. Additionally, by being complicit in the theft of company property by third
parties, and aiding therein, Defendant assumes liability for trover.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
28.Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that the Court:
a. Declare that Defendant committed the act of breach of contract,
tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and trover against Plaintiff.
b. As for the claim of Breach of Contract:
i. Award Plaintiff $3000 in punitive damages.
c. As for the claim of Tortious Interference:
i. Award Plaintiff $3000 in compensatory damages
ii. Award Plaintiff $3000 in punitive damages
d. As for the claim of Civil Conspiracy:
i. Award Plaintiff $3000 in compensatory damages
ii. Award Plaintiff $3000 in punitive damages
e. As for the claim of Trover:
i. Award Plaintiff $2,000 in compensatory damages
ii. Award Plaintiff $2,000 in punitive damages.
1. The total amount of damages is assessed to cover the cost
of the market value of the clipboard and the lost revenue
produced by the clipboard.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ spencernixon
Counsel of Record
General Counsel of StudsPerSecond
Bar # 10104
