Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. httgj/estta.usQto.gov
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`92057839
`
`Defendant
`Kris Kaszuba
`
`KRIS KASZUBA
`2683 VIA DE LA VALLE, SUITE G-Z46
`DEL MAR, CA 92014-1961
`UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`kris@vip9.com
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`Kris Kaszuba
`
`kris002@ hotmai|.com
`/kk/
`
`02/07/2014
`
`Reply to P's Response to Motion To Dismiss Coyote Cancellation 92057839 Feb
`6 2014.pdf(402991 bytes )
`Griffin Jury Verdict Feb 5 2014.pdf(1268831 bytes )
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA586083
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`02/07/2014
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92057839
`Defendant
`Kris Kaszuba
`KRIS KASZUBA
`2683 VIA DE LA VALLE, SUITE G-Z46
`DEL MAR, CA 92014-1961
`UNITED STATES
`kris@vip9.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`Kris Kaszuba
`kris002@hotmail.com
`/kk/
`02/07/2014
`Reply to P's Response to Motion To Dismiss Coyote Cancellation 92057839 Feb
`6 2014.pdf(402991 bytes )
`Griffin Jury Verdict Feb 5 2014.pdf(1268831 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL & APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Bruce Griffin, Plaintiff )
`
`v. ) Cancellation Proceeding
`
`Kris Kaszuba, Defendant / Respondent ) No. 92057839
`
`
`
`RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE CANCELLATION PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`Re: COYOTE Trademark, Serial No. 78566406, Registration No. 3379325
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND and INTRODUCTION
`
`Respondent is replying to Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s MOTION TO DISMISS the
`
`CANCELLATION PETITION for his trademark COYOTE Registration No. 3379325 which was
`
`registered on Feb. 05, 2008. Respondent does not agree with the Petitioner’s Response.
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`
`Petitioner’s RESPONSE does not comply with TBMP and the U.S. Trademark Act due to the
`
`three following points.
`
`Firstly, Petitioner’s Response is not dated, thus not in compliance with TBMP and the
`
`U.S. Trademark Act.
`
`
`
`Secondly, Petitioner’s Response, “Certificate of Service” is not dated and was not mailed as
`
`“certified” mail.
`
`
`
`Thirdly, Petitioner’s Response does not contain a Memorandum of Points and Authorities and
`
`
` 1 D’s REPLY TO P’s Response to MOTION TO DISMISS CANCELLATION PETITION 2/6/14
`
`
`
`

`
`is not in compliance with TBMP and the U.S. Trademark Act, 37 CFR § 2.119.
`
`Therefore the Petitioner’s Response is not valid and should not be entered or considered.
`
`
`
`Bruce Griffin, the Petitioner has no standing to submit a cancellation petition.
`
`Petitioner has no standing to maintain a cancellation petition.
`
`Petitioner has submitted a fraudulent trademark application with his Coyote Engines,
`
`with a First Use Anywhere Date of “at least as early as 11/00/1990 and First Use In
`
`Commerce Date of “at least as early as 11/00/1990.
`
`Attached as an Exhibit in Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is the Order of Judge Barbara Lynn,
`
`U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas dated March 13, 2013, Case No. 3:11-CV-1046M
`
`wherein Bruce Griffin was a Defendant against The Tranman, Inc et al.
`
`The ORDER and findings of Judge Lynn state as follows:
`
`“Plaintiffs contend that, shortly before his termination (2011), Griffin and Defendant
`Craig Fenderson (“Fenderson”) began their own automotive repair business called
`Coyote Engines and Transmissions (“Coyote Engines”) and created the website
`www.coyoteengines.com for the purpose of promoting their new business. Griffin also
`allegedly began promoting Coyote Engines to Plaintiffs’ clients and business partners
`while using Plaintiffs’ truck.”
`
`Petitioner, Bruce Griffin has committed fraud on the USPTO and has no standing to submit a
`
`Cancellation Petition.
`
`Bruce Griffin does not solely own 100% of Coyote Engines.
`
`Petitioner has a very recent partner as of 2011 being Craig Fenderson who is a co-owner of
`
`Coyote Engines.
`
`With full knowledge of the above fraudulent dates and statements, the Petitioner’s Attorney has
`
`no standing or right to represent the Petitioner before the TTAB or the USPTO as per the
`
`Professional Rules of Conduct.
`
`
`
`The Oregon Code of Professional Responsibilities as approved by the Oregon Supreme Court
`
`
` 2 D’s REPLY TO P’s Response to MOTION TO DISMISS CANCELLATION PETITION 2/6/14
`
`
`
`

`
`state as follows:
`
`DR 1(cid:173)102 Misconduct; Responsibility for Acts of Others
`(A) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
`
`(1) Violate these disciplinary rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so
`through the acts of another;
`
`(2) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or
`fitness to practice law;
`
`(3) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
`
`(4) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
`
`It appears that Plaintiff’s Attorney is not in conformity with DR 1-102 (A) (3) AND (4).
`
`Plaintiff’s Attorney should withdraw as required by the Oregon Code
`DR 2(cid:173)110 (B) “Mandatory withdrawal”.
`
` A
`
` lawyer representing a client before a tribunal, with its permission if required by
`
`
`its rules, shall withdraw from employment, and a lawyer representing a client in other matters
`
`shall withdraw from employment, if:
`
`
`(1) The lawyer knows or it is obvious that the lawyer’s client is bringing the legal action,
`conducting the
`defense, or asserting a position in the litigation, or is otherwise having steps taken for
`the client, merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any other person.
`
` (2) The lawyer knows or it is obvious that the lawyer’s continued employment will result in
`violation of a Disciplinary Rule.
`
`
`
`Yesterday on February 5, 2014, a U.S District Court Texas jury found the Petitioner, Bruce
`
`Griffin & co-defendant GUILTY of Injury to Reputation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, aiding and
`
`abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Conversion against The Tranman, Inc., Bruce Griffin’s
`
`former employer.
`
` A
`
` copy of the Verdict and Judge’s Order is attached hereto consisting of 17 pages.
`
`
`On the cover page of the Jury Verdict, the Defendants are Bruce Griffin and Craig Fenderson
`
`d/b/a Coyote Engines and Transmissions.
`
`Each Defendant was found guilty and fined $287,200 each and jointly fined an additional
`
` 3 D’s REPLY TO P’s Response to MOTION TO DISMISS CANCELLATION PETITION 2/6/14
`
`
`
`

`
`
`$102,800.
`
`Both Defendants, Griffin and Fenderson are referenced in the Court documents as co-owners
`
`of Coyote Engines.
`
`Only one owner “Bruce Griffin” applied to register Coyote Engines as a trademark in 2011 when
`
`the two owned and operated Coyote Engines and Transmissions.
`
`Legally, based on this court case and lawsuit and the ownership, Craig Fenderson is a co-
`
`owner of their proposed mark. Fenderson has not been included in the Coyote Engines
`
`application.
`
`Fenderson as co-Petitioner is absent from the Petitioner’s trademark and this Petition.
`
`This is additional evidence and proof that the Petitioner, Bruce Griffin has no standing to submit
`
`the Cancellation Petition without his co-owner, Craig Fenderson.
`
`
`
`One additional point is that Mr. Luke Brean in his email to Respondent dated December 18,
`
`2013 has admitted that:
`
`“the only reason it (Cancellation) was filed was because your earlier registered mark is blocking
`my client’s current trademark application for Coyote Engines”.
`
`This “reason” is not a bona fide reason or good faith reason for submitting a Cancellation
`
`Petition.
`
`Furthermore, this may be viewed as an attempt to blackmail the owner of a registered
`
`markwith the USPTO. This too is unprofessional and unethical conduct before the TTAB and
`
`the USPTO.
`
`The Respondent has shown and the above prima fascia evidence proves that the Petitioner
`
`has committed a fraud on the USPTO. The above referenced lawsuit, Judge’s Order and
`
`findings and Jury Verdict are conclusive proof and evidence that:
`
`
`1) The Plaintiff Bruce Griffin did not use or own Coyote Engines in 1990.
`2) Plaintiff Bruce Griffin and Craig Fenderson formed Coyote Engines in 2011 as per
`Judge Lynn’s findings and Order.
`
` 4 D’s REPLY TO P’s Response to MOTION TO DISMISS CANCELLATION PETITION 2/6/14
`
`
`
`

`
`3) Plaintiff Bruce Griffin and his co-defendant Craig Fenderson were co-owners of Coyote
`Engines.
`4) Plaintiff Bruce Griffin submitted a trademark application for Coyote Engines without
`the inclusion or permission of Craig Fenderson.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Based on the above points, authorities and proof, Bruce Griffin has no standing and does not
`
`have the authority to submit a Cancellation Petition on Respondent’s trademark, Coyote.
`
`Respondent respectfully requests that the Motion To Dismiss the Cancellation Petition be
`
`approved and further that the trademark application by Bruce Griffin be cancelled.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that the Cancellation Petition be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`
`
`Dated this 6th day of February, 2014 at Del Mar, California
`
`/kk/ Signed by electronic signature
`
`Kris Kaszuba
`2683 VIA DE LA VALLE # G-246
`DEL MAR, CA 92014
`USA
`
`email: kris@CoyoteCar.com
`
`
` 5 D’s REPLY TO P’s Response to MOTION TO DISMISS CANCELLATION PETITION 2/6/14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 17 Page|D 449
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO .
`
`V
`
`U18. DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE ‘ SNORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION I
`
`CLERK, U;S.DISTRICT COURT
`
`l§
`§
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`OLM, INC. d/b/a THE TRANSMISSION
`SHOP,
`
`Plalntlffa
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-1046-M
`
`§
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§ § §
`
`BRUCE E. GRIFFHV, and
`CRAIG FENDERSON d/b/a COYOTE
`ENGINES AND TRANSMISSIONS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COURT’S CHARGE TO THE JURY
`
`MEMBERS OF THE JURY:
`
`GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`
`You have now heard the evidence in this case. At this time, I will instruct you on the law
`
`that you must apply. It is your duty to follow the law as I give it to you. On the other hand, you,
`
`the jury, are the judges of the facts. Do not consider any question I have asked or any statement
`
`that I have made in the course of trial or in these instructions as an indication that I have any
`
`opinion about the facts of this case. The facts are for you to determine.
`
`Throughout these instructions, I will refer to the “Plaintiff” and the “Defendants.’.’ The
`
`Plaintiff in this case is OLM, Inc. The Defendants in this case are Bruce E. Griffin and Craig
`
`Fenderson. They will be jointly called the “Defendants.” Corporations and individuals are equal
`
`before the law and must be treated as equals in a court ofjustice.
`
`In this case, the Plaintiff must prove every essential part of each of its claims by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence simply means evidence that
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID 449
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 17 Page|D 450
`
`persuades you that each ofthe Plaintiffs claims is more likely true than not true. In deciding
`
`whether any fact has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, you may, unless otherwise
`
`__instructed, consider the testimony of all witnesses and all exhibits received in evidence. If the
`
`. proof fails to establish any essential part of any of the Plaintiff’ s claims by a preponderance of
`
`t "theevidence, you should find for the Defendants as to any such claim. The fact that Defendants
`
`did not appear at trial to defend themselves against Plaintiffs claims does not affect Plaintiffs
`
`burden of proof in this case.
`
`You must consider only the evidence and instructions in this case. However, you may
`
`draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the
`
`light of common experience. You may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and
`
`common sense lead you to make from the testimony and evidence. There are two types of
`
`evidence that you may consider in properly finding the truth as to the facts in this case. One is
`
`direct evidence—such as testimony of an eyewitness. The testimony of a single witness may be
`
`sufficient to prove any fact, even if a greater number of witnesses may have testified to the
`
`contrary, if after considering all the other evidence you believe that single witness. The other is
`
`indirect or circumstantial evidence—the proof of a chain of circumstances that indicates the
`
`existence or nonexistence of certain other facts. As a general rule, the law makes no distinction
`
`between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires that you find the facts from a
`
`preponderance of all the credible evidence, both direct and circumstantial.
`
`You are the sole judges ofthe credibility or believability of each witness and the weight
`
`to be given to his or her testimony. In weighing the testimony of a witness, you should consider
`
`his or her relationship to the Plaintiff or the Defendants; his or her interest, if any, in the outcome
`
`of the case; his or her manner of testifying;
`
`or her candor, fairness and intelligence; his or her
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 17 PageID 450
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 3 of 17 Page|D 451
`
`opportunity to observe or acquire knowledge concerning the facts; and whether his or her
`
`testimony has been supported or contradicted by other credible evidence. You may accept or
`
`reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part.
`
`Any notes that you have taken during this trial are only aids to memory. If your memory
`
`should differ from your notes, then you should rely on your memory and not on the notes. The
`
`notes are not evidence. A juror who has not taken notes should rely on his or her independent
`
`recollection of the evidence and should not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors.
`
`Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than the recollection or impression of each juror
`
`about the testimony.
`
`SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS
`
`I.
`
`CLAIMS FOR WHICH YOU WILL ONLY MAKE A DAMAGES
`DETERMINATION
`
`While you will not be asked to make a determination of liability concerning claims for
`
`defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and
`
`conversion, you will be asked to make determinations of damages concerning those claims.
`
`II.
`
`DAIVIAGES
`
`You must determine what amount of damages, if any, is fair compensation for any
`
`injuries caused to Plaintiff by Defendants. This requires you to award such amount as you may
`
`find by a preponderance of the evidence constitutes full and just compensation for actual
`
`damages proven by Plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence. These damages are called
`
`compensatory damages. The purpose of compensatory damages is to make Plaintiff whole—that
`
`is, to compensate Plaintiff for any damage that Plaintiff has suffered as a result of Defendants’
`
`conduct. You will also be asked to determine if Defendants are liable for exemplary damages
`
`and, if so, you will be asked to fix the amount of those damages. Because the method of
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 3 of 17 PageID 451
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 4 of 17 Page|D 452
`
`determining exemplary damages and compensatory damages differs, I will instruct you
`separately on exemplary damages.
`P
`
`COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
`
`You may award compensatory damages only for injuries Plaintiff proves were
`
`proximately caused by Defendants’ allegedly wrongful conduct. An act is a proximate cause of
`Plaintiffs injuries or damages ifit appears from the evidence that the injury or damage was a
`
`reasonably foreseeable consequence of the act. The damages that you award must be fair
`
`compensation for all ofthe Plaintiffs damages, no more and no less. You should not award
`
`compensatory damages for speculative injuries, but only for those injuries which Plaintiff has
`
`actually suffered or that Plaintiff is reasonably likely to suffer in the future.
`
`You should be guided by dispassionate common sense. Computing damages may be
`
`difficult, but you must not let that difficulty lead you to engage in arbitrary guesswork. On the
`
`other hand, the law does not require that Plaintiff proves the amount of its losses with
`
`You must use sound discretion in fixing an award of damages, drawing reasonable
`
`inferences where you find them appropriate from the facts and circumstances in evidence.
`
`EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
`
`“Exemplary damages” means an amount that you may, in your discretion, award as a
`
`penalty or by way ofpunishment. Youmust unanimously agree on the amount of exemplary
`
`damages to award such damages.
`
`Exemplary damages may be assessed in addition to compensatory damages only if
`
`Plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that its injuries resulted from malice. “Clear
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 4 of 17 PageID 452
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 5 of 17 Page|D 453
`
`and convincing” evidence means evidence that produces in your mind a firm belief orconviction
`
`as to the matter at issue. This involves a greater degree of persuasion than is necessary to meet
`
`the preponderance of the evidence standard; however, proof to an absolute certainty is not
`
`V required. “Malice” means a specific intent by Defendants to cause substantial injury or harm to
`
`Plaintiff. Specific intent means that Defendants desired to cause the consequences of their act, or
`
`that they believed the consequences were substantially certain to result from it.
`
`Factors to consider in awarding exemplary damages, if any, are—
`
`a. The nature of the wrong.
`
`b. The character of the conduct involved.
`
`c. The degree of Defendants’ culpability.
`
`d. The situation and sensibilities of the parties concerned.
`
`e. The extent to which such conduct offends a public sense ofjustice and propriety.
`
`f. Defendants’ net worth.
`
`III.
`
`DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION
`
`You should assume that both Defendants published a false statement of fact about
`
`Plaintiff that was defamatory. You are to determine if Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and
`
`exemplary damages on its defamation claim.
`
`IV.
`
`DANIAGES FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND AIDING AND
`ABETTING OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
`
`You should assume that Defendant Griffin has breached his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff,
`
`and that Defendant Fenderson aided and abetted Defendant Griffin’s breach of fiduciary duty.
`
`This requires you to assume that: (1) a fiduciary relationship existed between Plaintiff
`
`and Defendant Griffin; (2) Defendant Griffin breached his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff; and
`
`(3) Defendant Griffin’s breach resulted in injury to Plaintiff or benefit to Defendant Griffin. This
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 5 of 17 PageID 453
`
`

`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M ’ D
`
`-
`ocument 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 6 of 17 Page|D 454
`
`further requires you to assume that Defendant Fenderson knowingly participated in Defendant
`
`Griffm’s breach of fiduciary duty.
`You are to determine the amount of exemplary damages, if any, that Plaintiffis entitled
`to on its claims for breach offiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach offiduciary duty,
`assuming that the Court will award Plaintiff $14,700.00 in compensatory damages on these
`
`claims.
`
`V.
`
`DAMAGES FOR CONVERSION
`You should assume that Defendants are liable to Plaintifffor conversion. This requires
`you to assume that: (1) Plaintiffowned, had legal possession of, or was entitled to possession of
`certain property; and (2) Defendants assumed and exercised dominion and control over the
`property in an unlawful and unauthorized manner, to the exclusion ofand inconsistent with
`Plaintiffs rights. Inthis case, you should assume that Defendant Griffinused one ofPlaintiff‘s
`business trucks, without Plaintiffs authorization, for his own purposes in promoting Defendants’
`competingbusiness enterprise. You should further assume that Defendant Fenderson aided and A
`abetted Defendant Griffin’s unauthorized use ofPlaintiffs truck for this competing business
`enterprise. You are to determine ifPlaintiffis entitled to compensatory and exemplary damages
`
`on its conversion claim.
`VI.
`THE ANTICYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`Plaintiff claims that Defendants Griffin and Fenderson violated the Anticybersquatting
`Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). To prevail on its ACPA claim, Plaintiffmust prove that:
`(1) it owns the mark “The Transmission Shop”; (2) the mark “The Transmission Shop” is
`distinctive or famous and entitled to protection; (3) Defendants’ domain name “www.the-
`transmission-shop.com” is identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs marl<; and
`(4) Defendants registered the domain name “www.the-transmission-shop.com” with the bad faith
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 6 of 17 PageID 454
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 7 of 17 Page|D 455
`
`intent to profit from the mark “The Transmission Shop.”
`
`A party owns a trademark if the party uses the mark in commerce sufficient to allow
`
`consumers to associate the mark with particular goods or services and has notified others that the
`
`mark is so associated.
`
`A mark can be distinctive in one of two ways, either by:
`
`(1) being inherently distinctive,
`
`or (2) having acquired distinctiveness, although it may not be inherently distinctive.
`
`First, a mark is inherently distinctive if its intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular
`
`source. A mark is inherently distinctive if it is suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful. A suggestive
`
`term suggests, rather than describes, some particular characteristic of the goods or services to
`
`which it applies and requires the consumer to exercise the imagination in order to draw a
`
`conclusion as to the nature of the goods and services. Arbitrary or fanciful terms bear no
`
`relationship to the products or services to which they are applied.
`
`Second, a mark has acquired distinctiveness, even if it is not inherently distinctive, if it
`
`has developed secondary meaning, which occurs when, in the minds of the public, the primary
`
`significance of a mark is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.
`
`JURY UESTIONS
`
`Question No. 1:
`
`What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate
`
`Plaintiff for injuries caused it by Defendants’ defamation, if any, that were proximately caused
`
`by the following group of statements made by the Defendants about Plaintiff?
`
`“Had them do a rebuild for me, less then a month had to bring it
`back for a leak and loose bolts. One year and a week after it was
`rebuilt and 5k miles it came apart and they would not touch it. Will
`never let them touch any of my cars. They are Awful. A
`
`I have the 2001 Dodge that broke down in Jackson Tennessee you
`would not pay for the tow and I could not get a trailer big enough
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 7 of 17 PageID 455
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 8 of 17 Page|D 456
`
`for my truck to get it back to you so I had to shell out 3k for a
`rebuild to get out of Tennessee and they wanted 500 for the core.
`You where Zero help remember me now?
`
`I called you personaly and you did nothing you mealy mouth. I
`shelled out 3k already for a rebuilt trans and the tranny you rebuilt
`went back as a core. I don’t need your help now I needed it when I
`was stuck in Tennessee. No campaign, just the facts.
`
`You have no intention of helping me with my bill you had your
`chance to do that and all I got was hot air. So stop dismissing me
`as a way to justify your problems.
`
`You run your business with as much ignorance as your comments.
`You are clueless and looking at your other comments you gave
`your shop a five star and two other local Transmission shops one _
`star each. Explains everything you use other shops to do rebuilds
`for you, your word is worth nothing. I would recommend a rebuild
`from a company with a nation wide warranty not a shade tree outfit
`like this one.
`
`I see you deleted your other reviews, I guess you did not want
`A people seeing you as the liar you are. Your word is not worth the
`time of day. Enough said.
`
`You think your slick playing games, deleteing all your posts. Talk
`about bogus, I talked to you personaly and you did nothing to help
`me. People can see through your sharade.”
`
`In answering this question,.consider the subparts of damages listed below and none other.
`
`Consider each subpart separately. Do not award any sum of money on any subpart if you have
`
`otherwise awarded a sum of money for the same loss under another subpart. That is, do not
`
`compensate twice forthe same loss, if any. Do not include interest on any amount of damages
`
`you find.
`
`Answer separately in dollars and cents for damages, if any.
`
`a.
`
`Injury to reputation sustained by Plaintiff in the past.
`
`Answer:
`
`g/OQQO
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 8 of 17 PageID 456
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 9 of 17 Page|D 457
`
`b.
`
`Injury to reputation that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future.
`
`Answer:
`
`Q
`
`u
`
`If your answer to both Questions 1(a) and (b) is “zero,” then the above group of
`
`statements may not be considered for purposes of any damages you award in answering
`
`Questions 5-6.
`
`Question No. 2:
`
`What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate
`
`Plaintiff for injuries caused it by Defendants’ defamation, if any, that were proximately caused
`
`by the following statement made by the Defendants about Plaintiff?
`
`“Coyote Engines and Transmissions would like to extend our
`thanks to The Transmission Shop owner Mike Adams for giving us
`the inspiration for starting our new website domain
`_
`http://www.the—transmission-shop.com . After Mike fired and
`refused to pay his No. 1 Salesman in the United States we were
`extremely happy to pick him up as we know he will continue to
`make us ungodly amounts of money. Because Mike has harassed
`us over the phone and made threats it just gives us more fuel to sell
`more transmissions in the Dallas - Fort Worth metroplex. Hats off
`to you Mike for all you’ve done.”
`
`In answering this question, consider the subparts of damages listed below and none other;
`
`Consider each subpart separately. Do not award any sum of money on any subpart if you have
`
`otherwise awarded a sum of money for the same loss under another subpart. That is, do not
`
`compensate twice for the same loss, if any. Do not include interest on any amount of damages
`
`you find.
`
`Answer separately in dollars and cents for damages, if any.
`
`a.
`
`Injury to reputation sustained by Plaintiff in the past.
`
`Answer:
`
`/
`
`(20, 00
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 9 of 17 PageID 457
`
`

`
`Case 3:l1—cv—O1046—M ‘Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 10 of 17 Page|D 458
`
`b.
`
`Injury to reputation that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future.
`
`Answer:
`
`Q
`
`If your answer to both Questions 2(a) and (b) is “zero,” then this statement may not be
`
`considered for purposes of any damages you award in answering Questions 5-6.
`
`Question No. 3:
`
`What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate
`
`Plaintiff for injuries caused it by Defendants’ defamation, if any, that were proximately caused
`
`by the following statement made by the Defendants about Plaintiff?
`
`“The transmission shop has the worst service I have seen. Stay
`away from this company.
`I have heard nothing good about them at
`all. Mike Adams (the owner) has the worst reputation in all of
`Dallas. BEWARE — STAY AWAY FROM THIS COMPANY.”
`
`In answering this question, consider the subparts of damages listed below and none other.
`
`Consider each subpart separately. Do not award any sum of money on any subpart if you have
`
`otherwise awarded a sum of money for the same loss under another subpart. That is, do not
`
`compensate twice for the same loss, if any. Do not include interest on any amount of damages
`
`you find.
`
`Answer separately in dollars and cents for damages, if any.
`
`a.
`
`Injury to reputation sustained by Plaintiff in the past.
`
`Answer:
`
`,2 ,.
`
`,
`
`b.
`
`Injury to reputation that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in thefuture.
`
`Answer:
`
`'
`
`If your answer to both Questions 3(a) and (b) is “zero,” then this statement may not be
`
`considered for purposes of any damages you award in answering Questions 5-6.
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 10 of 17 PageID 458
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 11 of 17 Page|D 459
`
`Question No. 4:
`
`What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate
`
`Plaintiff for injuries caused it by Defendants’ defamation, if any, that were proximately caused
`
`by the following statement made by the Defendants about Plaintiff?
`
`“I noticed that this business has 8 complaints with the BBB that
`have the same generic ‘The consumer failed to acknowledge
`acceptance to BBB.’ This seems to be Very fishy. I find the A+
`rating Very unreliable.”
`
`In answering this question, consider the subparts of damages listed below and none other.
`
`Consider each subpart separately. Do not award any sum of money on any subpart if you have
`
`otherwise awarded a sum of money for the same loss under another subpart. That is, do not
`
`compensate twice for the same loss, if any. Do not include interest on any amount of damages
`
`you find.
`
`Answer separately in dollars and cents for damages, if any.
`
`a.
`
`Injury to reputation sustained by Plaintiff in the past.
`
`Answer:
`
`4
`
`Q 00
`
`b.
`
`Injury to reputation that, in reasonable probability, Plaintiff will sustain in the future.
`
`Answer:
`
`[Q A
`/
`
`If your answer to both Questions 4(a) and (b) is “zero,” then this statement may not be
`
`considered for purposes of any damages you award in answering Questions 5-6.
`
`Question No. 5:
`
`What sum ofmoney, if any, if paid now in cash, should be assessed against Defendant
`
`Griffin and awarded to Plaintiff as exemplary damages for the conduct described in Questions
`
`1-4? Do not include interest on any amount of damages you find.
`
`Answer in dollars and cents, if any.
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 11 of 17 PageID 459
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 12 of 17 Page|D 460
`
`Answer:
`
`' 0 , OO
`
`uestion No. 6:i
`What sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, should be assessed against Defendant
`
`Fenderson and awarded to Plaintiff as exemplary damages for the conduct described in
`
`Questions 1-4? Do not include interest on any amount of damages you find.
`
`Answer in dollars and cents, if any.
`
`Answer:
`
`gé/Q E2 QQ . 00
`I
`
`Question No. 7:
`
`What sum ofmoney, if any, if paid now in cash, should be assessed against Defendant
`
`Griffin and awarded to Plaintiff as exemplary damages for Defendant Griffin’s breach of
`
`fiduciary duty? Do not include interest on any amount of damages you find.
`
`Answer in dollars and cents, if any.
`
`Answer:
`
`Qg , Q__§’(D oo
`/
`
`Question No. 8:
`
`What sum ofmoney, if any, ifpaid now in cash, should be assessed against Defendant
`
`Fenderson and awarded to Plaintiff as exemplary damages for Defendant Fenderson’s aiding and
`
`abetting Defendant Griffin’s breach of fiduciary duty? Do not include interest on any amount of
`
`damages you find.
`
`Answer in dollars and cents, if any.
`
`Answer:
`
`.2 2 , 0.5/0 .0 0
`
`Question No. 9:
`
`What sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate
`
`Plaintiff for compensatory damages, if any, that were proximately caused by Defendants’
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`Case 3:11-cv-01046-M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 12 of 17 PageID 460
`
`

`
`Case 3:11—cv—O1046—M Document 61 Filed 02/05/14 Page 13 of 17 Page|D 461
`
`conversion? Do not include interest on any amount of damages you find.
`
`Answer in dollars and cents, if any.
`
`Answer:
`
`g QQ Q 0Q
`
`If your answer to Question 9 is “zero,” do not answer Questions 10-11.
`
`Question No. 105
`
`What sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, should be assessed agains