" />
轮胎经销商维权
2016年1月23日，位在美国的轮胎批发商Horizon Tire（被告）在德克萨斯州法院告状了位在休斯顿的Flagship Tire&Wheel和Horizon Tire三名前雇员，指控他（她）们经营故障并粉碎被告营业和与被告和中国轮胎制造商小巧轮胎公司的独家发卖和谈。
本案告状被告的三名前雇员是：Benjamin Shan（中文名：单斌）, Sylvia Hermosillo和Haitao "Oliver" Zhang（中文名：张海涛）。这三人在分开被告后开办了作为被告合作敌手的Flagship Tire&Wheel公司，该行动违反了诚信和竞业限制准绳。诉讼中提出由此三人成立公司并和小巧轮胎进行合作。
2015年6月被告在加州联邦法庭以小巧轮胎公司背约为由对其提出了诉讼，该合约划定Horizon在美国境内具有Crosswind品牌轮胎的独家代办署理权。小巧轮胎公司对加州法庭的司法管辖权提出了争议，并在俄亥俄州联邦法院对Horizon提出了反诉，称Horizon背约并试图要求该公司实行一份底子不具有的独家代办署理和谈。
被告礼聘华盛顿特区的Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC作为法令征询和参谋后，赞成了在俄亥俄州对小巧公司提出诉讼，同时遵守该州法庭的司法管辖权。Horizon的法令参谋Augie Matteis提到“Horizon对该诉讼持乐不雅立场, 暗示巴望尽快在俄亥俄州审理此案的实情和焦点”
“Horizon无意华侈时候和金钱去争辩此案应当在哪一个法庭审理”Horizon的一名股东说道。该股东同时暗示“但愿此案能尽快进入审讯阶段，如许Horizon可以或许证实对小巧的指控成立同时让Horizon可以或许尽快将精神转移回轮胎营业上”。
值得一提的是，此次Horizon的法令参谋Weisbrod Matteis & Copley律师事务所曾成功指证小巧从一家名为Alpha Mining System和其开创人Jordan Fishman那边盗取贸易秘密。在2010年小巧被判补偿美金2,600万美元。在2012年小巧再次败诉以后试图避免补偿金。该律师事务所和被告经由过程屡次要求履行欠款收受接管，终究迫使小巧在2013年付出了全额补偿金。
在Alpha案中，小巧也提到过他们不受弗吉尼亚联邦法庭的司法管辖，对小巧的该说法，法院不予采用。Horizon的法令参谋Augie Matteis说道“虽然小巧在美国的生意范围已到达了几个亿美元的程度，但小巧仍是在测验考试回避美法律王法公法院的管辖”
以下是英文链接和原文部门：
WeisbrodMatteis & Copley PLLC Files New Lawsuit for Horizon Tire in Linglong LegalAction
United States tire distributor Horizon Tire, Inc. filed a lawsuit yesterday in Texas court against new Houston-based tire company Flagship Tire & Wheel, LLC ����APPand three former Horizon employees, charging that they conspired to interfere with Horizon’s business and exclusive distributorship agreement with Chinese tire manufacturer Shandong Linglong Tire Co., Ltd.
The lawsuit charges the former employees - Benjamin Shan, Sylvia Hermosillo and Haitao “Oliver” Zhang -with violating fiduciary duties to Horizon and non-competition agreements, when they left Horizon to found Flagship as Horizon’s competitor. The lawsuit alleges that the former employees set up Flagship in cooperation with Linglong.
In June 2015, Horizon sued Linglong in a California federal court alleging the company violated Horizon’s exclusive rights to distribute Crosswind tires in the U.S. In response, Linglong disputed the California court’s jurisdiction and filed a lawsuit against Horizon in Ohio federal court claiming the tire distributor breached contracts with Linglong and is trying to hold the company to an allegedly nonexistent exclusive distribution agreement.
After retaining Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC (WMC), a Washington, DC law firm, Horizon agreed to litigate all of Horizon’s claims against Linglong in Ohio, where Linglong sued and therefore conceded the Ohio court’s jurisdiction. “Horizon welcomes the opportunity to get to the merits of the litigation in Ohio,” said Augie Matteis, WMC’s managing partner.
“Horizon has no interest in wasting time and money fighting over which court to be in,” One Horizon shareholder said. “We want to get to trial in this case as quickly as possible so we can prove our allegations and return to focusing on our distribution business.”
WMC proved in previous litigation that Linglong stole intellectual property from another U.S. tirec ompany, Alpha Mining Systems, and its founder, Jordan Fishman. Linglong was found liable for 美金26 million in damages in 2010, lost its appeal in 2012 and then tried to avoid paying the judgment. WMC and Fishman responded by filing many collection actions across the country that ultimately forced Linglong to pay its share of the judgment in 2013.
Linglong argued similarly in the Alpha lawsuit that they were not subject to a Virginia federal court’s jurisdiction. The court disagreed. “Linglong has made a practice of trying to avoid the reach of U.S. courts while doing hundreds of millions of dollars of business here,” Matteis said.
View source version on:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160122005952/en/
Copyright Business Wire 2016
