TekTree, LLC v. Borla Performance Industries, Inc. and Rongya Xia ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
TEKTREE, L.L.C., )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. CPU4-12-002911
)
BORLA PERFORMANCE INDUSTRIES, )
INC., and RONGYA XIA, )
)
Defendants. )
Submitted: November 13, 2014
Decided: February 24, 2015
R. Stokes Nolte, Esq. Scott G. Wilcox, Esq.
Reiley, Janiczek & McDevitt Whiteford, Taylor, and Preston
Delle Donne Corporate Center 405 King Street, Suite 500
1031 Centre Road, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801
Wilmington, DE, 19805 Attorney for Defendant Borla
Attorney for Plaintiff Performance Industries, Inc.
Kelly A. Green, Esq.
Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins
800 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 410
Wilmington, DE 19899
Attorney for Defendant Rongyu Xia
DECISION AFTER TRIAL
NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
In July 24, 2012, Plaintiff TekTree, LLC (“TekTree”) brought this action against Borla
Performance Industries, Inc. (“Borla”) and Rongyu Xia (“Xia”) alleging breach of contract and
tortious interference with contractual relations. TekTree sought damages in the amount of
$40,000.00. The claim for breach of contract alleges that TekTree entered into a professional
agreement with Borla by which Borla employee Xia would provide services to TekTree client,
Lincoln Financial Group. Further, that the terms of that agreement required both Borla and Xia to
abstain from providing services directly or indirectly to Lincoln Financial Group (“Lincoln”) during
the terms of the agreement and one year after the expiration of the agreement. The claim against
Xia also alleges she breached the Demand Note/Training Contract and the employment agreement.
On August 31, 2012, Borla filed an answer which it denied that it breached the contract, and
also denied any liability for the acts or omissions of Xia. Borla also brought a counterclaim in the
amount of $15,750.00 for unpaid invoices submitted to TekTree for payments made to Xia. On
September 25, 2012, Xia, proceeding pro se, filed an answer which denied she breached the contract,
and the Demand Note/Training agreement
By order dated on April 5, 2013, the Court granted and Xia filed an amended answer. In her
amended answer, Xia continues to deny breaching the contract, but she admits she signed the Note
and employment agreement. She alleges six affirmative defenses, and she brought several
counterclaims. She claims TekTree induced her to enter the agreement by promising that they would
arrange all necessary work permits, and that employment is subject to – and would begin only after –
the required H1B Visa work permit was obtained. She was to receive a salary of $50,000.00 paid in
accordance with the Company’s payroll procedures. Xia also alleges that she was to receive training
at various locations, which did not take place; thus, TekTree breached its contract with her.
2
Xia also alleges breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based upon
TekTree’s misrepresentation that they would employ her directly, provide her a salary and benefits,
and obtain her H1B visa. She relied upon these material misrepresentations when she accepted the
position, signed the note, travelled to Michigan on two occasions for training, and stopped looking
for other employment.
FACTS
At the beginning of trial, the parties submitted stipulated exhibits.1 Thereafter Raghuveer
Bandi (“Bandi”), President of TekTree, testified that for nine years, he was the head of the company.
He stated that TekTree provides staffing to corporation clients, which need Information
Technology assistance. TekTree trains candidates in Information Technology Services (“IT”) for
job placement with its clients. The training consists of online courses, as well as in-classroom
training. Upon successful completion of training, the candidate is placed with one of TekTree’s
clients. In return, TekTree is paid a percentage of the candidate’s salary for service provided to the
company. In addition to offering training and job placement, TekTree offers health benefits,
relocation expenses for a candidate’s move to the training facility in Detroit, Michigan, and free H1
B Visa processing and sponsorship for citizens of foreign countries.2
Bandi testified that on June 7, 2011, Xia signed the Note,3 which provided that she would
not voluntarily terminate her employment with TekTree for one year following the successful
completion of training and subsequent employment by TekTree LLC. The agreement further
provided that if Xia failed to comply with the agreement, she would pay as liquidated damages the
cost of training in the amount of $5,000.00, with interest at 10.00% per annum.4 As a part of the
1
The parties stipulated to twenty-two joint exhibits.
2 See Joint Ex. 10. As a Chinese National, Xia needed documentation from her employer to secure a H1 B
visa to continue her employment.
3 See Joint Ex. 1
4
Joint Ex. 1, ¶ 1.
3
arrangement, TekTree and Xia executed an employment document providing that Xia would receive
a salary of $50,000 per year.5 Bandi testified that training thereafter started in Detroit, Michigan.6
She was trained in the Informatica Platform for data entry. After she completed the training, she
received a job assignment, which consisted of him giving Xia’s resume to Panzier who had a
relationship with Lincoln Financial, where the work was to be performed. Therefore, the
arrangement was for TekTree to deal with Panzier and Panzier to deal with Lincoln Financial.
Bandi further testified that when the problem developed with the HIB visa, they went to
Borla whereby Borla would employ Xia for three months to satisfy employee status. However, after
three months after being employed, Xia indicated she no longer needed the HIB visa, but wanted a
different type and needed his assistance. To facilitate the TekTree-Borla arrangement for Xia, they
executed a purchase order for Xia to provide services to Lincoln National.7 She was placed through
Panzier, who is a client of TekTree.8 Xia worked with Lincoln National under this arrangement from
October 17, 2011 until April 30, 2012, when she resigned from her employment with Borla9
On cross examination from Borla, Bandi acknowledged that there was no signed purchase
order to extend Xia’s services beyond March 2012; however, he denied Borla’s assertion that
TekTree stopped paying Borla well before learning of her resignation from the company. Bandi also
insisted that although no direct relationship existed, Lincoln National was an indirect client of
TekTree through Panzier.
5 See Joint Ex. 2.
6
Bandi acknowledged that Xia lived in North Carolina at the time of the contract’s signing, and that she moved to
Michigan to complete training. However, Bandi also testified that Xia stayed in housing provided by TekTree.
7 The testimony of the parties differs on this point. Xia and Borla testified that Xia was not offered the
position with Borla until three months later, when the founder and CEO of Borla, who was a personal friend
of Xia, offered her a position within Borla’s marketing department.
8 As a term of employment, Borla offered to sponsor Xia for the purpose of obtaining the work visa. Borla’s
role was to merely serve as an intermediary in the transaction; Panzier, Lincoln National’s representative in
the transaction, would pay TekTree for Xia’s services; TekTree would receive a percentage and send payment
to Borla; Borla would pay that amount to Xia.
9 At some point after these discussions, Xia married, and the need to obtain the H1 B work visa was no
longer necessary.
4
On cross examination from Xia, Bandi testified that upon completion of training, the Note
required Xia to work for TekTree for at least one year before voluntarily terminating the
agreement.10 However, Bandi stated that the contract never began, because Xia did not submit her
paystubs, one of the requirements for obtaining the H1B visa. Bandi relies on a cache of emails as
evidence that TekTree made several attempts to provide the H1B visa for Xia.11
On re-direct, Bandi testified that he first learned of the paystub issue preventing the H1B
visa transfer in an e-mail exchange with Xia on November 29, 2011.12 In his November 30, 2011
response, he indicated that Xia needed to call Sarah, TekTree’s immigration attorney, and provide
the requisite documents in order to have the visa processed.13
During further cross examination by Borla, Bandi clarified TekTree’s position that it was Xia
who approached Lincoln National, not Borla. When presented, asked what Borla could have done
under the agreement to stop Xia from going to work for Lincoln National, Bandi did not provide a
definitive answer. Upon questioning concerning TekTree’s calculation of damages against Borla,
Bandi testified that the amount sought from Borla is $20,000.00, which is the amount he expected to
earn over the life of the contract, which could have lasted for up to three years. However, Bandi
acknowledged that the contract was not renewed beyond the first six months.
Next, Alexander Borla (“Borla”), CEO of Borla, testified that Borla manufactures exhaust
systems, does not employ Informatica-trained consultants because it has no need for such services.
Rather, Borla offered Xia employment based on the recommendation of a faculty member at
Tennessee State University. She was employed from 2011-2012 to help Borla market its products in
the Chinese market.14 Borla further testified that during Xia’s employment, Borla provided H1B
10
See Joint Ex. 1.
11
See Joint Ex. 14.
12
See Joint Ex. 14.
13
Id.
14
See Joint Ex. 9.
5
sponsorship for Xia. Shortly after hiring Xia, Borla recognized certain issues which prevented them
from entering China’s market, and informed Xia that it could no longer support her H1B visa
application. Borla stated that he advised Xia to update her H1B sponsorship immediately. She saw a
solution to the problem with the present arrangement between TekTree and Borla. Borla stated that
his understanding of the agreement was that TekTree was going to hire and train Xia as an
information technology consultant. The only responsibility of Borla was to exchange purchase
orders and checks for payment between TekTree and Xia. Borla further stated that Borla never
received compensation or any tangible benefit for its role as “middle man” between TekTree and
Xia. Borla testified that while he did sign the agreement containing the non-compete clause, Borla
was not required to take any affirmative action to prevent Xia from breaching the arrangement with
TekTree.
On cross-examination, Borla stated that the arrangement between TekTree and Borla was
for the benefit of Xia, and it received no profit or benefit, and that there was nothing that Borla
could do to control Xia’s actions, because she was no longer an employee of Borla.
Deborah Juszak, Vice President of Human Resources for Borla, testified concerning the
invoice exchange, and payment process between TekTree and Borla. Juszak stated that she was
responsible for providing invoices to TekTree for services performed off-site by Xia. Xia would
report her hours worked on a weekly basis; Juszak would then provide the invoices to TekTree who
would in turn send payment. When the payment came in, Juszak would pay Xia directly. Juszak’s
next involvement with Xia was when Xia communicated her intent to resign from Borla on April 25,
2012.15 Juszak testified that she did not respond to the e-mail or further communicate with Xia until
April 30, 2012, when Xia requested a release.16 Juszak responded to the e-mail, refused to provide
15
Joint Ex. 19.
16
See Joint Ex. 4. Xia requested a release containing the following language: “Rongyu Xia has no obligations with
Borla Performance after resignation and is free to work with any employer moving forward starting 4/30/2012.”
6
the release, and advised Xia that for one year she was not permitted to provide any direct or indirect
services to any clients introduced to her by TekTree, and that doing so could result in legal action
against both Xia and Borla.17
Juszak testified that on May 3, 2012, she received a letter from TekTree which alleged Borla
breached the Agreement.18 Juszak forwarded the e-mail to Xia, and replied to TekTree stating that
Xia had the legal right to resign from Borla, and that Borla met its contractual obligations by
advising Xia that she could not work for any of TekTree’s clients.19
On cross-examination by Borla, Juszak testified that Borla did all within its control when she
advised Xia of her ongoing contractual obligations with TekTree. During cross examination by Xia,
Juszak stated Xia was not a party to the agreement between TekTree and Borla. She also testified
that Borla did not have a copy of the Note signed between TekTree and Xia, and that her
communication with Xia was made with no knowledge that a separate agreement existed between
TekTree and Xia. She clearly stated that Borla’s communications with Xia between April 25 and
April 30, 2012 were in regards to the agreement between TekTree and Borla.
Xia testified that she completed her master’s degree January of 2010. At that point, her
student visa was no longer valid; therefore, she was required to obtain a H1B employment visa to
remain in the United States. Xia testified that in March 2011, she began to look for a job. After
posting her resume to numerous career-building websites, she received a call from TekTree’s Vice
President concerning a position as a program analyst. She was told that the position came with a
competitive salary and benefits.20 Xia testified that during the phone conversation, the terms of
employment, obligations and responsibilities of the parties was discussed. TekTree was obligated to
provide training and a position with a client, and Xia was obligated to complete training and to
17
Joint Ex. 5.
18
Joint Ex. 6.
19
See Joint Ex. 7.
20
See Joint Ex. 10.
7
accept the position. Training was scheduled to occur in Michigan, beginning on June 6, 2011,21 and
continue for six to eight weeks. Xia testified the one-year non-compete clause was to start on the
day her training began, which was June 13, 2011.
Xia signed the Note, and immediately relocated from North Carolina to Michigan to start
training. Training began on June 13, 2011; however, the instructor had to relocate to India, and
advised Xia that training would continue online. At this point, Xia moved back to North Carolina
and completed the online training. After Xia completed her training, she states that she was told that
she was responsible for training the next class of employees in Michigan. In July of 2011, she again
drove to Michigan, she trained the employees, and on September 1, she moved back to North
Carolina to continue her job search.
Xia received an employment offer from Open Systems, to work for Lincoln National. She
learned that TekTree had posted her resume, and sold her services to Panzier. Panzier sold her
services to its client, Open Systems, who in turn assigned her to work for its client, Lincoln
National. Xia testified that TekTree did not have permission to sell her services. Xia began working
on October 17, 2011 under this financial arrangement. In March of 2012, she received a call from
Borla’s human resources department and learned that TekTree had not sent payment, which was the
reason she resigned. When she was shown the Agreement between TekTree and Borla, Xia stated
that she had never seen the document.
On cross-examination by TekTree, Xia acknowledged that she was married in September
2011. Xia also contends that although she received her H1B visa from Borla Performance, she did
not work for that company from October 2010 to October 2011. Rather, during that period Borla
served as a mentor to Xia. Xia also admitted that after she resigned from Borla and TekTree, she
used the Informatica-training to obtain her current position with Lincoln National.
21
Training did not begin until June 13, 2011.
8
ANALYSIS
A. Claim on the Demand Note and Offer of Employment
To prevail on a claim for breach of contract, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that: (1) a contract existed between the parties; (2) the defendant breached an
obligation imposed by the contract, and (3) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of that breach.22
While it is clear that TekTree and Xia executed the Demand Note, there is conflicting
testimony whether the parties complied with terms such that a binding contract came into existence.
Xia testified that when she arrived for training in Michigan, shortly thereafter the trainer had to leave
the country. The testimony of TekTree executive Bandi on this point is not clear that training was
provided as stated in the agreement.
Xia argues that TekTree first breached the agreement by failing to provide the necessary
training. Xia contends that TekTree only provided basic training which is available to the public, and
would cost $300.00. TekTree denied the allegation at trial, but Xia’s position is more credible given
the factual context in which these matters unfold. Xia also argues that TekTree’s failure to provide
the H1 B Visa as promised constitutes a material breach. While Bandi testified that Xia did not
provide the necessary documents to TekTree, and as such TekTree could not move forward with
the process until the documents were provided, I do not find this position persuasive. Finally, Xia
contends that TekTree never secured “direct employment” for her, a material breach of the contract.
The record is clear that Xia never was an employee of TekTree. The best that can be stated for
TekTree is that, they are the seller of talent and services they may find at American educational
institutions.
Accordingly, the facts in the record do not establish that TekTree provided the services in
the Demand Note for which it seeks compensation. Further, the employment contract provides
22Gregory v. Frazer, 2010 WL 4262030, *1 (Del. Com. Pl. Oct. 8, 2010); VLIW Technology, LLC v. Hewlett-
Packard, Co., 840 A.2d 606, 612 (Del. 2003).
9
that TekTree would pay Xia’s salary where there is no evidence that this occurred. Further, the
agreement provides that it shall become effective when the HIB visa is approved, which did not
occur. In essence, Xia never became an employee of TekTree; therefore, the employment
agreement did not become an enforceable contract because the pre-conditions were never met.
B. Validity of the Non-Solicitation/Non-Compete clause, and claim for
Tortious Interference.
Xia contends that the non-solicitation clause found in the contract is invalid because it does
not prescribe any temporal limitation on the enforcement of the clause. In support of this assertion,
Xia directs the Court to Bandi’s testimony at trial that the clause banned her from working for
Lincoln National indefinitely. While it is true that Bandi testified that the contract was expected to
last for one to three years, he did not state that the clause’s applicability was to last for that time. His
testimony was that TekTree expected to make a profit from the contract for that time.
Additionally, the terms of the contract suggest that the clause would be binding for the time
period after Xia’s training ended; in the event that employment began, the clause would be
enforceable up to one year after the termination date of the employment.23 The difficulty here is
that Xia never actually became a TekTree employee. She was paid by Borla, who received the
amounts from TekTree, which was paid by Lincoln Financial to Panzier. There is no testimony that
Xia received any payment from TekTree with a base salary of $50,000.00, nor any benefits or
medical insurance coverage. Therefore, since Xia never actually became an employee of TekTree,
the claim in the non-solicitation and non-compete clause must fail.
Delaware Courts follow Section 766 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in assessing
a tortious interference claim. To prevail in such claim, Plaintiff must show that: “(1) there was a
23See Joint Ex. 1, ¶1. “[T]he Maker [Xia] shall not voluntarily terminate his relationship with TekTree, LLC
for a period of one year after the completion of training and subsequent employment.” (Emphasis added).
10
contract; (2) that the defendant knew of the contract; (3) an intentional act was a significant factor in
causing the breach of contract; (4) the act was done without justification; and (5) it caused injury.”24
Xia argues that she did not interfere with the relationship because Lincoln National is not a
direct client of TekTree. This argument, however, is not supported by facts because, as stated supra,
Lincoln National is an end client of TekTree through Open Systems. Open Systems is a client of
Panzier, another consulting firm, who was a direct client of TekTree. Moreover, the testimony from
the parties indicates that Xia did not come into contact with Lincoln National (her present
employer) but for the relationship which existed between TekTree, Open Systems, Panzier, and
Lincoln National.
The testimony in the record establishes there was a contract between TekTree and Lincoln
National where Xia provided the services. The fact that TekTree paid Borla, who paid Xia, makes it
unmistakably clear there is a contract for which she must have had knowledge. Further, Xia’s act
was intentional. She was informed by Borla that she was prohibited from accepting employment.
While she states that she resigned from Borla because she was not paid, I do not find this assertion
sufficient justification for her actions. Finally, Bandi testified that his company anticipated profits
from the arrangement with Lincoln National.
Even giving Xia the benefit of the doubt, her actions establish that she was aware of
Lincoln’s relationship with TekTree. After ending her employment with Borla, who had served as
an intermediary between TekTree and Xia for the purposes of providing payment from Lincoln,
Xia’s request for a release letter from Borla, coupled with her beginning employment directly with
Lincoln National three days later, suggests that Xia was at least aware that she was prohibited from
24
Wave Division Holdings, LLC v Highland Capital Management, L.P., Del. Supr., 49A3rd 1168 (2012)
11
working directly for Lincoln at the time of her resignation.25 Therefore, I conclude that the facts
establish there was a contract between TekTree and Lincoln for which she was aware and she,
without justification, tortiously interfered with the agreement.
TekTree seeks $20,000.00 from Borla, claiming that Borla failed to take “all necessary
assurances” to prevent Xia from breaching the contract, as required under the Professional Services
Agreement signed November 3, 2011.26 Paragraph 14 of the agreement provides:
“[d]uring the term of this agreement and for a period of twelve
months thereafter, vendor [Borla] shall not …solicit, recruit or hire
any person who is presently or during the non-solicitation period
becomes an employee of TekTree, unless such person is involuntarily
discharged by TekTree or twelve months has elapsed since the
voluntary resignation of such person.”27
The facts indicate that when Xia requested the release from Borla, Borla denied her
request.28 Moreover, Borla advised Xia that she cannot provide any direct or indirect services to any
clients to which she has been introduced, or from whom she will receive information from,
including “end clients and any intermediary clients/entities.”29 However at this time, Xia was no
longer an employee of Borla as April 30, 2012; thus there is no reasonably conceivable scenario in
which Borla could have exercised control over Xia or her actions on May 3, 2012, other than advise
her of the prohibition. Therefore, there are no facts to support this claim by TekTree, and I find
that Borla did not breach the non-solicitation clause in the Professional Services Agreement.30
25 See Joint Ex. 4. Xia’s proposed language for the release states “Rongyu Xia has no obligations with Borla
Performance after resignation and is free to work with any employer moving forward starting 4/30/2012
(sic).”
26 See Joint Ex. 3.
27 Joint Ex. 3, ¶ 14.
28 Joint Ex. 16.
29 Id.
30 Borla argues that the agreement is invalid because TekTree did not sign the agreement. However, the well-
settled law of Delaware is where an agreement is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, the
contract will be enforced.
12
Xia brings three counterclaims against TekTree: breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. Since I conclude that the pre-
conditions were not met, and no contract between the parties came into existence, this claim must
fail. Further, there is no basis for her claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing for the alleged misrepresentation that TekTree would employ Xia directly, provide her a
salary and benefits, and have her H1 B visa transferred. The Court of Chancery held:
The implied covenant of good faith “requires a party in a contractual
relationship to refrain from arbitrary or unreasonable conduct which
has the effect of preventing the other party to the contract from
receiving the fruits of the contract.” This doctrine emphasizes
“faithfulness to an agreed common purpose and consistency with the
justified expectations of the other party.” Cases invoking the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing should be rare and fact-
intensive. Only where issues of compelling fairness arise will this
Court embrace good faith and fair dealing and imply terms in an
agreement. Violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing implicitly indicates bad faith conduct. The Delaware Supreme
Court has explicitly held that a claimant must demonstrate that the
conduct at issue involved fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in order
to prove a breach of the implied covenant.31
Xia has not put forth any documents which show fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation rising
to the level of bad faith conduct by TekTree; nor did she present any evidence at trial to support this
claim.32 Therefore, the Court must deny her claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.
Finally, Xia relies upon promissory estoppel, alleging that TekTree should reimburse her for
her expenses for relocating to Michigan twice; first for training, and then to train other employees.
To prove promissory estoppel, Xia must show by clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) [A] promise was made; (2) it was the reasonable expectation of
the promisor to induce action or forbearance on the part of the
31Continental Ins. Co. v. Rutledge & Co., Inc., 750 A.2d 1219, 1234 (Del. Ch. 2000) (internal citations omitted).
32See Joint Ex. 12. Xia states that, pursuant to a telephone conversation with Jan Panditi, Vice President of
sales for TekTree, she “understands and accepts” how a consulting firm works. The email was dated May 27,
2014, eleven days before she signed the contract with TekTree.
13
promisee; (3) the promisee reasonably relied on the promise and
acted to his detriment; and (4) that such a promise is binding
because injustice will be avoided only by enforcement of the
promise.33
Xia presented testimony supporting her claim for promissory estoppel, for which she seeks
reimbursement.
TekTree in its post-trial submission seeks damages in excess of $72,000.00 from Xia and
Borla on its claims. It is clear that Borla’s actions did not constitute breach of contract and as to
them it is unsupported. I find Borla did not breach the contract; therefore, no damages are assessed
against Borla. Additionally, I conclude that there is no valid contract between Xia and TekTree.
However, I do find that Xia tortiously interfered with TekTree’s relationship with Lincoln Financial.
Bandi testified TekTree was earning $3,024.00 per month on the arrangement. The agreement, if
they were deemed valid, provided that Xia was required to not terminate her position for 12 months,
following training. Xia testified she went to Michigan for training on June 11, 2011 and completed
the online training July 1, 2011. Juszak testified Xia resigned from Borla on April 30, 2012.
Therefore, the twelve (12) month period provided under the arrangement would end June
11, 2012. Thus TekTree, while stating it anticipated the relationship to last several years, it could
only reasonably rely upon Xia to remain working until June 11, 2012. Damages for the loss is from
the date of resignation and employment with Lincoln Financial until the end of the anticipated
contract period with Lincoln Financial, which is two months for a sum of $6,024.00.34
Xia seeks damages of $50,000.00 for her counterclaims. Xia alleges that she is owed
$22,000.00 for non-payment from June to October 2011. She also estimates that she was paid
approximately $24,000.00 less than her contract required from October 2011 to April 2012,
33 Ramone v. Lang, Del. Ch., 2006 WL 905347 at *14 (Apr. 3, 2006) (quoting Chrysler Corp. v. Chaplake Holdings,
Ltd., 822 A.2d 1024, 1032 (Del.2003); Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393, 398-99 (Del. 2000); Restatement (Second)
of Contracts § 90 (1981); Farnsworth on Contracts § 2.19, at 174).
34 Joint Ex. 1 ¶ 1.
14
$5,000.00 in unpaid benefits, and $3,000.00 in relocation costs. Since I conclude the document
signed by the parties did not create a valid contract, there is no basis to support the claims based
upon contracts. However, the actual expense of $3,000.00 was incurred as a result of TekTree’s
inducement. The terms of the employment indicate that the effective date of the contract including
payment and benefits, would start “as soon as your H1 B Petition is approved.”35 The
uncontroverted evidence presented at trial is that Xia never provided the documentation to TekTree
to acquire the visa. Moreover, while Xia introduced her W-2 tax forms,36 there is nothing on the
record which gives context to the W-2 forms or to justify her claim for damages. However, the
claim for relocation expenses is supported by the testimony in the record.
On the claims for Tortious Interference, TekTree is awarded the sum of $6,024.00. This
amount is reduced by $3,000.00 awarded to Xia. The final award to TekTree is $3,024.00, costs and
post-judgment interest at the legal rate, until paid.
SO ORDERED
_________________________________
Alex J. Smalls,
Chief Judge
Tektree v. Borla Decision After Trial – Feb 2015
35 Joint Ex. 2.
36 Joint Ex. 9.
15