Case No: CL 2016-3462
After considering the pleadings and exhibits, authorities, and oral arguments presented by Counsel, the Court finds that the ad damnum clause, seeking damages “in excess of $100,000,” is improper, and thus the Court must reduce the jury verdict to $100,000, the only ascertainable amount stated. Additionally, the non-solicitation clause is not overly broad as a matter of law, and there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that Gentlerock was performing similar work through Concepts Beyond as it had through Solentus. Nevertheless, the Court finds that Lam cannot be held personally liable, as he was not a party to the agreement and Solentus failed to produce any credible evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Gentlerock was merely Lam’s alter ego. As a result, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part, and judgment is entered for $100,000 against Gentlerock.
[gdlr_button href=”http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/courts/circuit/pdf/opinions/cl-2016-3462-solentus-v-h-lam-et-al.pdf” target=”_new” size=”medium” background=”#3e3e3e” color=”#ffffff”]PDF[/gdlr_button]
