JTH Tax, LLC et al v. Gorosave et al

On November 15, 2021, JTH Tax, LLC d/b/a Liberty Tax Service (“Liberty”) and SiempreTax+ LLC (“SiempreTax” or “Plaintiffs”), represented by Allison Jean Becker and Julia Kim Whitelock of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, filed a lawsuit against Maribel Gorosave (“Gorosave”), Nora Garcia (“Garcia”), and Maribel Gorosave d/b/a Brightworks Business Services (“Brightworks” and collectively “Defendants”), seeking injunctive relief and damages along with costs among other relief for alleged breach of contract. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia with Judges Roderick C. Young and Robert J. Krask presiding.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that, “Defendants have collectively conspired to operate a competing tax preparation business under the name Brightworks Business Services (“Brightworks”) in an effort to circumvent and avoid the non-competition, post-termination, and non-solicitation provisions set forth in their Liberty Tax Service® (“Liberty”) and SiempreTax+ LLC (“SiempreTax”) Franchise Agreements” and “Defendants are using Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, customer lists, customer email addresses, and other confidential information to call upon and solicit Plainttfs’ customers in the operation of Defendants’ competing tax preparation business in violation of the Franchise Agreements.”

Plaintiffs further alleged that, “Plaintiffs advertise and promote the Liberty Marks and SiempreTax Marks (collectively, “the Marks”) throughout the United States, and have spent substantial time and money to maintain and improve their franchise systems, including, inter alia: (1) maintaining and developing service and product quality; (2) developing uniform designs and markings for their service” and “On or about March 15, 2013, Gorosave and Garcia entered into the Franchise Agreement with Liberty for the 4th Street Location.”

Plaintiffs also alleged that, “Following the termination an non-renewal, Gorosave created a competing tax preparation business, Brightworks, which would operate out of the same location as the 4th Street Location; use the same phone number as the 4th Street location (760-352-7642); use Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, including, but not limited to, business know-how and customer lists; and use the good will acquired from Plaintiffs’ Marks as well as developed by the former 4th Street Location to compete directly with Plaintiffs and solicit Plaintiffs’ customers in breach of Defendants’ post termination restrictive covenants” and “Defendants, individually, jointly, and in concert with each other have used, divulged, and/or communicated Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and confidential information to establish and operate Brightworks without the consent of Plaintiffs.”

There are eight claims of relief laid down by Plaintiffs. The first claim is for the alleged breach of franchise agreement. The second claim is for the alleged breach of Franchise Agreement Section 9(d). The third claim is for the alleged breach of Franchise Agreement Sections 9(k), 10(b), (d). The fourth claim is for alleged conversion. The fifth claim is for the alleged violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The sixth claim is for the alleged violation of Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The seventh claim is for the alleged tortious interference with the contract. The eighth claim is for the alleged request for preliminary injunction. The ninth claim is for the alleged permanent injunction. 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiffs requested the court for injunctive relief and monetary award against Defendants in excess of $75,000 to be proven at trial, including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, expectancy damages, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits along with attorney’ fees, costs, prejudgement and post-judgement interest and any relief the court deems just.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.