PATRICK PREMO (CSB No.

184915)
ppremo@fenwick.com
2 DAN KO OBUHANYCH (CSB No. 255160)
dobuhanych@fenwick.com
3 FENWICK & WEST LLP
Silicon Valley Center
4 801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
5 Telephone: 650.988.8500
Facsimile: 650.938.5200
6
MICHAEL A. FARBSTEIN (CSB No. 107030)
7 maf@farbstein.com
FARBSTEIN & BLACKMAN, APC
8 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 425
San Mateo, CA 94402
9 Telephone: 650.554.6200
Facsimile: 650.554.6240
10
Attorneys for Defendants
II ENSUANT, INC., PUNEET ARORA, BASANTH
GOWDA and NELSON PETRACEK
12
RECEIVED
AUG 2 6 'lUll
DAVID H. YAMASAKI
Chief Execu\1VO OfttC8,{CIorl< "-
$"_, Court of
':Sf\..>
13
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ENSUANT, INC., a California Corporation,
pUNEET ARORA, an Individual, NELSON
PETRACEK, an Individual, BASANTH
GOWDA, an Individual, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive,
Defendants,
ENSUANT, INC. , a California Corporation,
23 pUNEET ARORA, an Individual, NELSON
PETRACEK, an Individual, BASANTH
24 GOWDA, an Individual,
25
Cross-Complainants
v.
26
TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware
27 Corporation, and DOES I through 100, inclusive
28
Cross-Defendants.
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE No.: 1-lO-CV-174346
Case No.: 1-10-CV-174346
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR:
1) DECLARATORY RELIEF;
2) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP;
3) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH CONTRACT; AND
4) UNFAIR COMPETITION
Second Amend. Compo Filed:
July 25,2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


Defendants and Cross-Complainants Ensuant, Inc., Puneet Arora, Nelson Petracek. And
Basanth Gowda (collectively Defendants or Cross-Complainants) allege:
1. This is an action for declaratory relief, intentional interference with economic
relationship, intentional interference with contract, and unfair competition. The value of Cross-
Complainants rights at issue exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court for unlimited
jurisdiction.
THE PARTIES
2. Defendant and Cross-Complainant Ensuant, Inc. (Ensuant) is now, and at all
times material hereto has been, a California corporation. Defendant and Cross-Complainant
Puneet Arora resides in Santa Clara County, California. He was a Chief Technical Officer at
TIBCO until his resignation in July of 2009. Mr. Arora founded Ensuant in October of 2009.
Defendant and Cross-Complainant Nelson Petracek resides in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He was
Director of Field Operations at TIBCO until December of 2009 and is now employed by Ensuant.
Defendant and Cross-Complainant Basanth Gowda resides in Lake Bluff, Illinois. He was an
Architect at TIBCO until April of 2010 and is now employed by Ensuant.
3. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant TIBCO Software Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
TIBCO or Cross-Defendant) is now, and at all times material hereto has been, a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business located at 3303 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto CA
94304.
4. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise, of Cross-Defendant DOES I through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Cross-
Complainants who therefore sue said Cross-Defendants by such fictitious names. Cross-
Complainants are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the Cross-Defendants
designated as ROE are responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred
to and proximately caused injury and damage to Cross-Complainants as herein alleged. Cross-
Complainants will amend this Cross-Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
ascertained.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


5. Cross-Complainants are also informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all
times herein mentioned, each of the Cross-Defendants were the agent, servant, and employee of
each of the remaining Cross-Defendants, and were acting within the scope and purpose of such
agency, service and employment.
6. Cross-Complainants are also informed and believe and thereon allege that each of
the Cross-Defendant DOES I through 1-100 were, at all relevant times, a member, officer,
manager, and/or agent of TlBCO who acted in concert with and/or provided material assistance to
TlBCO for the purpose of violating Cross-Complainants rights, as hereinafter alleged. TlBCO
and Cross-Defendants DOES 1 through 100 are sometimes referred to collectively hereafter as the
Cross-Defendants. Cross-Defendants and Cross-Complainants are sometimes hereafter
collectively referred to as the Parties.
7. Defendant and Cross-Complainant Puneet Arora is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur
with expertise in Complex Event Processing (CEP). CEP software enables companies to
process the large amounts of data they accumulate relating to events occurring externally and
internally to their businesses. CEP software takes advantage of technological advances in
computer hardware and cloud computing to improve event monitoring and processing within
companies. Arora began working with TIBCO in 1999, and in 2003 led the team that developed
TIBCOs CEP software, BusinessEvents.
8. After years of successfully leading TIBCOs BusinessEvents software to a
dominant position in the market, Arora decided to leave TlBCO to explore different ideas. In
October 2009, he formed Ensuant, Inc. as a platform to use his skills and explore his ideas in
enterprise software applications including CEP software and services. Although not competing
directly with TIBCO, TIBCO immediately determined that Arora and Ensuant threatened its
market position. Rather than responding competitively in the marketplace, TIBCO proceeded to
file a lawsuit accusing Arora of soliciting TIBCO employees and inducing TlBCO employees to
break their non-competition clauses with TIBCO. TIBCO then moved to inform Ensuants
customers that TIBCO was suing Ensuant and warned them not to deal with Ensuant or Arora.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


9. TIBCOs lawsuit is predicated on the enforcement of non-competition clauses in
its employment agreements prohibiting the solicitation of employees to seek other employment
and prohibiting employees from soliciting TIBCO customers after their employment with TIBCO
ends. These clauses are unenforceable under California law, as they are contrary to California
law and public policy prohibiting employment agreements that restrain employees from
practicing their professions and competing against their employers.
10. TIBCOs actions in contacting Ensuant customers has interfered with Ensuants
contracts and economic relationships. TIBCO is simply trying to prevent its former employees
and Ensuant from offering services to TIBCO customers, and exclude competition to secure its
market position. TIBCOs attempt to put a cloud over Ensuants ability to compete violates
Californias laws against tortious interference with contract and unfair competition.
11. Cross-Complainants seek declaratory relief that TIBCOs non-competition
provisions are invalid and unenforceable under California law. Cross-Complainants further seek
monetary damages for TIBCOs interference with its economic relationships and contracts, and
injunctive relief preventing TIBCO from further attempting to disrupt Ensuants economic
relationships and contract. Cross-Complainants also seek injunctive relief preventing
TIBCOS further attempts to enforce its illegal non-competition provisions.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
12. Although there was growing academic and industry interest in Complex Events
Processing (CEP) in the early 2000s, no company offered effective software solutions. In 2003,
Arora, then a TIBCO Principal Architect, recognized that several companies had a set of common
problems that might be solved through a CEP software solution. He approached TIBCO with his
ideas to create and market software to these and similar customers, and develop another market
for TIBCOs enterprise software solutions. Rather than invest in the technology directly, TIBCO
asked Arora to find a customer willing to fund the proposed software. Arora procured consulting
arrangements with customers to improve their business processes, and found a customer willing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


to invest in his ideas for CEP software. Arora led a team that developed the prototype for what
became TIBCOs successful BusinessEvents products.
13. The Arora-led TIBCO team released BusinessEvents 1.0 in November 2004,
which became an immediate leader in the field of Complex Event Processing. Every year after
2004, the Arora-led Business Events division grew, creating hundreds of millions of dollars in
revenue for TIBCO.
14. BusinessEvents success led, of course, to competition, as other enterprise
software and service providers entered the CEP market. CEP also grew through the development
of complementary markets in consulting services and other products.
THE COMPLEX EVENT PROCESSING SOFTWARE MARKET
15. In addition to TIBCO, established enterprise software companies such as Oracle,
IBM, SAP, Sybase, and other independent software vendors (ISVs) now provide CEP products
that directly compete with TIBCOs BusinessEvents software. TIBCO retains a dominant market
share, claiming to have a 40% share of the market, over twice the nearest competitor.
http://www.tibco.com/company/news/releases/2008/press926.jsp.
16. CEP is a customer driven market, much like other enterprise software. Customers
know they have a choice of products, and actively solicit bids for software packages from
competitors. Once a company has purchased and installed CEP software from a given ISV, it will
often need further assistance in administering the software and integrating it with its other
systems. CEP software will not be optimized if it is used in isolation. Customers often need to
harmonize their CEP programs with other business processing management software they have
procured. Third party system integrators rose to fill this customer need, offering consulting
services to customers employing a given CEP solution. Infosys, TCS, Wipro, Perficient,
Accenture, Deloitte, EDS, IBM Global Services and many other small and medium sized
companies offer consulting services to customers using software solutions from ISVs.
17. As a result, it is well known in the industry which customers are using which CEP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


vendors products. Customers have created this transparency in order to foster open competition
and better arrive at efficiently integrated business processing systems. For example, customers
actively solicit consultants to work on their TIBCO BusinessEvents software and integrate it with
their other 3 systems. Simply by searching for job postings by customers specifying their need
for consultants to work on TIBCO systems, one can find the customers who have procured
TIBCO BusinessEvents products. See, e.g., Exhibit A, attached hereto (posting for senior TIBCO
developer by Macys in Atlanta, GA); Exhibit B, attached hereto (posting for AT&T Systems
Manager to work with TIBCO software); and Exhibit C, attached hereto(posting for
Middleware/TIBCO Architect by Arc Aspicio). TIBCO itself discloses the customers using its
various enterprise software on its website. See, e.g., http://www.tibco.com/customers/ (attached
as Exhibit D), and specifically those who use BusinessEvents products. See Exhibits E and F,
attached hereto.
AFTER 10 YEARS SERVING TIBCO, ARORA LEAVES TO PURSUE OTHER IDEAS
18. Although the TIBCO BusinessEvents software maintained a dominant market
share, TIBCO never dedicated the resources to develop consulting services in the complementary
market. The BusinessEvents team also struggled with a lack of resources and staffing, despite
generating millions of dollars in revenue for TIBCO every year. Having developed and led
TIBCOs CEP products for several 22 years, Arora decided to leave TIBCO and explore other
ideas. Arora left TIBCO in July 2009.
19. Arora first joined a company called Guavus, a start-up working on network traffic
analysis, unrelated to any of TIBCOs businesses or products. Arora left Guavus several months
later, and took time off to consider his options.
20. Companies with CEP software were aware of Aroras CEP expertise and began
reaching out to him to obtain consulting services. This included TIBCO customers, who solicited
his services as they might any third party system integrator.
21. As he did with TIBCO in 2003, Arora saw an opportunity to provide business
processing solutions to companies. He formally founded Ensuant, Inc. in November 2009, as a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


placeholder for his ideas, and began providing consulting services in January 2010. Building on
Arora and the Ensuant teams skills in the CEP market, Ensuant is developing a software platform
to provide CEP solutions that take advantage of advances in network technology. It also provides
consulting services to companies with existing CEP solutions in the market for third party system
integrators.
22 As is common in the modern software industry, employees are not bound to stay
with one employer, and often leave to join start-ups or similar ventures. After Arora founded
Ensuant, he was approached by colleagues both at TIBCO and other companies who had an
interest in Aroras plans. Two former TIBCO colleagues left TIBCO to join Ensuant. Nelson
Petracek, TIBCO Director of Field Operations, left TIBCO in December 2009. He joined
Ensuant in May 2010. Basanth Gowda, TIBCO Architect, left TIBCO in April 2010. He joined
Ensuant in June 2010.
TIBCO INTERFERES WITH ENSUANTS ECONOMIC AND CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIPS AND LAUNCHES A BASELESS LAWSUIT
23. As they might solicit other third party system integrators, TIBCO customers
approached Ensuant to assist with their CEP needs. Such customers were dissatisfied with the
support provided by TIBCO, or simply wanted the services of a company that could complement
TIBCO. In many such cases, Ensuant actually worked to help the customer optimize its TIBCO
software, making TIBCO products work more effectively for the client. Although not directly
competing with Ensuant, TIBCO determined that Ensuant posed a threat to its profitability and
market position, having seen first-hand Aroras ability to successfully develop CEP solutions.
24. Retail customer Macys purchased TIBCOS BusinessEvents software and
planned to deploy it at several stores and optimize its use with certain business customers.
Macys was looking for consulting expertise in the area of Customer Loyalty and CEP, as shown
in Macys job posting (attached as Exhibit A). Macys reached out to Ensuant based on Aroras
reputation. It signed a service contract with Ensuant to obtain consulting services to meet its
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


deadline, as a complement to the TIBCO support team. The project was scheduled to begin on
June 15, 2010 and was to conclude in September 2010.
25. TIBCO viewed Ensuants involvement as a threat to its profits. Ensuant is
informed and believes that TIBCO informed Macys that it was suing Ensuant based on
allegations that Arora solicited TIBCO employees and induced other TIBCO employees to breach
clauses in their employment agreements preventing them from soliciting TIBCO clients. Ensuant
is further informed and believes that TIBCO warned Macys not to deal with Ensuant given its
lawsuit. As a result, Macys suspended its service contract and all further engagements with
Ensuant.
26. Ensuant is informed and believes that TIBCO referenced its contact with Macys
in its Second Amended Complaint against Ensuant and Ensuant founder Puneet Arora. It
essentially asserts that it is the only solution for complex event processing, and that only TIBCO
employees have expertise in the field. TIBCO seeks to use non-solicitation and non-competition
clauses in its employment agreements to prevent employees from leaving TIBCO, and prevent
customers from using products and services from other companies. Indeed, after TIBCO filed the
lawsuit, it proceeded to contact Defendant and Cross-Complainant Gowda and request he return
to TIBCO. TIBCO actions in enforcing the illegal provisions in its employment agreements and
intimidating Ensuant customers and employees reflect its desire to secure its market position
through restraints on competition and its employees.
27. Through these provisions, TIBCO thus intends to put a cloud over Ensuants
ability to offer CEP solutions, and entrench itself as the only CEP provider to its customers.
TIBCOs non-solicitation and non-competition clauses, and its disruption of Ensuant contracts by
threatening customers, violates Californias laws against restraints on trade in employment
agreements and against unfair competition.
28. Ensuant has already suffered damages due to TIBCOs actions. Should TIBCO
continue to threaten Ensuant customers, Ensuants damages could run into the millions of dollars.
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief
Against TIBCO Software, Inc. and DOES 1 - 100
29. Cross-Complainants Ensuant, Arora, Petracek, and Gowda hereby incorporate by
reference each and every allegation from paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Cross-Complaint as
though said paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
30. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between and among Cross-
Complainants and Cross-Defendants.
31. TIBCO requires many of its employees to sign employment agreements with
provisions that restrict their ability to practice their professions and seek other employment.
32. Arora entered into an employment agreement with TIBCO on April 12, 1999
(Arora Employment Agreement) (attached as Exhibit G). Section VI of the Arora Employment
Agreement, Non-Solicitation of Employees provides that EMPLOYEE specifically agrees that
during the term of this agreement and for a period of one (1) year thereafter, EMPLOYEE shall
not, directly or indirectly, either for himself or for any other person, firm, corporation, or other
legal entity, solicit any then employee of EMPLOYER to leave the employment of
EMPLOYER. (hereinafter Arora Non-Solicitation Provision).
33. On December 6,2001, in Calgary, Canada, Nelson Petracek entered into an
employment with TIBCO (Petracek Employment Agreement) (attached as Exhibit H). Section
5 (a) of the Petracek Employment Agreement requires that Petracek would not directly or
indirectly solicit business from any customer or potential customer of TIBCO which was served
or solicited by TIBCO within the eighteen months immediately preceding the termination in
regards to goods competitive with TIBCO.(Petracek Non-Competition Provision).
34. On August 31, 2005 in Dunwoody, Georgia, Basanth Gowda entered into an
employment agreement with TIBCO (Gowda Employment Agreement) (attached as Exhibit I).
Section V of the Gowda Employment Agreement provides that during the term of the agreement
and for a period of one year thereafter, Gowda will not call upon, divert, or solicit any of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


customers of TIBCO that were or became customers during the term of my employment ...
(Gowda Non-Competition Provision).
35. The Arora Non-Solicitation Provision, the Petracek Non-Competition Provision,
and the Gowda Non-Competition Provision are contrary to California law and public policy in
favor of open competition and employees freedom to practice their professions, including
California Business and Professions Code 16600 et seq.
36. Cross-Defendants seek to enforce the illegal provisions in their employment
agreements to prohibit Cross-Complainants from engaging with certain customers or hiring
employees. Cross-Defendants warn Ensuant customers to not deal with Ensuant because of Cross-
Defendants illegal provisions. Cross-Defendants actions have and continue to cause Cross-
Complainants damages.
37. Cross-Complainants seeks a judicial determination of the Parties rights with
respect to the Arora Non-Solicitation Provision, the Petracek Non-Competition Provision, and the
Gowda Non-Competition Provision, and with respect to similar non-solicitation and non-
competition clauses in employment agreements that Cross-Complainants may seek to enforce, as
to whether they are void and unenforceable under California law.
38. Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the
circumstances in order that Cross-Complainant may continue to compete in the marketplace and
not suffer continued damages from Cross-Defendants actions in attempting to enforce the illegal
provisions in its employment agreements and threaten Cross-Complainants customers.
39. WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for relief as set forth below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Interference with Economic Relationship
Against TIBCO Software, Inc. and DOES 1 - 100
40. Cross-Complainant hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation from paragraphs 1 through 39 of the Cross-Complaint hereinabove set forth.
41. Ensuant entered into an economic relationship with Macys to provide consulting
services to support its TIBCO BusinessEvents software. Macys needed expertise in the area of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


Customer Loyalty and CEP in order to complement its existing vendors and staff. Macys
approached Ensuant to retain its services, and executed a contract to obtain CEP consulting
services. Ensuant was to begin work on June 15,2010. Ensuant was further prepared to provide
additional consulting services as Macys needs required.
42. Cross-Defendant knew of Ensuants economic relationship with Macys. Ensuant
is informed and believes that TIBCO referenced such knowledge in the Second Amended
Complaint. Prior to the date that Ensuant was to begin providing services, Cross-Defendants
contacted Macys and warned it of their impending lawsuit against Ensuant, and warned it not to
deal with Ensuant. As a result of Cross-Defendants actions, Macys suspended all current and
future engagements with Ensuant. Cross-Defendants seek to enforce illegal provisions in their
employment agreements and threaten TIBCO customers who seek to engage Ensuant for software
solutions or consulting services.
43. Cross-Defendants actions were based on their attempt to enforce non-solicitation
and non-competition clauses in employment agreements that are illegal under California Business
and Professions Code Section 16600, and also constitute acts of unfair competition under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Cross-Defendants actions undertaken
to interfere with Ensuants economic relationship with Macys were unlawful and unjustified.
44. Cross-Defendants actions proximately caused Macys to suspend all current and
prospective engagements with Ensuant, depriving Cross-Complainant of the benefits of its
economic relationship with Macys. As a direct and proximate result, Cross-Complainant have
suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
45. Cross-Defendants conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent,
entitling Cross-Complainants to an award of punitive damages.
46. WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant prays for relief as hereinafter set forth below.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Interference with Contract
Against TIBCO Software, Inc. and DOES 1 - 100
47. Cross-Complainant Ensuant re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 46 of the Cross-Complaint hereinabove set forth.
48. Ensuant entered into the Vendor Staffing Agreement with Macys on June 7, 2010
to provide consulting services to support its TIBCO BusinessEvents software. Ensuant was to
begin work on June 15,2010. Macys needed expertise in the area of Customer Loyalty and CEP
in order to complement its existing vendors and staff. Macys approached Ensuant to retain its
services, and executed the Vendor Staffing Agreement to obtain CEP consulting services.
49. Cross-Defendants knew of Ensuants contract with Macys. Ensuant is informed
and believes that TIBCO referenced such knowledge in the Second Amended Complaint. Prior to
the date that Ensuant was to begin providing services, Cross-Defendants contacted Macys and
warned it of their impending lawsuit against Ensuant, and warned Macys not to deal with
Ensuant. As a result of Cross-Defendants actions, Macys suspended all current and future
engagements with Ensuant. Cross-Defendants seek to enforce illegal provisions in their
employment agreements and threaten TIBCO customers who seek to engage Ensuant for software
solutions or consulting services.
50. Cross-Defendants actions were based on their attempt to enforce non-solicitation
and non-competition clauses in employment agreements that are illegal under California Business
and Professions Code Section 16600, and also constitute acts of unfair competition under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Cross-Defendants actions undertaken
to interfere with Ensuants service contract with Macys were unlawful and unjustified.
51. Cross-Defendants actions proximately caused Macys to suspend all current and
prospective engagements with Cross-Complainant, including the Vendor Staffing Agreement,
depriving Cross-Complainant of the benefits of its contractual relationship with Macys. As a
direct and proximate result, Cross-Complainant has suffered damages in an amount to be proven
at trial.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


52. Cross-Defendants conduct was willful, malicious, oppressive, and fraudulent,
entitling Cross-Complainant to an award of punitive damages.
53. WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant prays for relief as hereinafter set forth below.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unfair Competition
Against TIBCO Software, Inc. and DOES 1 - 100
54. Cross-Complainants Ensuant, Arora, Petracek, and Gowda hereby incorporate by
reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 53 of the Cross-Complaint set forth
above.
55. Cross-Defendants activities in connection with enforcing the Arora Non-
Solicitation Provision, Petracek Non-Competition Provision, and Gowda Non-Competition
Provision, and in threatening Cross-Complainants customers and interfering with Cross-
Complainants contractual and economic relationships, seek to illegally prevent Cross-
Complainant from competing in the marketplace and hiring employees. Cross-Defendants
actions further seek to prevent TIBCO employees from terminating their employment with
TIBCO. Cross-Defendants actions constitute acts of unfair competition.
56. Cross-Defendants unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and deceptive business acts and
practices constitute unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Cross-Defendants actions also violate California
laws against interference with contract and economic relationships.
57. As a result of these alleged actions, Cross-Defendants have been unjustly enriched
and Cross-Complainant has been injured and damaged. Unless Cross-Defendants alleged actions
are enjoined, Cross-Complainants will continue to suffer injury and damage, which includes
financial losses as well as loss of goodwill.
58. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 17203, Cross-
Complainants are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering Cross-
Defendants to cease this unfair competition, as well as disgorgement of all of Cross-Defendants
profits associated with this Unfair Competition.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 1-10-CV-174346

F
E
N
W
I
C
K

&

W
E
S
T

L
L
P

A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S

A
T

L
A
W

M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N

V
I
E
W


59. WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants prays for relief as hereinafter set forth below.
PRAYER FOR JUDGMENT
WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray for judgment against Cross-Defendants, and
each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
1. For declaratory relief that the Arora Non-Solicitation Provision, the Petracek Non-
Competition Provision, and the Gowda Non-Competition Provision, and similar
provisions in its employment agreements that TIBCO seeks to enforce, are void
and unenforceable;
2. For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Cross-Defendants from
enforcing the Arora Non-Solicitation Provision, Petracek Non Competition
Provision, the Gowda Non-Competition Provision, and similar provisions in its
employment agreements that TIBCO seeks to enforce;
3. For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Cross-Defendants from
threatening Ensuants customers and interfering with Cross-Complainants
economic and contractual relationships;
4. For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Cross-Defendants from
engaging in unfair competition;
5. For disgorgement of all Cross-Defendants profits associated with their unfair
competition.
6. For restitution of all sums unlawfully obtained by Cross-Defendants due to their
unfair competition.
7. For damages in an amount to be proven;
8. For costs of suit, interest, and reasonable attorneys fees; and
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
'-
..J
..J >
t;; 3
13
..
" <
14 c

u 0

15 z


16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: August 26, 2011
AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
CASE No.: 1-IO-CV-174346
FENWICK & WEST LLP
By:

dpt-t-' ri'- c:l-::EI'I .
Attorneys for Defendants ENSUANT, INC. ,
PUNEET ARORA, BASANTH GOWDA and
NELSON PETRACEK
14