1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

d/b/a VPX SPORTS/ REDLINE/BANG 

ENERGY, a Florida corporation,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ALFIERI, an individual, 

ADAM PERRY, an individual, ANDREW 

LaROCCA, an individual, AMY MAROS, an 

individual and ELEGANCE BRANDS, INC.,

a Delaware corporation,

 Defendants.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES 

Plaintiff, VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., d/b/a VPX and as Redline and as Bang 

Energy, a Florida corporation (hereinafter “VPX”), brings this action against Defendants, 

CHRISTOPHER ALFIERI, an individual (“Alfieri”), ADAM PERRY, an individual (“Perry”), 

ANDREW LaROCCA, an individual (“LaRocca”), AMY MAROS, an individual (“Maros”) and 

ELEGANCE BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Elegance”), and states:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is an action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as 

damages, against each of the Defendants. Plaintiff VPX seeksrelief against: (i) Defendants Alfieri, 

Perry, LaRocca and Maros (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as “Individual 

Defendants”), as former VPX employees who are in violation of their respective non-compete 

covenants with VPX, (ii) Defendant Alfieri for also violating his employee non-solicitation 

covenant with VPX, (iii) Defendant Elegance, as employer of the Individual Defendants, for 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 18
2

tortiously interfering with the Individual Defendants’ non-compete covenants and Alfieri’s 

employee non-solicitation covenant, and (iv) Alfieri for also tortiously interfering with Perry’s, 

LaRocca’s and Maros’ respective non-compete covenants with VPX.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. VPX is a Florida corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of 

Florida, with its principal place of business located in Broward County, Florida.

3. Elegance is a Delaware corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 

State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles County, California.

4. Upon information and belief, Elegance conducts business in the State of Florida, 

including this judicial district, by therein: (i) promoting, offering for sale or selling energy drinks 

and other products to distributors, resellers, consumers or other actual or potential customers, (ii) 

soliciting or establishing product distributorships and/or (iii) soliciting or receiving operating 

capital from investors.

5. Alfieri is a citizen and resident of Cobb County, Georgia, a former employee of 

VPX, and a current employee of Elegance.

6. Perry is a citizen and resident of Wake County, North Carolina, a former employee 

of VPX, and a current employee of Elegance.

7. LaRocca is a citizen and resident of Cobb County, Georgia, a former employee of 

VPX, and a current employee of Elegance.

8. Maros is a citizen and resident of Ben Hill County, Georgia, a former employee of 

VPX, and a current employee of Elegance. 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 2 of 18
3

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1332, because VPX, on one side, and each of the Defendants, on the other side, are citizens of 

different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Individual Defendants for one 

of more of the following reasons:

a. Each of the Individual Defendants agreed within the contracts that are the 

subject of this action that the exclusive forum and venue for litigating disputes arising thereunder 

are courts located in Broward County, Florida, which includes this Court. Further, because the 

subject contracts are expressly governed by Florida law and expressly designate courts located in 

Broward County, Florida as the exclusive forum and venue for litigating disputes arising 

thereunder, it was foreseeable that Individual Defendants’ actions alleged herein would be litigated 

in Broward County, Florida, including in this Court;

b. This action against each of the Individual Defendants arises from each such 

defendant breaching a contract in the State of Florida by failing to perform acts required by the 

contract to be performed in the State of Florida, within the meaning of §48.193(1)(a)(7), Florida 

Statutes; 

c. This action against Alfieri arises out of Alfieri committing tortious acts 

against VPX within the State of Florida, including tortious interference with VPX’s contracts 

(which expressly designate courts located in Broward County, Florida as the exclusive forum and 

venue for litigating disputes arising thereunder) as alleged herein, within the meaning of 

§48.193(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes; and/or

d. Each of the Individual Defendants engages in substantial and not isolated 

activity within the State of Florida, within the meaning of § 48.193(2), Florida Statutes.

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 3 of 18
4

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Elegance for one or more of 

the following reasons:

a. This action against Elegance arises out of Elegance committing tortious acts

against VPX within the State of Florida, including tortious interference with VPX’s contracts 

(which expressly designate courts located in Broward County, Florida as the exclusive forum and 

venue for litigating disputes arising thereunder) as alleged herein, within the meaning of 

§48.193(1)(a)(2), Florida Statutes. Further, because the subject contracts are expressly governed 

by Florida law and expressly designate courts located in Broward County, Florida as the exclusive 

forum and venue for litigating disputes arising thereunder, it was foreseeable that Elegance’s

actions alleged herein would be litigated in Broward County, Florida, including in this Court;

b. This action against Elegance arises out of Elegance causing injury to VPX

within the State of Florida arising out of one or more acts by Elegance outside of the State of 

Florida, including tortious interference with VPX’s contracts (which expressly designate courts 

located in Broward County, Florida as the exclusive forum and venue for litigating disputes arising 

thereunder) as alleged herein, and at or about the time of such injury, Elegance was engaged in 

solicitation or service activities within the State of Florida, within the meaning of 

§48.193(1)(a)(6)(a), Florida Statutes;

c. This action against Elegance arises out of Elegance operating, conducting, 

engaging in, or carrying on a business venture in the State of Florida, within the meaning of 

§48.193(1)(a)(1), Florida Statutes; and/or

d. Elegance is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within the State 

of Florida, within the meaning of §48.193(2), Florida Statutes.

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 4 of 18
5

12. The above-referenced contracts that are the subject of this action, into which each 

of the Individual Defendants entered with VPX, are attached hereto, and incorporated by reference 

herein, as Exhibit 1-A (the “Alfieri Restrictive Covenants Agreement”), Exhibit 1-B (the “Perry 

Restrictive Covenants Agreement”), Exhibit 1-C (the “LaRocca Restrictive Covenants 

Agreement”) and Exhibit 1-D (the “Maros Restrictive Covenants Agreement”). The abovereferenced provision designating courts located in Broward County, Florida as the exclusive forum 

and venue for litigating disputes arising under each of the subject contracts is set forth within 

paragraph 16 thereof.

13. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division, alternatively, under: (i) 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), as a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim asserted herein occurred in this district 

and/or (ii) the provisions within each of the aforesaid contracts that are the subject of this action 

designation Broward County, Florida as the exclusive forum and venue for litigating disputes 

arising thereunder. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

14. Since its founding in the 1990s, VPX has manufactured and sold products in the 

sports nutrition, dietary supplement and beverage industries. 

15. Over the course of the past several years, VPX, through intensive product 

development and promotional efforts, has created, and carved out a substantial market presence

with, its aforesaid products, including its well-known BANG®energy drink products. 

16. Companies such as Red Bull, Rock Star and Monster Energy are competitors of 

VPX. 

Individual Defendants’ Employment with VPX and Termination Thereof

17. On July 30, 2019, VPX hired Alfieri as its Vice-President of Sales and Distribution. 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 5 of 18
6

18. In connection therewith, Alfieri entered into the Alfieri Restrictive Covenants 

Agreement with VPX, bearing (among other provisions) a non-compete covenant as well as an 

employee non-solicitation covenant, each within paragraph 6 thereof. See Exhibit 1-A.

19. While employed by VPX, Alfieri reported directly to VPX’s Executive Vice 

President of Sales and worked closely with VPX’s Chief Executive Officer. 

20. While employed by VPX, Alfieri was required to, and did, spend a substantial 

amount of time physically located in the State of Florida, particularly VPX’s base facility in 

Broward County, Florida.

21. While employed by VPX, VPX entrusted Alfieri with access to VPX’s proprietary 

and confidential business information and trade secrets. 

22. Alfieri’s employment with VPX terminated as of March 27, 2020.

23. On August 15, 2019, VPX hired Perry as its Director of Sales and Distribution.

24. In connection therewith, Perry entered into the Perry Restrictive Covenants 

Agreement with VPX, bearing (among other provisions) a non-compete covenant within paragraph 

6 thereof. See Exhibit 1-B.

25. While employed by VPX, Perry directly reported to Alfieri and worked closely with 

VPX’s Executive Vice-President of Sales.

26. While employed by VPX, Perry was required to, and did, spend a substantial 

amount of time physically located in the State of Florida, particularly VPX’s base facility in 

Broward County, Florida.

27. While employed by VPX, VPX entrusted Perry with access to VPX’s proprietary 

and confidential business information and trade secrets.

28. On April 21, 2020, Perry resigned and his employment with VPX terminated on

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 6 of 18
7

May 1, 2020.

29. On October 30, 2019, VPX hired LaRocca as its Director of Distribution Strategy. 

30. In connection therewith, LaRocca entered into the LaRocca Restrictive Covenants 

Agreement with VPX, bearing (among other provisions) a non-compete covenant within paragraph 

6 thereof. See Exhibit 1-C.

31. While employed by VPX, LaRocca, like Perry, directly reported to Alfieri and 

worked closely with VPX’s Executive Vice-President of Sales.

32. While employed by VPX, LaRocca was required to, and did, spend a substantial 

amount of time physically located in the State of Florida, particularly VPX’s base facility in 

Broward County, Florida.

33. While employed by VPX, VPX entrusted LaRocca with access to VPX’s 

proprietary and confidential business information and trade secrets.

34. On April 21, 2020, LaRocca resigned and his employment with VPX terminated on 

May 15, 2020. LaRocca’s resignation letter, dated the same day as Perry’s, explained that the 

reason for his departure from VPX was due to him being presented with a “strategic career move.” 

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a copy of LaRocca’s resignation letter to VPX.

35. On October 23, 2019, VPX hired Maros as its Senior Supply Chain Manager.

36. In connection therewith, Maros entered into the Maros Restrictive Covenants 

Agreement with VPX bearing (among other provisions) a non-compete covenant within paragraph 

6 thereof. See Exhibit 1-D.

37. While employed by VPX, Maros reported directly to VPX’s Senior Director of 

Operations and worked closely with VPX’s Executive Vice-President of Sales.

38. While employed by VPX, Maros was required to, and did, spend most, if not all, of 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 7 of 18
8

her time physically located in the State of Florida, particularly VPX’s base facility in Broward 

County, Florida.

39. While employed by VPX, VPX entrusted Maros with access to VPX’s proprietary 

and confidential business information and trade secrets.

40. On May 26, 2020, Maros resigned and her employment with VPX terminated on 

June 17, 2020.

Competing Company Elegance and Its Hiring of Individual Defendants

41. Elegance is a relatively new company that has publicly announced its launch, or 

imminent launch, of an energy drink product branded “Gorilla Hemp Energy Drink,” which

Elegance’s own website acknowledges competes (or will imminently compete) against the energy 

drink products sold by Red Bull, Rock Star and Monster Energy. By extension, Elegance, via its 

own website, acknowledges that “Gorilla Hemp Energy Drink” competes (or will imminently 

compete) against VPX’s BANG® energy drink products. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2-A is a 

copy of Elegance’s “Invest Now” webpage (https://investinelegance.com/#brands) (last visited 

June 29, 2020; accessible either directly or via link from Elegance’s homepage (https://elegancebrands.com)), identifying “Gorilla Hemp Energy Drink” as a feature Elegance product. 

42. Recently, it came to VPX’s attention that Elegance hired: (i) Alfieri as its Chief 

Revenue Officer, (ii) Perry as its Vice-President of Sales and Distribution, and (iii) LaRocca as its 

Vice-President of Distribution Strategy. See Exhibit 2-A. 

43. It further recently came to VPX’s attention that Elegance also hired Maros as its 

Vice-President of Operations, according to a webpage that VPX previously found through 

Elegance’s website. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2-B is a copy of the webpage reflecting Elegance’s 

hiring of Maros as its Vice-President of Operations.

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 8 of 18
9

44. Any and all conditions precedent to VPX bringing and maintaining this action have 

occurred, or have been met, excused, discharged, or waived.

COUNT I – BREACH OF NON-COMPETE COVENANTS

AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ALFIERI, PERRY, LaROCCA AND MAROS

45. Plaintiff reincorporates and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-44

hereinabove, as if set forth fully within this Count. 

46. This action is for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as damages,

against each and all of the Individual Defendants Alfieri, Perry, LaRocca and Maros. 

47. Each of the aforesaid Individual Defendants entered into his/her own agreement 

with Plaintiff that contained restrictive covenants protective of VPX’s legitimate business 

interests. See Exhibits 1-A, Exhibit 1-B, Exbibit 1-C and Exhibit 1-D. 

48. Each of the Individual Defendants therein agreed with VPX to be bound by the 

terms of a non-compete covenant, which was and is reasonably drawn to protect VPX’s legitimate 

business interests, including, but not limited to, protection of VPX’s proprietary and confidential 

business information, trade secrets and goodwill. The non-compete covenant, which is set forth 

within each Individual Defendant’s agreement with VPX, states:

6. Activity Restrictions. Employee understands that the 

industries in which the Company does business (in particular, the 

dietary and nutritional supplement industry and/or non-alcoholic

beverage industry) are extremely competitive in every way, from the 

product formulae, to manufacturing, marketing and distribution, and 

regarding the development and protection of Intellectual Property. 

Accordingly, to ensure the production of, among other things, the 

Company’s Confidential Information, Intellectual Property, and 

trade secrets, and the Company’s interest in maintaining customer 

relationships, other business relationships, and a stable workforce, 

Employee agrees as follows: 

A. During the term of the Employee’s employment with 

the Company, and for a period of one (1) year from the Employee’s 

termination or cessation date with the Company, Employee will not 

directly or indirectly engage in or affiliate with a Competing 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 9 of 18
10

Company in any capacity where Employee’s duties and 

responsibilities are similar or related to any of the duties and 

responsibilities Employee held at any time during his or her 

employment with the Company or in which Employee’s use of the 

Company’s Confidential Information would be useful to the 

competitor and/or detrimental to the Company, its owners, directors, 

officers, employees, contractors, sub-contractors and/or customers 

(“Competing Company” for this paragraph 6 and its subparts shall 

mean any person, company or other entity working or otherwise 

engaged in any aspect of the (i) nutritional and dietary supplement 

industry; (ii) non-alcoholic beverage industry, and/or (iii) sports 

nutrition industry that competes, in any way, with the Company or 

that may compete with the Company based upon any of the 

Company’s and/or the Competing Company’s plans for future 

business endeavors); 

***

See Exhibits 1-A (¶6(A)), Exhibit 1-B (¶6(A)), Exbibit 1-C (¶6(A)) and Exhibit 

1-D (¶6(A)) (hereinafter the “Non-Compete Covenants”).

49. As reflected within its website, Elegance is a “Competing Company” of VPX as 

defined within each of the Non-Compete Covenants quoted hereinabove. See Exhibit 2-A. 

50. As reflected within its website, Elegance has hired Alfieri, and has done so within 

the one (1) year restriction period set forth within his Non-Compete Covenant, which period

remains in effect. See Exhibit 2-A.

51. In having accepted employment and/or affiliation with Elegance within the one (1) 

year period of restriction, Alfieri is in breach of his Non-Compete Covenant with VPX.

52. As reflected within its website, Elegance has hired Perry, and has done so within 

the one (1) year restriction period set forth within his Non-Compete Covenant, which period 

remains in effect. See Exhibit 2-A. 

53. In having accepted employment and/or affiliation with Elegance within the one (1) 

year period of restriction, Perry is in breach of his Non-Compete Covenant with VPX.

54. As reflected within its website, Elegance has hired LaRocca, and has done so within 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 10 of 18
11

the one (1) year restriction period set forth within his Non-Compete Covenant, which period 

remains in effect. See Exhibit 2-A.

55. In having accepted employment and/or affiliation with Elegance within the one (1) 

year period of restriction, LaRocca is in breach of his Non-Compete Covenant with VPX.

56. As reflected within its website, Elegance has hired Maros, and has done so within 

the one (1) year restriction period set forth within her Non-Compete Covenant, which period 

remains in effect. See Exhibit 2-B.

57. In having accepted employment and/or affiliation with Elegance within the one (1) 

year period of restriction, Maros is in breach of her Non-Compete Covenant with VPX.

58. Unless the Individual Defendants are enjoined from violating their respective NonCompete Covenants, including enjoined from working for, or otherwise affiliating with, Elegance

or any other Competing Company, VPX will suffer irreparable injury and harm, for which there is 

no remedy at law that provides VPX adequate relief. Further, each of the subject contracts, into

which Individual Defendants respectively entered, expressly provides, at paragraph 7(B)(i) 

thereof, that VPX shall be entitled to injunctive relief for a breach or threatened breach of the NonCompete Covenant, as more particularly set forth therein. 

59. Additionally, as a result of Individual Defendants’ breach of their respective NonCompete Covenants, VPX has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary harm. 

COUNT II – BREACH OF NON-SOLICITATION COVENANT

AGAINST DEFENDANT ALFIERI

60. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-44 and 47-57

hereinabove, as if set forth fully within this Count.

61. This action is for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as damages, 

against Defendant Alfieri.

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 11 of 18
12

62. Alfieri entered into an agreement with Plaintiff that contained restrictive covenants 

protective of VPX’s legitimate business interests. See Exhibits 1-A.

63. Alfieri therein agreed with VPX to be bound by a covenant restricting him from

soliciting any VPX employee to terminate his/her employment with VPX or to become employed 

by a Competing Company. Alfieri’s referenced employee non-solicitation provision states: 

6. Activity Restrictions. Employee understands that the industries 

in which the Company does business (in particular, the dietary and 

nutritional supplement industry and/or non-alcoholic beverage 

industry) are extremely competitive in every way, from the product 

formulae, to manufacturing, marketing and distribution, and 

regarding the development and protection of Intellectual Property. 

Accordingly, to ensure the production of, among other things, the 

Company’s Confidential Information, Intellectual Property, and 

trade secrets, and the Company’s interest in maintaining customer 

relationships, other business relationships, and a stable workforce, 

Employee agrees as follows:

****

E. During the term of the Employee’s employment with 

the Company, and for a period of one (1) year from Employee’s 

termination or cessation date with the Company, Employee will not 

directly or indirectly solicit or have discussions or other 

communication (regardless of who initiates such discussions or 

communications) with any employee, contractor, and/or consultant 

or the Company for the purpose of causing that employee to 

terminate his or her employment with the Company or to become 

employed by a Competing Company, or to become employed by or 

otherwise associated with any person or entity in a capacity in which 

that employee’s use of the Company’s Confidential Information 

would be detrimental to the Company, its owners, directors, officers, 

employees, contractors, sub-contractors and/or customers. 

See Exhibit 1A (¶6(E)) (hereinafter the “Employee Non-Solicitation 

Covenant”). 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 12 of 18
13

64. Upon information and belief, shortly after his employment with VPX terminated, 

Alfieri solicited and induced Perry to terminate his employment with VPX to work for Elegance,

within the Employee Non-Solicitation Covenant’s one (1) year period of restriction.

65. Upon information and belief, shortly after his employment with VPX terminated, 

Alfieri solicited and induced LaRocca to terminate his employment with VPX to work for 

Elegance, within the Employee Non-Solicitation Covenant’s one (1) year period of restriction.

66. Upon information and belief, Alfieri more recently solicited and induced Maros to 

terminate her employment with VPX to work for Elegance, within the Employee Non-Solicitation 

Covenant’s one (1) year period of restriction.

67. In soliciting Perry, LaRocca and Maros to terminate their respective employment

with VPX, within the one (1) year period of restriction, Defendant Alfieri breached his Employee 

Non-Solicitation Covenant.

68. Further, as reflected within its website, Elegance is a “Competing Company” of 

VPX as defined within each of the Employee Non-Solicitation Covenant quoted hereinabove. See

Exhibit 2-A. Thus, in soliciting Perry, LaRocca and Maros to leave VPX to work for Elegance, 

within the one (1) year period of restriction, Alfieri further breached that covenant.

69. Unless Alfieri is enjoined from continuing to violate his Employee Non-Solicitation 

Covenant, including enjoined from soliciting Perry, LaRocca, Maros or any other VPX employees, 

VPX will suffer irreparable injury and harm, for which there is no remedy at law to provide VPX 

adequate relief. Further, each of the subject contracts, into which Alfieri entered, expressly 

provides, at paragraph 7(B)(i) thereof, that VPX shall be entitled to injunctive relief for a breach 

or threatened breach of the Employee Non-Solicitation Covenant, as more particularly set forth 

therein.

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 13 of 18
14

70. Additionally, as a result of Alfieri’s breach of his Employee Non-Solicitation 

Covenant, VPX has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary harm.

COUNT III – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL 

RELATIONSHIPS AGAINST DEFENDANT ELEGANCE

71. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-44, 47-57 and 

62-68 hereinabove, as if set forth fully within this Count. 

72. This action is for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as damages, 

against Defendant Elegance.

73. At all times material hereto, valid contracts existed between VPX and each of the 

Individual Defendants. 

74. Those contracts provide, in relevant part, “that for a period of one (1) year after the 

termination or cessation of [the Employee’s] employment for any reason, whether voluntary or 

involuntary, Employee will inform his or her potential or actual future employers of his or her 

obligations under this Agreement, including paragraphs 3 and 6,” respectively, regarding the nondisclosure of confidential information and the Non-Compete Covenants and Non-Solicitation 

Convents at issue in this action. Accordingly, upon information and belief, Elegance had 

knowledge of each of the individual Defendants’ agreements containing the Non-Compete 

Covenants and Employee Non-Solicitation Covenants with VPX prior to hiring each of the 

Individual Defendants within one (1) year after their termination of employment with VPX, as 

herein alleged. See Exhibits 1-A (¶10(C)), Exhibit 1-B (¶10(C)), Exbibit 1-C (¶10(C)) and Exhibit 1-

D (¶10(C))

75. Elegance is a “Competing Company” as defined within each of the Non-Compete 

Covenants as well as the Employee Non-Solicitation Covenants. See Exhibit 2-A.

76. Elegance intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with VPX’s contractual rights 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 14 of 18
15

by employing Alfieri in breach of his Non-Compete Covenant and in also inducing Alfieri to 

breach his Employee Non-Solicitation Covenant.

77. Elegance intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with VPX’s contractual rights 

by employing Perry in breach of his Non-Compete Covenant.

78. Elegance intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with VPX’s contractual rights 

by employing LaRocca in breach of his Non-Compete Covenant.

79. Elegance intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with VPX’s contractual rights 

by employing Maros in breach of her Non-Compete Covenant.

80. Elegance lacks any legal justification for its actions. 

81. Unless Elegance is enjoined from continuing to interfere with VPX’s contractual 

rights, including enjoined from continuing to employ any of the Individual Defendants, from 

employing any other present or former VPX employee in violation of such employee’s noncompete covenant with VPX, and from continuing to induce Alfieri, or inducing any other present 

or former VPX employee, to solicit any other VPX employee in violation of his/her employee nonsolicitation covenant with VPX, VPX will suffer irreparable injury and harm, for which there is 

no remedy at law to provide VPX adequate relief. Further, each of the subject contracts, into 

which Individual Defendants respectively entered, expressly provides, at paragraph 7(B)(i) 

thereof, that VPX shall be entitled to injunctive relief for a breach or threatened breach of the NonCompete Covenant or Employee Non-Solicitation Covenant, as more particularly set forth therein.

82. Additionally, as a result Elegance’s tortious interference, VPX has suffered, and 

will continue to suffer, monetary harm.

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 15 of 18
16

COUNT IV – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL 

RELATIONSHIPS AGAINST DEFENDANT ALFIERI

83. Plaintiff reincorporates and re-alleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-44 and 47-57

hereinabove, as if set forth fully within this Count. 

84. This action is for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as damages, 

against Defendant Alfieri.

85. At all times material hereto, valid contracts exist between VPX and each of the 

Individual Defendants Perry, LaRocca and Maros. 

86. Elegance is a “Competing Company” as defined within each of the Non-Compete 

Covenants. See Exhibit 2-A.

87. At all times material hereto, Alfieri was aware that Perry, LaRocca and Maros were

each bound by his/her Non-Compete Covenant with VPX.

88. Alfieri intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with VPX’s contractual rights by

inducing Perry to accept employment with Elegance in breach of his Non-Compete Covenant.

89. Alfieri intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with VPX’s contractual rights by

inducing LaRocca to accept employment with Elegance in breach of his Non-Compete Covenant.

90. Alfieri intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with VPX’s contractual rights by

inducing Maros to accept employment with Elegance in breach of her Non-Compete Covenant.

91. Alfieri lacks any legal justification for his actions. 

92. Unless Afieri is enjoined from continuing to interfere with VPX’s contractual 

rights, including enjoined from continuing to induce Perry, LaRocca and Maros to violate their 

respective Non-Compete Covenants and from inducing any other present or former VPX employee 

to violate his/her non-compete covenant with VPX, VPX will suffer irreparable injury and harm, 

for which there is no remedy at law to provide VPX adequate relief. Further, the subject contracts, 

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 16 of 18
17

into which Perry, LaRocca and Maros respectively entered, expressly provides, at paragraph 

7(B)(i) thereof, that VPX shall be entitled to injunctive relief for a breach or threatened breach of 

the Non-Compete Covenant, as more particularly set forth therein.

93. Additionally, as a result Alfieri’s tortious interference, VPX has suffered, and will 

continue to suffer, monetary harm. 

Demand for Attorneys’ Fees

94. The subject agreements, at paragraph 20, provide that, “[i]n the event of any 

litigation between the Parties . . ., the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s 

fees (including in-house counsel), paralegals’, and para-professionals’ fees and court costs at all 

trial and appellate levels.” See Exhibits 1-A, 1-B, 1-C and 1-D. 

95. Pursuant to such provision, VPX demands reimbursement for all such reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., respectfully prays for judgment 

against Defendants Alfieri, Perry, LaRocca, Maros, and Elegance granting and awarding it the 

following: (i) Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; (ii) Money damages; (iii) Reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the subject agreements; (iv) all other taxable costs, 

disbursements, and expenses of this action; and (v) any and all other relief that this Court may 

deem just and appropriate. 

Dated: July 1, 2020

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 17 of 18
18

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gregg H. Metzger

Gregg H. Metzger, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 836850)

Chief Litigation Counsel

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

1600 North Park Drive

Weston, FL 33326

Phone: (786) 417-0104

gregg.metzger@vpxsports.com

service@vpxsports.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Stephanie Khouri, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 113327)

Corporate Counsel

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

1600 North Park Drive

Weston, FL 33326

Phone: 954-815-4022

stephanie.khouri@vpxsports.com

service@vpxsports.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:20-cv-61307-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 18 of 18