- 1 -

9951073.3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CHICAGOLAND AVIATION, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

) Case No. 12-cv-1139

)

RICHARD R. TODD, CHICAGO )

PREMIER BOAT RENTAL AND ) JURY DEMANDED

LEASING, LLC, d/b/a CHICAGO )

PREMIER FLIGHT TRAINING, )

)

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, CHICAGOLAND AVIATION, LLC, by its attorneys, David L. Newman, 

Jenifer H. Caracciolo, and Robert A. McKenzie (Arnstein & Lehr LLP, of counsel), for its 

Complaint against Defendants, RICHARD R. TODD and CHICAGO PREMIER BOAT 

RENTAL AND LEASING, LLC, d/b/a CHICAGO PREMIER FLIGHT TRAINING, states as 

follows: 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff, Chicagoland Aviation, LLC (“Chicagoland Aviation”) is an Illinois 

limited liability company in good standing with its principal place of business located at 1 

George Michael Drive, in Romeoville, Illinois. Chicagoland Aviation is in the business of 

providing flight training, aircraft rental, aircraft sales and aircraft management, and conducts its 

operations at Lewis University Airport. 

2. Defendant, Richard R. Todd, (“Todd”) is an Illinois resident, residing at 58 

Deborah Drive, Lemont, Illinois. He is a former employee of Chicagoland Aviation. Upon 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:1
- 2 -

9951073.3

information and belief, Todd is currently the Managing Member of Defendant, Chicago Premier 

Boat Rental & Leasing, LLC d/b/a Chicago Premier Flight Training. 

3. Defendant, Chicago Premier Boat Rental & Leasing, LLC d/b/a Chicago Premier 

Flight Training (“CPFT”) is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of 

and in good standing with the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business located at 58 

Deborah Drive, Lemont, Illinois. Like Chicagoland Aviation, CPFT is engaged in the business 

of providing flight training, aircraft rental and aircraft management, and conducts its operations 

at Lewis University Airport. 

4. This is an action for trademark infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade 

practices, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidentiality agreement, tortious interference with 

contract, and tortious interference with business expectancy. The Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1121; 28 U.S.C. §1331, and 28 U.S.C. §1338. The Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §3567. 

5. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because all defendants are Illinois 

residents and the wrongful acts alleged occurred in the State of Illinois. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. Since 2010, Chicagoland Aviation has been and continues to be a premier General 

Aviation service provider headquartered at the Lewis University Airport that offers a unique 

aviation training program to its clients. It is a small business with seven (7) flight instructors, 

and prides itself as being Chicago’s top agency that trains pilots. Chicagoland Aviation created 

“CHICAGO’S PREMIER FLIGHT TRAINING PROVIDER” for its slogan and trade name for 

its website, www.chicagolandaviation.com and when promoting the company in general. 

Plaintiff has used this slogan since the Company was founded in 2010. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 2 of 26 PageID #:2
- 3 -

9951073.3

7. From its foundation, Chicagoland Aviation has been able to gain the trust and 

confidence of its clientele based on its expertise in the industry, its knowledge of the services 

needed by the customer, its attention to detail in connection with providing flight training, and its 

use of skilled flight instructors and quality aircraft. 

8. Chicagoland Aviation has expended significant amounts of time, energy and 

money in marketing, selling and promoting its services, in developing confidential information in 

furtherance of its commercial efforts, and in establishing the “CHICAGO’S PREMIER FLIGHT 

TRAINING PROVIDER” name in connection with the business, commercial reputation, and 

goodwill of Chicagoland Aviation. 

9. As part of its commercial efforts, Chicagoland Aviation created and developed 

confidential information and has continuously used its slogan and trade name, in various settings, 

in connection with its role as a General Aviation provider. Plaintiff uses its confidential 

information and the trade name “CHICAGO’S PREMIER FLIGHT TRAINING PROVIDER” in 

promoting its services and in furthering its good will and business reputation, including but not 

limited to, confidential client information, customer requirements, client contacts, customer lists, 

customer marketing agreements, pricing strategies, customer needs and propensities and 

confidential financial and banking information. 

10. Since 2010, Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name has consistently and continuously

grown in recognition. 

11. Given the nature of Chicagoland Aviation’s business, its customer requirements, 

client contacts, customer lists, customer marketing agreements, pricing strategies, customer 

needs and propensities and confidential financial and banking information is confidential 

information that is only known to Chicagoland Aviation and, within Chicagoland Aviation, are 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 3 of 26 PageID #:3
- 4 -

9951073.3

disseminated only to those selected persons who have a need to know such information to allow 

such persons to conduct their daily business for Chicagoland Aviation. 

12. Because of the nature of Chicagoland Aviation’s business, the foregoing 

confidential information held by it is kept sufficiently secret for Chicagoland Aviation to derive 

economic value from not being generally known to other persons or entities who can obtain 

economic value from the disclosure or use of such information. Chicagoland Aviation has taken 

steps to protect its confidential information, including keeping the information password

protected and telling only those employees on a need to know basis. 

13. Prior to Todd’s employment by, and involvement with, Chicagoland Aviation, he 

had no experience in the aviation industry in the capacity he ultimately held as an employee of 

Chicagoland Aviation. He therefore knew none of Chicagoland Aviation’s clients or its methods 

of aviation training, nor did he have any relationships with the owners of the airplanes that 

Chicagoland Aviation maintains marketing agreements with for use in its flight instruction. 

14. Todd began working at Chicagoland Aviation on May 23, 2010 as a flight 

instructor. On June 1, 2011, Plaintiff promoted Todd to Director of the Flying Club, because 

Todd represented to Chicagoland Aviation that he wanted to become more involved in the day to 

day operations of the company. 

15. Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information was communicated in confidence 

by Chicagoland Aviation to Todd while he was employed as the Director of the Flying Club, and 

solely as a result of his employment and status at the company. 

16. During the course of Todd’s employment, Chicagoland Aviation paid for Todd to 

become a FAASTeam representative, a program offered through the Federal Aviation 

Administration that promotes aviation safety. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 4 of 26 PageID #:4
- 5 -

9951073.3

17. In consideration for being promoted to Director of The Flying Club and having 

access to all of Plaintiff’s financial and customer information, Todd executed a Confidentiality

Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Chicagoland Aviation. A true and correct copy of the 

Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1. 

18. Pursuant to the Agreement, Todd agreed that he had a duty to protect Chicagoland 

Aviation’s confidential information, and that he would only use Plaintiff’s confidential 

information “for the purpose of evaluating potential business, entering financial information into 

computer systems and investments relationships with [Chicagoland Aviation].” Exhibit 1, 

paragraphs 1 and 2. 

19. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Agreement, Todd also agreed not to disclose 

Confidential Information to any third party without the express authority of Chicagoland 

Aviation. Exhibit 1, paragraph 3. 

20. The Agreement also provided that 

[i]f there is a breach . . . of any provision of this Agreement, it is agreed and 

understood that [Chicagoland Aviation] shall have no adequate remedy in money 

or other damages and . . . shall be entitled to injunctive relief; provided however, 

no specification in this Agreement of any particular remedy shall be construed as 

a waiver or prohibition of any other remedies in the event of a breach or 

threatened breach of this Agreement.” 

Exhibit 1, paragraph 9. 

21. As the Director of The Flying Club at Chicagoland Aviation, Todd became aware 

of the relationships between Chicagoland Aviation and its clientele and business relationships, 

including but not limited to, the specific client contacts, client specifications, and the owners of 

the airplanes that Plaintiff had marketing agreements with. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 5 of 26 PageID #:5
- 6 -

9951073.3

22. Since Chicagoland Aviation’s clientele is not publicly available, the only way that 

Todd knew of Chicagoland Aviation’s clients and airplane marketing agreements was through 

his employment and affiliation with Plaintiff. 

23. On December 18, 2011, Todd gave his two-week notice of resignation to 

Chicagoland Aviation. 

24. Shortly after Todd tendered his resignation, on the evening of December 20, 2011, 

he entered Plaintiff’s office after hours and disconnected Plaintiff’s entire computer system in 

order to take home a printer and battery backup that Todd owned. By disconnecting the 

computer system, Todd effectively shut down Chicagoland Aviation’s network and telephones, 

which resulted in Plaintiff losing an entire day of business on December 21, 2011, the following 

business day. 

25. On December 21, 2011, in email correspondence to Matt Zahora, Chicagoland 

Aviation’s President, Todd pledged “not to solicit” his flight instructing services to Chicagoland 

Aviation’s customers, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2. 

26. In that same email, Todd indicated that his resignation was effective immediately. 

On information and belief, Todd was taking active steps to form a competing flight training 

school prior to the time he tendered his resignation to Chicagoland Aviation up through the 

effective date of his resignation. 

27. On information and belief, Todd ended his employment with Chicagoland 

Aviation on December 21, 2011, and immediately began running CPFT, a competing flight 

training school conducting its operations at the same airport as Chicagoland Aviation. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 6 of 26 PageID #:6
- 7 -

9951073.3

28. The name of Todd’s competing company, “Chicago Premier Flight Training” is 

identical to Chicagoland Aviation’s slogan and trade name “CHICAGO’S PREMIER FLIGHT 

TRAINING PROVIDER.” 

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT

FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION

1-28. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-28 as paragraphs 1-28, inclusive, of 

this Count I. 

29. This Count is based on service mark and trade name infringement under § 43(a) 

of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) by virtue of defendants’ violations of Chicagoland 

Aviation’s rights in its service mark and trade name “CHICAGO’S PREMIER FLIGHT 

TRAINING PROVIDER.” 

30. Defendants, without Chicagoland Aviation’s consent, have adopted and used the 

infringing trade name and service mark “Chicago’s Premier Flight Training,” and other words, 

items, names, symbols, or devices in connection with their services that constitute a false 

designation of origin and false description or false representation that is likely to cause 

confusion, mistake, palming off with respect to Plaintiff’s trade name and service mark 

“Chicago’s Premier Flight Training,” or deception to the public as to the affiliation, connection, 

or association of defendants with Chicagoland Aviation, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or 

approval of defendants’ services by Chicagoland Aviation, in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham 

Act. 

31. Defendants’ actions have been to the detriment and injury of Chicagoland 

Aviation. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 7 of 26 PageID #:7
- 8 -

9951073.3

32. Defendants’ actions infringe Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name and service mark 

and/or constitute unfair competition under §43(a) of the Lanham Act. 

33. Defendants are aware of the goodwill, reputation and value represented and 

symbolized by Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name and service mark at issue and that the said 

trade name and service mark are relied on by the public to identify Chicagoland Aviation’s 

services and to distinguish its flight instruction services from the services of others. 

34. Defendants, with the knowledge of the goodwill, reputation and value represented 

and symbolized by Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name and service mark at issue, have used and 

continue to use a trade name and service mark that is likely to confuse, or to cause mistake, or to 

deceive the public as to affiliation, connection or association, or as to origin, sponsorship, or 

approval. 

35. Defendants’ actions were and are being committed willfully, with the purpose and 

intent of misappropriating and trading upon the goodwill and reputation associated with 

Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name and service mark. Chicagoland Aviation’s rights in and to the 

trade name and service mark at issue have been compromised and defendants have used their 

confusingly similar trade name and service mark to unfairly compete with Chicagoland Aviation. 

36. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, Chicagoland Aviation has 

suffered damages and will continue to suffer actual and other damages in an amount to be proven 

at trial. 

37. As a result of defendants’ infringement and unfair competition, Chicagoland 

Aviation has suffered and, unless and until defendants are enjoined by this Court, will continue to 

suffer irreparable harm to Chicagoland Aviation’s property rights, goodwill and business 

reputation for which Chicagoland Aviation has no adequate remedy at law. Chicagoland Aviation 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 8 of 26 PageID #:8
- 9 -

9951073.3

is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent defendants from using their 

trade name and service mark at issue or any others confusingly similar to Chicagoland Aviation’s 

trade name and service mark at issue. 

38. Chicagoland Aviation is also entitled to an award of treble damages for 

defendants’ willful acts and to an award of reasonable attorneys fees for an exceptional case, 

both under 15 U.S.C. §1117(a). 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Chicagoland Aviation demands injunctive relief and a judgment 

in its favor in the amount of its damages against defendants Richard R. Todd and Chicago 

Premier Boat Rental and Leasing, LLC d/b/a Chicago Premier Flight Training, enhanced 

damages, attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), prejudgment interest and all 

such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II

COMMON LAW SERVICE MARK 

INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION

1-28. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1-28 as paragraphs 1-28, inclusive, of 

this Count II. 

29. Chicagoland Aviation owns and has used its trade name and service mark in 

connection with its flight instruction services since at least as early as May 2010. Because of 

Chicagoland Aviation’s use of its trade name and service mark, they have become associated 

with Chicagoland Aviation and identify Chicagoland Aviation’s services. Defendants’ actions 

constitute trade name and service mark infringement under the common law of Illinois, where 

defendants have used their confusingly similar trade name and service mark.

30. Defendants’ unauthorized and infringing use in commerce of Chicagoland 

Aviation’s trade name and service mark constitute unfair competition with Chicagoland 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 9 of 26 PageID #:9
- 10 -

9951073.3

Aviation under Illinois common law, such that such use enables defendants to obtain the benefit 

of, and trade upon, the recognition and goodwill of Chicagoland Aviation. Chicagoland 

Aviation has no control over defendants’ business and its impact on Chicagoland Aviation’s 

goodwill, so defendants’ use of Chicagoland Aviation’s confusingly similar trade name and 

service mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception, and result in defendants’ unjust 

enrichment. 

31. Defendants unfairly competed with Chicagoland Aviation in the following 

manners: 

(a) By Todd naming his competing company “Chicago Premier Flight 

Training” to cause confusion, mistake, or deception to the public; 

(b) By misappropriating Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information, 

including but not limited to Plaintiff’s customer lists and contacts, its 

pricing information and marketing agreements Chicagoland Aviation had 

with various airplane owners;

(c) By taking active steps to form and open CPFT, which is now a direct 

competitor of Chicagoland Aviation, and soliciting existing and 

prospective customers to move their business from Chicagoland Aviation 

to CPFT; 

(d) By telling Chicagoland Aviation customers and employees that Plaintiff 

was going bankrupt and had no money, and attempting to entice these 

customers and employees to leave Chicagoland Aviation after Todd started 

CPFT and work for or do business with CPFT; 

(e) By telling Chicagoland Aviation customers and employees that he had 

reached an agreement with the Lewis University Airport manager to “take 

over” Plaintiff’s office space at Lewis University Airport and have all of 

Chicagoland Aviation’s employees work for CPFT; 

(f) By using Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information for his own 

selfish purposes and for the express purpose of soliciting prospective 

clients away from Chicagoland Aviation and to CPFT, thereby preventing 

Chicagoland Aviation from realizing benefits from such new or 

prospective business and instead taking such business to CPFT; 

(g) By using Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information which Todd 

learned from his employment and status as Director of The Flying Club at 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 10 of 26 PageID #:10
- 11 -

9951073.3

Chicagoland Aviation, and which he would not have known but for his 

employment and status as Director of The Flying Club of Chicagoland 

Aviation, in his new company CPFT; 

(h) By convincing one airplane owner to terminate his existing marketing 

agreement with Chicagoland Aviation and enter into an agreement with 

CPFT;

(i) By attempting to convince additional airplane owners that have current 

marketing agreements with Chicagoland Aviation to prematurely terminate 

their agreements with Plaintiff and enter into agreements with CPFT; and 

(j) By using Chicagoland Aviation to fund his efforts to become a FAASTeam 

representative and immediately resigning after receiving FAASTeam 

representative status to start up CPFT, a competing flight school. 

32. As a direct and proximate cause of defendants’ conduct, Chicagoland Aviation has 

suffered damages and will continue to suffer actual and other damages in an amount to be 

proven at trial.

33. As a result of defendants’ unfair competition, Chicagoland Aviation has suffered 

and, unless and until defendants are enjoined by this Court, will continue to suffer irreparable 

harm to Chicagoland Aviation’s property rights, goodwill and business reputation for which 

Chicagoland Aviation has no adequate remedy at law. Chicagoland Aviation is entitled to 

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent defendants from using their trade name 

and service mark at issue or any others confusingly similar to Chicagoland Aviation’s trade 

name and service mark at issue.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHICAGOLAND AVIATION, LLC, respectfully prays that 

this Court find that Defendants unfairly competed with Plaintiff and granting the following 

relief: 

A. That the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order, without bond, as well as a 

Preliminary Injunction, restraining and enjoining Defendants and all persons in 

active concert or participation with them, either directly or indirectly, from:

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 11 of 26 PageID #:11
- 12 -

9951073.3

(1) Using or disclosing at any time, or for any purpose (including the 

acceptance of any new clients or business), any of Chicagoland Aviation's 

confidential documents and information as described herein;

(2) Contacting any of the clients or prospective clients of Chicagoland 

Aviation, or otherwise competing with Chicagoland Aviation or soliciting 

clients or prospective clients of Chicagoland Aviation, unless and until 

Todd can establish that he can do so without misappropriating and/or 

disclosing Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information and without 

otherwise competing unfairly; and

(3) Interfering with the existing contractual relations and prospective 

economic advantage of Chicagoland Aviation; and

(4) Otherwise harming Chicagoland Aviation's business.

B. That Defendants be ordered to:

(1) Immediately return to Chicagoland Aviation all confidential information 

belonging to Chicagoland Aviation or relating to Chicagoland Aviation's 

business, including but not limited to pricing formulas or structures, client 

lists, contact information or other information identifying Chicagoland 

Aviation's current or prospective clients, and any and all specifications for 

use in servicing these clients, that Todd removed, copied, took, used, 

disseminated, obtained or reviewed, or that Defendants otherwise have in 

their possession, custody or control;

(2) Identify all customers of Chicagoland Aviation or past customers of 

Chicagoland Aviation whom Defendants may have contacted;

(3) Refrain from accepting Chicagoland Aviation customers who were 

improperly solicited by Defendants; and

(4) Provide a full and complete accounting of all revenues and profits earned 

by Defendants from the sale of any services, provided or otherwise, to any 

clients since Todd left the employ of Chicagoland Aviation.

(5) Remove from its Website, advertising, letterhead or other business 

communications any reference to its business the name “Chicago Premier 

Flight Training,” “Chicago’s Premier Flight Training,” or any such similar 

phrase and destroy any such letterhead, advertising or marketing material. 

C. That the Court impose a constructive trust on any and all revenues and profits 

earned or realized by Defendants which are related in any way to Defendants' use 

of Chicagoland Aviation's confidential information.

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 12 of 26 PageID #:12
- 13 -

9951073.3

D. An award to Chicagoland Aviation of its general and special damages resulting 

from all of Defendants’ actions as alleged above, in an amount to be determined 

at trial;

E. That the Court order such other relief as may be just and required under the 

circumstances of this case.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF THE UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE

PRACTICES ACT – 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq. (“UDTPA”)

1-28. Chicagoland Aviation repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-28, as paragraphs 1-28, 

inclusive, of this Count III. 

29. Chicagoland Aviation is a “person,” as that term is defined by Section 1 of the 

UDTPA. 815 ILCS 510/1(5). 

30. Todd is a “person” as that term is defined by Section 1 of the UDTPA. 815 ILCS

510/1(5). 

31. CPFT is a “person” as that term is defined by Section 1 of the UDTPA. 815 ILCS 

510/1(5). 

32. Chicagoland Aviation’s slogan “CHICAGO’S PREMIER FLIGHT TRAINING 

PROVIDER” is a “trade name” as that term is defined by Section 1 of the UDTPA. 815 ILCS 

510/1(8). 

33. Todd’s use of Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name “Chicago Premier Flight 

Training” as the name for his competing company neither was nor is authorized in any way by 

Chicagoland Aviation. 

34. Defendants’ use of Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name as the name for Todd’s 

competing company began well after Chicagoland Aviation promoted “CHICAGO’S PREMIER 

FLIGHT TRAINING PROVIDER” as its trade name for Chicagoland Aviation and well after 

Chicagoland Aviation’s first use. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 13 of 26 PageID #:13
- 14 -

9951073.3

35. The use by CPFT of Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name in connection with 

CPFT’s services has caused confusion, mistake, or deception of the public concerning the source 

of origin of CPFT’s services. 

36. The public, including prospective customers, are likely to consult or purchase 

CPFT’s services bearing Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name believing that they are the services 

of Chicagoland Aviation or authorized by Chicagoland Aviation. 

37. CPFT’s use and infringement of Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name has been and 

is willful and deliberate, designed to capitalize and trade on the goodwill associated with 

Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name. 

38. Defendant CPFT’s acts of infringement constitutes deceptive trade practices 

pursuant to Section 2(a) under the UDTPA. 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(2), (3), (12). 

39. Chicagoland Aviation has been harmed, and will continue to be harmed in the 

future, by Defendants’ continued deceptive practices, absent injunctive relief. 

40. Section 3 of the UDTPA provides: “a person likely to be damaged by a deceptive 

trade practice or another may be granted injunctive relief[.]” 815 ILCS 510/3. 

41. Section 3 of the UDTPA also provides: “Costs or attorneys’ fees or both may be 

assessed against a defendant . . . if the court finds that he has willfully engaged in a deceptive 

trade practice.” 815 ILCS 510/3. 

42. Defendants continued unauthorized use of Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name as 

the name of its competing company has forced this legal action, caused undue expenditures of 

judicial, client and attorney resources, and demonstrates that Defendants are willfully engaging 

in this deceptive practice. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 14 of 26 PageID #:14
- 15 -

9951073.3

43. Pursuant to Section 3 of the UDTPA, Chicagoland Aviation is entitled to recover 

its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in attempting to enjoin Defendants from engaging in these 

deceptive practices. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHICAGOLAND AVIATION, LLC, respectfully prays that 

this Court award it the following relief: 

A. That the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order, without bond, as well as a 

Preliminary Injunction, restraining and enjoining Defendants and all persons in active 

concert or participation with them, either directly or indirectly, from: 

(1) Using Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name, like derivation or confusingly 

similar trade name; 

(2) Infringing upon Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name; 

(3) Providing, offering to provide, and/or advertising general aviation services 

using Chicagoland Aviation’s trade name, like derivation or confusingly 

similar trade name; 

B. An award to Chicagoland Aviation of its general and special damages resulting from 

all of Defendants’ actions as alleged above, in an amount to be determined at trial;

C. Awarding Chicagoland Aviation its attorneys’ fees and costs; 

D. An award to Chicagoland Aviation of punitive and exemplary damages; and 

E. That the Court order such other relief as may be just and required under the 

circumstances of this case. 

COUNT IV

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

1-28. Chicagoland Aviation repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-28, as paragraphs 1-28, 

inclusive, of this Count IV. 

29. As an employee of Chicagoland Aviation, Todd owed Plaintiff fiduciary duties of 

good faith and loyalty, such that, while employed by Chicagoland Aviation, he was prohibited 

from soliciting Plaintiff’s customers for himself or otherwise to Chicagoland Aviation’s 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 15 of 26 PageID #:15
- 16 -

9951073.3

detriment. Todd was also prohibited from utilizing Plaintiff’s pricing information and other 

confidential information for himself or for a business competitor. He was also prohibited from 

defaming or otherwise disparaging Chicagoland Aviation, its services or employees, or otherwise 

acting in a manner that was adverse to the company’s best interests. 

30. Despite these duties arising from his employment relationship with Chicagoland 

Aviation, and in violation of those duties, Todd breached such duties and otherwise breached his 

fiduciary duties prior to resigning from Chicagoland Aviation, by, among other things: 

(a) Misappropriating Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information, 

including but not limited to Plaintiff’s customer lists and contacts, its 

pricing information and marketing agreements Chicagoland Aviation had 

with various airplane owners;

(b) Taking active steps to form and open CPFT, which is now a direct 

competitor of Chicagoland Aviation, and soliciting existing and 

prospective customers to move their business from Chicagoland Aviation 

to CPFT; 

(c) Representing to Chicagoland Aviation customers and employees that 

Plaintiff was going bankrupt and had no money, and attempting to entice 

these customers and employees to leave Chicagoland Aviation after Todd 

started CPFT and work for or do business with CPFT; 

(d) Representing to Chicagoland Aviation customers and employees that he 

had reached an agreement with the Lewis University Airport manager to 

“take over” Plaintiff’s office space at Lewis University Airport and have 

all of Chicagoland Aviation’s employees work for CPFT; 

(e) Using Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information for his own selfish 

purposes and for the express purpose of soliciting prospective clients away 

from Chicagoland Aviation and to CPFT, thereby preventing Chicagoland 

Aviation from realizing benefits from such new or prospective business 

and instead taking such business to CPFT; 

(f) Using Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information which Todd 

learned from his employment and status as Director of The Flying Club at 

Chicagoland Aviation, and which he would not have known but for his 

employment and status as Director of The Flying Club of Chicagoland 

Aviation, in his new company CPFT; 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 16 of 26 PageID #:16
- 17 -

9951073.3

(g) Convincing one airplane owner doing business with Chicagoland Aviation 

to terminate his existing marketing agreement with Chicagoland Aviation 

and enter into an agreement with CPFT;

(h) Attempting to convince additional airplane owners that have current 

marketing agreements with Chicagoland Aviation to prematurely terminate 

their agreements with Plaintiff and enter into agreements with CPFT; 

(i) Using Chicagoland Aviation to fund his efforts to become a FAASTeam 

representative and immediately resigning after receiving FAASTeam 

representative status to start up CPFT, a competing flight school; and 

(j) Other improper acts that have yet to be discovered by Chicagoland 

Aviation. 

31. At all times, Todd and CPFT were aware of the near permanent relationships 

between Chicagoland Aviation and its customers and airplane owners, as evidenced by Todd’s 

efforts to target Chicagoland Aviation’s customers, business and contractual relationships and 

attempt to induce them to move their business to CPFT by using Chicagoland Aviation’s slogan 

“Chicago’s Premier Flight Training” as the name of his business. 

32. To protect its legitimate business interests, including the confidential information 

described herein, Chicagoland Aviation took deliberate steps to ensure that these aspects of its 

business processes and efforts would not be disclosed to any outside individual or entity by 

limiting access to such confidential information only to those persons in Chicagoland Aviation’s 

business who had a need to know such information. 

33. Chicagoland Aviation has a legally protectable interest in its confidential 

information, goodwill, and in its near permanent customer relationships. 

34. As a result of Todd’s breaches of fiduciary duties, Chicagoland Aviation has been 

harmed by, among other things, a sudden loss of some of its flight instructors and other staff, the 

premature termination of one of its airplane marketing agreements, loss of customers, loss of 

confidential information, loss of goodwill, and loss of profits. These damages are of a 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 17 of 26 PageID #:17
- 18 -

9951073.3

continuing nature and represent an irreparable harm to Chicagoland Aviation and its capacity and 

ability to do business and to protect its confidential information.

35. Chicagoland Aviation has no adequate remedy at law which would fully 

compensate for the sudden loss of certain of its flight instructors and other staff, and/or the loss 

and misuse of its confidential information, and Chicagoland Aviation stands a reasonable 

likelihood of success on the merits in obtaining the relief requested herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHICAGOLAND AVIATION, LLC, respectfully prays that 

this Court find that Defendant Richard R. Todd breached his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and award 

Plaintiff the following relief: 

A. That the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order, without bond, as well as a 

Preliminary Injunction, restraining and enjoining Defendants and all persons in 

active concert or participation with them, either directly or indirectly, from:

(1) Using or disclosing at any time, or for any purpose (including the 

acceptance of any new clients or business), any of Chicagoland Aviation's 

confidential documents and information as described herein;

(2) Contacting any of the clients or prospective clients of Chicagoland 

Aviation, or otherwise competing with Chicagoland Aviation or soliciting 

clients or prospective clients of Chicagoland Aviation, unless and until 

Todd can establish that he can do so without misappropriating and/or 

disclosing Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information and without 

otherwise competing unfairly; and

(3) Interfering with the existing contractual relations and prospective 

economic advantage of Chicagoland Aviation; and

(4) Otherwise harming Chicagoland Aviation's business.

B. That Defendant Todd be ordered to:

(1) Immediately return to Chicagoland Aviation all confidential information 

belonging to Chicagoland Aviation or relating to Chicagoland Aviation's 

business, including but not limited to pricing formulas or structures, client 

lists, contact information or other information identifying Chicagoland 

Aviation's current or prospective clients, and any and all specifications for 

use in servicing these clients, that Todd removed, copied, took, used, 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 18 of 26 PageID #:18
- 19 -

9951073.3

disseminated, obtained or reviewed, or that Defendants otherwise have in 

their possession, custody or control;

(2) Identify all customers of Chicagoland Aviation or past customers of 

Chicagoland Aviation whom Defendants may have contacted;

(3) Refrain from accepting Chicagoland Aviation customers who were 

improperly solicited by Defendants; and

(4) Provide a full and complete accounting of all revenues and profits earned 

by Defendants from the sale of any services, provided or otherwise, to any 

clients since Todd left the employ of Chicagoland Aviation.

(5) Remove from its Website, advertising, letterhead or other business 

communications any reference to its business the name “Chicago Premier 

Flight Training,” “Chicago’s Premier Flight Training,” or any such similar 

phrase and destroy any such letterhead, advertising or marketing material. 

C. That the Court impose a constructive trust on any and all revenues and profits 

earned or realized by Defendants which are related in any way to Defendants' use 

of Chicagoland Aviation's confidential information.

D. An award to Chicagoland Aviation of its general and special damages resulting

from all of Defendants’ actions as alleged above, in an amount to be determined 

at trial;

E. That the Court order such other relief as may be just and required under the 

circumstances of this case.

COUNT V

BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

(Against Todd)

1-28. Chicagoland Aviation repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-28, as paragraphs 1-28, 

inclusive, of this Count V. 

29. Todd currently owns and operates CPFT.

30. Since his execution of the Confidentiality Agreement (Exhibit 1) and his 

resignation from Chicagoland Aviation, Todd has knowingly, intentionally, and unjustifiably 

disclosed Chicagoland Aviation’s customers, marketing, current business plans and costs and/or 

financial information to and for the benefit of CPFT. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 19 of 26 PageID #:19
- 20 -

9951073.3

31. Such conduct and disclosure of information to a third party was not “for the 

purpose of evaluating potential business, entering financial information into computer systems 

and investment relationships with [Chicagoland Aviation]”, but rather, to harm Chicagoland 

Aviation and, is in plain breach of the Confidentiality Agreement. 

32. On December 22, 2011, Chicagoland Aviation, through its counsel, delivered a 

letter to Todd requesting that he cease and desist his wrongful activities. A true and correct 

copy of the 12/22/11 letter is attached as Exhibit 3. 

33. Todd responded to the letter, swearing that he would never intentionally use any 

confidential or proprietary information from Chicagoland Aviation. 

34. Despite the foregoing, immediately after terminating his employment with 

Chicagoland Aviation, Todd began working for CPFT in direct competition with Plaintiff, 

performing the same and/or similar services to those which he provided on behalf of 

Chicagoland Aviation. As a result, six (6) customers, one (1) airplane owner, and three (3) 

employees have ceased working for or doing business with Chicagoland Aviation so far. 

35. Pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement, Todd acknowledged and agreed that 

customers and clients were Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information, and that he had no 

right to use that information. 

36. Todd also agreed that in the event there was a breach of the Confidentiality 

Agreement, Chicagoland Aviation would be without an adequate remedy in money or other 

damages and therefore entitled to injunctive relief. 

37. Chicagoland Aviation has a legally protectable interest in its confidential 

information, goodwill, near permanent customer relationships, and in the enforcement of the 

Confidentiality Agreement. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 20 of 26 PageID #:20
- 21 -

9951073.3

38. Chicagoland Aviation has suffered irreparable harm and damage by virtue of 

Todd’s breach of the Confidentiality Agreement, and will continue to suffer irreparable harm as 

long as Todd continues to use Plaintiff’s confidential information for the benefit of CPFT in 

order to engage in competitive activities.

39. Chicagoland Aviation has no adequate remedy at law which would fully 

compensate it for the sudden loss of certain of its flight instructors and other staff, loss of 

airplanes from its fleet, the loss of its customers, good will, and confidential information, and 

the violations of its Confidentiality Agreement, and Chicagoland Aviation stands a reasonable 

likelihood of success on the merits in obtaining the relief requested herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHICAGOLAND AVIATION, LLC, respectfully prays that 

this Court find that Defendant Todd breached the Confidentiality Agreement entered into with 

Plaintiff and award Plaintiff the following relief: 

A. That the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order, without bond, as well as a 

Preliminary Injunction, restraining and enjoining Defendants and all persons in 

active concert or participation with them, either directly or indirectly, from:

(1) Using or disclosing at any time, or for any purpose (including the 

acceptance of any new clients or business), any of Chicagoland Aviation's 

confidential documents and information as described herein;

(2) Contacting any of the clients or prospective clients of Chicagoland 

Aviation, or otherwise competing with Chicagoland Aviation or soliciting 

clients or prospective clients of Chicagoland Aviation, unless and until 

Todd can establish that he can do so without misappropriating and/or 

disclosing Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information and without 

otherwise competing unfairly; and

(3) Interfering with the existing contractual relations and prospective 

economic advantage of Chicagoland Aviation; and

(4) Otherwise harming Chicagoland Aviation's business.

B. That Defendant Todd be ordered to:

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 21 of 26 PageID #:21
- 22 -

9951073.3

(1) Immediately return to Chicagoland Aviation all confidential information 

belonging to Chicagoland Aviation or relating to Chicagoland Aviation's 

business, including but not limited to pricing formulas or structures, client 

lists, contact information or other information identifying Chicagoland 

Aviation's current or prospective clients, and any and all specifications for 

use in servicing these clients, that Todd removed, copied, took, used, 

disseminated, obtained or reviewed, or that Defendants otherwise have in 

their possession, custody or control;

(2) Identify all customers of Chicagoland Aviation or past customers of 

Chicagoland Aviation whom Defendants may have contacted;

(3) Refrain from accepting Chicagoland Aviation customers who were 

improperly solicited by Defendants; and

(4) Provide a full and complete accounting of all revenues and profits earned 

by Defendants from the sale of any services, provided or otherwise, to any 

clients since Todd left the employ of Chicagoland Aviation.

(5) Remove from its Website, advertising, letterhead or other business 

communications any reference to its business the name “Chicago Premier 

Flight Training,” “Chicago’s Premier Flight Training,” or any such similar 

phrase and destroy any such letterhead, advertising or marketing material. 

C. That the Court impose a constructive trust on any and all revenues and profits 

earned or realized by Defendants which are related in any way to Defendants' use 

of Chicagoland Aviation's confidential information.

D. An award to Chicagoland Aviation of its general and special damages resulting 

from all of Defendants’ actions as alleged above, in an amount to be determined 

at trial;

E. That the Court order such other relief as may be just and required under the 

circumstances of this case.

COUNT VI

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS EXPECTANCY 

(All Defendants) 

1-28. Chicagoland Aviation repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-28, as paragraphs 1-28, 

inclusive, of this Count VI. 

29. Until events giving rise to these actions, Chicagoland Aviation had a reasonable 

expectancy that it would maintain business relationships with its customers, prospective 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 22 of 26 PageID #:22
- 23 -

9951073.3

customers and airplane owners, including the customers and airplane lessors that it serviced and 

maintained marketing agreements with while Todd was employed at Chicagoland Aviation. 

There was further a reasonable certainty that these relationships would continue indefinitely 

into the future, irrespective of Todd’s affiliation with Chicagoland Aviation. 

30. Chicagoland Aviation also had the reasonable expectation that these relationships 

would continue with Chicagoland Aviation after Todd left the employ of Chicagoland Aviation 

and would not be unjustifiably disrupted.

31. As a result of Todd’s position as Director of The Flying Club and a flight 

instructor, Todd and CPFT were well aware of the business relationships between Chicagoland 

Aviation and its customers, including those clients serviced by Todd while he was employed at 

Chicagoland Aviation.

32. Notwithstanding their knowledge of the existence of these valid business 

relationships, Todd and CPFT intentionally and unjustifiably interfered so as to induce or cause 

a breach or termination of Chicagoland Aviation’s expectancy of business relationships with 

these customers.

33. Since Todd’s departure, six (6) customers and one (1) airplane owner have ceased 

doing business with Chicagoland Aviation and started doing business with CPFT. 

34. Defendants’ intentional and unjustified interference with said expectancy was 

done through wrongful means including using Chicagoland Aviation’s confidential information 

and Chicagoland Aviation’s slogan as the name for Todd’s new company. 

35. Defendants knew of Chicagoland Aviation’s business expectations and have 

intentionally and wrongfully interfered with and are continuing to interfere with those client 

relationships.

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 23 of 26 PageID #:23
- 24 -

9951073.3

36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ tortious interference, Chicagoland 

Aviation has suffered economic damages. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHICAGOLAND AVIATION, LLC, respectfully prays that 

this Court find that Defendants tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s business expectancies and 

award Plaintiff the following relief: 

A. Ordering that Defendants be held liable for all general and special damages to 

Chicagoland Aviation arising from their tortious interference; 

B. Further ordering that Defendants: 

(1) Identify all customers of Chicagoland Aviation or past customers of 

Chicagoland Aviation who were improperly acquired by Defendant CPFT 

through Todd; and

(2) Provide a complete accounting of all revenues and profits earned as a 

result of the sale of any products or services to any Chicagoland Aviation 

past or present customer to whom services were provided by Todd, or any 

other employee who has since left to work for CPFT.

C. Imposition of a constructive trust on any and all revenues and profits earned or 

realized as a result of Defendant's interference with Chicagoland Aviation’s client 

relationships; 

D. Any other relief as may be just and required under the circumstances of this case.

COUNT VII

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

(Todd and CPFT)

1-28. Chicagoland Aviation repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-28, as paragraphs 1-28, 

inclusive, of this Count VII.

29. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware of the existing business and 

customer relationships enjoyed by Chicagoland Aviation. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 24 of 26 PageID #:24
- 25 -

9951073.3

30. More specifically, Defendants were aware of the marketing agreements that 

Chicagoland Aviation has with the owners of the airplanes Chicagoland Aviation uses when 

providing flight instruction. 

31. Despite this knowledge of Chicagoland Aviation's business, customer 

relationships and marketing agreements, CPFT and Todd undertook to use Chicagoland 

Aviation's business information and customer information to divert, and are attempting to 

divert, Chicagoland Aviation's customers and marketing agreements in order to obtain for 

themselves the customers, sales, markets, goodwill and profits of Chicagoland Aviation. 

32. Upon information and belief, Todd, on behalf of CPFT, convinced a Chicagoland 

Aviation client and airplane owner to abruptly terminate his marketing agreement with Plaintiff 

in mid-November 2011. The term of the marketing agreement was for 12 months, and was not 

set to expire until June 3, 2012. 

33. In addition, Todd, on behalf of CPFT, contacted another client doing business 

with Chicagoland Aviation, in an effort to get him to leave Plaintiff and terminate his marketing 

agreement with Chicagoland Aviation. 

34. Todd was, at all relevant times, aware of both marketing agreements with 

Chicagoland Aviation. 

35. Nonetheless, Todd, on behalf of CPFT, intentionally and without justification 

induced Chicagoland Aviation’s client to terminate his marketing agreement with Chicagoland

Aviation. 

36. Todd, on behalf of CPFT, similarly attempted to induce additional Chicagoland 

Aviation clients to terminate their marketing agreements with Chicagoland Aviation, but was 

unsuccessful. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 25 of 26 PageID #:25
- 26 -

9951073.3

37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ tortious interference, Chicagoland 

Aviation has suffered economic damages. 

38. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHICAGOLAND AVIATION, LLC, respectfully prays that 

this Court find that Defendants’ tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s existing contracts and award 

Plaintiff the following relief: 

A. Ordering that Defendants be held liable for all general and special damages to 

Chicagoland Aviation arising from their tortious interference; 

B. Further ordering that Defendants: 

(1) Identify all customers of Chicagoland Aviation or past customers of 

Chicagoland Aviation who were improperly acquired by Defendant CPFT 

through Todd; and

(2) Provide a complete accounting of all revenues and profits earned as a 

result of the sale of any products or services to any Chicagoland Aviation 

past or present customer to whom services were provided by Todd, or any 

other employee who has since left to work for CPFT.

C. Imposition of a constructive trust on any and all revenues and profits earned or 

realized as a result of Defendant's interference with Chicagoland Aviation’s client 

relationships; 

D. Any other relief as may be just and required under the circumstances of this case.

Respectfully submitted, 

CHICAGOLAND AVIATION, LLC

By:___/s Jenifer H. Caracciolo________________

One of its attorneys

David L. Newman (ARDC #6210912)

Jenifer H. Caracciolo (ARDC #6280221)

Robert A. McKenzie (ARDC #6293346)

Arnstein & Lehr LLP

120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 1200

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 876-7100

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 26 of 26 PageID #:26