PIZONKA, McGRORY, REILLEY, BELLO & McGRORY, P.C.

BY: JOSEPH P. PIZONKA, ESQUIRE

ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 23866

144 East DeKalb Pike, Suite 300

King of Prussia, PA 19406

(610) 992-1300 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

BANK EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL :

489 Shoemaker Road, Suite 110 :

King of Prussia, PA 19406 : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 02-CV-4076

Plaintiff :

:

v. :

:

KANG, d/b/a BANKCARD SERVICE, :

INCORPORATED et al. :

3055 Wilshire Blvd., 3rd Floor :

Los Angeles, CA 90010 :

:

and :

:

SOO Y. KANG, individually and/or /t/a :

RANCO MARKET :

930 23rd Street :

Richmond, CA 94804 :

:

and :

:

DOO YOUNG LEE, individually and/or t/a :

FELTON FAIR LIQUORS :

6273 Graham Hill Road :

Felton, CA 95018 :

:

and :

:

JENNY YU, individually and/or t/a :

MAYFAIR MARKET :

1 Mayfair Drive :

Salinas, CA 93955 :

:

and :

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 1 of 31
2

JEOUNG KIM, individually and/or t/a :

SALOMI VIDEO :

1038 E. El Camino Real :

Sunnyvale, CA 94087 :

:

and :

:

JUNG SOO KIM, individually and/or t/a :

DANNY’S MARKET :

1570 Pomeroy Avenue :

Santa Clara, CA 95051 :

:

and :

:

JEONG KIM, individually and/or t/a :

CLUB HOUSE CAFÉ & LOUNGE :

1010 S. Wolfe Road :

Sunnyvale, CA 94086 :

:

and :

:

YOUNG BIN YU, individually and/or t/a :

WEST SIDE LIQUOR :

1272 San Juan Road :

Hollister, CA 95023 :

:

and :

:

KAREN HA, individually and/or t/a :

ELCAMINO MONGOLIAN :

3380 El Camino Real :

Santa Clara, CA 95051 :

:

and :

:

RAGVINDER SANDHU, individually and/or t/a :

BON FARE MARKET #24 :

211 Port Chicago #4 West :

Bay Point, CA 94565 :

:

and :

:

HAMOND KU, individually and/or t/a/ :

BILL OF FARE RESTAURANT :

1005 Saratoga Avenue :

San Jose, CA 95129 :

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 2 of 31
3

:

and :

:

YEO JUNG LEE, individually and/or t/a :

SECATIDE, INC. :

1950 Fremont Blvd. :

Seaside, CA 93955 :

AMENDED COMPLAINT

The plaintiff, Bank Express International, Incorporated, by and through its

attorneys, Pizonka, McGrory, Reilley, Bello & McGrory, P.C. hereby files this Amended

Complaint and alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff, Bank Express International, Incorporated (“Bank Express”), is a

Pennsylvania corporation authorized to operate pursuant to the laws of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and having a principal place of business located at 489

Shoemaker Road, Suite 110, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.

2. Venue and Jurisdiction are proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

for the following reasons: 1) the contracts/agreements upon which this action is based

were executed and/or became effective in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and 2)

each Defendant signing a contract knowingly contracted with a Pennsylvania Corporation

and established minimum contacts with Pennsylvania, and 3) all of the significant acts of

performance, in accordance with the terms of the contracts at issue, were carried out by

Bank Express in Pennsylvania, and 4) the tortuous acts of interference against the

contracts at issue were intentionally and knowing committed, and 5) said acts

specifically and willfully targeted Bank Express, were aimed towards Bank Express and

willfully caused harm or tortuous injury in this Commonwealth. Venue in this District is

proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391 (a)(2), because a substantial part of the events

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 3 of 31
4

giving rise to the claim occurred within this judicial district. Bank Express believes it

will discover additional information, during the discovery process that will further

support Venue and Jurisdiction within this District.

3. Bank Express is in the business of enabling business owners to generate

revenue though their utilization of automated teller machines (“ATM”) at their business

locations. Bank Express enables a business owner to generate revenue by monitoring the

accurate electronic processing of each cash withdraw (“transaction”), which a customer

makes from an ATM maintained at the business owner’s establishment. Bank Express

monitors this electronic processing from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania.

4. For each transaction, a customer is charged a surcharge, usually in the

amount of One Dollar and Fifty Cents ($1.50). A standard Bank Express contract entitles

a business owner to eighty-five percent (85%) of each surcharge while Bank Express is

usually entitled to fifteen percent (15%). The percentages can vary depending on the

terms of each contract.

5. Bank Express often oversees the procurement of ATMs for business

owners by securing lease agreements between a business owner and a third-party leasing

company. Bank Express always secures lease agreements for business owners from its

principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Additionally, Bank Express

does not secure lease agreements for business owners from third-party leasing companies

until a business owner has completed and signed a Lease Application. The address of

Bank Express’ principal place of business, in Pennsylvania, is clearly printed across the

bottom of each Lease Application provided by Bank Express. Bank Express will not

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 4 of 31
5

begin to contact third party leasing companies until it has received a business owner’s

signed Lease Application in Pennsylvania.

6. Bank Express also provides business owners with network monitoring for

service or maintenance requirements and notifies business owners of those requirements.

Bank Express provides these services from its principal place of business in King of

Prussia, Pennsylvania.

7. Additionally, Bank Express accepts calls concerning technical difficulties

with its customers’ ATMs and arranges the servicing of the malfunctioning ATMs. Bank

Express provides this service from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania.

8. Bank Express sends each business owner monthly transaction summaries

and surcharge checks. The surcharge checks reflect the amount each business owner is

entitled to, based upon the preceding month’s surcharge revenue. Each transaction

summary and surcharge check is generated and mailed to each business owner from the

principal place of business of Bank Express. The return address for each mailing

envelope, containing a transaction summary or surcharge check, is Bank Express’ address

in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Additionally, each check identifies its maker as

“BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC., 489 SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF

PRUSSIA, PA 19406.”

9. Defendant, Soo Y. Yang, is an individual who is believed to be trading as

Rancho Market (“Rancho”), with a business address of 930 23rd Street, Richmond, CA

94804.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 5 of 31
6

10. On or about November 11, 1999, Rancho submitted a Bank Express Lease

Application, to Bank Express, whereby Rancho requested Bank Express secure Rancho a

lease agreement for an ATM with a third party leasing company. Rancho’s Lease

Application clearly identifies the former principal place of business of Bank Express

across the bottom as “8 Cynwyd Road, Suite 100, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004.” A copy of

Rancho’s Lease Application is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A.”

11. On or about November 15, 1999, Bank Express secured Rancho a lease

agreement with ACH Leasing. This lease agreement was secured by Bank Express from

its principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

12. On or about November 25, 1999, Rancho entered a written agreement

(“Rancho Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express offered and Ranco

accepted, monthly electronic automated teller machine processing services from Bank

Express for a period of five (5) years.

13. Rancho’s Agreeme nt identifies Bank Express as “a Pennsylvania

Corporation located at 489 Shoemaker Road Suite 110, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

19406....” Additionally, paragraph eleven (11) states “[t]his contract shall not be

effective until accepted by [Bank Express] and signed by its duly authorized

representative.” Rancho’s Agreement was signed by Rancho’s agent on November 19,

1999 and became effective when accepted and signed on November 25, 1999, by the

president of Bank Express in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Paragraph twelve (12)

further states “[t]his contract shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance

with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” A copy of the Rancho Agreement

is attached hereto, incorporated by reference and marked as Exhibit “B.”

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 6 of 31
7

14. Between December 1999 and, February 2002, Rancho received and

cashed monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Rancho. Bank Express

mailed said checks to Rancho from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania. Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC.,

489 SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.” The return

address for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank Express’

address in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

15. On or about, February 2002, Rancho breached the Rancho agreement by

unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of the Rancho

Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM processing

servicing to Bank Express.

16. Defendant, Doo Young Lee, is an individual who is believed to be trading

as Felton Fair Liquors (“Felton”), with a business address of 6273 Graham Hill Raod,

Felton, CA 95018.

17. On or about January 22, 2001 Felton submitted a Bank Express Lease

Application, to Bank Express, whereby Felton requested Bank Express secure Felton a

lease agreement for an ATM with a third party leasing company. Felton’s Lease

Application clearly identifies the principal place of business of Bank Express across the

bottom as “Bank Express International 489 Shoemaker Rd. Ste. 110, King of Prussia, PA

19406.” A copy of Felton’s Lease Application is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit

“C.”

18. Between January 22, 2001 and January 25, 2001, Bank Express attempted

to secure a lease agreement for Felton with three different leasing companies. These

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 7 of 31
8

efforts occurred from the principal place of business of Bank Express. All three of these

lease applications were rejected. On or about February 1, 2001, Bank Express secured

Felton a lease agreement with LEASECOMM. This lease agreement was secured by

Bank Express from its principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

19. On or about February 2, 2001, Felton entered a written agreement (“Felton

Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express offered and Felton accepted,

monthly electronic automated teller machine processing services from Bank Express for a

period of five (5) years.

20. Felton’s Agreement identifies Bank Express as “a Pennsylvania

Corporation located at 489 Shoemaker Road Suite 110, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

19406....” Additionally, paragraph eleven (11) states “[t]his contract shall not be

effective until accepted by [Bank Express] and signed by its duly authorized

representative.” Felton’s Agreement was signed by Felton’s agent on February 1, 2001

and became effective when accepted and signed on February 2, 2001, by the president of

Bank Express in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Paragraph twelve (12) further states

“[t]his contract shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws

of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” A copy of the Felton Agreement is attached

hereto, incorporated by reference and marked as Exhibit “D.”

21. Between March 2001 and February 2002, Felton received and cashed

monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Felton. Bank Express mailed said

checks to Felton from its principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC., 489

SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.” The return address

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 8 of 31
9

for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank Express’ address in

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

22. On or about, February 2002, Felton breached the Felton Agreement by

unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of the Felton

Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM processing

servicing to Bank Express.

23. Defendant, Jenny Yu, is an individual who is believed to be trading as

Mayfair Market (“Mayfair”), with a business address of 1 Mayfair Drive, Salinas, CA

94087.

24. On or about March 3, 2001, Mayfair submitted a Bank Express Lease

Application, to Bank Express, whereby Mayfair requested Bank Express secure Mayfair

a lease agreement for an ATM with a third party leasing company. Mayfair’s Lease

Application clearly identifies the principal place of business of Bank Express across the

bottom as “Bank Express International 489 Shoemaker Rd. Ste. 110, King of Prussia, PA

19406.” A copy of Mayfair’s Lease Application is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit

“E.”

25. On or about March 6, 2001, Bank Express secured Mayfair a lease

agreement with QL Capital, Inc. by convincing QL Capital to allow Mayfair to assume

the lease agreement of the former owner of Mayfair’s business. This lease agreement

assumption was secured by Bank Express from its principal place of business in King of

Prussia, Pennsylvania.

26. On or about March 9, 2001, Mayfair entered a written agreement

(“Mayfair Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express offered and Mayfair

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 9 of 31
10

accepted, monthly electronic automated teller machine processing services from Bank

Express for a period of five (5) years.

27. Mayfair’s Agreement identifies Bank Express as “a Pennsylvania

Corporation located at 489 Shoemaker Road Suite 110, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

19406....” Additionally, paragraph eleven (11) states “[t]his contract shall not be

effective until accepted by [Bank Express] and signed by its duly authorized

representative.” Mayfair’s Agreement was signed by Mayfair’s agent on or about March

9, 2001 and became effective when accepted and signed on or about March 9, 2001, by

the president of Bank Express in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Paragraph twelve (12)

further states “[t]his contract shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance

with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” A copy of the Mayfair

Agreement is attached hereto, incorporated by reference and marked as Exhibit “F.”

28. Between April 2001 and February 6, 2002, Mayfair received and cashed

monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Mayfair. Bank Express mailed

said checks to Mayfair from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania. Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC.,

489 SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.” The return

address for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank Express’

address in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

29. On or about February 6, 2002, Mayfair breached the Mayfair agreement

by unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of the Mayfair

Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM processing

servicing to Bank Express.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 10 of 31
11

30. Defendant, Jeoung Kim, is an individual who is believed to be trading as

Salomi Video (“Salomi Video”), with a business address of 1038 E. El Camino Real,

Sunnyvale, CA 94087.

31. On or about May 31, 2001, Salomi Video entered a written agreement

(“Salomi Video Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express offered and

Salomi Video accepted, monthly electronic automated teller machine processing services

from Bank Express for a period of five (5) years.

32. Salomi Video’s Agreement identifies Bank Express as “a Pennsylvania

Corporation located at 489 Shoemaker Road Suite 110, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

19406....” Additionally, paragraph eleven (11) states “[t]his contract shall not be

effective until accepted by [Bank Express] and signed by its duly authorized

representative.” Salomi Video’s Agreement was signed by Salomi Video’s agent on May

31, 2001 and became effective when accepted by the president of Bank Express in King

of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Paragraph twelve (12) further states “[t]his contract shall be

governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania.” A copy of the Salomi Video Agreement is attached hereto,

incorporated by reference and marked as Exhibit “G.”

33. Between June 2001 and, March 2002, Salomi Video received and cashed

monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Salomi Video. Bank Express

mailed said checks to Salomi Video from its principal place of business in King of

Prussia, Pennsylvania. Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS

INT’L, INC., 489 SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.”

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 11 of 31
12

The return address for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank

Express’ address in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

34. On or about March 2002, Salomi Video breached the Salomi Video

Agreement by unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of

the Salomi Video Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM

processing services to Bank Express.

35. Defendant, Jung Soo Kim, is an individual who is believed to be trading as

Danny’s Market (“Danny’s Market”), with a business address of 1570 Pomeroy Avenue,

Santa Clara, CA 95051.

36. On or about October 16, 1999, Danny’s Market submitted a Bank Express

Lease Application, to Bank Express, whereby Danny’s Market requested Bank Express

secure Danny’s Market a lease agreement for an ATM with a third party leasing

company. Danny’s Market’s Lease Application clearly identifies the former principal

place of business of Bank Express across its bottom as “8 Cynwyd Road, Suite 100, Bala

Cywnyd, PA 19004.” A copy of Danny’s Market’s Lease Application is attached hereto

and marked as Exhibit “H.”

37. On or about October 18, 1999, Bank Express secured Danny’s Market a

lease agreement with ACH LEASING. This lease agreement was secured by Bank

Express from its then principal place of business in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.

38. On or about October 18, 1999, Danny’s Market entered a written

agreement (“Danny’s Market Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express

offered and Danny’s Market accepted, monthly electronic automated teller machine

processing services from Bank Express for a period of five (5) years. A copy of the

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 12 of 31
13

Danny’s Market Agreement is attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit

“I.”

39. Danny’s Market’s Agreement identifies the address of Bank Express as “8

Cynwyd Road, Suite 100, Bala Cywnyd, PA 19004.” Additionally, Danny’s Market’s

Agreement specifically states that the contract was formed in Montgomery County,

Pennsylvania.

40. Between November 1999 and February 2002, Danny’s Market received

and cashed monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Danny’s Market. Bank

Express mailed said checks to Danny’s Market from its principal place of business in

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK

EXPRESS INT’L, INC., 489 SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA,

PA 19406.” The return address for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check

was Bank Express’ address in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

41. On or about, February 2002, Danny’s Market breached the Danny’s

Market agreement by unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the

expiration of the Danny’s Market Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to

return its ATM processing services to Bank Express.

42. Defendant, Jeong Kim, is an individual who is believed to be trading as

Club House Café & Lounge (“Club House”), with a business address of 1010 S. Wolfe

Road, Sunnyvale, CA 94086.

43. On or about May 31, 2001, Club House entered a written agreement

(“Club House Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express offered and Club

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 13 of 31
14

House accepted, monthly electronic automated teller machine processing services from

Bank Express for a period of five (5) years.

44. Club House’s Agreement identifies Bank Express as “a Pennsylvania

Corporation located at 489 Shoemaker Road Suite 110, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

19406....” Additionally, paragraph eleven (11) states “[t]his contract shall not be

effective until accepted by [Bank Express] and signed by its duly authorized

representative.” Club House’s Agreement was signed by Club House’s agent on May 31,

2001 and became effective when reviewed and accepted by the president of Bank

Express in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Paragraph twelve (12) further states “[t]his

contract shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” A copy of the Club House Agreement is attached

hereto, incorporated by reference and marked as Exhibit “J.”

45. Between June 2001 and March 5, 2002, Club House received and cashed

monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Club House. Bank Express mailed

said checks to Club House from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania. Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC.,

489 SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.” The return

address for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank Express’

address in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

46. On or about March 5, 2002, Club House breached the Club House

Agreement by unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of

the Club House Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM

processing services to Bank Express.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 14 of 31
15

47. Defendant, Young Bin Yu, is an individual who is believed to be trading

as West Side Liquor (“West Side”), with a business address of 1272 San Juan Road,

Hollister, CA 95023.

48. On or about May 30, 2001 West Side submitted a Bank Express Lease

Application, to Bank Express, whereby West Side requested Bank Express secure West

Side a lease agreement for an ATM with a third party leasing company. West Side’s

Lease Application clearly identifies the principal place of business of Bank Express

across the bottom as “Bank Express International 489 Shoemaker Rd. Ste. 110, King of

Prussia, PA 19406.” A copy of West Side’s Application is attached hereto and marked as

Exhibit “K.”

49. On or about May 30, 2001 West Side entered a written agreement (“West

Side Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express offered and West Side

accepted, monthly electronic automated teller machine processing services from Bank

Express for a period of five (5) years.

50. West Side’s Agreement identifies Bank Express as “a Pennsylvania

Corporation located at 489 Shoemaker Road Suite 110, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

19406....” Additionally, paragraph eleven (11) states “[t]his contract shall not be

effective until accepted by [Bank Express] and signed by its duly authorized

representative.” West Side’s Agreement was signed by West Side’s agent on May 30,

2001 and became effective when accepted and signed, on or about May 30, 2001 by the

president of Bank Express in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Paragraph twelve (12)

further states “[t]his contract shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 15 of 31
16

with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” A copy of the West Side

Agreement is attached hereto, incorporated by reference and marked as Exhibit “L.”

51. Between June 2001 and February 7, 2002, West Side received and cashed

monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to West Side. Bank Express mailed

said checks to West Side from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania. Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC.,

489 SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.” The return

address for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank Express’

address in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

52. On or about February 7, 2002,West Side breached the West Side

Agreement by unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of

the West Side Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM

processing services to Bank Express.

53. Defendant, Karen Ha, is an individual who is believed to be trading as

Elcamino Mongolian BBQ (“Elcamino”), with a business address of 3380 El Camino

Real, Santa Clara, CA 95051.

54. On or about September 20, 1999, Elcamino completed a Bank Express

ATM Order Form wherein Elcamino requested Bank Express order an ATM for

Elcamino. Said ATM Order Form clearly indicates the former business address for Bank

Express in the upper left hand corner. The document states “Bank Express of

Philadelphia, 8 Cynwyd Road & Union Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004.” A

copy of the ATM Order Form is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “M.”

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 16 of 31
17

55. On or about September 11, 1999, Elcamino submitted a Bank Express

Lease Application, to Bank Express, whereby Elcamino requested Bank Express secure

Elcamino a lease agreement for an ATM with a third party leasing company. Elcamino’s

Lease Application clearly identifies the former principal place of business of Bank

Express across the bottom as “8 Cynwyd Road, Suite 100, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004” A

copy of Elcamino’s Lease Application is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “N.”

56. On or about September 20, 1999, Bank Express secured a lease agreement

for Elcamino with ACH LEASING. This lease agreement was secured by Bank Express

from its principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

57. On or about September 20, 1999, Felton entered a written agreement

(“Elcamino Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express offered and

Elcamino accepted, monthly electronic automated teller machine processing services

from Bank Express for a period of five (5) years.

58. Elcamino’s Agreement identifies Bank Express as “a Pennsylvania

Corporation located at 489 Shoemaker Road Suite 110, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

19406....” Additionally, paragraph eleven (11) states “[t]his contract shall not be

effective until accepted by [Bank Express] and signed by its duly authorized

representative.” Elcamino’s Agreement was signed by Elcamino’s agent on or about

September 20, 1999 and became effective when accepted and signed, on or about

September 20, 1999, by the president of Bank Express in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Paragraph twelve (12) further states “[t]his contract shall be governed by, construed and

enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” A copy of

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 17 of 31
18

the Elcamino Agreement is attached hereto, incorporated by reference and marked as

Exhibit “O.”

59. Between October 1999 and February 2002, Elcamino received and cashed

monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Elcamino. Bank Express mailed

said checks to Elcamino from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania. Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC.,

489 SHOMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.” The return

address for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank Express’

address in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

60. On or about, February 2002, Elcamino breached the Elcamino Agreement

by unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of the Elcamino

Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM processing

services to Bank Express.

61. Defendant, Ragvinder Sandhu, is an individual who is believed to be

trading as Bonfare Market #24 (“Bonfare”), with a business address of 211 Port Chicago

#4 West, Bay Point, CA 94565.

62. On or about May 24, 2000, Bonfare submitted a Bank Express Lease

Application, to Bank Express, whereby Bonfare requested Bank Express secure Bonfare

a lease agreement for an ATM with a third party leasing company. Bonfare’s Lease

Application clearly identifies the principal place of business of Bank Express across the

bottom as “8 Cynwyd Road, Suite 100, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004.” A copy of Bonfare’s

Lease Application is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “P.”

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 18 of 31
19

63. On or about April 17, 2000, Bank Express secured a lease agreement for

Bonfare with ACH LEASING. This lease agreement was secured by Bank Express from

its principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

64. On or about April 25, 2000, Bonfare entered a written agreement

(“Bonfare Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express offered and Bonfare

accepted, monthly electronic automated teller machine processing services from Bank

Express for a period of five (5) years.

65. Bonfare’s Agreement identifies the address of Bank Express as “8

Cynwyd Road, Suite 1000, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004.” A copy of the Bonfare Agreement

is attached hereto, incorporated by reference and marked as Exhibit “Q.”

66. Between May 2000 and February 8, 2002, Bonfare received and cashed

monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Bonfare. Bank Express mailed

said checks to Bonfare from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania. Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC.,

489 SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.” The return

address for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank Express’

address in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

67. On or about, February 8, 2002, Bonfare breached the Bonfare Agreement

by unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of the Bonfare

Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM processing

services to Bank Express.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 19 of 31
20

68. Defendant, Hamond Ku, is an individual who is believed to be trading as

Bill of Fare (“Bill of Fare”), with a business address of 1005 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose,

CA 95129.

69. On or about April 27, 2000, Bank Express secured a lease agreement for

Bill of Fare with Smart Cash Leasing. This lease agreement was secured by Bank

Express from its principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

70. On or about April 27, 2000, Bill of Fare entered a written agreement (“Bill

of Fare Agreement”) with Bank Express whereby Bank Express offered and Bill of Fare

accepted, monthly electronic automated teller machine processing services from Bank

Express for a period of five (5) years. A copy of the Bill of Fare Agreement is attached

hereto, incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit “R.”

71. Bill of Fare’s Agreement identifies the address of Bank Express as “8

Cynwyd Road, Suite 1000, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004.”

72. Between May 2000 and May 8, 2002, Bill of Fare received and cashed

monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Bill of Fare. Bank Express mailed

said checks to Bill of Fare from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania. Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC.,

489 SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.” The return

address for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank Express’

address in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

73. On or about May 8, 2002, Bill of Fare breached the Bill of Fare

Agreement by unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 20 of 31
21

the Bill of Fare Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM

processing services to Bank Express.

74. Defendant, Yeo Jung Lee and/or Secatide, Incorporated is an individual

and/or is a corporation trading as Hiway Liquor (“Hiway”), with a business address of

1950 Fremont Blvd., Seaside, CA 93955.

75. On or about April 6, 2000, Hiway submitted a Bank Express Lease

Application to Bank Express, whereby Hiway requested Bank Express secure Hiway a

lease agreement for an ATM with a third party leasing company. Hiway’s Lease

Application clearly identifies the former principal place of business of Bank Express

across the bottom as “8 Cynwyd Road, Suite 100, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004.” A copy of

Hiway’s Lease Application is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “S.”

76. Between May 2, 2000 and May 3, 2002, Bank Express attempted to secure

Hiway a lease agreement with four (4) different leasing companies. All attempts were

rejected, as Hiway had derogatory credit, insufficient credit and/or minimal personal

credit. All attempts to secure Hiway a lease agreement were made by Bank Express from

its principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

77. On or about May 3, 2000, Bank Express leased an ATM from ACH

LEASING LLC. and provided said machine to Hiway, at Hiway’s location in California.

Bank Express entered this lease from its principal place of business in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania. Bank Express leased the ATM in reliance upon a five (5) year ATM Site

Location Agreement (“Location Agreement”) between Bank Express and Hiway. A copy

of same is attached hereto, incorporated by reference and marked as Exhibit “T.”

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 21 of 31
22

78. Pursuant to the Location Agreement, Hiway allowed Bank Express to

install an ATM machine, within Hiway’s place of business in California. Bank Express

was to pay Hiway a monthly fee for the placement of the ATM and a percentage of each

surcharge. The Location Agreement specifically identifies Bank Express as the

“Operator.” It also specifically states “[t]he jurisdiction and venue for any legal

proceeding to interpret or enforce this agreement shall be in the county where the

Operator . . .maintains its principal place of business or residence.” The Location

Agreement identifies this principal place of business of Bank Express as its former

address located at, 8 Cynwyd Rd., Suite 100, Bala Cynwyd, Pa 19004.

79. Between June, 2000 and February 2002, Hiway received and cashed

monthly surcharge checks mailed by Bank Express to Hiway. Bank Express mailed said

checks to Hiway from its principal place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Each said check identifies its maker as “BANK EXPRESS INT’L, INC., 489

SHOEMAKER ROAD, STE 110, KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406.” The return address

for each mailing envelope containing a surcharge check was Bank Express’ address in

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

80. On or about February 2002, Hiway breached the Hiway agreement by

unilaterally terminating Bank Express’ services before the expiration of the Hiway

Agreement’s term and by refusing, despite demand, to return its ATM processing

services to Bank Express.

81. Hereinafter, the above-identified Defendants will be collectively referred

to as the “Business Owner Defendants.”

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 22 of 31
23

82. In addition to the above-referenced connections to the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, Bank Express mailed each Business Owner Defendant, during the

pendency of the respective agreements, a monthly transaction summary from its principal

place of business in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. All checks and transaction

summaries were prepared and mailed from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

COUNT I

83. The paragraphs numbered one through eighty-one are hereby incorporated

herein as if set forth in their entirety.

84. Bank Express has performed all of its obligations pursuant to the

Agreements with the Business Owner Defendants in a complete, timely and satisfactory

manner.

85. The Business Owner Defendants have breached their respective

Agreements with Bank Express by unilaterally terminating its services before the

expiration of the Agreements’ terms and by refusing, despite demand, to return their

ATM servicing to Bank Express.

86. Bank Express has made immediate demand upon the Business Owner

Defendants for their return to Bank Express for ATM servicing and has and will suffer

the following ascertainable losses during the remaining term of each Agreement.

A) Defendant RANCHO-Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty

Dollars ($11,730.00).

B) Defendant FELTON-Four Thousand Six Hundred and Nintey-Two

Dollars (4,692.00).

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 23 of 31
24

C) Defendant MAYFAIR-One Thousand Two Hundred and FortyTwo Dollars ($1,242.00).

D) Defendant SALOMI VIDEO-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and

Six Dollars ($7,906.00).

E) Defendant DANNY’S MARKET-Three Thousand Two Hundred

and Twenty-Five Dollars ($3,225.00).

F) Defendant CLUB HOUSE-Four Thousand One Hundred and

Eighty-Six Dollars ($4,186.00).

G) Defendant WEST SIDE-Five Thousand Three Hundred and

Eighty-Two Dollars ($5,382.00).

H) Defendant ELCAMINO-One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty

Dollars ($1,840.00).

I) Defendant BONFARE-Twenty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and

Twenty-Five Dollars ($22,425.00).

J) Defendant BILL OF FARE-Ten Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty

Dollars ($10,260.00).

K) Defendant SECATIDE-Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Ten

Dollars ($13,110.00).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Business Owner

Defendants in the above stated amounts, plus interest, costs, and/or other relief

recoverable.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 24 of 31
25

COUNT II

87. Paragraphs one through eight-five are hereby incorporated herein by

reference as if fully set forth at length.

88. Business Owner Defendants accepted the performance of Bank Express

knowing Bank Express would expect payment for services rendered.

89. Business Owner Defendants accepted the performance of Bank Express

knowing Bank Express would expect the Business Owner Defendants to honor their

respective Agreements for the length of the Agreements.

90. Business Owner Defendants would be unjustly enriched if they were

permitted to accept the benefits of the performance of Bank Express without honoring

their Respective Agreements.

91. Business Owner Defendants have been unjustly enriched.

WHEREFORE, Bank Express demands judgment in its favor and against the

Business Owner Defendants, in the above stated amounts, plus interest, costs and/or other

relief recoverable.

COUNT III

92. Paragraphs one through ninety are incorporated herein by reference as if

fully set forth at length.

93. Bank Express believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Soo Y. Kang,

d/b/a Bank Card Service, Incorporated and or d/b/a Bank Card Services (“BCS”) is in the

business of providing ATM services similar to those that Bank Express offers its clients,

such as the Business Owner Defendants.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 25 of 31
26

94. Bank Express believes and therefore avers that BCS hired, or formed a

business relationship with, a former employee of Bank Express, namely an individual

known as Joone Johe (“Johe”).

95. Bank Express believes and therefore avers that at all times relevant hereto,

Johe acted in his individual capacity and as an officer, agent, authorized representative,

servant and/or employee of BCS.

96. Bank Express believes and therefore avers that at all times relevant hereto,

BCS acted though its agents, authorized representatives, servants, employees and/or

workmen, including, but not limited to Johe.

97. Prior to being associated with BCS, Johe was employed by Bank Express

as a sales representative for its ATM services.

98. Pursuant to his employment with Bank Express, Johe was responsible for

soliciting customers for Bank Express in the geographical areas wherein the Business

Owner Defendants are located.

99. During the term of his employment with Bank Express, Johe had access to

confidential information of Bank Express. Including but not limited to, customer lists,

sources of supply, employees, personnel policies, sales and services merchandising,

business plans, pricing/billing schedules, and copies of existing Agreements.

100. All of the confidential information and items set forth above were, and

should have been known by Johe, and later BCS, to be competitively sensitive

information which Bank Express treated, and Johe, and later BCS, knew or should have

known were given to Johe while Johe was held by Bank Express in a position of

confidence and trust by Bank Express. Johe, and later BCS, knew, or should have

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 26 of 31
27

known, that Johe was to treat, as confidential, proprietary information inasmuch as the

disclosure of such information and items would operate to the detriment of Bank Express,

and to the commercial advantage of the competitors of Bank Express, such as BCS.

101. During the term of Johe’s employment with Bank Express, Johe was the

representative of Bank Express in dealing with various of Bank Express’ customers,

including the Business Owner Defendants.

102. Shortly after leaving the employ of Bank Express, Johe went to work with

BCS.

103. At and around the time Johe left employ with Bank Express, Johe took for

his future use and for the future use of BCS, without the express or implied consent or

permission of Bank Express, various confidential information and other assets belonging

to Bank Express, including but not limited to confidential information concerning the

Business Owner Defendants. This information included but was not limited to files,

existing Agreements, pricing information, literature and sales copies of orders directly

connected to the Business Owner Defendants and that Johe provided and gave BCS such

confidential information.

104. Johe and BCS have used, and will continue to use, the confidential

information belonging to Bank Express to their commercial and competitive advantage

and to the commercial and competitive detriment of Bank Express.

105. Johe and BCS have made disparaging and untrue comments about Bank

Express to several of its customers, including the business Owner Defendants, for the

sole purpose of causing harm to the business of Bank Express.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 27 of 31
28

106. Sometime after leaving his employ with Bank Express, Johe, acting on his

own behalf and on behalf of BCS, or other BCS representatives, approached one or more

of Bank Express’ customers, in particular the Business Owner Defendants, for the

purpose of inducing the customers of Bank Express to cancel and breach their contracts

with Bank Express.

107. Subsequently, based on the actions of BCS, the Business Owner

Defendants all left ATM servicing with Bank Express and went to servicing with BCS.

108. Bank Express has and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if the

actions of Johe and BCS are not enjoined, including but not limited to the loss of

customers, profits, business reputation and market share, and the loss of confidential

business information.

109. Accordingly, Bank Express does not have an adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, Bank Express demands judgment against BCS and relief as

follows:

A) Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining BCS from

continuing to use confidential information of Bank Express and continuing to have

contact with the customer’s of Bank Express, including but not limited to, the Business

Owner Defendants;

B) An order directing BCS to return to Bank Express all of its

confidential information in the possession of BCS or under its control;

C) Compensatory damages; and

D) Such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 28 of 31
29

COUNT IV

110. Paragraphs one through one hundred and nine are incorporated herein by

reference as if fully set forth at length.

111. BCS, through its agents, authorized representatives, servants and/or

employees has willfully, repeatedly and without justification made untrue comments to

the clients and perspective clients of Bank Express for the sole purpose of causing injury

to the business reputation and good will of Bank Express.

112. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid actions of BCS, Bank

Express has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and harm that is likely

to continue unless enjoined.

WHEREFORE, Bank Express demands judgment against BCS and relief as

follows:

A) Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining BCS from

disparaging the reputation and goodwill of Bank Express;

B) Compensatory and punitive damages; and

C) Such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate.

COUNT V

113. Paragraphs one through one hundred and twelve are hereby incorporated

herein by reference as if fully set forth at length.

114. The use by BCS of the confidential information of Bank Express has and

will contiue to cause Bank Express immediate and irreparable harm for which Bank

Express has no adequate remedy at law.

115. Said wrongful acts will continue unless enjoined.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 29 of 31
30

WHEREFORE, Bank Express demands judgment against BCS and relief as

follows:

A) An award of compensatory and punitive damages;

B) An award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

C) Such other relief as this Honorable court deems appropriate.

COUNT VI

116. Paragraphs one through one hundred and fifteen are hereby incorporated

herein by reference as if fully set forth at length.

117. BCS on its own behalf has induced certain of the customers of Bank

Express to breach their contracts with Bank Express and switch their ATM servicing

from Bank Express to BCS, and;

118. Said acts of BCS were and continue to be without privilege, are otherwise

wrongful and tortious, are in complete disregard of the rights of Bank Express and are

intended only to benefit BCS, to the complete detriment of Bank Express.

119. As a result of these actions, Bank Express has suffered and will continue

to suffer immediate and irreparable harm for which Bank Express has no adequate

remedy at law.

120. Said wrongful acts will continue unless enjoined.

WHEREFORE, Bank Express demands judgment against BCS and relief as

follows:

A) Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining BCS’s

continued tortuous interference with the contractual relations of Bank Express;

B) An award of compensatory damages;

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 30 of 31
31

C) An award of punitive damages;

D) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

E) Such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

PIZONKA, McGRORY, REILLEY,

BELLO & McGRORY, P.C.

BY: 

 JOSEPH P. PIZONKA, ESQ.

Case 2:02-cv-04076-SD Document 5 Filed 08/26/2002 Page 31 of 31