Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 1 of 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JONATHAN VILLAREAL, individually 

and derivatively on behalf of 

ZROBLACK, LLC. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOHN SAENZ, MIGUEL 

VILLARREAL, JR., and GUNN, LEE, 

& CAVE, P.C.

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00571-OLG

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff, JONATHAN VILLAREAL, individually and derivatively on behalf of 

ZROBLACK, LLC, (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), files this Plaintiff’s First Amended Verified 

Complaint, to bring direct and derivative claims against Defendants, JOHN SAENZ, MIGUEL 

VILLARREAL, Jr., and GUNN, LEE, & CAVE, P.C. (collectively, the “Defendants”) and would 

respectfully show as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This lawsuit involves patented computer software and hardware technology that 

can wirelessly copy and securely delete data from password protected cell phones, tablets, and 

other portable electronic devices. The software was designed solely by Plaintiff Jonathan Villareal 

and is owned by Plaintiff ZroBlack, LLC (pronounced “ZeroBlack”). Because of its nature, this 

software has implications for national security.

2. Defendant John Saenz is the former CEO of ZroBlack and has misappropriated that 

technology by refusing to return a ZroBlack laptop, purchased with company funds, on which the 

code, hardware schematics, hardware drawings, and other patented, trademarked, sensitive, and 

confidential ZroBlack proprietary information is located. After parting ways with ZroBlack, Saenz 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 2 of 56

also refused to release ZroBlack’s GoDaddy account, which hosts ZroBlack’s domain name, 

webpage, email server, and allows access to ZroBlack’s LinkedIn business account, leaving 

Jonathan and ZroBlack without access to thousands of emails documents, client contact 

information, future company plans, business banking statements, business expense receipts, 

NDA’s with 3rd parties, signed contracts with 3rd party electronics resellers such as Walmart, Best

Buy, Target, Amazon and much more critical data that ZroBlack has needed for over 16 months 

to operate, file taxes, apply for the paycheck protection program (to no avail). Saenz has also 

intentionally destroyed and is currently compromising data owned by ZroBlack, including 

ZroBlack’s webpage which has been unsecured for 16 months, further damaging ZroBlack’s 

reputation as a security engineering firm. Saenz has deleted jv@zroblack.com, and 

info@zroblack.com, actions that were confirmed by emails from GoDaddy. See Appendix, Exhibit 

41. Saenz has only kept je@zroblack.com active, which is the email address Saenz used when he 

was employed by ZroBlack. Saenz has also renewed the ZroBlack.com domain name for another 

year.

3. Further proof of Saenz’s actions can be seen by going to http://email.zroblack.com 

and clicking the forgot password link. If the user types in the email address je@zroblack.com as 

the email address for which he has forgotten the password, he is given 3 different options to reset 

the password; one of the options is to send a password reset link to Saenz’s personal Gmail account. 

If the user were to try and click forgot password, however, for jv@zroblack.com and 

info@zroblack.com the GoDaddy email servers say, “The email address does not exist in our 

system.”

4. Additionally, because Saenz has not released the GoDaddy account ZroBlack, 

cannot update its contact and ownership information for its Dun & Bradstreet number (known as 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 3 of 56

a (DUNS number) which is critical for establishing business credit, bidding on government 

contracts, and filing business taxes. ZroBlack is not able to access, verify ownership of or update 

information for the following Government Issued IDs that can only be accessed on official US 

Government Websites: CAGE number (Commercial and Government Entity” code), NCAGE 

(NATO Commercial and Government Entity), USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark 

Office), Federal Service Desk (FSD.gov), United States Grants (Grants.gov), U.S. Small Business 

Administration (sba.gov), Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, ZroBlack Wells Fargo Business 

Banking Login, and access to Restricted FOUO (For Official Use Only) government contracts 

listed on SAM.gov (System for Award Management), The Official United States Government 

portal for verified and vetted business entities allowed to bid on US Government contracts. Saenz 

setup these accounts for ZroBlack using his personal cellphone number as a contact number, and 

Jonathan’s physical home address as the place of business for ZroBlack since the government 

would not take PO Boxes for business addresses. ZroBlack also cannot obtain an Apple Business 

Developer’s account. For security purposes Apple needs to verify the phone number associated 

with ZroBlack’s DUNS phone number. This phone number is Saenz’s personal cell phone number. 

The Apple Business account for ZroBlack was established the day that Saenz purchased the 

company MacBook Pro at the Apple store with company funds. Apple has made several attempts 

have Saenz change his phone number, and emails from Apple state that Saenz has refused. To 

further add insult to injury Saenz even refused to return the keys to ZroBlack’s mailbox that 

Jonathan paid a year for and signed a contract stating that fees will be incurred if mailbox keys are 

not returned. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 4 of 56

5. These actions have already caused ZroBlack significant damages, including loss of 

several multi-million-dollar contracts with the 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has original federal question jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff has asserted a cause of action arising under 

the laws of the United States, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (Defend Trade Secrets Act), 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1030(g) (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), and 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) (Anti-cybersquatting 

Consumer Protection Act).

7. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear 

Plaintiffs’ other causes of action, all of which are so related that they form part of the same case 

or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as Defendants are in and carry 

on their business in the State of Texas. Defendants John Saenz and Miguel Villareal, Jr. both reside 

within the Western District of Texas and Gunn, Lee, & Cave, P.C. is headquartered in Bexar 

County within the Western District of Texas. 

9. Venue in this Judicial District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

III. PARTIES

10. Plaintiff, Jonathan Villareal (“Jonathan”) is an individual with his place of 

residence in Boerne, Kendall County, Texas. Jonathan brings this suit individually and derivatively 

as the sole member on behalf of ZroBlack, LLC (“ZroBlack”).

11. Defendant John Saenz (“Saenz”) is an individual who has appeared in this suit 

through undersigned counsel.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 4 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 5 of 56

12. Defendant Miguel Villarreal, Jr. (“Mike” ) is an individual who has appeared in this 

suit through undersigned counsel.

13. Defendant Gunn, Lee, & Cave, P.C. (“Gunn Law Firm”) is a corporation who has 

appeared in this suit through undersigned counsel.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Formation of ZroBlack, LLC

14. Jonathan Villarreal is a talented programmer who suffers from agoraphobia, a 

condition which, due to acute anxiety, prohibits him from having too many people around him. 

Even so, Jonathan obtained a master’s degree in computer science, specializing in security 

engineering, and is a doctoral candidate working on his thesis, “The Weaponization of Data 

Clearing”. 

15. As the practical application of his academic studies, Jonathan developed 

proprietary technology which allows the user of that tech to access cell phones and tablets, 

including iPhones and iPads. This technology can be used to access a cell phone wirelessly and 

wipe the data. This is useful in that, if a user’s phone is stolen, he can wipe its data remotely even 

if the security password has been changed. Jonathan’s software and hardware inventions have been 

met with wide praise in publications that report on cutting edge technology. As part of Jonathan’s 

doctoral studies, 

 Unfortunately, Jonathan’s outstanding reputation for this type of work 

can never be translated into a profitable business as long as Saenz has ZroBlack in a vice grip, 

turning the vice everyday he holds ZroBlack data, and funds hostage.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 5 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 6 of 56

16. Not only does Jonathan’s software delete and erase data from secure cell phones, 

but it can also copy the cell phone data wirelessly and can even recover data that has supposedly 

been deleted. This includes data from Apple, Inc. iPhones and iPads. As the Court may be aware, 

Apple, Inc. resists government efforts to “crack” cell phone security. As recently as January 2020, 

CNBC reported that U.S. Attorney General William Barr was alleging Apple had not helped the 

FBI break into password-protected phones used by Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, the suspect 

accused of killing three people in December 2019 at a Pensacola, Florida navy base.1 Apple also 

caught flak for opposing a federal court order to access encrypted cellphone data on iPhones 

belonging to the terrorist couple who killed 14 people in San Bernardino in 2015.2Jonathan 

Villarreal’s software and hardware solutions solve that problem and is thus of significant interest

to the U.S. government.

17.

1

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/13/barr-says-apple-not-providing-substantive-assistanceon-locked-iphone.html.

2

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fbi-apple-san-bernardino-phone-20160216-

story.html.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 6 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 7 of 56

18. In October of 2018 Jonathan was negotiating with , a 

subsidiary of for the licensing of the technology (hereinafter, ). 

 specializes in data 

erasure for governments and businesses. According to cybersecurityintelligence.com, is 

a leading global provider of mobile device diagnostics and secure data erasure solutions and is the 

industry standard in data erasure and mobile device diagnostics. The site also states that 

data erasure solutions have been tested, approved, certified, and recommended by more than 15 

governments.

19. Although Jonathan had created these products all on his own, he knew he would 

need help with marketing his technology for sale, whether to or some other company. 

Unfortunately, the associate he was attempting to work with initially was not able to perform and 

they parted ways before the technology could be sold.

20. After speaking with Jonathan about his tech inventions in the last week of 

December 2018 John Saenz (“Saenz”), who is married to Jonathan’s cousin, decided he wanted a 

piece of the action, stating to Jonathan in a text message, “How can I ride this train.” Saenz claimed 

that he could fill voids Jonathan’s previous associate could not fill. Saenz falsely represented to 

Jonathan that he had the business experience and government contacts to market the technology 

to the government. He falsely represented that he could use his “contacts” in the military and 

technology business sectors to bolster sales and proposed forming a company as a vehicle to 

market the technology. That company was to be ZroBlack. Jonathan believed him and, as a family 

member, trusted him. Relying on those representations, and others, Jonathan agreed to form a 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 7 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 8 of 56

limited liability company with Saenz to market the software to , with Saenz as CEO and 

Jonathan taking on the technology role. See Appendix, Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Jonathan 

Villareal). 

21. Jonathan paid the registered agent for the formation of Zroblack LLC and for a 

year’s worth of service for a post office box for ZroBlack, LLC . Jonathan agreed to pay for these 

larger upfront company expenses because he was the only one able to. Since Jonathan purchased 

the registration and the first year of service at the post office box, Saenz agreed to purchase 

ZroBlack’s domain name, www.zroblack.com, from GoDaddy. After Jonathan walked him 

through the process and explained to Saenz what a “Zero-day” vulnerability was, and how it related 

to “Black” ops, Saenz reserved the www.zroblack.com domain name on behalf of ZroBlack. Saenz 

had given Jonathan access to the GoDaddy account where the domain was being held, but that 

access was later revoked, and the password was changed once Saenz and Jonathan signed the 

Release. Login records, password change, and email deletion records for all Zroblack.com activity 

live on Godaddy.com. The login and password information for accessing ZroBlack’s GoDaddy 

account is a trade secret of ZroBlack. See Appendix, Exhibit 1.

22. On January 14, 2019, Jonathan and Saenz formed ZroBlack, LLC, organized under 

the laws of the State of Delaware. See Appendix, Exhibit 2. They were its founding members and 

each owned fifty percent disregarding their original agreement. ZroBlack was founded as a 

security engineering firm established to provide applications and services regarding cell phone 

data capture and erasure. ZroBlack planned to offer two different types of software, one for 

commercial use and one for governmental use. Jonathan Villareal was charged with performing 

all the in-house coding, hardware engineering, and servicing of the technology. Saenz was charged 

with client engagement and promoting the company. See Appendix, Exhibit 1.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 8 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 9 of 56

23. Jonathan and Saenz executed a Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement 

for ZroBlack, LLC (“Operating Agreement”). See Appendix, Exhibit 3. A key term of that 

agreement pertained to ZroBlack’s ownership of property. Section 4.7 of the ZroBlack’s Limited 

Liability Company Agreement states:

Title to the Company's assets will be held in the Company's name or 

in the name of any nominee designated by the Members. The 

Members have power to enter into a nominee agreement with any 

person, and that agreement may contain provisions indemnifying the 

nominee, except for his or her willful misconduct.

24. After the formation of ZroBlack, on March 31, 2019, Jonathan assigned to 

ZroBlack his intellectual property rights in the software code he developed. See Appendix, Exhibit 

4. 

25. ZroBlack’s trade secrets included Villareal’s code for wirelessly wiping or

downloading information from cell phones and tablets, recovering erased data from cell phones 

and tablets, as well as the drawings and schematics for the hardware that makes the aforementioned 

possible. 

26. The code for the software is identified in Exhibit 4, the intellectual property 

assignment. See Appendix, Exhibit 1. After Jonathan assigned his software and hardware 

inventions to ZroBlack as his capital contributions, ZroBlack became one of the few companies in 

the world that can perform the remote penetration of passcode protected mobile electronic devices.

27. In connection with his duties as CEO, Saenz purchased a 15-inch Apple MacBook 

Pro on May 2, 2019 for $2,631.00. A copy of the purchase order and receipt is attached as Exhibit 

5. The purchase order reflects that the laptop was ordered “John Saenz, ZroBlack, at 1150 N. Loop 

1604-W, Ste 108-259, San Antonio, Texas 78248,” which was ZroBlack’s post office address. It 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 9 of 56
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 10 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 11 of 56

distribution of funds. Saenz refused to attend the meeting with the payroll service, and the cut all 

communications. See Appendix, Exhibit 8.

35. ZroBlack retained the services of Gunn, Lee & Cave (hereinafter, “Gunn, Lee law 

firm”) and specifically attorney Miguel “Mike” Villareal (hereinafter, “Mike”)3to advise them on 

the contract negotiations. Shortly before signing, on or about April 12, 2019, Jonathan emailed 

Mike discussing negotiations. In the mail, Jonathan stated:

John and I went through it last tonight, he had concerns, but at the 

end of our talks we worked out the logic behind the revenue sharing. 

I hope this closes today too, hard lessons have been learned for sure. 

If we sign today, it’s basically as though we are getting a $750,000 

salary each for 2019. Do you have a recommendation for an attorney 

that can setup a trust for me?

36. See Appendix, Exhibit 9 (email). The email demonstrates that $1.5 million dollars 

was to constitute salary for Jonathan and Saenz through the end of 2019. The money was not a 

gift, nor was it deemed earned upon the signing of the contract.

37. Before the PSA was signed required a legal document that identified all of 

ZroBlack’s assets. 

38. This document entitled IP Due Diligence was filled out by Saenz and emailed to 

 executives, legal counsel, and Mike Villarreal. 

39. The IP Due Diligence document lists ZroBlack.com among other domains, and as 

intellectual property ZroBlack owns. The IP document also includes the ZroBlack LinkedIn 

business account as an asset. See Appendix, Exhibit 39. 

40. The PSA included confidentiality provisions. Section 7.1 provided that all 

deliverables and inventions and all other information (including computer programs, technical 

3 There is no familial relationship between Plaintiff Jonathan Villarreal and defendant Miguel 

Villarreal.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 11 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 12 of 56

drawings, algorithms, know-how, formulas, processes, ideas, inventions (whether patentable or 

not), schematics, and other technical, business, financial, and customer and product development 

plans, forecasts, strategies and information) that ZroBlack, Jonathan, and Saenz developed, 

learned, or obtained in connection with the services they rendered under the PSA constituted the 

proprietary information of . See Appendix, Exhibit 7.

41. ZroBlack, Jonathan, and Saenz were required to hold that information in confidence 

and not use or disclose it. Section 7.2 of the PSA stated that upon termination of the PSA or as 

otherwise requested by , ZroBlack, Jonathan, and Saenz would promptly return to 

all items and containing or embodying proprietary information including all deliverables and 

works-in-progress. See Appendix, Exhibit 7.

42. When Mike and the Gunn, Lee law firm represented ZroBlack, the representation 

began as a normal corporate representation, where the law firm and the attorney (“Michael” or 

“Mike”) were advising the members on matters regarding the company, including the contract with 

. See Appendix, Exhibit 12. 

43. Soon after ZroBlack executed the PSA with , however, Jonathan and Saenz 

came to cross purposes over Saenz’s lack of performance, misappropriation of company funds, 

and efforts to shop the tech to others in violation of the . See Appendix, Exhibit 

1.

C. Saenz Attempts to Shop Secret Code to Others

44. Although ZroBlack had signed the NDA and later the PSA (with its own 

confidentiality provisions) with , 

45. Saenz tried to shop the technology to others, including an individual named Roger 

Graham, who was formerly with UBS Financial and, currently, employed by Wells Fargo. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 12 of 56
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 13 of 56
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 14 of 56
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 15 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 16 of 56

Jonathan began selling his personal property including electronics and his wife’s wedding ring to 

ensure that ZroBlack could maintain working capital. See Appendix, Exhibit 1.

66. Because Saenz was married to Jonathan’s cousin, their falling out began to cause 

strife in the family. The family relationship was very important to Jonathan, and Mike began 

pressuring Jonathan that he needed to settle with Saenz by “thinking about the family.”

67. After Jonathan and Saenz disagreed on how to qualify his theft of $740,000 from 

ZroBlack, the two members decided it was time to part ways. 

68. The money that Saenz had stolen from the company was to be returned, on a basis 

to be structured by Mike and the Gunn, Lee law firm. Although Mike represented Jonathan, 

ZroBlack, and Saenz, no reasonable lawyer could believe that such representation of each client 

would not be materially affected. 

69. Moreover, he did not advise Jonathan or ZroBlack as to the consequences of what 

they were doing and structured an agreement that hurt both Jonathan Villarreal and ZroBlack.

70. On or about July 17, 2019, Jonathan sent a text message to Saenz, saying:

Thanks for the call, it’s disappointing that you had no idea we had a 

product released already. It’s disappointing that you were not on the 

phone call this morning for our morning meeting. It’s disappointing 

that you never responded to my emails letting me know what you 

did for our client that paid our company $1.5 million, it’s 

disappointing that you say you’re going to taking [sic] legal action 

against , it’s disappointing that you cannot provide me with 

what you have done for our client for the last 2 months.

See Exhibit 14 (Text message dated July 17, 2019).

71. Saenz began demanding that the $740,000 he took from ZroBlack be characterized 

as a “gift” for tax purposes; this, Jonathan refused to do as it would violate the law. See Exhibit 1 

(Declaration of Jonathan Villareal). For example, in a text message July 27, 2019 Saenz offered to 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 16 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 17 of 56

assign all interest in ZroBlack to Jonathan if the $740,000 would be characterized as a gift. See

Appendix, Exhibit 27.

72. Mike and the Gunn, Lee law firm eventually prepared a document titled “Release.” 

See Appendix, Exhibit 15. The Release stated that Saenz would receive as consideration 2% (and 

ZroBlack 12.5%) of the 14.5% Earn-Out Obligation under the PSA.

73. Although the Release assigned all of Saenz’s interest in ZroBlack to Jonathan, it 

made no express provision for the return of the $740,000 to ZroBlack, despite continued requests 

by Jonathan that the money be returned. 

74. The Release also contained no express requirement that Saenz return personal 

property to ZroBlack, which included not only the $740,000 and a laptop computer belonging to 

ZroBlack, but also ZroBlack’s proprietary and trade secret information, as well as ZroBlack’s 

domain name, webpage, and email server. 

75. The Release contained no provision that the parties would cooperate in the transfer 

of intangible assets, such as ZroBlack’s DUNs and CAGE numbers, or the ZroBlack domain. 

76. By failing to include these provisions, Mike and Gunn, Lee create a vague and 

ambiguous document that made it unclear ZroBlack still owned these things and that Saenz was 

required to return them.

77. The Release did require the execution of a Unanimous Written Consent in Lieu of 

Meeting by ZroBlack’s membership (hereinafter, “Consent”) wherein the parties agreed that 

Saenz’s would assign all of his ownership interest in ZroBlack. 

78. The Consent is part of the Release and requires return of the money, the computer 

and trade secrets, and the domain name, webpage, and email server. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 17 of 56
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 18 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 19 of 56

88. This was an ongoing dispute between Saenz and Jonathan, who anticipated 

providing service to the United States federal government. Jonathan told Saenz that he (Jonathan) 

would never agree to qualify $740,000 Saenz embezzled as a gift. 

89. In fact, Jonathan gave Saenz an ultimatum: return the money, or face the harsh 

consequences. This was the same discussion he had with attorney Mike Villareal and his law firm, 

Gunn, Lee. See Appendix, Exhibit 1.

90. On August 15, 2019, Jonathan asked Saenz to release ZroBlack’s webpage. Saenz 

said he would “look into it.” See Appendix, Exhibit 18 and Exhibit 19. Saenz had already deleted 

jv@zroblack.com on August 14th, 2019. 

91. Jonathan received an email from GoDaddy to his backup address showing that 

jv@zroblack.com has been deleted. See Appendix, Exhibit 41. John had no intention of looking 

into anything or assigning anything over to ZroBlack or Jonathan. 

92. Despite multiple requests for over 16 months for return, Saenz continues to hold 

the domain name. Adding insult to injury, Saenz blackmailed ZroBlack over the domain name, 

webpage, and email server, offering to sell it back to ZroBlack for $7,000. 

93. Now, Saenz has taken the website down effectively terminating ZroBlack’s ability 

to gain new clients. 

94. Saenz also deleted the email server, thereby destroying thousands of emails and 

documents supporting Jonathan’s claims, ZroBlack’s projects for and other matters. 

95. Saenz currently holds ZroBlack’s domain name hostage, so Jonathan has no access 

to the site and no opportunity to attempt to recover the webpage and emails. GoDaddy is the service 

provider. See Appendix, Exhibit 1.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 19 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 20 of 56

96. Jonathan asked Saenz to return the laptop computer belonging to ZroBlack. Saenz 

refused this request also. This computer contains proprietary code related to ZroBlack’s phone 

security project. See Appendix, Exhibit 1.

97. On September 13, 2019, Jonathan emailed Mike advising him that Saenz had 

deleted all his emails. See Appendix, Exhibit 20. Then, on September 13, 2019, Jonathan emailed 

Mike pleading for help:

I’m beside myself right now, and really struggling with everything, 

I can’t eat, I can’t sleep, my anxiety and stress is so high, and for the 

next 3 years if I continue like this I’ll end up losing my contracts 

and not be able to work.

I have worked too hard to allow myself to slip like this. I need help 

Mike, this is not right. I’ve done nothing wrong. John got $750,000 

cash, and there has to be a way for me to stop this madness, get him 

to give up the 2%, get my company website, my company 

documents, and my company computer. Like I said, I have a 

company that pays real taxes, has 10 real employees, we have a real 

physical location, and I can’t even put up my company website.

See Appendix, Exhibit 21. Mike continued to try to negotiate a resolution between Jonathan and 

Saenz.

98. On or about September 19, 2019, Jonathan again emailed Saenz, copying Mike, 

demanding the return of ZroBlack’s property, including the laptop containing proprietary code, 

ZroBlack’s web domain and webpage, and ZroBlack’s emails. 

99. Jonathan also demanded return of the $740,000 Saenz misappropriated from 

ZroBlack. See Appendix, Exhibit 22. 

100. Jonathan sent a similar email to Saenz and Mike on September 20, 2019, explaining 

why he believed Saenz should return the $740,000 and other property of ZroBlack. See Appendix, 

Exhibit 23.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 20 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 21 of 56

101. On or about September 26, 2019, Mike Villareal tried to arrange a meeting between 

Jonathan and Saenz to discuss settling their disagreement and offered his offices as a place to have 

the discussions. 

102. Mike gave his available days and stated that “we are trying to resolve your 

differences, not attempting to take advantage of each other. I appreciate you both willing to show 

good faith on both your parts in coming together and seeing if a resolution can be reached.” See

Appendix, Exhibit 24.

103. Despite promises to appear for a meeting, Saenz kept putting it off with a litany of 

excuses until Jonathan, fed up, stated he would not be attending a meeting and had decided to go 

in a different direction. See Appendix, Exhibit 25. 

104. As of the filing of the complaint, Saenz has not returned the money he took from 

ZroBlack, nor has he returned the web domain and webpage, emails, laptop, and proprietary 

information belonging to ZroBlack. 

105. Saenz continues to hold on to ZroBlack’s property and refuses to return it, including 

the ZroBlack laptop that contains proprietary information and trade secrets belonging to ZroBlack. 

Saenz also threatened Jonathan that he would “muck up” his life if Jonathan did not turn over the 

company and assign it to him. Jonathan begged Saenz not to do this to him. See Appendix, Exhibit 

1. 

106. Furthermore, Jonathan Villareal rightfully placed his absolute trust in Mike 

Villareal and his law firm, the Gunn, Lee law firm. 

107. Jonathan Villareal is not an attorney and is not familiar with legal issues. He is, 

however, highly skilled in IT matters. He trusted and relied on Mike Villareal and his firm to guide 

him and navigate the transaction with Saenz. At all times relevant and material to this lawsuit, 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 21 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 22 of 56

Jonathan Villareal rightfully placed his trust in his lawyer and law firm, just as ZroBlack did with 

its corporate counsel.

108. Unfortunately, Mike Villareal had a conflict of interest that he ignored. He also 

failed to disclose the extent of his relationship with Saenz to Jonathan. 

109. Mike’s relationship with Saenz was so cozy that Mike was cutting Saenz a discount 

of the share of fees he charged Saenz, while charging Jonathan for the full amount of Jonathan’s 

share. Mike continued to pressure Jonathan to resolve the dispute for “the sake of the family.” See

Appendix, Exhibit 1. 

110. Neither Jonathan Villareal nor ZroBlack anticipated they would be betrayed by the 

law firm, Gunn or Mike Villarreal in the way they were.

F. Final Attempts to get Saenz to Return Money and Property Owed to ZroBlack

111. On or about February 22, 2020, Jonathan Villareal attempted to contact Defendant 

Saenz to collect back the money that he had taken at the close of the deal with . 

112. After the Parties agreed to sign ZroBlack over to Jonathan, Saenz failed to turn over 

all company assets including money, computers, GoDaddy domain with email server and website, 

non-disclosure agreements, company contacts, original documents, and everything else that 

belonged to ZroBlack. See Appendix, Exhibit 1.

G. Saenz Thwarts ZroBlack and Attempt to Contract with the 

113. After the Release was executed and Saenz and ZroBlack and Jonathan parted ways, 

Jonathan, ZroBlack, and pursued a contract with the . 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 22 of 56
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 23 of 56
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 24 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 25 of 56

actions, there was a reasonable probability the would have entered into a contract 

with Jonathan, ZroBlack, and . 

131. Saenz’s actions were a proximate cause of Jonathan, ZroBlack, and losing 

the contract, and their damages.

H. Saenz Refuses Demand for Return of the Code and Blocks ZroBlack from 

 Work by Withholding Its Account Credentials

132. John Saenz also continues to refuse to return to ZroBlack its proprietary code. Some 

of that code, through ZroBlack’s contract with , is proprietary to as well. On July 

9, 2020, sent Saenz a demand letter reminding him of his obligation to return the 

proprietary property. Saenz has not done so. Exhibit 33.

133. In addition to the DUNS information, Saenz has refused to return or allow access 

to ZroBlack’s SAM.gov account and CAGE number. “SAM” stands for System Award 

Management and is a U.S. government portal for bidding on government contracts. It is managed 

by the Department of Transportation. 

134. Current and potential government vendors must obtain a SAM registration in order 

to be awarded contracts by the government. SAM.gov requires companies to obtain a SAM 

registration, which consists of a login name and password.4

135. SAM also issues what is known as a CAGE number. CAGE stands for 

“Commercial and Government Entity Code” and likewise allows businesses to qualify for federal 

contracts and grants.

136. ZroBlack has had to file complaints with the Federal Help Desk and Defense 

Logistics Agency because Saenz is effectively holding the SAM.gov login information and CAGE 

4

https://www.transportation.gov/osdbu/system-award-management-sam.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 25 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 26 of 56

number hostage and has prevented ZroBlack from competing for government contracts. 

Furthermore, on information and belief, Saenz is holding himself out as ZroBlack using the 

SAM.gov login and CAGE number. Attached as Exhibits 34 and 35 are ZroBlack’s 

communications with the Federal Help Desk and Defense Logistics Agency regarding ZroBlack’s 

complaint. These exchanges show that both agencies have forwarded ZroBlack’s complaints to 

their legal and fraud departments.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

Count 1: Violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836,

and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”)

137. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

138. The Defend Trade Secrets Act defines trade secrets to encompass “all forms and 

types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including 

patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, 

techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether 

or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, 

photographically, or in writing.” 18 U.S.C §1839(3). 

139. The Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act defines trade secrets to mean “all forms and 

types of information, including business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering 

information, and any formula, design, prototype, pattern, plan, compilation, program device, 

program, code, device, method, technique, process, procedure, financial data, or list of actual or 

potential customers or suppliers, whether tangible or intangible and whether or how stored, 

compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in 

writing.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(6).

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 26 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 27 of 56

140. Under both statutes the owner must have taken steps reasonable under the 

circumstances to keep the information secret and the information must derive independent 

economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily 

ascertainable through proper means, by another person who can obtain economic value from 

disclosure. 18 U.S.C §1839(3)(A), (3)(B); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(6)(A), 

(6)(B).

141. An owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action under 

the Defend Trade Secrets Act if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or 

intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1). Likewise, Texas’ 

Uniform Trade Secrets Act authorized a private cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.001 et seq.

142. Misappropriation means acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who 

knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or disclosure 

or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who used 

improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret. 18 U.S.C §1839(5). Improper means 

includes theft or breach of a duty to maintain secrecy. 18 U.S.C §1839(6). Misappropriation of a 

trade secret under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act includes acquiring the trade secret with 

knowledge it was acquired by improper means. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 

134A.002(3)(B)(i). Improper means includes theft.

143. ZroBlack is the owner of trade secrets related to a product or services used in 

interstate and foreign commerce. 

144. ZroBlack’s trade secrets were comprised of its proprietary software code and 

hardware built and maintained by Jonathan and which could be used to access cell phones 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 27 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 28 of 56

wirelessly, its login and password information for accessing its GoDaddy account (where its 

webpage and email server were hosted), and other information.

145. ZroBlack derived independent economic value from its trade secrets not being 

generally known or readily ascertainable by legal means. 

146. ZroBlack is one of the only companies in the world that can perform the erasure 

services giving them an economic advantage over competitors in similar markets. The economic 

value of ZroBlack’s trade secrets is evidenced by its contract with .

147. ZroBlack derived independent economic value from its trade secrets not being 

generally known or readily ascertainable by legal means. ZroBlack is one of the only companies 

in the world that can perform the erasure services giving them an economic advantage over 

competitors in similar markets. 

148. The economic value of ZroBlack’s trade secrets is evidenced by its contract with 

149. Without any experience in information technology, coding, or encryption protocols, 

Saenz used his familial relationship with Villarreal to worm his way into Villarreal’s confidence, 

and engage in offering Villarreal the false promises of what Saenz could do with his alleged 

contacts in government and the military.

150. Saenz made material misrepresentations to Villarreal as to his experience and 

expertise to obtain military contracts to utilize Villarreal’s trade secrets.

151. In exchange, Saenz wanted to own a part of the nascent company that Villarreal 

was founding to exploit his valuable trade secrets.

152. Villarreal, who is a software engineering / coder had developed software protocols 

that allowed him to hack into hand-held devices and operating systems, even though those devices 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 28 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 29 of 56

were password protected. Villarreal reasonably relied on Saenz representations that he could obtain 

the United States Military’s interest in Villarreal software, and allowed Saenz to take the helm of 

Zroblack, as its CEO.

153. Unbeknownst to Villarreal, Saenz had limited contacts in the U.S. military, and 

could not deliver on any of the contacts that were promised.

154. Villarreal was damaged by such reasonable reliance, losing business opportunity, 

money, access to Zroblack’s email server with valuable passwords and other access information.

155. Saenz misappropriated the trade secrets through fraud. Saenz falsely represented to 

Jonathan that he had the business experience and government contacts to market the technology 

to the government. He falsely represented that he could use his “contacts” in the military and 

technology business sectors to bolster sales and proposed forming a company as a vehicle to 

market the technology. 

156. Then, after receiving access to the proprietary information, with money in his 

pocket, he agreed to leave ZroBlack. At the time, Saenz knew of the opportunity ZroBlack 

presented him and took full advantage of it and still does to this day.

157. Saenz also misappropriated trade secrets through breach of a duty of confidence 

imposed upon him by law. At the time of his disclosure or use, Saenz knew he was breaching his 

duty to maintain secrecy, and knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret 

was acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the secrecy or limit the use of 

the trade secret. Saenz was a managing member of ZroBlack, he was the CEO of ZroBlack, and 

he occupied a position of trust and confidence at ZroBlack. At the time he used or disclosed the 

trade secret, he knew he had acquired it in confidence, that he had a duty to maintain its secrecy, 

and his use or disclosure was in violation of that duty.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 29 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 30 of 56

158. Now, Saenz has refused to return the ZroBlack laptop that contained the software 

code and schematics for the hardware. Per ZroBlack’s Operating Agreement the assets are held in 

the Company’s name. Per the terms of the Release, Saenz relinquished all interest in ZroBlack, 

including all interest in any property owned by ZroBlack. That property included the laptop and 

the proprietary code and other proprietary data on the laptop. The laptop also had the software that 

controlled the emails and website URL for ZroBlack.

159. After Saenz parted ways with ZroBlack, his authorization to use the laptop and 

access the information on it was revoked. Furthermore, the Release and assignment of all his rights 

in ZroBlack included the assignment of rights in ownership of the laptop and the proprietary code 

on that laptop. Saenz refused requests to return the laptop, and his continued possession is 

unauthorized. Saenz knew he used improper means to acquire the trade secrets, thus 

misappropriating the trade secrets. Those trade secrets included the software code created and 

maintained by ZroBlack and ZroBlack’s login and password information for its GoDaddy account.

160. In the interim, Saenz has disclosed the trade secrets and tried to shop the technology 

to others and continues to try to market the code without receiving ZroBlack or Jonathan’s consent. 

See Appendix, Exhibit 1.

161. Saenz’s actions have caused ZroBlack to lose major contracts because he holds the 

key to the domain name. The domain name contains the DUNS information that is still currently 

in Saenz’s name. Jonathan has been unable to update the DUNS information confirming 

ZroBlack’s ownership causing it to lose contracts. 

Count 2: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)

162. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 30 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 31 of 56

163. Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1030 may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and 

injunctive relief. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). A civil action may only be brough if the conduct involves 

one of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(1)(I-V), including loss to one or more 

persons during any 1-year period aggregating at least $5,000 in value. 18 U.S.C. § 1830(g); 18 

U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(1)(I). “Loss” is defined under the CFAA as “any reasonable cost to [the] 

victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and 

restoring the data, program, system or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any 

revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of 

service.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11). The term “loss’ encompasses only two types of harm: costs to 

investigate and respond to a computer intrusion, and costs associated with a service interruption. 

Quantlab Technologies Ltd. (BVI) v. Godlevsky, 719 F. Supp. 2d 766, 776 (S.D.Tex 2010); see 

also Frisco Medical Center, L.L.P. d/b/a Baylor Medical Center at Frisco v. Bledsoe, 147 F. Supp. 

3d 646, 659 (E.D. Tex. 2015).

164. Saenz’s access and deletion of ZroBlack’s webpage and email server interrupted 

GoDaddy’s service to ZroBlack, causing a loss of more than $5,000. Furthermore, Saenz’s access 

and deletion of the email server and webpage caused a loss of more than $5,000 in data. Finally, 

ZroBlack has spent in excess of $5,000 trying to obtain return of the lap top computer and domain 

name and trying to resolve the loss of emails and documents resulting from the deletion.

165. If the above threshold is met, civil liability may be imposed under the CFAA where 

a defendant:

a) Intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or 

exceeds authorization and obtains information from that computer, 

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(c);

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 31 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 32 of 56

b) knowingly (and with intent to defraud) accesses a protected 

computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and 

obtains anything of value, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4);

c) intentionally accesses a protected computer without 

authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes 

damage (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B)); or,

d) intentionally accesses a protected computer without 

authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes 

damage, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B); or

e) intentionally accesses a protected computer without 

authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage or loss, 

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C).

See also Frisco, 147 F. Supp. 3d at 658-659; eBay Inc. v. Digital 

Point Solutions, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1163-64 (N.D. Cal. 

2009).

166. After execution of the Release and Consent, Saenz was required to return 

ZroBlack’s property to it upon request as it was the property of ZroBlack. At this juncture, Saenz’s

authorization to access the laptop was revoked as it was no longer his property but the property of 

ZroBlack in accordance with the Company Agreement. 

167. Saenz refused to return the laptop and proprietary information and refused to 

release ZroBlack’s domain name. 

168. Instead, Saenz intentionally accessed the computer without authorization or 

exceeded authorized access and thereby obtained information from a protected computer. 

169. Such information was ZroBlack’s proprietary information, including its code. Once 

Saenz and ZroBlack parted ways, his authorization to access the laptop was revoked. Saenz’ theft 

and withholding of the computer violates 28 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(c). That conduct also violated 18 

U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) because Saenz intended to defraud.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 32 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 33 of 56

170. Saenz also intentionally accessed ZroBlack’s domain on GoDaddy and deleted 

ZroBlack’s webpage and email server. The domain, including the webpage and email server, were 

the property of ZroBlack. 

171. Saenz held the domain as nominee or an agent of ZroBlack. Once ZroBlack and 

Saenz parted ways, Saenz’s authorization to hold the domain as ZroBlack’s nominee or agent was 

no longer authorized and he was required to hand over all access rights to ZroBlack. 

172. Because he no longer had authorization to access the domain, his access and 

deletion of the webpage and email server was unauthorized and violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(c). 

His unauthorized access to the domain also violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 

1030(a)(5)(C) because it caused damage when he deleted the webpage and email server.

173. Saenz’s actions have caused ZroBlack to lose major contracts because he holds the 

key to the domain name. The domain name contains the DUNS information that is still currently 

in Saenz’s name. Jonathan has been unable to update the DUNS information confirming 

ZroBlack’s ownership causing it to lose contracts.

Count 3: Violations of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 

U.S.C. § 1125(d).

174. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

175. In order to prevail on an ACPA claim, Plaintiff must show that (1) its mark is a 

distinctive or famous mark entitled to protection; (2) the domain names are identical or confusingly 

similar to Plaintiff’s mark; and (3) the defendant uses the domain name with bad faith intent to 

profit from them. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A); See Southern Co. v. Dauben Inc., 324 Fed. Appx. 

309, 314 (5th Cir. 2009).

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 33 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 34 of 56

176. In order to determine whether someone has acted in bad faith under the ACPA the 

court considers the following factors:

a. the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the 

person, if any, in the domain name;

the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the 

person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the 

bona fide offering of any goods or services;

b. the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site 

accessible under the domain name;

c. the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online 

location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the 

goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the 

intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of 

confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the 

site;

the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to

the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, 

or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of 

any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of 

such conduct;

the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information 

when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's 

intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's 

prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;

the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which 

the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others 

that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or 

dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of 

registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services 

of the parties; and

the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not 

distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of this section.

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i).

177. ZroBlack has a common law interest in its name under section 43(a) of the Lanham 

Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125. The “ZroBlack” name is a distinctive identifier for the products and services 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 34 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 35 of 56

ZroBlack provides. The www.zroblack.com domain is identical or confusingly similar to 

ZroBlack’s mark. Saenz has no trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name.

Saenz maintains control and use of the ZroBlack website with a bad faith intent. Saenz no longer 

has any intellectual property rights in the domain name after he was removed from the company. 

The domain name consists of the exact same legal name of ZroBlack as it was maintained prior to 

his removal from the Company. After his termination, Saenz intended to divert consumers from 

ZroBlack’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill 

represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the 

mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or 

endorsement of the site. Saenz continues to provide material and misleading false contact 

information and fails to maintain accurate contact information for the domain name.

178. Saenz has not released the GoDaddy account to ZroBlack. Therefore ZroBlack

cannot update its contact and ownership information for its Dun & Bradstreet number (known as 

a (DUNs number), its CAGE number (Commercial And Government Entity” code), and its access 

to its SAM.gov account (System Award Management), a U.S. government portal for bidding on 

government contracts. Saenz blackmailed ZroBlack over the domain name, webpage, and email 

server, offering to sell it back to ZroBlack for $7,000. Saenz has taken the website down effectively 

terminating ZroBlack’s ability to gain new clients. Saenz also deleted the email server, thereby 

destroying hundreds of emails and documents supporting Jonathan’s claims, ZroBlack’s projects 

for and other matters. Saenz has even gone as far as attempting to shop the technology to 

others and threatens to continue to try to market the code.

Count 4: Breach of Contract

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 35 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 36 of 56

179. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

180. The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) a valid contract 

exists, (2) the plaintiff performed or tendered performance as contractually required, (3) the 

defendant breached the contract by failing to perform or tender performance as contractually 

required, and (4) the plaintiff sustained damages due to the breach. Both Saenz and Jonathan 

Villareal signed the Release. The Release is a settlement which is enforced as a contract under 

Texas law.

181. The Release specifically recited that Saenz and Jonathan wished to memorialize the 

assignment of Saenz’s entire interest in ZroBlack to Jonathan. Section 6 of the Release, titled 

“Assignment” imposed on Jonathan and Saenz an obligation to execute a Unanimous Written 

Consent in Lieu of a Meeting of the Members of ZroBlack, LLC (“Consent”). That Consent itself 

showed the Members entered a resolution that Saenz was assigning his entire interest in ZroBlack, 

LLC to Jonathan. The Release and Consent were executed on the same day, and upon their 

execution, Saenz became obligated to release all rights he had in ZroBlack, including any rights to 

the ownership to ZroBlack property, including the laptop, proprietary code and information, and 

rights as ZroBlack’s nominee in ZroBlack’s domain name, which were the property of ZroBlack. 

Post-Release ZroBlack requested return of that property, and Saenz refused, thereby breaching the 

terms of the Release.

182. Furthermore, the Company Agreement expressly states that title to the Company's 

assets will be held in the Company's name or in the name of any nominee designated by the 

Members. Saenz refusal to return ZroBlack’s assets constitutes a breach of the ZroBlack company 

agreement. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 36 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 37 of 56

183. Saenz also breached the Release by failing and refusing to return the $740,000 he 

took from ZroBlack. The Release specifically recited that Saenz was assigning all his interest in 

ZroBlack to Jonathan. The money paid to ZroBlack under the terms of the PSA was money 

belonging to ZroBlack. Once he assigned all his rights to ZroBlack to Jonathan, Saenz was 

obligated to return the $740,000 that belonged to ZroBlack. Nor was the $740,000 consideration 

for the Release. Section 2 of the Release discusses the consideration, which is the 2% of the earnout from the contract Saenz was to receive. No mention is made of the $740,000. By failing and 

refusing to return the $740,000 Saenz breached the Release.

184. Jonathan and ZroBlack performed as contractually required. Saenz breached the 

contract by failing to return property owned by ZroBlack. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result 

of Saenz’ breach.

Count 5: Breach of Formal Fiduciary Duties Against Saenz.

185. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

186. As a CEO and Managing Member of ZroBlack, Defendant Saenz was a fiduciary 

of ZroBlack at all times material to this action.

187. Defendant Saenz breached his fiduciary duty to ZroBlack by engaging in 

transactions that benefited him, personally, at the expense of ZroBlack.

188. Such breaches of Saenz’s duty of loyalty and duty of care resulted in direct injury 

to Plaintiff, caused lost revenue (and income), lost contract opportunities, and prevented the 

company from entering into valuable contracts with the United States federal government.

189. Corporate officers and directors owe fiduciary duties, including a duty of loyalty

and a duty of care to the company. Section 4.1 of the Company Operating Agreement provided 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 37 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 38 of 56

that the ZroBlack would be managed by its managers, who would appoint a Chief Executive 

Manager who would have primary responsibility for the operations of the business. 

190. Section 4.5 of the Company Operating Agreement states that the Chief Executive 

Member had primary responsibility for managing the operations of the ZroBlack and carrying out 

the decisions of the members. Saenz was the Chief Executive Member and styled himself as CEO 

of ZroBlack.

191. And yet, Saenz continued to act in his own self-interest, withholding company 

property and trade secrets; withholding monies from the company that were allocated for Saenz 

and Villarreal to work on projects for their customers; and refusing, due to spite, ignorance, and / 

or malfeasance, to allow ZroBlack’s managers to access confidential information the company 

could use to build its business.

192. Section 4.7 of the Company Operating Agreement stated that members could hold 

ZroBlack property in their name as a nominee of ZroBlack. Saenz purchased ZroBlack’s domain 

name in his capacity as Chief Executive Member/CEO and thus purchased it as ZroBlack’s 

nominee. 

193. Saenz has no right to pursue business under the name of ZroBlack and may not hold 

himself out as being affiliated with ZroBlack.

194. And yet, he continued to maintain dominion and control over ZroBlack’s domain 

(URL), email server, and other electronic access point that were an essential avenue of commerce.

195. Although these requests were made of Saenz after Saenz departed the company, 

and he could not have any personal use of the domain or email server, he continues to deny access 

to IT access points of ZroBlack, which directly caused ZroBlack to lose valuable contracting 

opportunities.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 38 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 39 of 56

196. Additionally, subject to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.CA. § 2201 setting aside 

the Release (see below), Plaintiffs further allege that Saenz breached his fiduciary duty by 

engaging in self-dealing by taking payment for his own personal gain and not performing any work 

associated with ZroBlack.

197. Also subject to a declaration setting aside the Release, Plaintiff’s further allege that 

Saenz engaged in conduct which defeated the reasonable expectation of Plaintiffs. Specifically,

that Saenz would provide services to ZroBlack if he kept the $740,000 services contract advance 

for services paid to ZroBlack by its customer. 

198. Yet Defendant Saenz held on to a services contract advance, utterly failed to 

provide continuing services for which that money was allocated, and refused to return ZroBlack’s 

money, which caused the company to expend valuable resources out of its operating revenues to

pay for services to complete the contract.

199. To further exacerbate matters, Saenz then wanted Jonathan Villarreal to qualify the 

$740,000 as a “gift” to evade income taxes.

Count 6: Jonathan and ZroBlack’s Professional Negligence against Gunn Law Firm

200. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

201. The case against Gunn and Mike Villarreal is shrouded in both professional 

negligence and breaches of fiduciary duties.

202. It is undisputed the Gunn and Mike Villarreal provided legal representation to 

Jonathan Villarreal in his dealings with John Saenz.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 39 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 40 of 56

203. It is undisputed that Gunn and Mike Villarreal provided legal representation to 

ZroBlack with respect to John Saenz’ departure from ZroBlack and transactions to memorialize 

such transactions.

204. However, it is also undisputed the law firm and attorney bypassed their basic ethical

rules that binds every Texas attorney: do not take matters representing two parties (or three, in this 

case) to the same transaction.

205. The issue is there was never a meaningful waiver of conflict, and there was never 

actions taken by either the law firm or attorney to delineate representation.

206. In this case, Gunn and Mike Villarreal had three masters: Jonathan Villarreal, John 

Saenz, and ZroBlack, providing legal services, and the promise of competent advice to each.

207. Yet, where the loyalty to one ended and the other began is indecipherable.

208. It is undisputed that the law firm (Gunn) and attorney (Mike Villarreal) owed a 

legal duty to Jonathan Villarreal; a duty to ensure that they looked out for his interest and advised 

him on any actions that would harm his interest.

209. It is undisputed that the law firm (Gunn) and attorney (Mike Villarreal) owed a 

legal duty to ZroBlack; a duty to ensure that they looked out for its interest, and advised it on 

actions taken by Saenz that would hurt ZroBlack.

210. Both Gunn and Mike Villarreal failed to do so. 

211. By failing to include an integration clause; by failing to clearly specify rights and 

responsibilities in the Release; by incorporating documents into the Release, the drafting created 

an ambiguity that invites parol evidence, multiple and inconsistent interpretations, and has led to 

the much of the underlying disputes in this case.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 40 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 41 of 56

212. Not only did they not look out for Jonathan Villarreal’s interest and ZroBlack’s 

interest, but they actively sought to enhance Saenz’s position with respect to his negotiations to 

leave ZroBlack.

213. In their negligence, they did not protect ZroBlack to ensure that it recouped its 

money, trade secrets, URL, and confidential information.

214. They either failed to take steps to understand the extend and value of Jonathan 

Villarreal’s trade secrets; the application it could have within the United States government; and 

the value of having ZroBlack’s email server returned to ZroBlack when Saenz left the company.

215. They were negligent in failing to advise Jonathan Villarreal to sign incomplete

agreements, including the Release; failing to obtain the trade secrets Jonathan Villarreal had 

developed; and allowed Saenz to abscond with $740,000 which ZroBlack desperately needed for 

its operations.

216. The breach of Gunn and Mike Villarreal’s legal duty to Jonathan Villarreal and 

ZroBlack proximately and directly caused damages to each, for which relief is sought.

217. Even in drafting the Release at issue in this case, Gunn and Mike Villarreal were 

wholly and astonishingly negligent with respect to Jonathan Villarreal and ZroBlack.

218. Mike Villareal and the Gunn, Lee law firm breached the duty owed to Plaintiff by 

taking actions an ordinarily prudent attorney would not have taken under the same or similar 

circumstances. Here, the Gunn, Lee law firm failed to:

a. Include a carve-out provision in the Release that except from 

the Release Saenz’s ongoing obligations to preserve the 

confidentiality of ZroBlack’s trade secrets;

b. Include a requirement in the Release that Saenz return all 

intellectual property to ZroBlack;

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 41 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 42 of 56

c. Include a requirement in the Release that Saenz return all of 

ZroBlack’s physical personal property, including the laptop 

computer;

d. Include a requirement that Saenz released to ZroBlack the 

ZroBlack domain name, web page, and email server; and

e. Include a requirement in the Release that Saenz return the $740,000 

he took from ZroBlack.

219. Gunn Law Firm’s breach proximately caused Plaintiff injury. 

220. Had Gunn Law Firm included the above provisions, the laptop, code, domain, and 

$740,000 would have been returned to ZroBlack and Saenz would have been prevented from 

attempting to sell and market the software. Plaintiff has incurred unnecessary attorney’s fees in 

obtaining the undersigned counsel to file the lawsuit.

221. ZroBlack’s damages from Gunn Law Firm’s breach include the $740,000.00 they 

allowed to be embezzled from the company, the value of ZroBlack’s proprietary information, the 

laptop computer Saenz refuses to return, and ZroBlack’s domain name for its webpage and email 

server.

Count 7: Breach of Fiduciary Duty against the Gunn Law Firm and Michael Villareal

222. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. Mike Villareal and the Gunn, Lee law firm owed a formal 

fiduciary duty to its clients, Saenz, Jonathan, and ZroBlack. 

223. Michael Villareal is an agent of the Gunn, Lee law firm, and acted in the course 

and scope of his agency at all times material to this action.

224. At all times material to the events giving rise to his claim, Michael Villareal was 

an attorney with the Gunn, Lee law firm, and represented himself to be backed by the knowledge 

and expertise of the Gunn, Lee law firm. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 42 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 43 of 56

225. Any malfeasance or wrongdoing found against Michael Villareal was done under 

the supervision or in conjunction with his role at the Gunn, Lee law firm. His actions are therefore 

attributable to the firm under both respondeat superior and as an agent of the Gunn, Lee law firm. 

The Gunn, Lee law firm is fully liable for all damages assessed against Michael Villareal.

i.Breach of Fiduciary Duty

226. Michael Villarreal and the Gunn, Lee law firm owed a formal fiduciary duty to 

Jonathan and ZroBlack. 

227. The duty, the highest recognized law, required the attorney and law firm to put the 

interest of its clients, Jonathan Villareal and ZroBlack, ahead of itself, or not take on representation 

of another client that would directly and adversely affect the representation of Jonathan Villareal 

and ZroBlack. 

228. Mike Villareal and Gunn, Lee law firm not only ignored their professional 

responsibility and duty to plaintiffs but negotiated agreements between Jonathan Villareal and 

Saenz and ZroBlack that put the Plaintiffs in a worse position than they were in prior to the 

agreements.

229. They chose to represent one client’s interest – Saenz’s – over the other two.

230. The attorney and law firm also ignored the discussions between the members of

ZroBlack with respect to qualifying the $740,000 that Saenz wrongfully took from the business.

231. Both the attorney and the law firm were clearly aware of Saenz’s position with 

ZroBlack and they knew or should have known about the fiduciary duty that Saenz owed ZroBlack.

Count 8: Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations

232. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 43 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 44 of 56

233. The elements for tortious interference with prospective relations are (1) there was 

a reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a business relationship with a 

third person, (2) the defendant intentionally interfered with the relationship, (3) the defendant’s 

conduct was independently tortious or unlawful, (4) the interference proximately caused the 

plaintiff’s injury, and (5) the plaintiff suffered actual damage or loss.

234. Jonathan, ZroBlack, and pursued a contract with the to help 

. 

235. Furthermore, obtaining an Apple Developer account was critical to the success of 

this endeavor. An Apple Developer account requires a business to have a valid DUNS number. A 

DUNS number is a unique nine-digit identifying number issued by Dun & Bradstreet. ZroBlack 

obtained a DUNS number while Saenz was still with the business. Because at the time Saenz was 

the contact person for ZroBlack, his cell phone number is the number listed for contacting 

ZroBlack.

236. Saenz, however, has refused all requests to confirm with Dun & Bradstreet that he 

is no longer a member of ZroBlack or to update the contact information for ZroBlack on its DUNS 

account. Dun & Bradstreet will not update the DUNS number information without confirmation 

from Saenz. And without being able to confirm ZroBlack and Jonathan are the owner of the DUNS 

number, Apple will not issue them a developer account, making it impossible for Jonathan, 

ZroBlack, and to compete for this contract.

237. Because Apple could not confirm ZroBlack’s ownership, Apple would not provide 

ZroBlack with a developer account, which is necessary to access Apple’s iOS API—the code that 

is under the hood of the iOS operating system. Jonathan sought the release of ZroBlack’s domain 

name information, from which he could himself update the Dun & Bradstreet information. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 44 of 56
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 45 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 46 of 56

Count 9: Conversion

247. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in the 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

248. The elements for conversion are (1) the plaintiff owned, possessed, or had the right 

to immediate possession of property, (2) the property was personal property, (3) the defendant 

wrongfully exercised dominion or control over the property, and (4) the plaintiff suffered injury.

249. Plaintiff ZroBlack was the owner of the laptop at the time Saenz refused to return 

it. The laptop was the personal property of ZroBlack. Saenz has exercised dominion and control 

over the laptop to the exclusion of the rightful owner, ZroBlack. Saenz has and continues to 

wrongfully exercise dominion or control over the laptop. Jonathan Villareal has made several 

attempts and demanded that Saenz return the laptop to no avail. 

250. ZroBlack has suffered injury due to Saenz’ conversion of the laptop and trade 

secrets in at least an amount equal to the value of the laptop and trade secrets. Saenz’s access and 

deletion of the email server and webpage caused a loss of more than $5,000 in data. 

Count 10: Violation of Texas Theft Liability Act.

251. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Compliant as if fully set forth herein.

252. ZroBlack has a possessory right to the ZroBlack laptop.

253. Although Saenz knew the laptop contained information that was sensitive, which 

could be utilized by data gathering companies and agencies of the United States government, Saenz 

decided to withhold the device with such information stored on it.

254. It is undisputed that ZroBlack is the owner of the laptop. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 46 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 47 of 56

255. Defendant Saenz unlawfully appropriated the property by taking it and withholding 

it after demands were made to return it. Saenz appropriated the laptop without ZroBlack’s effective 

consent and with the intent to derive ZroBlack of the property. ZroBlack sustained damages as a 

result of the theft. ZroBlack has suffered damages due to Saenz’ conversion of the laptop and trade 

secrets in at least an amount equal to the value of the laptop and trade secrets. Saenz’s access and 

deletion of the email server and webpage caused a loss of more than $5,000 in data.

Count 11: Fraud

256. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations previously set forth in this 

Compliant as if fully set forth herein.

257. Prior to the formation of ZroBlack, Saenz represented to Jonathan that he had the 

business acumen and government contacts to market the technology to the government. 

258. It is undisputed that Jonathan Villarreal has an inability to discuss matters in any 

high stress environment.

259. John Saenz, knowing this, told Jonathan that he could develop business for the 

company, especially with his military contacts.

260. This was a critical next step for the proprietary software and trade secrets developed 

by Jonathan Villarreal.

261. Saenz, seeing the opportunity, falsely represented that he could use his “contacts” 

in the military and technology business sectors to bolster sales and proposed forming ZroBlack as 

a vehicle to market the technology.

262. In reliance on this representation, Jonathan trusted Saenz and formed ZroBlack, 

gave Saenz access to ZroBlack’s software and allowed him to control the marketing and business 

operations of ZroBlack. Now, that Saenz has received his paycheck and is allegedly released from 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 47 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 48 of 56

any liability, he still maintains control over the software and operations of ZroBlack which has 

caused ZroBlack to lose contracts. 

VI.REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF TO SET ASIDE THE ZROBLACK OPERATING 

AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

263. Plaintiff hereby adopts and re-alleges the allegations previously set forth in this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

264. Plaintiff seeks a declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S.CA. § 2201 that:

265. The ZroBlack, LLC Operating Agreement is void and/or unenforceable and should 

be set aside as it was induced by fraud; and

266. The Release is void and/or unenforceable and should be set aside as it was induced 

by fraud and a breach of fiduciary duty by both Saenz and the law firm and attorneys preparing 

the document.

A. The ZroBlack, LLC Operating Agreement is void and/or unenforceable as it was 

induced by John Saenz’s fraudulent misrepresentations

267. A company operating agreement is a contract. 

268. Saenz represented to Jonathan that he had the skill, training, experience, and 

expertise to act as CEO of ZroBlack, and obtain valuable military and commercial contracts for 

the company.

269. In fact, Saenz had none of the skill, training, experience, and expertise to act as the 

CEO of a technology company, and no government or military contacts with any authority or input 

into contract procurement. 

270. Saenz representations were false, and at the time he made them, Saenz knew the 

representations were false. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 48 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 49 of 56

271. Such representations were critical to allow Jonathan and Saenz to enter into the 

ZroBlack operating agreement, and for Jonathan Villarreal to consent to give Saenz any part of the 

company.

272. Jonathan reasonably and materially relied on everything Saenz told him.

273. Saenz’s representations were material to Jonathan’s decision to part with any 

portion of the company. Indeed, Saenz represented that he could do something that Jonathan, as a 

near recluse, could not – reach out to his high level contacts and sell the technology in very short 

order to the military.

274. But Saenz’s representations were false. He had not meaningful contacts. He did 

not set up any meeting with military intelligence or military procurement.

275. He simply lied.

276. Even though Jonathan already had a partner, Saenz told Jonathan that he (Saenz) 

could do a better job than Jonathan’s (now former) partner, and he had the experience and training 

and contacts to grow ZroBlack.

277. In trusting Saenz, both as a family member and someone who was supposed to have 

deep ties to military procurement, Jonathan gave p much of him company to Saenz.

278. The result was the execution of the ZroBlack Operating Agreement between 

Jonathan and Saenz. 

279. But not only did Saenz not perform, Saenz literally pocketed money paid to the 

company for a services contract, promising to perform required work, but used that money to 

purchase expensive cars and accoutrements for himself. 

280. Saenz actions caused both Jonathan and ZroBlack in incur financial harm.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 49 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 50 of 56

281. Jonathan had to keep pumping money into the company to try and offset the damage 

caused by Saenz. 

282. At the Operating Agreement was induced and procured by fraud, it should be set 

aside, and Saenz’s interest in ZroBlack will also be voided.

B. The Release Is Illegal Because Michael Villareal Had a Clear Conflict of Interest

and His Breach of Fiduciary Duty was as an Agent of Saenz

283. At all times material to this claim, regarding setting aside the Release, Mike 

Villarreal was an agent of Saenz.

284. His actions, as an authorized agent of Saenz was to negotiate the Release, advise 

Jonathan of what Saenz would do under the Release, and advised Jonathan to proceed with 

executing a grossly subpar and ambiguous document.

285. The statements and actions of Mike, as Saenz’s authorized agent, acting within the 

scope of his representation, is binding on Saenz.

286. The fraudulent statements Mike made as to how the $740,000 would be treated, 

what Saenz would do, and how the parties to the Release would proceed after the execution were 

false.

287. Such statements by Mike were reasonably relied on by Jonathan to his detriment.

288. Mike was also a fiduciary to Jonathan.

289. He owed Jonathan the highest duty under the law.

290. Mike Villarreal had a clear conflict of interest, simultaneously representing 

Jonathan, Saenz, and ZroBlack.

291. Such conflict, with him know knowing his master, resulted in a release that was 

drafted to favor one of his clients – Saenz – over Jonathan and ZroBlack.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 50 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 51 of 56

292. Rule 1.06 of the Texas Rules of Professional Disciplinary Conduct states “A lawyer 

shall not represent a person if the representation ... involves a substantially related matter in which 

that person's interests are materially and directly adverse to the interests of another client of the 

lawyer or the lawyer's firm.” TEX. PROF. R. DISC. CON. § 1.06(b)(1). 

293. A lawyer shall also not represent a person when it “reasonably appears to be or 

become adversely limited by the lawyer's or law firm's responsibilities to another client or to a 

third person or by the lawyer's or law firm's own interests.” TEX. PROF. R. DISC. CON. § 1.06(b)(2). 

An exception exists, however, when an attorney obtains a conflict of interest waiver, so long as 

“the lawyer reasonably believes the representation of each client will not be materially affected.” 

TEX. PROF. R. DISC. CON. § 1.06(c)(2).

294. Settlement Agreements have been set aside where a violation of the Professional 

Rules of Disciplinary Conduct (or their predecessor rules) have occurred. See Quintero v. Jim 

Walter Homes, Inc., 709 S.W.2d 225 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

295. Here, Jonathan, ZroBlack’s and Saenz’s interests were adverse under Rule 106 of 

the Texas Rules of Professional Disciplinary Conduct, and no attorney could reasonably believe 

under these facts that his representation of both clients would not be materially affected. 

296. At the heart of Jonathan’s claim was Saenz’s taking $740,000 from the ZroBlack 

contract and not doing any further work on the customer’s project, other than being a from “time 

to time” as an “observer” or to offer “guidance.” Nor did he do anything to develop new customers. 

297. Jonathan’s pleas for the return of the $740,000 so that ZroBlack could perform 

under its contract continued even after execution of the Release. Saenz, for his part, wanted 

Jonathan to characterize the $740,000 as a gift for tax purposes, something clearly illegal under 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 51 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 52 of 56

the Internal Revenue Code. Their interests were so adverse that the dispute continued after 

execution of the Release.

298. Additionally, the Gunn, Lee law firm continued to profit from the deal because the 

firm would act as the escrow agent for funds paid by ZroBlack’s customer under the PSA. Mike 

Villareal put the Gunn, Lee firm directly in the center of the deal, the conflict of interest 

notwithstanding.

299. The conflict of interest also resulted in an unequal release. Mike Villareal failed to 

include express provisions in the Release for the return of ZroBlack’s personal property, 

maintenance of the confidentiality of proprietary information, while Saenz would continue to 

receive a 2% earn-out for the life of the PSA.

300. Because the Release was procured through Mike’s fraud and a breach of his 

fiduciary duty, and failure to adhere to the Rules of Professional Disciplinary Conduct, the Release, 

procured by such bad acts, should and must be set aside.

301. At all times material to this claim, Mike was acting in the scope of course of his 

duties as an attorney with Gunn. As such, Gunn is fully liable for any malfeasance on his part, 

specifically for the breaches of his fiduciary duty, and the fraudulent misrepresentations he made 

to Jonathan as to the return of the $740,000; Saenz’s continued services to ZroBlack, and the return

of all intellectual property and website of the company to ZroBlack.

C. The Release should be set aside due to mutual mistake.

302. Alternatively, the Release should be set aside due to a mutual mistake. A contract 

may be set aside based on mutual mistake. To set a contract aside based on a mutual mistake, three 

criteria must be met. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 52 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 53 of 56

303. First, both parties must have the same misunderstanding. Here, the mutual mistake 

was disposition of the $740,000, with Saenz believing he could keep it, and Jonathan believing it 

would be returned to ZroBlack.

304. Second, the mistake must involve a material part of the contract. Disposition was a 

material part of the Release.

305. Finally, risk of the mistake must not be allocated to the defendant. A general release 

does not allocate the risk of mistake. Because of the existence of a mutual mistake, the Release 

should be set aside.

VII.DAMAGES & ATTORNEYS’ FEES

306. Plaintiffs seek to recover their actual and consequential damages in this suit, in an 

amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Plaintiffs seek exemplary damages against 

Defendants as Defendants’ actions were committed with malice as defined by Chapter 41 of the 

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

307. Plaintiffs also seek to recover their attorney’s fees and costs under the following 

statutory provisions:

a. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D) [Defend Trade Secrets Act];

b. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) [Lanham Act and Anti-cybersquatting 

Consumer Protection Act];

c. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001;

d. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM CODE ANN. § 134.005(b) [Texas 

Theft Liability Act];

e. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.005 [Texas 

Uniform Trade Secrets Act]; and,

f. TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE ANN. § 21.561 [Derivative 

Proceeding].

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 53 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 54 of 56

308. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under 18 U.S.C. § 

1836(b)(3)(D) as Plaintiffs have shown that the misappropriation was made in bad faith and the 

trade secret was willfully and maliciously misappropriated. Additionally, exceptional 

circumstances exist justifying an award under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.005.

309. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs were forced to retain the undersigned 

counsel to pursue these causes of action. Plaintiffs seek to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, under the statutes cited above or 

as otherwise allowed by law.

VIII.CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

310. Additionally, because Defendant Saenz has leached assets of ZroBlack, and used 

these assets to build a profit for himself in violation of federal and state statutes, Plaintiffs ask that 

the Court impose a constructive trust on the assets of Defendant to protect any interest in those 

assets which may belong to Plaintiffs.

311. Saenz took cash of ZroBlack, while he served as a fiduciary of the company.

312. He did so under the guise of providing continuing services to ZroBlack.

313. Saenz occupied a position of trust and confidence as the chief executive officer of 

ZroBlack. As CEO, he had authority to negotiate sales on behalf of ZroBlack.

314. Saenz breached his fiduciary duty by engaging in self-dealing and misappropriating 

ZroBlack’s property, placing his interest ahead of ZroBlack’s.

315. Saenz breached his fiduciary duty with the company to obtain the cash of $740,000.

316. He promised to work to earn that money for ZroBlack, performing tasks that 

Jonathan, for a variety of reasons, could not perform.

317. Jonathan reasonably and detrimentally relied on these representations, as it was 

critical for ZroBlack to survive and thrive.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 54 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 55 of 56

318. In fact, it was solely on this basis that Jonathan allowed him to remove that much 

money from ZroBlack’s accounts.

319. ZroBlack was damaged as a result of such reliance.

320. The constructive trust requested by Plaintiff, ZroBlack extends to whatever cash, 

property, or assets acquired by Saenz using ZroBlack’s funds.

321. Such constructive trust is requested, as Saenz most likely wasted those monies, and 

without a constructive trust, ZroBlack may not be able to recoup what is due.

322. Because of Saenz’ breach of his duty of trust and confidence, Defendant was 

unjustly enriched because he acquired compensation for which he was not entitled to retain. 

Moreover, the res is easily traceable through records of his use of the money he stole from 

ZroBlack. Therefore, ZroBlack asks that a constructive trust be placed on the money received from 

ZroBlack to which Saenz was not entitled to keep for himself.

Respectfully submitted,

THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC

By: /s/ Joseph L. Lanza

Charles M. R. Vethan 

Attorney-in-Charge

Texas Bar No. 00791852

Steven A. Costello

Texas Bar No. 24062677

VETHAN LAW FIRM - HOUSTON

Two Memorial City Plaza

820 Gessner, Suite 1510

Houston, Texas 77024

Tel: (713) 526-2222

Fax: (713) 526-2230

Email: edocs@vwtexlaw.com

Joseph L. Lanza

Texas bar No. 00784447

VETHAN LAW FIRM – SAN ANTONIO

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 55 of 56
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Verified Complaint Page 56 of 56

11459 Huebner, Suite 101

San Antonio, Texas 78230

Tel: (210) 824-2220

Fax: (713) 526-2230

Email: edocs@vwtexlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Court 

on the 17th day of November 2020, and electronically served on the date reflected in the 

ECF system upon all parties registered to receive notice pursuant to the Court’s CM/ECF 

system.

David A. Vanderhinder

State bar No. 24070787

DVanderhinder@dykema.com

Ryan J. Sullivan

State Bar No. 24102548

RSullivan@dykema.com

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

112 East Pecan St., Suite 1800

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Attorney for Defendant John Saenz

George R. Spencer, Jr.

State Bar. No. 18921001

gspencer@langleybanack.com

Natalie F. Wilson

State Bar. No. 24067769

nwilson@langleybanack.com

Attorneys for Defendants Gunn, Lee & Cave, P.C.

And Miguel Villarreal, Jr.

/s/ Joseph L. Lanza

 Joseph L. Lanza

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 56 of 56