Page 1 of 60

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

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR SEIZURE, 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND 

PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff, JONATHAN VILLAREAL, individually and derivatively on behalf of

ZROBLACK, LLC (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, file 

this their verified application for seizure of a laptop computer owned by Plaintiff ZroBlack, LLC

(hereafter “ZroBlack”) which contains ZroBlack’s trade secrets and, therefore, the software 

necessary to remotely access any personal, confidential, or proprietary data and information that 

is stored on a cellular device anywhere in the world, and for a temporary restraining order, 

preliminary injunction, and permanent injunctive relief. In addition to the seizure of the ZroBlack 

laptop in his possession, Plaintiffs seek an order from this Honorable Court requiring Defendant 

John Saenz to return control of and access to ZroBlack’s domain, email server, website, and the 

business and government accounts ZroBlack needs to be able to operate. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 60
Page 2 of 60

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................................2

II. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................3

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................................................................................................7

A. Introduction.................................................................................................................7

B. Formation of ZroBlack ...............................................................................................9

C. ZroBlack Signs a Contract........................................................................................14

D. Saenz Attempts to Shop Secret Code to Others........................................................17

E. Saenz Misappropriates $740,000 while Missing Key Meetings

with Customer and Providing No Services to ZroBlack...........................................17

F. Gunn, Lee, & Cave, P.C. and Michael Villareal’s Further

Involvement ..............................................................................................................18

G. Final Attempts to get Saenz to Return Money and Property

owed to ZroBlack......................................................................................................25

H. Saenz Thwarts ZroBlack and Attempt to Contract 

with the ...........25

I. Saenz Refuses Demand for Return of the Code and Blocks

ZroBlack from Government Work by Withholding Account Credentials...............27

IV. APPLICATION FOR CIVIL SEIZURE ....................................................................................28

A. Plaintiffs are Entitled to a Civil Seizure of the Laptop Computer............................28

B. An Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Is Inadequate ............................................30

C. Plaintiff Has and Will Continue to Suffer Immediate Irreparable Injury .................31

D. Balance of Hardships Favors Seizure .......................................................................32

E. Plaintiff Owns Trade Secrets and Saenz Misappropriated Them .............................33

a. ZroBlack Possessed Trade Secrets.............................................................33

b. Defendant Saenz Misappropriated the Trade Secrets................................35

F. Saenz Has Control of the Laptop ..............................................................................36

G. The Matter to Be Seized and its Location.................................................................36

H. Saenz May Destroy, Remove, Hide, or Make the Matter Inaccessible

to the Court ...............................................................................................................36

I. Applicant Has Not Publicized the Requested Seizure ..............................................37

V. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, AND 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION.................................................................................................37

A. Grounds for Injunctive Relief...................................................................................38

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Standard ......................................................39

C. Likelihood of Success on the Merits—Trade Secret Misappropriation....................40

D. Likelihood of Success on the Merits—Computer Fraud and Abuse Act..................44

a. Saenz Accessed a Computer in Violation of the CFAA...............................45

b. Loss Aggregating More than $5,000 ............................................................46

E. Likelihood of Success on the Merits—Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer

Protection Act ...........................................................................................................46

a. The ZroBlack Name is Distinctive, Entitling It to Protection ......................46

b. The Doman Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to ZroBlack’s

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 2 of 60
Page 3 of 60

Mark..............................................................................................................48

c. Saenz is Using the Domain Name in Bad a Faith Attempt to Profit

Therefrom .....................................................................................................48

F. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Tortious Interference with Prospective 

Contractual Relations................................................................................................50

G. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Conversion .................................................51

H. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Civil Theft (TTLA).....................................53

I. Irreparable Harm.......................................................................................................53

J. No Adequate Remedy at Law...................................................................................55

K. Balance of Hardships Favors an Injunction ..............................................................55

L. Public Interest ...........................................................................................................56

M. Bond..........................................................................................................................57

N. Relief Requested .......................................................................................................57

VI. PRAYER ...........................................................................................................................58

APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS......................................................................................ATTACHED

II. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

U.S. Supreme Court Cases

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992)...........................................46, 47

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) .................................................38

U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals Cases

Aspen Technology, Inc. v. M3 Technology, Inc.,

569 Fed. Appx. 259, 273 (5th Cir. 2014).....................................................................................56

Daniel Health Scis., LLC v. Vascular Scis., LLC,

710 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................................53

E. & H. Gallo Winery v. Spider Webs Ltd.,

286 F.3d 270, 275-276 (5th Cir. 2002)........................................................................................48

FMC Corp. v. Varco Intern., Inc.,

677 F.2d 500, 503-504 (5th Cir. 1982).......................................................................................43

Heil Trailer Intern. Co. v. Kula,

542 Fed. Appx. 329, 336 (5th Cir. 2013)...............................................................................53, 54

Janvey v. Alguire,

647 F.3d 585, 595-96 (5th Cir. 2011).........................................................................................39

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 3 of 60
Page 4 of 60

Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen,

141 F.3d 1316, 1325 (9th CIR. 1998)..........................................................................................48

Shields v. Zuccarini,

2001 WL 671607, *3 (3d Cir.2000) ...........................................................................................47

Southern Co. v. Dauben Inc.,

324 Fed. Appx. 309, 314 (5th Cir. 2009)....................................................................................46

Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.,

238 F.3d 264, 268 (4th Cir.2001) ...............................................................................................50

U.S. District Court Cases

AHS Staffing, LLC v. Quest Staffing Group, Inc.,

335 F. Supp. 3d 856, 874 (E.D. Tex. 2018)................................................................................57

Am. Auto. Ass’n (Inc.) v. AAA Ins. Agency, Inc.,

618 F. Supp. 787, 792 (W.D. Tex. 1985) ...................................................................................47

Axis Steel Detailing, Inc. v. Prilex Detailing LLC,

No. 2:17–cv–00428–JNP, 2017 WL 8947964, at *2 (D. Utah, June 29, 2017) ................... 31-32

AVX Corporation v. Kim,

No. 6:17-00624-MGL, 2017 WL 11316598, at *2 (D. S.C., March 13, 2017)..........................32

Blue Star Land Services v. Coleman,

No. CIV-17-931-C, 2017 WL 11309528, at *1 (W.D. Okla., August 31, 2017) .......................31

Courtroom Sci., Inc. v. Andrews,

No. 3:09-CV-251-o, 2009 WL 1313274, AT *3 (N.D.Tex. May 11, 2009) ..............................39

eBay Inc. v. Digital Point Solutions, Inc.,

608 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1163-64 (N.D. Cal. 2009).......................................................................45

Emerald City Mgmt., LLC v. Khan,

No. 4:14-cv-358, 2016 WL 98751 *13 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2016) .........................................48, 49

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)..................................................................................... 44-45

Lamparello v. Falwell,

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 4 of 60
Page 5 of 60

420 F.3d 309, 319 (4th Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................49, 50

Sirius Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Sparks,

138 F. Supp. 3d 821, 836 (W.D. Tex. 2015) ..............................................................................38

Sporty's Farm L.L.C. v. Sportman's Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489, 497 n. 10 (2d Cir.2000)........47

Texas Intern. Property Associates v. Hoerbiger Holding AG,

642 F. Supp. 2d 582, 589-590 (N.D. Tex. 2009)........................................................................50

TMX Funding, Inc. v. Impero Technologies, Inc.,

No. C10-00202 JF (PVT), 2010 WL 2509979 at * 4 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2010)............34, 35, 43

State Appellate Court Cases

American Derringer Corp. v. Bond,

924 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no pet.) ...........................................................41

Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard,

540 S.W.2d 380, 387 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.)........................42

Miller Paper Co. v. Roberts Paper Co.,

901 S.W.2d 593, 600 (Tex.App.—Waco 1995, no writ)............................................................41

Rhodia, Inc. v. Harris County,

470 S.W.2d 415, 419 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], no writ).......................................39

RP&R, Inc. v. Territo,

32 S.W.3d 396, 400-01 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) ................................39

Rugen v. Interactive Business Systems, Inc.,

864 S.W.2d 548, 552 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no pet.)...........................................................44

T-N-T- Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc.,

965 S.W.2d 18, 24 (Tex. App.—Houston[1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) ..................................... 43-44

Weed Eater, Inc. v. Dowling,

562 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.)..................................44

Zelios v. City of Dallas,

568 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.) ...............................39, 56

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 5 of 60
Page 6 of 60

Federal Statutes and Rules

FED. R. CIV. P. 65..................................................................................................................30, 37

15 U.S.C. 1125(a) .......................................................................................................................46

15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1)................................................................................................................47

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)....................................................................................................................39

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A)..........................................................................................................46

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i) ......................................................................................................50

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(C)..........................................................................................................46

18 U.S.C. § 1030.........................................................................................................................44

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(c).....................................................................................................44, 45

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)..........................................................................................................44, 45

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B) ....................................................................................................45, 46

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C) ....................................................................................................45, 46

18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(1)(I) .................................................................................................44

18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(1)(I)-(V) ..........................................................................................44

18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)....................................................................................................................44

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)....................................................................................................................31

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2) ...............................................................................................................29

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(i)......................................................................................................29

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii)............................................................................................... 29-30

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii)(III) ..............................................................................................32

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii)(VII).............................................................................................36

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii)(VIII) .....................................................................................36, 37

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(IV)...................................................................................................33

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3) ...............................................................................................................38

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)......................................................................................................38

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(ii)...............................................................................................38, 43

18 U.S.C §1839(3)................................................................................................................33, 40

18 U.S.C §1839(3)(A), (3)(B) ..............................................................................................34, 40

18 U.S.C §1839(5)......................................................................................................................42

18 U.S.C §1839(6)......................................................................................................................42

State Statutes and Rules

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.002(2)............................................................42, 53

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.002(3)..................................................................42

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.002(6)..................................................................40

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.002(6)(A), (6)(B)................................................40

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.003................................................................38, 53

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM CODE ANN. § 134A.003(a).............................................................38, 53

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem Code Ann. § 134A.003(c).....................................................................38

Tex. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem Code Ann. § 134A.005(a).............................................................53

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 6 of 60
Page 7 of 60

Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 31.03(a), B(1), 34.01(a).......................................................................53

Secondary Sources

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane,

11A Federal Practice & Procedure § 2948.3 (2d ed. 1995)........................................................39

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Introduction

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 

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 3

rd 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 7 of 60
Page 8 of 60

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 

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, 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 8 of 60
Page 9 of 60

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. 

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

several multi-million-dollar contracts with the 

 The greater threat, however, which the law and the interests of justice and public 

safety require this Court to address, is the immediate and irreparable injury that is bound to occur

if Saenz is allowed to continue obstructing ZroBlack’s data security work, or the real nightmare 

scenario, what would occur if Saenz, a data security neophyte, allows the ZroBlack software in his 

possession to fall into the wrong hands which Saenz has proven he would do, when he shopped 

around ZroBlack software even after signing a contract saying he would not do.

B. Formation of ZroBlack, LLC

6. 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 9 of 60
Page 10 of 60

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

Clearing”.

7. 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.

 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.

8. 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 

1

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

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 10 of 60
Page 11 of 60

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.

9.

10. In October of 2018 Jonathan was negotiating with a 

subsidiary of for the licensing of the technology (hereinafter, “ ”). is

an international data security company headquartered in . 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 

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 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 11 of 60
Page 12 of 60

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

governments.

11. 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.

12. 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 

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).

13. 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 12 of 60
Page 13 of 60

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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 13 of 60
Page 14 of 60

16. 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. 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. 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.

17. 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 

was purchased with a debit card ending with the number 8032, which was a debit card issued in 

ZroBlack’s name. See Appendix, Exhibit 5.

18. After procuring a contract with , ZroBlack grew to having as many as ten 

employees. See Appendix, Exhibit 1.

C. ZroBlack Signs a Contract

19. On March 15, 2019, ZroBlack and executed a non-disclosure agreement 

(“NDA”). See Appendix, Exhibit 6. The purpose of the NDA was to allow ZroBlack to disclose 

trade secrets to during contract negotiations while maintaining the secrecy of those trade 

secrets. The trade secrets included the software code. See Appendix, Exhibit. 1.

20. ZroBlack and entered into a Professional Services Agreement (“PSA”) on

April 15, 2019, wherein ZroBlack would pass down its knowledge of mobile devices, consult with 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 14 of 60
Page 15 of 60

on its software development and coding, hardware development, and organize and 

document the process of supporting ability to identify, diagnose, clear, and validate certain devices. 

See Appendix, Exhibit 7. The contract price was One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars 

($1,500,000.00) up front and a fourteen and one-half percent (14.5%) earn out on new customer 

revenue and existing customer growth. The $1.5 million was transferred into a Wells Fargo 

business account. Saenz then transferred $740,000 of those funds to his own personal account.

Jonathan, on the other hand, opened a new account at Wells Fargo listing ZroBlack, LLC as his 

employer and declaring the newly opened account his distribution account. Jonathan transferred 

$740,000 to his newly formed distribution account according to the terms of the LLC agreement 

and then setup a meeting with a payroll service to ensure proper distribution of funds. Saenz 

refused to attend the meeting with the payroll service, and the cut all communications. See

Appendix, Exhibit 8.

21. 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?

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

Villarreal.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 15 of 60
Page 16 of 60

22. 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.

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

ZroBlack’s assets. This document entitled IP Due Diligence was filled out by Saenz and emailed 

to executives, legal counsel, and Mike Villarreal. 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. 

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

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

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. 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 the customer all items and copies containing or embodying 

proprietary information including all deliverables and works-in-progress. See Appendix, Exhibit 

7.

25. 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 (Mike) were 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 16 of 60
Page 17 of 60

advising the members on matters regarding the company, including the contract with . See

Appendix, Exhibit 12. 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 contract. See Appendix, 

Exhibit 1.

D. Saenz Attempts to Shop Secret Code to Others

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

confidentiality provisions) with , 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. Jonathan warned Saenz that he was in violation of the NDA and the 

confidentiality provisions of the PSA. Saenz threatened to continue to try to market the code. See

Appendix, Exhibit 1.

E. Saenz Misappropriated $740,000 while Missing Key Meetings with Customer and 

Providing No Services to ZroBlack

27. While Saenz talked big, he did little to help the company. After ZroBlack signed 

the contract with Saenz took half of the upfront payment ($740,000) and failed to perform 

any more work for ZroBlack. See Appendix, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 8. According the LLC agreement 

Article VI Bookkeeping, Section: 6.2 – Member’s Accounts, Saenz is required to return all money 

paid in advance by the company upon leaving the company. Saenz and Jonathan agreed to these 

provisions when they signed the LLC Agreement. 

28. May 2019, required both Jonathan and Saenz to travel to . Saenz 

refused, but eventually showed seven-days late. Two days after arriving in , Saenz sent 

an email stating that Jonathan would take care of 100% of the technical and that he (Saenz)

would no longer be attending morning meetings but would check up from time to time:

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 17 of 60
Page 18 of 60

I wanted to send you a note to clarify my role on these calls. I will 

be on from time to time as an observer and to offer guidance from 

ZroBlack’s point of view. Jonathan can handle all the technical side 

of the conversations.

See Appendix, Exhibit 10.

29. Jonathan was required to return to during the week of June 8 to 15, 2019; 

Saenz refused to accompany him. Saenz was also charged with completing tax returns and paying 

the quarterly business taxes; he did not.

30. Rather than working to promote ZroBlack, Saenz was living the high life. Upon 

information and belief, Saenz used most of the $740,000 he took from ZroBlack. Saenz invested 

around $305,000 into the stock market. Saenz also used around $423,850 in property renovations. 

See Appendix, Exhibit 1. As a result of Saenz’s refusal to perform his work, on or about June 26, 

2019, Villareal notified Saenz by text message that he wished to dissolve ZroBlack. See Appendix, 

Exhibit 11. In the notification, Jonathan took Saenz to task for not doing any work, stating:

You can’t sit back and expect a paycheck. You can’t say you front 

loaded the contract then dip out. Besides, I did a huge part to close 

out the contract, I did the entire due diligence and put the entire 

BRIX document together. I expected you to do work after we got 

paid, this isn’t a free ride man. only wants to go forward 

with me for a reason and I don’t know what happened to you. I don’t 

know why you stopped working after getting paid $750k.

See Appendix, Exhibit 11.

F. Gunn, Lee, & Cave, P.C. and Michael Villareal’s Further Involvement

31. After Jonathan threatened to dissolve ZroBlack, Saenz got Mike further involved. 

Though an obvious conflict of interest existed, Mike undertook to represent both Jonathan and 

Saenz in negotiations to settle their dispute. One of the main concerns was the $740,000 Saenz 

withdrew from the $1.5 million deposit that paid under the PSA. Those monies were paid 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 18 of 60
Page 19 of 60

in advance, and expected ZroBlack, Saenz, and Jonathan Villareal to perform under the 

contract. But Saenz refused to perform his obligations to ZroBlack and to . Nor would 

Saenz to agree to steps to ensure his performance, despite being told by Mike during a meeting in 

Mike’s office in July 2019 that he (Saenz) had breached his fiduciary duty to the company.

32. To salvage the relationship, on or about July 27, 2019, Mike suggested that 

Jonathan set tasks for Saenz (the putative CEO of ZroBlack). Saenz refused to have the tasks 

incorporated into any agreement, sending a text message to Jonathan stating he would not “tie a 

contract to daily tasks because that could be easily manipulated.” See Appendix, Exhibit 13. 

Jonathan responded, “Seriously. Please dude. That’s not fair. I literally have my work planned out 

for an entire year I’m asking you for one month. Hello? How can I help you with it?” See Appendix, 

Exhibit 13. Saenz also refused Mike’s suggestion that his CEO duties be incorporated into the 

company operating agreement. Once he had $740,000 in his pocket, Saenz simply did not want to 

do any more work for ZroBlack or 

33. After Defendant Saenz took the $740,000, ZroBlack was forced to cut salaries of 

its employees, and eventually let go ZroBlack’s CTO, whom Saenz acknowledge in text that 

without him, it would be almost impossible to complete the PSA. See Appendix, Exhibit 

40. Saenz refused to assist ZroBlack in paying bills and Jonathan was not able to make the tax 

payment. Jonathan was forced to incur serious debt in order to get the capital to complete 

obligations required under the PSA. 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 19 of 60
Page 20 of 60

34. 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.”

35. 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. 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 both Jonathan and Saenz and issued a waiver of conflict letter, 

no reasonable lawyer could believe that such representation of each client would not be materially 

affected. 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.

36. 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).

37. 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 

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

Appendix, Exhibit 27.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 20 of 60
Page 21 of 60

38. 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.

39. 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. 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. 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. By failing to include these provisions, Mike and Gunn, 

Lee create a vague document that made it unclear ZroBlack still owned these things and that Saenz 

was required to return them.

40. 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. 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. The Release’s vagueness about ZroBlack’s ownership of these items, however,

has necessitated this lawsuit because Saenz has refused to return all of these things. The release 

involved 4 parties and required specific provisions from was not involved with 

the release, and there were not signatures from on the release. Jonathan later had to register 

ZroBlack, LLC as a foreign entity doing business in Texas, a task Saenz refused to perform for the 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 21 of 60
Page 22 of 60

company while employed. Jonathan was required to spend $1,000.00 to makes sure ZroBlack was 

able to litigate in the state of Texas. 

41. Jonathan and Saenz executed the Release on August 9, 2019. Section 7 of the 

Release states that “Each Party hereto fully releases the other Parties from all claims and demands, 

known or unknown.” Section 7 goes on the discuss claims that are known and unknown. It does 

not address inchoate claims or claims that have not yet accrued. See Appendix, Exhibit 15.

42. Jonathan and Saenz also executed a Unanimous Written Consent in Lieu of Meeting 

by ZroBlack’s membership (hereinafter, “Consent”). See Appendix, Exhibit 16. The second 

“WHEREAS” in the Consent stated, “the undersigned wish to memorialize John Saenz’s 

assignment of his entire interest in ZroBlack LLC to Jonathan Villareal.” The first “RESOLVED” 

stated that “John Saenz hereby assigns his entire interest in ZroBlack LLC to Jonathan Villareal 

pursuant to Article VII of the ‘Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement for ZroBlack 

LLC’ dated January 14, 2019 and applicable laws, ...” Thus, Saenz assigned all his ownership 

interest to Jonathan, and relinquished all claims of any ownership of ZroBlack’s property. See 

Appendix, Exhibit 16.

43. After the deal for Saenz to exit ZroBlack was struck, Saenz refused to return the 

$740,000. Instead, Saenz continued to want the money he had taken from the company to be 

construed as a “gift.” 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. 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.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 22 of 60
Page 23 of 60

44. 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. 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. 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. Saenz has taken the website down effectively 

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

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

for and other matters. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 23 of 60
Page 24 of 60

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.

47. 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. He also demanded return of the 

$740,000 Saenz misappropriated from ZroBlack. See Appendix, Exhibit 22. 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.

48. 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. 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.

49. 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. 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. 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 24 of 60
Page 25 of 60

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.

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

Villareal and his law firm, the Gunn, Lee law firm. 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, Jonathan Villareal rightfully placed his trust in his lawyer and 

law firm, just as ZroBlack did with its corporate counsel.

51. 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. 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. Neither 

Jonathan Villareal nor ZroBlack anticipated they would be betrayed in the way they were.

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

52. 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 . 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.

H. Saenz Thwarts ZroBlack and Attempt to Contract with the 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 25 of 60
Page 26 of 60

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

Jonathan, ZroBlack, and pursued a contract with the . 

55. Furthermore, because iPhones make up more than a 40% share of the U.S. market, 

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.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 26 of 60
Page 27 of 60

56. 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 an Apple business developer account, making it impossible for 

Jonathan, ZroBlack, and to compete for this contract. See Appendix, Exhibit 

1.

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

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

code that is under the hood of the iOS operating system. See Appendix, Exhibits 29 and 30

(communications between Jonathan and . Jonathan sought the release of ZroBlack’s 

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

Saenz refused Jonathan’s requests to release the ZroBlack domain name to him so that he could 

update ZroBlack’s information for Apple and Dun & Bradstreet. Saenz even went so far as to block 

Jonathan’s email address. Exhibit 31. Because Jonathan could not update ZroBlack’s DUNS 

information, he could not confirm to Apple’s satisfaction that he owned ZroBlack and so Apple 

refused him a developer’s account. 

58. As a direct result of Saenz’s actions, Jonathan, ZroBlack, and lost the 

contract with the . However, given Jonathan, ZroBlack, and specialty in 

retrieving data from cellular devices, including Apple, Inc. products, any new contracts they 

compete for will likely also require that ZroBlack have an Apple developer account. Exhibit 32. 

But for Saenz’s actions, there was a reasonable probability the would have entered 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 27 of 60
Page 28 of 60

into a contract with Jonathan, ZroBlack, and . Saenz’s actions were a proximate cause of 

Jonathan, ZroBlack, and losing the contract, and their damages.

I. Saenz Refuses ’s Demand for Return of the Code and Blocks ZroBlack from 

Government Work by Withholding Its Account Credentials

59. 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.

60. 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. 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 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.

61. 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 

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 

4

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

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 28 of 60
Page 29 of 60

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

their legal and fraud departments.

IV. APPLICATION FOR CIVIL SEIZURE

J. Plaintiffs are entitled to a civil seizure of the laptop computer

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

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

63. ZroBlack requests a civil seizure of the ZroBlack laptop that contains its trade 

secrets in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2). Defendant Saenz is withholding the laptop and 

refusing to return it.

64. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(i) provides, in pertinent part, that a civil seizure may be 

granted upon ex parte application but only in extraordinary circumstances.5 The order may provide 

for the seizure of property that is necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of a trade 

secret, in this instance, the ZroBlack lap in Saenz’s possession and containing ZroBlack’s trade 

secrets.

65. Prior to issuing an ex parte seizure order, the court must find that:

i. An order issued pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure or another form of equitable relief is inadequate because the 

Defendant would evade, avoid, or otherwise not comply with such an 

order;

ii. Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable injury if 

seizure is not ordered; 

5 Plaintiffs recognize that ex parte may be a misnomer under these unusual circumstances. At 

the time the Complaint was filed, Plaintiffs were seeking a ex parte order. No ruling was issued 

by the Court however, and Defendants quickly responded. Notwithstanding those facts, 

Plaintiffs believe seizure is appropriate under the factors set forth in the statute and discussed 

below.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 29 of 60
Page 30 of 60

iii. The harm the Plaintiff of denying the application outweighs the harm to 

the legitimate interests of the Defendant and substantially outweighs the 

harm to any third parties who may be harmed by such seizure;

iv. Plaintiff is likely to succeed in showing that the information is a trade 

secret and the person against whom seizure would be ordered 

misappropriated the trade by improper means;

v. The person against whom seizure would be ordered has actual possession 

of the trade secret and any property to be seized;

vi. Plaintiff can describe with reasonable particularity the matter to be seized 

and the location where the matter is to be seized;

vii. The person against whom seizure would be ordered may destroy, move, 

hide, or otherwise make such matter inaccessible to the court if Plaintiff 

were to proceed and notify Defendant; and

viii. Plaintiff has not publicized the requested seizure. 

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii).

K. An Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Is Inadequate

66. A preliminary injunction would be inadequate under the circumstances. The 

evidence offered by the Plaintiff in support of this Application clearly demonstrates that an ex 

parte seizure order is the only adequate means of ensuring that the Defendant will return the 

Plaintiff’s trade secrets. Given the Defendant’s practice of deleting the email server, taking down 

the website, and refusing to return the laptop with trade secrets thereon, it is almost certain that 

Defendant may evade, avoid, or otherwise fail to return Plaintiff’s laptop and trade secrets absent 

the issuance of an ex parte seizure order.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 30 of 60
Page 31 of 60

67. Plaintiff has made numerous requests for the return of ZroBlack’s laptop after the 

parties negotiated Saenz’s departure from ZroBlack, however Saenz refused each such request. 

Instead, Saenz kept the laptop. Further, in retaliation, he took down ZroBlack’s website knowing 

the ZroBlack company email addresses were all still dependent upon that domain. As a result, 

ZroBlack and Jonathan did not receive important communications from customer representatives 

and have since had to repair their relationship with their primary customer. ZroBlack still does not 

have access to communications which are key to their business moving forward.

68. Courts have also held that seizure is proper when a Defendant could easily copy the 

information onto another computer or other storage media without the knowledge of the Plaintiff 

or the Court. See Blue Star Land Services v. Coleman, No. CIV-17-931-C, 2017 WL 11309528, at 

*1 (W.D. Okla., August 31, 2017). Saenz still maintains control over the laptop and trade secrets 

contained therein even after multiple requests for its return have been made. Saenz could easily 

copy ZroBlack’s trade secrets and software code onto another computer or other storage media 

without the knowledge of the Plaintiff or Court.

69. More importantly, the code on the ZroBlack laptop which Saenz refuses to return 

is the same code described in 

Exhibit 28, 

. Thus, in the wrong hands, this code could be used to 

compromise . Unlike Jonathan 

Villarreal, John Saenz does not have a U.S. government security clearance. Furthermore, as

discussed in the Amended Complaint and Amended Application, Saenz has tried to market the 

code in the past, in violation of the confidentiality agreement he signed with .

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 31 of 60
Page 32 of 60

70. Saenz has shown and continues to show that he will evade, avoid, or otherwise not 

comply with requests to return the computer. For these reasons, the only adequate means of 

achieving the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b), namely preventing the propagation and 

dissemination of trade secrets, is to issue an ex parte seizure order.

L. Plaintiff Has and Will Continue to Suffer Immediate Irreparable Injury

71. Zroblack is suffering and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable harm to 

its business and goodwill because of Saenz’ conduct.

72. Courts have held that injuries may include a continued disadvantage in the 

marketplace. Axis Steel Detailing, Inc. v. Prilex Detailing LLC, No. 2:17–cv–00428–JNP, 2017 

WL 8947964, at *2 (D. Utah, June 29, 2017). Furthermore, Courts have held that the possibility 

of a transfer or conveyance of the property to a third party or a competitor may cause immediate 

and irreparable harm. AVX Corporation v. Kim, NO. 6:17-00624-MGL, 2017 WL 11316598, at *2 

(D. S.C., March 13, 2017).

73. Saenz is in possession of ZroBlack’s trade secrets, including software code for 

accessing cell phones wirelessly and the usernames and passwords to access ZroBlack’s GoDaddy 

account. The software code is located on the laptop, and the username and password for the 

GoDaddy account are also likely located there. ZroBlack’s continues to suffer continued 

disadvantage in the marketplace by being unable to access its domain on GoDaddy. ZroBlack’s 

webpage is currently down, and its email server has been wiped out, meaning customers and 

potential customers can’t email ZroBlack through ZroBlack’s domain name.

74. Furthermore, if Defendant Saenz continues to knowingly withhold ZroBlack’s 

property and trade secrets, ZroBlack will suffer significant and irreparable financial injury. 

ZroBlack is deeply concerned that the software contained on the laptop may fall into the wrong 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 32 of 60
Page 33 of 60

hands or be used for unlawful purposes. The software on the ZroBlack laptop allows access to cell 

phones. ZroBlack has no control over Saenz’s activities or use of the ZroBlack laptop.

M. Balance of Hardships Favors Seizure

75. Before issuing an ex parte seizure order, the court must find “that the harm to the 

applicant of denying the application outweighs the harm to the legitimate interests of the person 

against whom seizure would be ordered if granting the application and substantially outweighs the 

harm to any third parties who may be harmed by such seizure.” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii)(III).

76. ZroBlack suffers irreparable harm to its consumer goodwill and business reputation 

each passing day Saenz controls a ZroBlack laptop and email server. Saenz has no legitimate 

interests or rights in the trade secrets or GoDaddy account, nor does he have a right to withhold 

them. By contrast, the only harm Saenz will suffer should a seizure order issue is seizure of the

laptop computer rightfully owned by ZroBlack.

77. Additionally, the injury that ZroBlack will suffer outweighs any damage that will 

potentially be done to Defendant Saenz. Seizing ZroBlack’s laptop does not deprive Defendant of 

any legal remedy should he prevail in this lawsuit. The requested seizure of the laptop in Saenz’ 

possession will not foreseeably harm any third parties.

78. The balance of hardships clearly favors Plaintiff’s position.

N. Plaintiff Owns Trade Secrets and Saenz Misappropriated Them

79. Before issuing an ex parte seizure order of trade secrets, the court must find that 

“the applicant is likely to succeed in showing that—

(aa) the information is a trade secret; and 

(bb) the person against whom seizure would be ordered—

(AA) misappropriated the trade secret of the applicant by improper 

means; or

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 33 of 60
Page 34 of 60

(BB) conspired to use improper means to misappropriate the trade 

secret of the applicant”.

18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(IV).

a. ZroBlack Possessed Trade Secrets.

80. The Defend Trade Secrets Act defines trade secrets to include “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). Under the statute 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).

81. Here, the evidence shows that the laptop in Saenz’s possession contains trade 

secrets. See Appendix, Exhibit 1. That information includes proprietary computer code. As 

evidenced by the contract between ZroBlack and its Foreign Customer ZroBlack’s proprietary 

Code is related to products or services used in interstate and foreign commerce. See Appendix, 

Exhibit 7.

82. ZroBlack’s trade secrets also include the username and password used to access 

ZroBlack’s GoDaddy account. One federal court has concluded that login and password 

information to access company computers and networks can be a trade secret. TMX Funding, Inc. 

v. Impero Technologies, Inc., No. C10-00202 JF (PVT), 2010 WL 2509979 at * 4 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 

17, 2010). According to the Court in TMX Funding, login and password information is generally 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 34 of 60
Page 35 of 60

not known outside of companies and their economic value is derived from not being generally 

known to others. Id.

83. The evidence also shows that ZroBlack took steps reasonable under the 

circumstances to keep the information secret. Although ZroBlack had ten employees, only Saenz

and Jonathan had access to the proprietary code, and access to the code was by password. See

Appendix, Exhibit 1. When dealing with customers and potential customers, ZroBlack used nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements to protect the trade secrets. See Appendix, Exhibit 7 and 

Exhibit 8. Regarding the GoDaddy login and password, only Saenz knew that information.

84. ZroBlack’s trade secrets also derived 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. ZroBlack’s contract 

with demonstrates the economic value of the computer code. See Appendix, Exhibit 7 and 

Exhibit 1. Login and password information also derives independent economic value from not 

being generally known. TMX Funding, 2010 WL 2509979 at * 4.

85. Finally, the evidence establishes that ZroBlack is the owner of the trade secrets. See

Appendix, Exhibit 1.

b. Defendant Saenz Misappropriated the Trade Secrets.

86. Saenz misappropriated the trade secrets by refusing to return ZroBlack’s laptop that 

contained the software code and other proprietary information. Per the terms of the Release and 

Consent, Saenz relinquished all interest in ZroBlack, including all interest in any property owned 

by ZroBlack. See Appendix, Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 16. That property included the laptop and the 

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

password information and software that controlled the emails and website URL for ZroBlack.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 35 of 60
Page 36 of 60

87. 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. See Appendix, Exhibit 22 and Exhibit 23. Saenz knew he used improper means to 

acquire the trade secrets, thus misappropriating the trade secrets. He used improper means by 

breaching the duty of confidence and trust placed in him by ZroBlack while he was CEO. He also 

improperly acquired access to the trade secrets by misrepresenting his skill and experience to

Jonathan. Those trade secrets included the software code created and maintained by ZroBlack.

88. Defendant Saenz has the intent to convert the trade secret and knew the offense 

would injure the owner of the of the trade secret.

O. Saenz Has Control of the Laptop.

89. Defendant Saenz maintains control of the laptop that contains ZroBlack’s trade 

secrets. Defendant Saenz has failed to return the laptop and trade secrets after multiple requests. 

See Appendix, Exhibit1 and Exhibit 22.

P. The Matter to Be Seized and Its Location.

90. The matter to be seized is a 15-inch Apple MacBook Pro, part number MR94LL/a, 

serial number C02YF1Y9JG5J. The matter to be seized can be located at 28710 Estin Height St., 

San Antonio, Texas 78260 as all trade secrets are contained therein.

Q. Saenz may destroy, move, hide or make the matter inaccessible to the Court.

91. Before issuing an ex parte seizure order, the court must find “the person against 

whom seizure would be ordered, or persons acting in concert with such person, would destroy, 

move, hide, or otherwise make such matter inaccessible to the court, if the applicant were to 

proceed on notice to such person”. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(a)(ii)(VII).

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 36 of 60
Page 37 of 60

92. As discussed above, Saenz will almost certainly move, hide, or destroy the laptop 

containing ZroBlack’s trade secrets, if he is given notice of this action and the relief sought. Saenz 

has already deleted the GoDaddy account email server, thereby destroying hundreds of emails and 

documents supporting Plaintiffs’ claims, and hundreds of emails and documents related to 

Plaintiffs’ projects.

93. Saenz may continue to destroy, move, hide, or make the matter inaccessible to the 

Court so long as he maintains control of the ZroBlack laptop, and the trade secretes contained 

therein.

R. Applicant Has Not Publicized the Requested Seizure.

94. Prior to issuing an ex parte seizure order relating to misappropriation of trade 

secrets, the court must find that the applicant has not publicized the requested seizure. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii)(VIII). Plaintiffs have not publicized the requested seizure. See Appendix, 

Exhibit 1.

V. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, TEMPORARY 

INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

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

Application as if fully set forth herein.

96. Plaintiffs request a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent 

injunction ordering Saenz to release the domain for ZroBlack’s website and email servers to 

ZroBlack. FED. R. CIV. P. 65. Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary and permanent injunction order 

John Saenz to take the actions necessary to establish ZroBlack’s ownership of its DUNs number, 

its SAV.gov account, and its CAGE number.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 37 of 60
Page 38 of 60

97. Furthermore, should the Court deny ZroBlack’s request for seizure, ZroBlack 

requests a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction ordering 

Defendant Saenz to return the ZroBlack-owned laptop that contains ZroBlack’s trade secrets. Id.

98. Injunctive relief is necessary to restore the status quo, namely, ZroBlack’s use and 

control of its laptop, email server, website, DUNs and CAGE numbers, and SAV.gov account. 

Plaintiff has valid causes of action against Defendant Saenz, has a high probability of succeeding 

on the merits of his causes of action, and would suffer probable, imminent, and irreparable harm 

if Defendant Saenz is not ordered to return the computer and turn over the login credentials for the 

ZroBlack, LLC website and email server hosted by GoDaddy.com, and take the steps necessary to 

establish ZroBlack’s ownership of its DUNs number, its SAV.gov account, and its CAGE number.

99. Furthermore, if Defendant Saenz continues to withhold ZroBlack’s laptop, emails 

server, website, DUNs and CAGE numbers, and SAV.gov account. Plaintiffs will suffer significant 

financial damages. Accordingly, Plaintiffs specifically ask this Court to enjoin Defendant from 

withholding any of the property and immediately return it to ZroBlack.

A. Grounds for Injunctive Relief

100. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) it is likely to 

succeed on the merits, (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief, (3) that it has no adequate remedy at law, (4) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, 

and that (5) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “At the preliminary injunction stage, the procedures in district court are less 

formal, and the district court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence, including hearsay 

evidence.” Sirius Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Sparks, 138 F. Supp. 3d 821, 836 (W.D. Tex. 2015).

101. As the attached evidence shows, ZroBlack owns a laptop that contains its trade 

secrets. ZroBlack also owns its domain name, which includes its webpage and email server that 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 38 of 60
Page 39 of 60

Saenz has misappropriated and is under his control. Alternatively, ZroBlack has a greater right of 

possession to the domain name under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Finally, 

ZroBlack owns its DUNs and CAGE numbers, and owns its SAV.gov account.

102. Injunctive relief is proper under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1836(b)(3) and The Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 

134A.003 to preserve ZroBlack’s trade secrets until the lawsuit is resolved. Additionally, both 

Acts authorize injunctive relief to protect against threatened misappropriation. 18 U.S.C. § 

1836(b)(3)(A)(i); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.003(a). Both Acts also authorize 

use of affirmative acts compelled by court order to protect trade secrets. 18 U.S.C. § 

1836(b)(3)(A)(ii); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.003(c).

103. Injunctive relief is also proper under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 

§1030(g) and the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d).

104. Finally, under Texas law, there is clear case precedent supporting the use of 

injunctive relief to compel a party to return company assets which the party has wrongfully taken. 

See generally RP&R, Inc. v. Territo, 32 S.W.3d 396, 400-01 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2000, no pet.) (explaining mandatory injunction is proper to prevent irreparable injury or extreme 

hardship). Sometimes the status quo is a condition of action, not of rest, and the condition of rest 

is exactly what will inflict the irreparable injury on the Plaintiff. Rhodia, Inc. v. Harris County, 

470 S.W.2d 415, 419 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], no writ). Additionally, a mandatory 

injunction is proper when the defendant acts with full knowledge that his acts are wrongful. Zelios 

v. City of Dallas, 568 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (internal 

citations omitted).

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits -- Standard

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 39 of 60
Page 40 of 60

105. A party seeking injunctive relief need not show certainty of winning on the merits. 

Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595-96 (5th Cir. 2011); see also Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. 

Miller, Mary Kay Kane, 11A Federal Practice & Procedure § 2948.3 (2d ed. 1995) (“All courts 

agree that plaintiff must present a prima facie case but need not show that he is certain to win.”). 

To assess the likelihood of success on the merits, courts look to “standards provided by the 

substantive law.” Id. Additionally, “the degree of persuasion necessary on the substantial 

likelihood of success factor may decrease as the level of persuasion in relation to the other three 

factors increases.” Courtroom Sci., Inc. v. Andrews, No. 3:09-CV-251-o, 2009 WL 1313274, AT 

*3 (N.D.Tex. May 11, 2009) (internal citations omitted)

C. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Trade Secret Misappropriation

ii. ZroBlack Possessed Trade Secrets. 

106. The Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act have 

essentially the same definition for a trade secret. The Defend Trade Secrets Act defines trade 

secrets to include “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). 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, 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 40 of 60
Page 41 of 60

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). 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).

107. Here, the evidence shows that the laptop in Saenz’s possession contains trade 

secrets. See Appendix, Exhibit 1. That information includes proprietary computer code and the 

login and password information to ZroBlack’s GoDaddy account. As evidenced by the contract 

between ZroBlack and its Foreign Customer, ZroBlack’s proprietary Code is related to products 

or services used in interstate and foreign commerce. See Appendix, Exhibit 7.

108. The evidence also shows that ZroBlack took steps reasonable under the 

circumstances to keep the information secret. Although ZroBlack had ten employees, only Saenz 

and Jonathan had access to the proprietary code, and access to the code was by password. See

Appendix, Exhibit 1. When dealing with customers and potential customers, ZroBlack used nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements to protect the trade secrets. See Appendix, Exhibit 7 and 

Exhibit 6.

109. Furthermore, although Saenz did not sign a non-disclosure agreement, Texas law 

imposes duties of confidentiality on those persons who know or have reason to know information 

is a trade secret. American Derringer Corp. v. Bond, 924 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Tex. App.—Waco 

1996, no pet.) (“Upon the formation of an employment relationship, certain duties arise apart from 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 41 of 60
Page 42 of 60

any written contract ... One of those duties forbids an employee form using confidential or 

proprietary information acquired during the relationship in a manner adverse to the employer.”) 

(citing Miller Paper Co. v. Roberts Paper Co., 901 S.W.2d 593, 600 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, no 

writ). This obligation survives termination of the employment relationship. Miller Paper, 901 

S.W.2d at 600. The rule is the same for those who go into business together. See Crutcher-RolfsCummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380, 387 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d 

n.r.e.) (applying confidentiality obligation to joint venturers). As CEO of ZroBlack and Jonathan’s 

partner, Saenz was under a duty of confidence not to use ZroBlack’s confidential information in a 

manner adverse to ZroBlack’s interests.

110. ZroBlack’s trade secrets also derived 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. ZroBlack’s contract 

with its Foreign Customer demonstrates the economic value of the computer code. See Appendix, 

Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 1.

111. Finally, the evidence establishes that ZroBlack is the owner of the trade secrets. Id.

iii. Defendant Saenz Misappropriated the Trade Secrets or Threatens to Misappropriate 

Trade Secrets.

112. Misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Texas Uniform Trade 

Secrets Act 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); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(3). 

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

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134A.002(2).

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 42 of 60
Page 43 of 60

113. Saenz misappropriated the trade secrets by refusing to return a ZroBlack laptop that 

contained the software code and other proprietary information. Per the terms of the Release and 

Consent, Saenz relinquished all interest in ZroBlack. See Appendix, Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 16. By 

assigning all his interest in ZroBlack to Saenz effectively transferred any ownership interest he 

had in ZroBlack’s personal and intellectual property to ZroBlack because the Operating 

Agreement provided that all property to be owned by ZroBlack was to be in its name or the name 

of a nominee. See Appendix, Exhibit 3, § 7; see also Exhibit 15 § 6 and Exhibit 16 (“RESOLVED, 

that John Saenz hereby assigns his entire interest in ZroBlack, LLC to Jonathan Villarreal ...”). 

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, 

including passwords and account names. Account names and passwords for accessing its website 

and email server are confidential and proprietary to ZroBlack. See TMX Funding, Inc. v. Impero 

Technologies, Inc., No. C10-00202 JF (PVT), 2010 WL 2509979 at * 4 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2010) 

(holding login and password information could be a trade secret).

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

access the information on it was revoked. 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. 

See Appendix, Exhibit 22 and Exhibit 23. 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.

115. Both the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act 

expressly authorize injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 43 of 60
Page 44 of 60

secret. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 134A.003(a). Saenz 

has misappropriated ZroBlack’s trade secrets and confidential information and should be enjoined 

from the further use or disclosure of the trade secrets and confidential information. Alternatively, 

threatened misappropriation exists because Saenz, as the former CEO of ZroBlack, was charged 

with marketing ZroBlack and its unique product. Saenz possesses ZroBlack’s trade secrets and 

confidential information and is in a position to use it. FMC Corp. v. Varco Intern., Inc., 677 F.2d 

500, 503-504 (5th Cir. 1982) (injunctive relief appropriate where defendant employee would be 

called upon to decide what he believes he can and cannot properly disclose to his new employer; 

“even assuming the best of good faith” the employee would “have difficulty preventing his 

knowledge from infiltrating his work.”); T-N-T- Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc., 

965 S.W.2d 18, 24 (Tex. App.—Houston[1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (because defendant possessed 

proprietary information and was in position to use it, threat of use or disclosure was enough to 

support injunctive relief); Rugen v. Interactive Business Systems, Inc., 864 S.W.2d 548, 552 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1993, no pet.) (holding defendant was in possession of plaintiff’s confidential

information and in position to use it, it was probably defendant would use the information absent 

injunctive relief); Weed Eater, Inc. v. Dowling, 562 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 

1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (Defendant “can hardly prevent his knowledge of his former employer’s 

methods from showing up in his work;” injunction sustained).

D. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

116. Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of the Computer 

Fraud and Abuse Act, 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 

brought 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. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 44 of 60
Page 45 of 60

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 courts have held that the costs of a forensic investigation/damage assessment 

constitute loss under the CFAA. 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).

117. If this requirement 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); 

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. at 658-659; eBay Inc. v. Digital Point Solutions, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 

2d 1156, 1163-64 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

a. Saenz Accessed A Computer in Violation of the CFAA. 

118. Once Saenz parted ways with ZroBlack, he was no longer authorized to access the 

laptop owned by ZroBlack; his authorization was revoked. Nonetheless, he has continued to use 

the laptop, despite being asked to return the computer several times. See Appendix, Exhibit 22 and 

Exhibit 23. Thus, not only did Saenz not have authorization to access the computer, he knew he 

did not have authorization to access the computer. Defendant Saenz has intentionally accessed a 

computer without authorization or exceeded authorized access and thereby obtained information 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 45 of 60
Page 46 of 60

from a protected computer. That information was ZroBlack’s proprietary information, including 

its code. Saenz’ theft and withholding of the computer violates 28 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(c). That 

conduct also violates 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) because Saenz intended to defraud.

119. 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. 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 an agent was no longer authorized and he was required to hand over all access rights to 

ZroBlack. 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.

b. Loss Aggregating More than $5,000.

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

ZroBlack’s property to it upon request. Saenz refused to return the laptop and proprietary 

information and refused to release ZroBlack’s domain name. ZroBlack retained counsel (the Gun, 

Lee law firm) to obtain return of the computer, data, and domain name. ZroBlack spent in excess 

of $5,000 in attorney’s fees in attempting to resolve the issues between Saenz and ZroBlack and 

obtain the return of the computer, data, and domain to ZroBlack. See Appendix, Exhibit 25. 

ZroBlack also spent more than $5,000 trying to resolve the problems caused by the loss of data.

E. Likelihood of Success on Merits – Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

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

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

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 46 of 60
Page 47 of 60

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). The ACPA authorizes a court to order the forfeiture or cancellation 

of a domain name or the transfer of a domain name to the owner of a mark in any civil action 

brought under the Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(C).

a. The ZroBlack Name is Distinctive, Entitling It to Protection. 

122. ZroBlack is entitled to common law trademark protection under the § 43(a) Lanham 

Act. 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Trademarks are normally assigned to ‘categories of generally increasing 

distinctiveness’: (1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbitrary, or (5) fanciful.’” Two 

Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992). “The latter three categories of marks, 

because their intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product, are deemed 

inherently distinctive and are entitled to protection.” Id.; see also Am. Auto. Ass’n (Inc.) v. AAA 

Ins. Agency, Inc., 618 F. Supp. 787, 792 (W.D. Tex. 1985) (“[A]n arbitrary or fanciful mark, as 

the name suggests, is one which neither describes nor suggests the nature of the product or service 

with which it is used. An arbitrary or fanciful mark is considered inherently distinctive and is 

entitled to the greatest degree of protection.”). The word “ZroBlack” bears no relation to the 

product or service it identifies. Because it is inherently distinctive, it meets the first requirement 

under the ACPA for protection.

123. Alternatively, in determining whether a mark is distinctive under the ACPA, a court 

may consider (1) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (2) the duration 

and extent of use of the mark; (3) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark; 

(4) the geographical extent of the area in which the mark is used; (5) the channels of trade for 

which the goods or services with which the mark is used; (6) the degree of recognition of the mark 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 47 of 60
Page 48 of 60

in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the mark's owner and the person against whom 

the injunction is sought; (7) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third 

parties; and (8) whether the mark is registered. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1); see Shields v. Zuccarini, 

2001 WL 671607, *3 (3d Cir.2000); Sporty's Farm L.L.C. v. Sportman's Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 

489, 497 n. 10 (2d Cir.2000).

124. In this case, the mark is arbitrary or distinctive. This factor weighs heavily in favor 

or ZroBlack. It has been in use for a little over a year. This factor weighs in favor of ZroBlack. 

Although it has not received much advertising or promotion, it is known, particularly to ZroBlack’s 

Foreign Customer. This factor weighs slightly in favor of ZroBlack. The mark has been used in 

Texas, in parts of the United States, and in This factor weighs in favor of ZroBlack. The 

mark has some recognition in the areas of trade used by ZroBlack; namely, recognizes 

the mark. This factor weighs slightly in favor of ZroBlack. No third parties use the same or a 

similar mark. This factor weighs heavily in favor of ZroBlack. Finally, the mark is not registered, 

but is entitled to protection under sec. 43(a) of the Lanham Act. This is only factor that is neutral 

or weighs against ZroBlack. Here again, under this framework, ZroBlack meets the test for 

distinctiveness and thus the first element under the ACPA.

b. The Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to ZroBlack’s Mark. 

125. The name of Plaintiff is ZroBlack, LLC. The domain name Saenz holds is 

www.zroblack.com. The domain is identical or confusingly similar to ZroBlack’s mark. ZroBlack 

has met the second prong for protection under the ACPA.

c. Saenz is Using the Domain Name in a Bad Faith Attempt to Profit Therefrom. 

126. Saenz is holding, and continues to hold, the domain name in a bad faith attempt to 

profit therefrom. He has demanded $7,000 from ZroBlack for the domain. See Appendix, Exhibit 

1. Courts have held that intent to sell a domain name to the rightful owner of a mark is a bad faith 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 48 of 60
Page 49 of 60

attempt to profit from the registration. E. & H. Gallo Winery v. Spider Webs Ltd., 286 F.3d 270, 

275-276 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1325 (9th CIR. 

1998)). Here, Saenz offered to sell the domain back to ZroBlack for $7,000.

127. The Court may also consider nine nonexclusive factors to determine whether the 

Defendant acted in bad faith. Emerald City Mgmt., LLC v. Khan, No. 4:14-cv-358, 2016 WL 98751 

*13 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2016). Those nonexclusive factors include, (1) the trademark or other 

intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name, (2) 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, (3) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with 

the bona fide offering of any goods or services, (4) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair

use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name, (5) 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, (6) 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, (7) 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, (8) 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 49 of 60
Page 50 of 60

that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or 

services of the parties, and, (9) 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). 15 

U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i); Emerald City, 2016 WL 98571 at * 13.

128. “The first four [factors] suggest circumstances that may tend to indicate an absence 

of bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a mark, and the others suggest circumstances that 

may tend to indicate that such bad-faith intent exists.” Id. (citing Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 

309, 319 (4th Cir. 2005). “In addressing these factors, a court is to consider the totality of the 

circumstances and ‘not simply count up which party has more factors in its favor after the evidence 

is in.’” Id. “Because the factors are merely permissive, the court need not consider all factors in 

every case.” Id.

129. The most important grounds, however, for determining bad faith “‘are the unique 

circumstances of th[e] case, which do not fit neatly into the specific factors enumerated by 

Congress, buy which may nonetheless be considered under the statute. Texas Intern. Property 

Associates v. Hoerbiger Holding AG, 642 F. Supp. 2d 582, 589-590 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (citing 

Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 238 F.3d 264, 268 (4th Cir.2001)). “Describing 

the analysis another way, other courts have emphasized that a bad faith determination under ACPA 

should be made with regard to the totality of the circumstances. Id. (citing Virtual Works, 238 F.3d 

at 270).

130. Turning to each of the 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(B)(i) factors, it is apparent that 

Defendant Saenz maintains control and use of the ZroBlack website with a bad faith intent. Saenz 

does not have any the trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name. The 

“ZroBlack” name is a distinctive identifier for the products and services ZroBlack provides. After 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 50 of 60
Page 51 of 60

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 intentionally 

failed to maintain accurate contact information.

F. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Tortious Interference with Prospective 

Contractual Relations

131. 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. Plotkin v. Joekel, 304 S.W.3d 

455, 487 (Tex. App.—Houston[1st Dist. 2009, pet. denied).

132. The exhibits attached to this Amended Application show that Plaintiffs were 

pursuing a contract with the . 

 However, 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. Exhibits 31 and 32 (communications 

between Villarreal and . Jonathan sought the release of ZroBlack’s domain name 

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

refused Jonathan’s requests to release the ZroBlack domain name to him so that he could update 

ZroBlack’s information for Apple and Dun & Bradstreet. Saenz even went so far as to block 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 51 of 60
Page 52 of 60

Jonathan’s email address. Exhibit 31. Because Jonathan could not update ZroBlacks’s DUNS 

information, he could not confirm to Apple’s satisfaction that he owned ZroBlack; Apple refused 

him a developer’s account. As a result, ZroBlack (and ) lost the contract. Exhibit 32. But 

for Saenz’s actions, there was a reasonable probability the would have entered into 

a contract with Jonathan, ZroBlack, and . John Saenz’s actions were a proximate cause of 

Jonathan, ZroBlack, and losing the contract, and their damages.

G. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Conversion

133. The elements of a cause of action 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. NXCESS Motor Cars, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 317 S.W.2d 462, 

470 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied).

134. The evidence attached to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1), Application for Seizure, 

Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 2), and this 

supplement to the application, show that ZroBlack is the undisputed owner of the laptop and 

ZroBlack.com domain. See Appendix, Exhibits 1, 3, 5. The fact that the domain name was 

“ZroBlack.com” is an additional indicium of ownership, given the position Saenz held at the time 

of the purchase of the domain. The laptop is personal property. Although no court has addressed 

whether a domain name is “personal property,” it is analogous to intellectual property, which has 

been characterized as personal property. The evidence also shows that Saenz had no right to 

exercise dominion and control over that property. See Appendix, Exhibit 15. Nothing in the release 

transfers ownership of ZroBlack property to Saenz. In fact, the Release requires Saenz to assign 

all of his interest in ZroBlack to Jonathan Villarreal. By foregoing any right of ownership to 

ZroBlack, Saenz necessarily foregoes any claim of ownership in ZroBlack property.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 52 of 60
Page 53 of 60

135. Saenz’s argument that the Release discharges any obligation he has to return 

ZroBlack property is misguided. The Release make no mention of ZroBlack’s property and 

contains no hint of an assignment or transfer of ownership in that property from ZroBlack to Saenz. 

In fact, it requires Saenz to assign all interest in ZroBlack to Villarreal. To contend that ZroBlack’s 

post-Release request for a return of its property is a “claim” extinguished by the Release turns the 

Release on its head. Saenz can’t be expected to assign his ownership of ZroBlack to Villarreal but 

not return ZroBlack’s property to ZroBlack. Nor would any reasonable person read the Release in 

that manner. Thus, Saenz’s exercise of dominion and control over the property is wrongful.

136. Finally, as the exhibits show, ZroBlack was injured. It does not have its laptop. Its 

webpage has been removed, and it cannot access its email server, which has been deleted but which 

may be recoverable if ZroBlack can gain access to the domain. The exhibit also shows damage in 

the form of at least one lost contract.

H. Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Civil Theft (TTLA)

137. Finally, the elements of a cause of action under the TTLA are (1) the plaintiff had 

a possessory right to the property or was the provider of services, (2) the defendant unlawfully 

appropriated, secured, or stole the plaintiff’s property or services, (3) the unlawful taking was 

made with the intent to (a) deprive the plaintiff or the property, or (b) avoid payment for services, 

and (4) the plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the theft. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 

134.002(2), 134.003, 134.005(a), TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §§ 31.03(a), (B)(1), 31.04(a).

138. As demonstrated, ZroBlack has a possessory right to the laptop, Saenz unlawfully 

appropriated that laptop with the intent to deprive ZroBlack of that property, and ZroBlack 

sustained damage as a result. The fact that Saenz deleted ZroBlack’s webpage and email server is 

further an indicium that Saenz intended to deprive ZroBlack of ownership of its property.

I. Irreparable Harm

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 53 of 60
Page 54 of 60

139. To successfully obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that it is likely to 

suffer irreparable injury, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Daniel Health Scis., LLC 

v. Vascular Scis., LLC, 710 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 2013). State law determines whether harm is 

irreparable. Heil Trailer Intern. Co. v. Kula, 542 Fed. Appx. 329, 336 (5th Cir. 2013).6

140. Generally, irreparable injury is one that cannot be undone by monetary damages or 

one for which monetary damages would be “especially difficult to calculate.” Id. However, when 

a defendant is in possession of trade secrets and in a position to use them, state courts have 

presumed irreparable harm will result absent injunctive relief. Id. As observed by the Fifth Circuit 

in Heil Trailer, Texas courts have frequently found irreparable harm in such cases, further noting 

that the Fifth Circuit itself had upheld similar findings by federal district courts. Id. at 336 (and 

cases cited therein). Texas law presumes irreparable harm where trade secrets are concerned. Id.

141. Even without a presumption of irreparable harm, ZroBlack has nonetheless 

demonstrated irreparable harm. The evidence shows:

a) After ZroBlack executed an NDA with its Foreign Customer 

(and after execution of the PSA) Saenz nonetheless attempted to 

shop the technology to others. Saenz also threatened to do so despite 

the fact ZroBlack had signed an NDA. Furthermore, Saenz has 

repeatedly refused to return the computer on which a copy of the 

code is stored. Under these circumstances ZroBlack has 

demonstrated that use or disclosure of the trade secrets is threatened 

and do irreparable injury to ZroBlack.

b) Saenz has refused to return the domain for ZroBlack’s 

webpage and email server to ZroBlack despite repeated requests that 

he do so. Saenz deleted the webpage and email server, destroying 

6 This rule is generally applied in state law diversity cases. However, where a federal court is 

analyzing state law under a pendant jurisdiction claim, the same principle applies. Here, 

however, the Court is presented with a horse of a slightly different color—the inclusion of a 

federal trade secrets misappropriation claim. Nonetheless, because the reasoning behind state 

law decisions on irreparable harm is equally compelling under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 

Plaintiff respectfully suggests that the same rule should apply to injunctive relief sought under 

the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 54 of 60
Page 55 of 60

valuable ZroBlack records. Finally, Saenz attempted to extort 

money from ZroBlack by offering to “sell” the domain back to 

ZroBlack for $7,000.

142. Over and beyond the trade secrets issue, the harm done due to Saenz’s continued 

interference with ZroBlack’s business relations by refusing to resolve the DUNS number issue 

precludes him from obtaining government contracts, the value of which may be especially difficult 

to calculate. His continued withholding of ZroBlack’s domain name is irreparable because 

diminishes ZroBlack’s chances of recovering its email server, and his continued possession of a 

laptop belonging to ZroBlack, increases the risk the trade secrets thereon are used of disclosed.

J. No Adequate Remedy at Law

143. The injury cannot be prevented or fully rectified by a final judgment following a 

trial, nor can Plaintiff be adequately compensated by damages. The inability of ZroBlack to access 

its laptop that contains its trade secrets and emails from its Foreign Customer and potential 

customers will continue to cause ZroBlack to lose potential contracts and cause continuing injury 

to ZroBlack’s goodwill and reputation, for which ZroBlack has no adequate remedy at law. While 

the product and contracts do have monetary value, the painstaking process undertaken by Plaintiff 

in the development and an award of monetary damages alone cannot fully compensate ZroBlack 

for its injuries and ZroBlack’s lack an adequate remedy at law.

144. As stated in the original Application, the inability of ZroBlack to access its laptop 

that contains its trade secrets and emails from its Foreign Customer and potential customers will 

continue to cause ZroBlack to lose potential contracts and cause continuing injury to ZroBlack’s 

goodwill and reputation, for which ZroBlack has no adequate remedy at law. While the product 

and contracts do have monetary value, the painstaking process undertaken by Plaintiff in the 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 55 of 60
Page 56 of 60

development and an award of monetary damages alone cannot fully compensate ZroBlack for its 

injuries and ZroBlack’s lack an adequate remedy at law.

K. Balance of Hardships Favors an Injunction

145. ZroBlack has lost its webpage and email server while Saenz holds the domain 

hostage. ZroBlack has lost the use of the laptop appropriated by Saenz. ZroBlack also faces the 

risk that Saenz will use or disclose ZroBlack’s trade secrets and confidential information.

146. On Plaintiffs side of the ledger, however, the hardship is great. ZroBlack and its 

partner, , continue to lose government contracts. ZroBlack and Jonathan 

continue to suffer harm their reputations. Defendant John Saenz’s refusal to return the laptop and 

ZroBlack’s domain name to ZroBlack is, as Defendants’ Gunn, Lee & Cave expressed in their 

Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11), nothing more than spite. There can be no hardship to him 

in returning what rightfully belongs to ZroBlack. This is equally true with his refusal to rectify the 

situation with ZroBlack’s DUNS number. The DUNS number was assigned to ZroBlack, not John 

Saenz. Dun & Bradstreet does not issue DUNS numbers to individuals.

147. For his part, Saenz will only be required to return to ZroBlack that to which Saenz 

has no legal right or interest, and to release the domain name. The injury that ZroBlack will suffer 

and has suffered outweighs any damage that will potentially be done to Defendant Saenz. 

Additionally, Enjoining the Defendant from withholding ZroBlack’s laptop, email server, and 

website, and requiring him to release it to ZroBlack does not deprive Defendant of any legal

remedy should he prevail in this lawsuit. Furthermore, the balance of hardships cannot be used by 

a party guilty of intentional wrong. Zelios, 568 S.W. 2d at 175. (internal citations omitted).

148. If an injunction is not granted, ZroBlack will continue to suffer from the inability 

to access its domain and reestablish its webpage. ZroBlack will also be prevented from trying to 

recover deleted emails.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 56 of 60
Page 57 of 60

149. The balance of hardships clearly favors Plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff will not only 

suffer monetary damages, but also damages to its business and reputation.

L. Public Interest

150. The public interest weighs heavily in favor of issuance of an injunction. It is in the 

interest of public policy to prohibit the sale and use of products that were derived from the 

improper misappropriation of trade secrets. Aspen Technology, Inc. v. M3 Technology, Inc., 569 

Fed. Appx. 259, 273 (5th Cir. 2014). A preliminary injunction serves the public interest by 

depriving Defendants of the benefit of the misappropriated trade secret and enforces better 

business ethics by depriving the wrongdoers of the benefit of their wrongdoing. AHS Staffing, LLC 

v. Quest Staffing Group, Inc., 335 F. Supp. 3d 856, 874 (E.D. Tex. 2018). Thus, granting the 

temporary restraining order and temporary and permanent injunction would not adversely affect 

the public interest.

151. John Saenz’s actions now affect the public directly. Technology solutions that 

could have been available to the now will not be, with unknown potential 

consequences to the public. 

 

M. Bond

152. No bond should be required because the injunction ZroBlack’s seeks would only 

require Saenz to return what does not belong to him. However, should a bond be required, 

ZroBlack respectfully suggests it should be equal to the value of the laptop computer, 

approximately $2,700.00.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 57 of 60
Page 58 of 60

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED

153. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs request the Court to order the following:

1. Seizure of the laptop computer identified above or, alternatively, enter a 

temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction 

ordering Defendant John Saenz to return to laptop computer and trade secrets 

thereon;

2. A temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction ordering Defendant John Saenz to release to and assign the 

ZroBlack domain to ZroBlack, LLC, including the email server and webpage; 

3. A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 

ordering Defendant John Saenz to return any trade secret and 

confidential information in his possession, custody, or control that is owned 

by Plaintiff ZroBlack; and

4. A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 

ordering Defendant John Saenz not to keep, maintain, use, or disclose 

any software code or trade secret belonging to ZroBlack.

VII. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that Plaintiffs be granted the relief requested herein, and all 

such other relief to which they may show themselves to be justly entitled at law or in equity.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 58 of 60
Page 59 of 60

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

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 16th 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

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 59 of 60
Page 60 of 60

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

5.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 60 of 60