McHenry CounErre 

A 927 C 

ty, 1f3

20MR00050! 

Date: 5/18/2020 4:33 PA 

Kathmlne M. Kees 

Clerk of the Circue Cour 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS 

MOLON MOTORS AND COIL CORP., an 

Illinois Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

) ) ) ) ) ) No. 20MR000505 

) 

MISHCON de REVA, LER a New York ) 

Limited Liability Partnership, 

JOHN PETRSORIC, individually and 

) ) 

MARK RASKIN, Individually, ) ) 

Defendants. ) 

COMPLAINT AT LAW 

FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES 

Plaintiff, Molon Motors and Coil Corporation ("Molon"), through its attorneys, McKenna 

Storer, for its Complaint at Law against Mishcon de Reya ('Mishcon"), John Petrsoric and Mark 

Raskin, (collectively "Defendants"), states as follows: 

1. Plaintiff, Molon, is a Corporation, incorporated under the laws of Illinois and 

authorized to do business in Illinois. Molon is a manufacturer of fractional and sub-fractional 

electric motors and gear motors. 

2. Defendant. Mishcon de Reya, LP, was a registered New York Limited Liability 

Partnership, which based on information and belief, was dissolved on January 17, 2020. 

3. Mishcon was considered a boutique New York law firm. Through its Partners, it 

agreed to represent Molon In its patent and trademark infringement claims against Nidec Motor 

Corporation. The primary partners who worked on this case were: Mark Raskin and John 

Petrsonc. 

Defendant, John Petrsoric, is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of New 

None 

Cif alms: SET FORA SCIIEDULLTG COLRIErFIRE 1Y COVRTROOM 

At MCA... FAILITE TOSPP£ARMAYRPSULT 

DIME CASE HANG El/SPIES£0 OR ORDIKIDP IIMICLTBEDICKAITIZED. 

Page 1 of 05 

EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 1 of 48 PageID #:7
5. Defendant, Mark Raskin, is an attorney licensed to practice n the State of New 

York 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 

6. Defendants were retained and undertook to file litigation on behalf of Plaintiff in the 

Northern District of Illinois captioned Molon Motor and Coil Corporation v. Nidec Motor 

Corporation, 1.16-CV-03545. ('Litigation"). The crux of the case is that the law firm failed to 

prosecute certain misappropriation of trade secret claims including the failure to complete written 

discovery and do any oral discovery prior to the closure of the discovery deadline, resulting in the 

dismissal of the trade secrets claim and causing monetary damages in (1) allowing continuing 

unfettered and unrestrained trade secret infringement by a competitor, (2) requiring Melon to hire 

new counsel and incur additional attorney fees to continue to prosecute the patent case as well 

as attempt to reopen discovery in the trade secret infringement claim and (3) requiring Melon to 

defend against a punitive attorney fee petition resulting from certain unauthorized statements 

made to the court by Petrsoric. 

Trade Secret Infringement 

Molon is a leading manufacturer of fractional and sub-fractional electric motors and 

gear motors, providing solutions to its customers based on their individual business requirements. 

It operates primarily in niche markets. 

8. The electric motor industry is highly competitive and Molon's success depends on 

numerous factors, including its ability to attract and retain reliable and qualified engineers, sales 

representatives and technical support personnel, to provide custom motor solutions, as well as 

obtain and maintain Melon's customer relationships. 

9. Molon's confidential information is vital to its operations and business interests. 

10. Molon invests significant financial and other resources in its motor development, 

maintaining its quality and expanding its customer relationships. 

Page 2 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 2 of 48 PageID #:8
11. Quality control, sales account executives and engineers at Melon have access to 

certain confidential computer systems that are used to track and store trade secret and 

confidential information and materials, including engineering documents, quality assurance 

documents, customer lists, customer information, customer proposals, communications with its 

customers, and other data in which it has a proprietary interest, all of which have been developed 

by Molon over several decades, at great expense. 

12. Molon has a number of policies, procedures, and agreements that it uses to protect 

its trade secret and confidential information, and safeguard its customer relationships. Melon 

owns all of the computers it uses. Molon does not employ portable data drives to access or to 

move data in its computer system. Unauthorized employees are prohibited from utilizing portable 

data drives to access or move data in its computer systems. 

13. To protect its business interests and the confidentiality of business operations, 

Molon took affirmative measures, including the utilization of restrictive covenants in its 

employment contracts, computer username and password protection and firewalls, limiting 

access to information safeguards and other measures, and restricting unauthorized use of data. 

14. The restrictive covenants in Molon's employment contracts are negotiated with 

each employee as part of their employment and include any combination of clauses concerning 

confidential information and trade secrets. 

15. Each restrictive covenant is limited in scope to protect both Melon's legitimate 

business interests while preventing undue hardship on the employee in his or her pursuit of 

employment in his or her area of expertise. 

16. Until May 31, 2013, Molon employed an individual by the name of Manish Dasai. 

Dasai was Melon's Head of Quality Control, 

17. As Head of Quality Control at Melon, Dasai's duties to Molon included: (i) providing 

quality control engineering, including product reliability testing; (ii) engaging Molon service 

personnel to achieve sales and service objectives by providing accurate engineering data, as 

Page 3 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 3 of 48 PageID #:9
needed: (iii) ensuring that all required client paperwork was complete, accurate, and submitted 

on time; (iv) providing timely and accurate reports on quality assurance test results as required 

by Molon management; and (v) demonstrating flexibility and adaptability when assigned additional 

responsibilities or projects. 

IS. As Head of Quality Control, Dasai had access to secret and confidential 

information and materials, including engineering documents, quality assurance documents, 

customer lists, customer information, customer proposals, communications with its customers, 

and other data in which it has a proprietary interest, all of which have been developed by Molon 

over an extensive period of time, at great expense. 

19. As a condition of employment, Dasai signed an employment agreement with 

Molon. This agreement contained several restrictive covenants, including trade secrets and 

confidential information clauses. 

20. In the restrictive covenants in his employment agreement, including those 

concerning trade secrets and confidential information, Dasai agreed that Molon's trade secrets 

and confidential information (as clearly defined in the agreements) were Molon's sole and 

exclusive property. Dasai agreed that he would follow this and other restrictive covenants 

regarding Molon's trade secrets and confidential business information during his employment with 

Molon and for as long as the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary business information 

was to be maintained under applicable law. 

21. Despite the restrictive covenants and prohibition against use of external drives, 

beginning around January of 2013 through and including the day he resigned, Dasai down loaded 

documents from the Melon server, including but not limited to quality control information related 

to the production of many different motor lines. 

Page 4 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 4 of 48 PageID #:10
22. Dasairs computer at Molon showed activity that proprietary trade secret data and 

files were accessed and copied to a portable data drive. The portable data drive was neither 

owned by, nor known to, Molon. The download of this information was not authorized by Molon. 

23. Dasai accessed and downloaded onto a portable data drive, various trade secrets 

and confidential information from Melon's computers. Such information included customer 

information, drawings, customer quality control issues, manufacturing information and trade 

secrets related to how certain motors are manufactured. On multiple occasions prior to the time 

Dasai left Molon's employment, his computer was accessed under his username and password 

and a significant amount of files related to the engineering and design, quality control protocols 

and data, and customer specific data for Moron motors was copied to a Kingston portable data 

drive. The wrongfully-copied files consisted of trade secrets and confidential information. (Filed 

under seal herewith is a document detailing the particular files constituting Molon's trade secrets.) 

These files fall under the following categories of trade secret materials: (i) motor design and 

engineering drawings (¶I); (ii) motor production inspection protocols (12); (iii) motor production 

tools (¶ 3); (iv) quality control test protocols (¶ 4); (v) quality control test data and reports (¶ 5); 

and (vi) customer quality control communications (¶ 6) - 

24. Dasai left Molon at the end of May of 2013 for employment in a similar position 

with Melon's competitor and Nidec Motor's predecessor, Merkle-Korff ("Nidec"). Molon and Nidec 

have been competitors in the electric motor business for decades. They competefor custom motor 

designs, for example, for vending machines (fie, the subject of the patent infringement counts), 

refrigerator icemakers, and breast pump motors. They also compete for standard, off-the-shelf 

electric motors, including those sold through large distribution channels. 

Page 5 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 5 of 48 PageID #:11
25. After Dasai joined Nidec, Dasai unlawfully disclosed Molon's trade secrets, 

including those that he had wrongfully copied from his Molon work computer. 

26. nasal took confidential and proprietary trade secret' nformation with him to Nidec 

27. Nidec's counsel disclosed the existence of a flash drivethat they had received from 

Dasai 

28. Moreover, based on Dasai's possession of confidential and proprietary information 

and the inevitable disclosure doctrine, Molon had a good-faith basis on information and belief to 

allege and prove Nidec used Molon's confidential information and trade secrets and confidential 

information in violation of both Federal law and the law of the State of Illinois in order to compete 

with Molon. 

29. Following Dasai's departure from Molon and retention by Nidec, Nidec was able to 

capture certain niche markets that had previously been Molon's niche markets. 

30. Based on information and belief, Dasai provided trade secrets and confidential 

information to Nidec Motors, including information regarding quality control and customer 

information. 

31. Given Dasai's prior employment with Molon and his wrongful copying of Molon's 

trade secrets, Nidec's use of the trade secrets can be inferred under the °inevitable disclosure 

doctrine." 

32. On information and belief, Nidec used the confidential and protected information 

gleamed from Dasai to engage in unfair and unlawful competition with Molon. 

33. As a direct and proximate result of Nidec's actual and threatened misappropriation 

of Molon's trade secrets and confidential information, Molon has suffered damages in an amount 

yet to be determined. 

Page 6 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 6 of 48 PageID #:12
Molon Retained Mishcon, Petrsoric and Raskin 

34. On or about February 4, 2016, Moron Motors and Coil Corporation ("Molon°) 

retained the firm of 'Ashcan to represent it in services in connection with investigating and 

asserting potential patent infringement claims for one or more of Melon's patents as well as any 

ancillary and/or supplemental claims, including, but not limited, to 'theft of trade secrets 

("Claim(s)" or "Lawsuit(s)")' This retention was reduced to a written retention agreement, signed 

by both parties. Mark Raskin signed on behalf of Mishcon and copied John Petrsoric. (Exhibit A, 

Retention Agreement). 

35. In the retention letter drafted by the Mishcon firm, Mishcon specifically agreed to 

the following: 

1. Mishcon would pursue, inter alia, patent and trade secret claims by investigating 

claims and if appropriate filing suit (Letter dated 2-4-2016, paragraph &eat)); 

2 Mishcon would, at your election, (which you exercised with respect to the patent 

count), pursue an Appeal without additional compensation (Letter dated 2-4-

2016, paragraph 1(d)(1)); 

3 Mishcon's entire compensation would be a contingent percentage (Letter dated 

2-4-2016, paragraph 3(3)010 and 3(b)); 

4. If Mishcon is terminated for good cause it would retain a quantum menet claim 

only if there was a recovery (Letter dated 2-4-2015, paragraph Iftaftip(C), 

5. Good cause includes both malpractice and failure to pursue infringers diligently, 

as well as any breach of the retention agreement (Letter dated 2-4-2016, 

paragraph 8(c)); and 

6. Mishcon agreed to allocate sufficient workers and resources to support the 

lawsuits filed by Mishcon on Molon's behalf (Letter dated 2-4-2016, paragraph 

1(a) 00,

Molon Lawsuit 

36. After the retention agreement was signed, Petrsoric and Raskin filed the Litigation, 

in the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois. The initial complaint wasfiled on March 

Page 7 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 7 of 48 PageID #:13
23, 2016. The Third Amended Complaint was the operable complaint when the malpractice 

occurred. (Exhibit B) Count I alleged Patent Infringement for Patent 6.465.916 Count II alleged 

Patent Design Infringement for Patent 0451.072, Count III alleged violations of the Defend Trade 

Secrets Act Of 2016 and Count IV alleged Violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. The primary 

malpractice claim relates to the failure to prosecute the trade secret infringement counts; the 

patent claim is relevant only to the extent that the malpractice claim caused Molon to incur greater 

attorney tees in the patent claims. 

37. Counts III and IV were based on the improper misappropriation and use by Nidec of 

Melon's trade secrets. Molon's trade secrets lawsuit was based on two theories: the federal 

Defend Trade Secrets Ad of 2016 and the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. 

36. The Defend Trade Secrets Act ('DTSA"), Pub. L. No. 114-153, 130 Stat. 376, which 

was passed into law on May 11, 2016 specifically allows a private right of action for 

misappropriation of trade secrets. Molon is an owner of trade secrets, as defined by DTSA which 

have been willfully misappropriated by Nidec through its agents. A person misappropriates a trade 

secret by, among other things, disclosing the trade secret despite knowing that it was acquired 

under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limits its use or from a person 

who had a duty to maintain its secrecy or use. 

39. Illinois' counterpart to this Act is the Trade Secrets Act. Under this Act, a person 

misappropriates a trade secret by, among other things, disclosing the trade secret despite 

knowing that it was 'cquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or 

limits its use" or from a person who had a duty to maintain its secrecy or use. 765 ILLS 

1065/2(b)(2)(13)(11) and (III). 

40. The facts alleged in support of these claims were: Molon maintained confidential 

information related to customers as well as the invention, production, marketing and sales of its 

motors, (1) Dasai and Gomez, a second employee from Molon that joined Merkle, (Merkle, now 

known as Nidec), through their positions in quality control at Molon, had access to confidential 

Paget of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 8 of 48 PageID #:14
information, (2) Dasai and Gomez left MoIon to go work for one of its competitors; (3) prior to 

leaving Melon, Dasai downloaded confidential trade secret documents onto a drive, which we 

believe Dasai provided to Nidec, and (4) Nidec has been using that confidential/trade secret 

material to compete with Melon. 

41. Paragraph 65 of the Third Amended Complaint alleges: on multiple occasions prior 

to the time Dasai left Molon's employment to begin employment at Nidec, his computer was 

accessed under his username and password and a significant amount of files related to the 

engineering and design, quality control protocols and data, and customer specific data for Molon 

was copied to a Kingston portable data drive. The wrongfully-copied files consisted of trade 

secrets and confidential information. Filed under seal herewith is a document detailing the 

particular files constituting Molon's trade secrets that were copied, along with a description of the 

nature of those files and the specific Molon products to which those files relate, as presently 

understood (D.I 65, Appendix to Third Amended Complaint.) These files fall under the following 

categories of trade secret materials: (i) motor design and engineering drawings (¶1); go motor 

production inspection protocols (¶ 2); (ii) motor production tools (¶ 3); (iv) quality control test 

protocols (¶ 4): (v) quality control test data and reports (¶ 5); and (v) customer quality control 

communications (16). 

42. Paragraph 65 of the Third Amended Complaint alleges: Upon information and 

belief, Dasai unlawfully disclosed Molon's trade secrets that he had wrongfully copied from his 

Molon work computer. Dasai left Moron for employment in a similar position with Molon's 

competitor and Nidec's predecessor, Merkle-Korff. Under these circumstances, given Dasai's 

prior employment with Molon and his wrongful copying of Molon's trade secrets (as detailed above 

in I 65 and in the Appendix to Third Amended Complaint (DI 65)), Nidec's use of the trade 

secrets can be inferred under the 'inevitable disclosure doctrine.' 

43 A spread sheet of the downloaded materials was prepared by D4 (computer 

consonants). 

Page 9 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 9 of 48 PageID #:15
District Court Determined Molon Pled A Viable Claim 

44. The District Court judge determined that there was a valid claim for trade secret 

infringement. While the Second Amended Complaint was pending, NideCtled a Motion to Dismiss 

the federal and state misappropriation of trade secrets. Nidec's primary argument in the motion 

to dismiss was that there was nothing unlawful about Dasai copying the confidential files while he 

was an employee and that there was no plausible allegation that Nidec used the trade secrets 

contained on the thumb drive. 

45. Judge Chang of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

determined there were sufficient facts to demonstrate that Dasai misappropriated the confidential 

information. Moreover, applying the "inevitable disclosure doctrined allowing the plaintiff to prove 

a claim of trade secret misappropriation by demonstrating that Nidec' new employee will inevitably 

lead him to rely on Melon's secrets, and Melon also sufficiently pled that the trade secrets 

inevitably would be disclosed by Dasai to Nidec. 

46. Thus, the Motion to Dismiss was denied. 

Attorney Malpractice. 

47. Judge Chang set forth discovery cut off dates. 

48. Unfortunately for Molon, the discovery phase is where the malpractice occurred. 

49. The discovery closure date was November 16, 2018. Thereafter, the parties 

consented to a one month extension of discovery. On December 21, 2018, fact discovery closed. 

At that time, the discovery was not completed on the infringement claims. 

50. Written discovery was not completed and was woefully inadequate. The Mishcon 

attorneys posed only seven interrogatories and Nidec refused to answer four of those. Of the 25 

production requests, Nidec refused to produce any documents for 19 of those requests unless 

and until they had a meet and confer session. For several requests they provided contingent 

promises to produce conditioned on further actions by plaintiff. Although Nidec invited a "meet 

Page 10 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 10 of 48 PageID #:16
and confer session, Mishcon took no steps to have such a session or to try to enforce Molon's 

discovery rights within the discovery period. 

51. The Mishcon attorneys did not take a single deposition. Most significantly, the 

deposition of the primary perpetrator, Dasai, was never taken. Nor were any depositions taken 

of any other Nidec employees. 

52. Mishcon answered in response to discovery on behalf of Molon, the inevitable 

discovery doctrine applies to the knowledge of Dasai and others who were hired away from Molon 

during this period. 

53. Nevertheless, Mishoon took no action to compel any discovery after receiving 

stonewalling responses from Nidec. 

Petrsoric Made Unauthorized Statements to the Court 

54. Despite the failure to complete discovery in the infringement case and without the 

knowledge or authorization of Molon, on January 15, 2019, Petrsoric reported to the District Court 

that the fact discovery was completed and that Molon was considering dismissing the trade secret 

infringement counts. 

Petrsoric Misled Molon Into Believing Discovery Was (Mooing 

55. Petrsoric continued to hide its malpractice from Molon. 

56. Despite knowledge that the discovery had closed and Petrsoric's unauthorized 

statements to the Courtk Petrsoric continued to send emails to Molon indicating that he intended 

to take depositions. 

57. In fact, as late as February 25, 2019, the Mishcon attomeys were maintaining the 

farce with Molon that he was moving forward and preparing for depositions of key Nidec 

employees. The Mishcon attorneys continued to take steps asking for information and prep time 

from Molon with Molon deponents. These depositions were not going forward (1) because they 

were in fad were barred by the discovery cutoff, or (2) because Mishcon was awaiting a dismissal 

of the Trade Secret Counts as early as August or September of 2018 and thought the Trade 

Page 11 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 11 of 48 PageID #:17
Secret case was ending. Neither of these circumstances were known to Molon until January of 

2019 

58. After discovery had already closed, Petrsoric sent an email on February 25, 2019 

to Molon requesting a meeting with a Molon engineer to go over data and drawings for the 

Litigation. 

59 The emails from Petrsoric and Raskin in 2018 and 2019 obfuscated the fact that 

no work had been performed by Mishcon and Petrsoric. 

60. Since discovery is never filed Molon was dependent on Petrsoric's and Raskin's 

representations about the status of discovery. 

Orders Were Not Communicated to Molon 

61. Defendants did not provide adequate communication to Molon so that Molon could 

discover Defendants' abandonment of the case. 

62. The Orders in the Litigation that were not timely or accurately communicated to 

Molon include: 

a. The order of 6/13/18, when the Court scheduled all fact discovery to be 

concluded by 11/16/2018 and ordered that the case shall be placed back on 

the litigation track. At the follow-up status the order of 9/06/18 stated that 

Counsel for both sides informed the Court that discovery was proceeding as 

scheduled. (Docket Sheet #129, 131) In fact, discovery was at a standstill 

because Mishcon was advising Defendants, without Melon's knowledge, that 

the Trade Secret Counts would be dismissed. The discovery cutoff was not 

communicated to Molon. 

b. The order of 11/06/18 allowed Molon to reply to the amended answer of Nidec. 

A reply was not filed according to Pacer. (Docket Sheet #149). 

c. The Order of 11/19/18 said Petrsoric had a personal circumstance that 

prevented him from completing the hearing being held via telephone. (Docket 

Page 12 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 12 of 48 PageID #:18
Sheet #151) On 01/09/19, Petrsoric then requested a continuance of the 

01/10/19 hearing. (Docket Sheet #152). A second continuance was reluctantly 

granted and 1/15/19 was the new hearing date. 

d. The order of 1/15/19 shows that Mishcon through Petrsoric, without consent or 

knowledge of Plaintiff, informed the Court that Plaintiff is considering voluntarily 

dismissing the remaining trade secret claims. The order states that discovery 

was completed which was not accurate (Docket Sheet #153). Mishcon shared 

neither the order nor the representations to the Court with Molon. 

e. The order of 02/07/19, Mishcon, without consent of Plaintiff, again asked for a 

continuance of the status hearing. (Docket Sheet #154). The request was 

granted. However, the Court stated that no further extension shall be granted 

and if expert discovery is required, then the expert reports will be due by 

03/25/19. No efforts were ever undertaken to Molon's knowledge to obtain any 

experts or comply with this deadline. 

Petrsoric Withdraws and Continues to Commit Legal Malpractice 

63. On February 28, 2019, Petrsoric informed the Court that he was seeking to 

withdraw due to family issues, which were later disclosed to Mutton to relate to his wife's 

alcoholism. 

During that hearing, Petrsoric admitted in open court on the record that he had 

failed to communicate with Molon adequately due to personal problems. 

During that open-court hearing, Judge Chang indicated that he believed that 

Petrsoric had misled him, wherein Judge Chang stated: "It is also in the plaintiffs best interest at 

this point to get counsel to even help them navigate through the withdrawal, and it is —lam going 

to need a lot more explanation before I either approve or deny re-opening discovery on the trade 

Page 13 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 13 of 48 PageID #:19
secret claim, because obviously, the representations that have been made to me have led me to 

think a very different direction of the case.° 

66. Petrsoric later submitted a Motion under Seal with documents wherein he 

continued to violate the Rules of Ethics and stated that he began questioning the trade secret 

counts and the associated costs and he stalled the discovery process and claims that he 

discussed his reservations with Moron but admits he did not do so sufficiently. 

67. This motion was provided to the District Court judge presiding over the case and 

opposing counsel, rather than the standard practice of submitting a motion to withdraw ex parte 

before a non-presiding magistrate to avoid divulging confidential information or prejudicing a 

client's interests. In the Motion to Withdraw, Petrsoric again admitted that he had failed to attend 

to the Litigation in open court. Local counsel for Moron also noted that there had been a failure 

of communication. 

Trade Secret Claims Dismissed Because of Lack of Discovery 

68. Thereafter, Molon secured new counsel. New counsel filed a Motion to Reopen 

Discovery, but the motion was denied. 

69. The District Court stated that Molon's remedy was a possible malpractice action 

against its attorneys. 

70. Thereafter, without sufficient facts to proceed to trial, the trade secret infringement 

counts were dismissed. 

Opposing Counsel Filed a Petition for Attorney Fees 

71. After the dismissal of the trade secret infringement counts, Nidec's counsel filed a 

Petition for Attorney Fees claiming that the trade secret counts were pursued in bad faith. 

72. As part of the basis of the claim, opposing counsel relies upon statements made 

by Petrsoric to the Court (both in open court in January of 2019 and the Motion to Withdraw). In 

its Petition for Attorney Fees, opposing counsel has claimed in excess of $233,000 in attorney 

fees. This claim is still pending. 

Page 14 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 14 of 48 PageID #:20
Mohan Incurred Additional Attorney Fees 

73. At great expense, Molon was forced to retain new counsel to (1) continue to 

prosecute the patent counts where Mishcon failed to file a Reply Brief in the patent appeal before 

the Federal Circuit (2) to attempt to extend discovery deadlines in the trade secret portion of the 

case (3) to respond to the attorney fee claim and (4) to pursue a claim against Mishcon. 

COUNT I 

LEGAL MALPRACTICE AGAINST MISHCON 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate 

that the attorney (1) failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly 

possessed by a member of the legal profession and (2) that the attorney's breach of this duty 

proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 

75. Molon and Mishcon had an attorney-client relationship. Mishcon (1) failed to 

exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the 

legal profession and (2) that the attorney's breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to 

sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 

76. Mishcon owed duties both contractually and in tort. These duties included:the duty 

to advise the client of the status of the case and of significant developments, the duty to meet 

Court deadlines, the duty to provide timely analysis of issues, the duty to do a proper Rule 11 

investigation or work up before filing counts, the duty to communicate and make 

recommendations to the client for the client's decision making, the duty to bring competence, 

diligence and supervision to the client's project and the duty to perform the agreed upon services. 

77. Mishcon owed Molon a duty of care in each of these areas, and failed to meet that 

duty on one or more occasions, including but not limited to: 

a. The failure to meet court mandated discovery deadlines: 

b. The failure to complete written discovery; 

Page 15 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 15 of 48 PageID #:21
c. The failure to take the depositions of any witnesses let alone the key witnesses; 

d. The failure to properly investigate or work up the case; 

e. The abandonment of a claim without the knowledge or consent of the client; 

f. The reporting in open court to the judge and Defendant, without Molon's 

knowledge, of a plan to dismiss the Trade Secret Counts from the complaint 

without any prior discussion or input from Molon. 

g. The failure to disclose to Molon that the discovery deadline had passed without 

the completion of discovery, 

h. The misrepresentations to Molon that discovery was ongoing despite knowing 

that the discovery deadline had expired; having already told the District Court 

that the discovery was completed and Molon was considering dropping the 

trade secret counts; 

i. Even after informing the Court of the planned voluntary dismissal, failing to 

inform Molon about this disclosure to the Court. 

I- Failing to provide Molon with the necessary facts and analysis to allow Malan 

to make informed litigation decisions that were essential to the case. 

k. Continuing to take steps asking for information and preparation time from 

Molon with Molon deponents even though these depositions were not going 

forward because they were (1) barred by the discovery cutoff, or (2) awaiting a 

dismissal of the Trade Secret Counts as early as August or September of 2018 

and thought the Trade Secret case was ending. 

I. And otherwise failing to handle the Litigation in a competent and transparent 

manner. 

78. Mishcon and its attorneys failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and 

knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that the attorneys' 

breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 

Page 16 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 16 of 48 PageID #:22
79. Had they exercised the ordinary and reasonable skills and knowledge commonly 

possessed by a member of the legal profession, Molon would have prevailed in its trade secret 

claims against Nidec. 

80. The attorneys' conduct fell far below the standard of care. There is overwhelming 

evidence that the attorneys committed malpractice — the attorneys failed to prosecute Moron's 

case, did virtually no discovery, allowed discovery deadlines to lapse without engaging in 

adequate discovery, failed to take depositions of any witnesses let alone key witnesses, failed to 

keep Molon adequately informed, and disclosed confidential information to the judge and 

opposing counsel related to the status of the case. 

81. Moreover as a result of the lack of discovery, Molon was forced to incur additional 

attorney fees, dismiss the trade secrets claims against Nidec and defend against a petition for 

attorney fees. 

82. The legal malpractice of the attorneys, in both omissions and commissions, 

resulted in damages to Molon. 

83. But for their malpractice, Molon would have prevailed in the underlying trade secret 

action and would not have incurred the damages that it has and continues to incur. 

84. Had the attorneys completed the discovery. Malan would have been able to prove 

that Nidec received from past Molon employees confidential information both through stolen 

electronic documents and inevitable disclosure doctrine. 

85. Under the Illinois and Federal trade secret ads, the plaintiff may recover: actual 

damages and actual loss caused by the misappropriation and unjust enrichment by the use of the 

misappropriated trade secret, or if neither can be proven, reasonable royalties, punitive damages 

and attorney fees. 

86. As a result of the malpractice, Molon suffered damages in the following categories: 

Page 17 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 17 of 48 PageID #:23
a. Attorney fees incurred after the malpractice had occurred in prosecuting both 

the patent case and attempts to reopen discovery to pursue the trade secrets 

case after the law firm withdrew. 

b. Damages from the misappropriation of Molon's trade secrets including Molon's 

cost of developing the trade secrets, Molon's loss of business, Nidec's increase 

in business and marketplace share, as well as punitive damages; and 

c Attorney fees assessed in the fee petition brought against Molon. 

Wherefore, Melon Motor and Coil Corporation respectfully requests that judgment be 

entered in favor of Molon Motor Coil Corporation and against Defendant in an amount in excess 

of $50,000. 

COUNT II 

LEGAL MALPRACTICE AGAINST PETRSORIC 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate 

that the attorney (1) failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly 

possessed by a member of the legal profession and (2) that the attorneys breach of this duty 

proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 

75. Melon and Petrsoric had an attorney-client relationship. Petrsoric (1) failed to 

exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the 

legal profession and (2) his breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and 

ascertainable damages. 

76. Petrsoric owned duties both contractually and in tort. These duties included: the 

duly to advise the client of the status of the case and of significant developments, the duty to meet 

Court deadlines, the duty to provide timely analysis of issues, the duty to do a proper Rule 11 

investigation or "work up?' before filing counts, the duty to communicate with the client, the duty to 

Page 18 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 18 of 48 PageID #:24
bring competence, diligence and supervision to the client's project and the duty to perform the 

agreed-upon services. 

77 Petrsoric owed Melon a duty of care in each of these areas, and failed to meet that 

duty on one or more occasions, including: 

a. The failure to meet court mandated discovery deadlines; 

b. The failure to complete written discovery; 

c. The failure to take the depositions of any witnesses, let alone the key 

witnesses; 

d. The failure to properly investigate and work up the case: 

e. The abandonment of a claim without the knowledge or consent of the client; 

I. The reporting in open court to the judge and Defendant, without Melon's 

knowledge, of a plan to dismiss the Trade Secrets Counts from the complaint 

without any prior discussion or input from Melon. 

g. The failure to disclose to Molon that the discovery deadline had passed without 

the completion of discovery; 

h. The misrepresentations to Molon that discovery was ongoing despite knowing 

that the discovery deadline had expired; having already told the District Court 

that the discovery was completed and Melon was considering dropping the 

trade secret counts; 

i. Even after informing the Court of the planned voluntary dismissal, Petrsoric did 

not inform Molon about this disclosure to the Court. 

j The failure to provide Melon with necessary facts and analysis to allow Molon 

to make informed litigation decisions that were essential to the case. 

k. Continued to take steps asking for information and preparation time from Melon 

with Molon deponents even though these depositions were not going forward 

because (1) they were barred by the discovery cutoff, or (2) awaiting a 

Page 19 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 19 of 48 PageID #:25
dismissal of the Trade Secret Counts as early as August or September of 2018, 

and thought the Trade Secret case was ending. 

78. Petrsoric further failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge 

commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, and his breach of duty proximately 

caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. His failures include but are not 

limited to: 

a. Failed to exercise reasonable skill and knowledge in completing discovery; 

b. Allowed discovery dates to lapse without (1) completing discovery and/or (2) 

securing an extension; 

c. Made decisions on the case that were the sole province of the client, including 

the statements that discovery was completed and that the party was 

considering dismissing the infringement counts; and 

d After discovery was closed, he further concealed the discovery closure and 

further delayed Molon's ability to reopen discovery with the court by falsely 

leading Molon to believe that discovery remained open and the case was 

ongoing, including sending purported outlines of deposition topics and 

requests to use conference rooms for depositions that he knew were never 

going to take place. 

79. Petrsoric failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly 

possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the attorneys breach of this duty 

proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 

80. Had Petrsoric exercised the ordinary and reasonable skills and knowledge 

commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession, Molon would have prevailed in its 

trade secret claims against Nidec. 

81. The attorney's conduct fell far below the standard of care. There is overwhelming 

evidence that the attorneys committed malpractice — the attorneys failed to prosecute Molon's 

Page 20 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 20 of 48 PageID #:26
case, did virtually no discovery, allowed discovery deadlines to lapse without engaging in 

adequate discovery, failed to take depositions of any witnesses let alone key witnesses, failed to 

keep Molon adequately informed, and disclosed confidential information to the judge and 

opposing counsel related to the status of case. 

82. Moreover, as a result of the lack of discovery, Molon was forced to incur additional 

attorney fees, dismiss the trade secrets claims against Nidec and defend against a petition for 

attorney fees. 

83. The legal malpractice of the attorneys, both omissions and commissions, 

resulted in damages to Molon. 

But fix their malpractice, Molon would have prevailed in the underlying trade secret 

action and would not have incurred the damages that it has and continues to incur. 

85. Had the attorneys completed discovery, Molon would have been able to prove that 

Nidec received from past Molon employees confidential information (both through stolen 

documents and the inevitable disclosure doctrine.) 

86. Under the Illinois and Federal trade secret acts, the plaintiff may recover: actual 

damages (actual loss caused by the misappropriation and unjust enrichment by the use of the 

misappropriated trade secret, or if neither can be proven, reasonable royalties), punitive damages 

and attorney fees. 

87. As a result of the malpractice, Melon suffered damages in the following categories: 

a. Attorney fees incurred after the malpractice had occurred in prosecuting both 

the patent case and attempts to reopen discovery to pursue the trade secrets 

case after the law firm withdrew. 

b. Damages from the misappropriation of Molon's trade secrets including 

Melon's cost of developing the trade secrets, Molon's loss of the business, 

Nidec's increase in business and marketplace share as well as punitive 

damages; and 

Page 21 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 21 of 48 PageID #:27
a Attorney fees assessed in the fee petition brought against Molon. 

Wherefore, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation respectfully requests that judgment be 

entered in favor of Molon Motor Coil Corporation and against Defendant in an amount in excess 

of $50,000. 

COUNT III 

LEGAL MALPRACTICE AGAINST RASKIN 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through ➢3 above. 

74. In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate 

that the attorney (1) failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly 

possessed by a member of the legal profession and (2) that the attorney's breach of this duty 

proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 

75. Molon and Raskin had an attorney-client relationship. Raskin (1) failed to exercise 

the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal 

profession and (2) Raskin 's breach of this duty proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and 

ascertainable damages. 

76 Raskin owed duties both contractually and in tort. These duties included: the duty 

to advise the client of the status of the case and of significant developments, the duly to meet 

Court deadlines, the duty to provide timely analysis of issues, the duty to do a proper Rule 11 

investigation or "work up" before filing counts, the duty to communicate with the client, the duty to 

bring competence, diligence and supervision to the client's project and the duty to perform the 

agreed-upon services. 

Raskin owed Molon a duty of care in each of these areas, and failed to meet that 

duty on one or more occasions, including: 

a. The failure to meet court-mandated discovery deadlines; 

b. The failure to complete written discovery; 

Page 22 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 22 of 48 PageID #:28
c. The failure to take the depositions of the any witnesses, let alone the key 

witnesses; 

d. The failure to properly investigate and work up the case; 

e. The abandonment of a claim without the knowledge or consent of the client; 

The reporting in open court to the judge and Defendant, without Molon's 

knowledge, of a plan to dismiss Trade Secret Counts from the complaint 

without any prior discussion or input from Molon. 

g. The failure to disclose to Molon that the discovery deadline had passed without 

the completion of discovery; 

h. The misrepresentations to Molon that discovery was ongoing despite knowing 

that the discovery deadline had expired; having already told the District Court 

that the discovery was completed and Molon was considering dropping the 

trade secret counts; 

i. Even after informing the Court of the planned voluntary dismissal, Mishcon did 

not inform Molon about this disclosure to the Court. 

j. Failure to provide Molon with necessary facts and analysis to allow Molon to 

make informed litigation decisions that were essential to the case. 

k. Continued to take steps asking for information and preparation time from Molon 

with Molon deponents even though these depositions were not going forward 

because (1) they were barred by the discovery cutoff, Of (2) because Defendant 

was awaiting a dismissal of the Trade Secret Counts as early as August or 

September of 2018, and thought the Trade Secret case was ending. 

78. Raskin failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly 

possessed by a member of the legal profession and his breach of duty proximately caused plaintiff 

to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 

Page 23 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 23 of 48 PageID #:29
79. Concerns regarding Petrsoric's inattentiveness were brought to Raskin's attention. 

His failures additionally include but are not limited to: 

a. Failed to exercise reasonable skill and knowledge in handing the case; 

b. Allowed discovery dates to lapse without (1) completing discovery or (2) 

securing an extension; 

Failed to recognize the decline in his partners representation and to take over 

the matter; and 

d. Even after Melon asked Raskin if Petrsoric was prosecuting the case and 

engaging in discovery, Raskin failed to honestly discuss the issues with Moron 

and instead reassured Moron that Petrsoric was properly handling the matter. 

80. Raskin failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly 

possessed by a member of the legal profession, and that the attorney's breach of this duty 

proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 

81. Had they exercised the ordinary and reasonable skills and knowledge commonly 

possessed by a member of the legal profession, Molon would have prevailed in its trade secret 

claims against Nide°. 

82. Raskin's conduct fell far below the standard of care. There is overwhelming 

evidence that the attorneys committed malpractice — the attorneys failed to prosecute Molon's 

case, did virtually no discovery, allowed discovery deadlines to lapse without engaging in 

adequate discovery, failed to take depositions of any witnesses let alone key witnesses, failed to 

keep Molon adequately informed, and disclosed confidential information to the judge and 

opposing counsel related to the status of the case. 

83. Moreover, as a result of the lack of discovery, Melon was forced to incur additional 

attorney fees, dismiss the trade secrets claims against Rides and defend against a petition for 

attomey fees. The legal malpractice of the attorneys, in both omissions and commissions, resulted 

in damages to Molon. 

Page 24 of 95 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 24 of 48 PageID #:30
84. But for their malpractice, Molon would have prevailed in the underlying trade secret 

action and would not have incurred the damages that it has and continues to incur. 

85. Had the attorneys completed discovery, Melon would have been able to prove that 

Nidec received from past Molon employees confidential information (both through stolen 

documents and inevitable disclosure doctrine.) 

88. Under the Illinois and Federal trade secret acts. the plaintiff may recover: actual 

damages (actual loss caused by the misappropriation and unjust enrichment by the use of the 

misappropriated trade secrets or if neither can be proven, reasonable royalties), punitive damages 

and attorney fees. 

87. As a result of the malpractice, Molon suffered damages in the following categories: 

a. Attorney fees incurred after the malpractice had occurred in prosecuting both 

the patent case and attempts to reopen discovery to pursue the trade secrets 

case after the law firm withdrew. 

b. Damages from the misappropriation of Molon's trade secrets including 

Moron's cost of developing the trade secrets, Molon's loss of the business, 

Itlidecis increase in business and marketplace share as well as punitive 

damages; and 

c. Attorney fees assessed in the fee petition brought against Molon. 

Wherefore, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation respectfully requests that judgment be 

entered in favor of Molon Motor Coil Corporation and against Defendant in an amount in excess 

of $50,000. 

COUNT IV 

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST MISHCON 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above, 

74. There existed a fiduciary relationship between Molon and Mishcon. 

Page 25 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 25 of 48 PageID #:31
75. The fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to a client encompasses the obligations of 

utmost candor, rectitude, care, loyalty, and good faith. 

76. Mishcon breached the fiduciary duty by: 

failing to promptly notify Melon that its attorneys were unable to fulfill the 

obligations of the attorney-client representation; 

failing to properly advise the client of the status of the case; 

disclosing confidential information to both the court and opposing counsel 

that impacted the proceedings and placed Melon in a false light; 

falsely responding to Melon's concern that Petrsoric was no longer acting 

as a reasonable attorney by assuring Melon that Petrsoric was properly 

prosecuting the case, and that Mishcon was monitoring the file; and 

failing to disclose, when it knew or should have known, Petrsoric or one of 

his family members, was impaired to such an extent that he was unable to 

fulfill his attorney-client relationship, obligations and duties. 

74. Mishcon further breached the fiduciary duty in drafting an arbitration clause that it 

knew or should have known was ambiguous and unenforceable, and they were unable to fulfill 

their obligations under the contract. 

➢5. As a result of the malpractice, Melon suffered damages in the following categories: 

a. Attorney fees incurred after the malpractice had occurred in prosecuting both 

the patent case and attempts to reopen discovery to pursue the trade secrets 

case after the law firm withdrew. 

b. Damages from the misappropriation of Melon's trade secrets including Melon's 

cost of developing the trade secrets, Molon's loss of the business, Nidec's 

increase in business and marketplace share as well as punitive damages; and 

c. Attorney fees assessed in the fee petition brought against Melon. 

Page 26 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 26 of 48 PageID #:32
Wherefore, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation respectfully requests that judgment be 

entered in favor of Molon Motor Coil Corporation and against Defendants in an amount in excess 

of $50,000. 

COUNT V 

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST PETRSORIC 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. There was a fiduciary relationship between Melon and Petrsoric. 

75. The fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to a client encompasses the obligations 

utmost candor, rectitude, care, loyalty, and good faith. 

76. Petrsoric breached the fiduciary duty by: 

a. failing to promptly notify Melon that he was unable to fulfill the obligations 

of the attorney client representation; 

b. failing to properly advise Molon of the status of the case; 

disclosing confidential information to both the court and the opposing 

counsel that impacted the proceedings and placed Molon in a false light; 

d. negligently or falsely responding to Melon's concern that Petrsoric was no 

longer acting as a reasonable attomey by assuring Molon that Petrsoric 

was properly prosecuting the case and that Mishcon was monitoring the 

file; 

e. failing to disclose, that he or one of his family members, was impaired to 

such an extent that he was unable to fulfill his attorney client relationship, 

obligations and duties; and 

f. making false and/or misleading representations to Molon regarding the 

status of the case. 

77 As a result of the breach of fiduciary duties, Molon suffered damages in the 

following categories: 

Page 27 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 27 of 48 PageID #:33
a. Attorney fees incurred after the malpractice had occurred in prosecuting both 

patent case and attempts to reopen discovery to pursue the trade secrets case 

after the law firm withdrew. 

b. Damages from the misappropriation of Molon's trade secrets including Molon's 

cost of developing the trade secrets, Molon's loss of the business, Nidec's 

increase in business and marketplace share as well as punitive damages; and 

c. Attorney fees assessed in the fee petition brought against Molon. 

Wherefore. Molon Motor and Coil Corporation respectfully requests that judgment be 

entered in favor of Malan Motor Coil Corporation and against Defendant in an amount in excess 

of 550,000. 

COUNT VI 

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST RASKIN 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through ➢3 above. 

74. There was a fiduciary relationship between Molon and Raskin. 

75 The fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to a client encompasses the obligations 

utmost candor, rectitude, care, loyalty, and good faith. 

76. Raskin breached the fiduciary duty by: 

failing to promptly notify Molon that its attorneys were unable to fulfill the 

obligations of the attorney-client representafion; 

failing to properly advise the client of the status of the case; 

disclosing confidential information to both the court and the opposing 

counsel that impacted the proceedings and placed Melon in a false light; 

d. falsely responding to Molon's concern that Petrsoric was n0 longer acting 

as a reasonable attorney by assuring Molon that Retrsoric was properly 

prosecuting the case and that Mishcon was monitoring the file; and 

Page18 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 28 of 48 PageID #:34
e. failing to disclose, when it knew or should have known. Petrsoric or one of 

his family members, was impaired to such an extent that he was unable to 

fulfill his attorney-client relationship, obligations and duties. 

77. As a result of the breach of fiduciary duty, Molon suffered damages in the following 

categories: 

a. Attorney fees incurred after the malpractice had occurred in prosecuting both 

the patent case and attempts to reopen discovery to pursue the trade secrets 

case after the law firm withdrew. 

b. Damages from the misappropriation of Molon's trade secrets including Molon's 

cost of developing the trade secrets, Melon's loss of the business, Nidece 

increase in business and marketplace share as well as punitive damages; and 

c. Attorney fees assessed in the fee petition brought against Molon. 

Wherefore, Malan Motor and Coil Corporation respectfully requests that judgment be 

entered in favor of Molon Motor Coil Corporation and against Defendant in an amount in excess 

of $50,000. 

COUNT VII 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

AGAINST MISHCON, PETRSORIC AND RASKIN 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. There was a contractual relationship between Molon and Defendants. 

➢5. Mishcon breached the contract and failed to perform under the terms of the 

Retention Agreement. 

76. Molon satisfied all its obligations under the Retention Agreement. 

➢7. As a result of the breads of contract, Molon suffered damages in the following 

categories: 

Page 29 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 29 of 48 PageID #:35
a. Attorney fees incurred after the malpractice had occurred in prosecuting both 

the patent case and attempts to reopen discovery to pursue the trade secrets 

case after the law firm withdrew. 

b. Damages from the misappropriation of Moron's trade secrets including Molon's 

cost of developing the trade secrets, Molon's loss of the business, Nidec's 

increase in business and marketplace share as well as punitive damages; and 

c. Attorney fees assessed in the fee petition brought against Moron. 

Wherefore, Moron Motor and Coil Corporation respectfully requests that judgment be 

entered in favor of Moron Motor Coil Corporation and against Defendant in an amount in excess 

of $50,000. 

COUNT VIII 

ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT 

AGAINST MISHCON, PETRSORIC AND RASKIN 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. There was a contractual relationship between Moron and Defendants. 

75. Under the terms of the Retention Agreement Defendants agreed to the following: 

(a) Right to Pursue Infringers. Client is executing this Retention Agreement to 

engage Mishcon's services in connection with investigating and asserting 

potential patent infringement claims for one or more of the Patents as well as 

any ancillary and/or supplemental claims, including, but not limited, to theft of 

trade secrets ("Claim(s)" or "Lawsuit(s)"). Such representation might include 

negotiating agreements related to the Claims and/or prosecuting one or more 

Lawsuits ("Enforcement Activity") against entities selected by Client and 

Mishcon, referred to as "Infringer(s)". 

76. The Retainer Agreement set forth methods for Mishcon to withdraw from providing 

services: 

5. Withdrawal of Mishcon.

(a) Client agrees that Mishcon, in its sole discretion and after completion of 

the Evaluation Period, may withdraw from its representation of Client in 

connection with this undertaking for any reason, including but not limited to 

the following remaining uncured after thirty (30) days' notice to Client: 

Page 30 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 30 of 48 PageID #:36
0) 

00 

Client insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted 

under existing law and cannot be supported by good-faith argument of 

an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law as determined in 

Mishcon's reasonable discretion; 

Client insists that Mishcon pursue a course of conduct that is illegal 

or that is prohibited under the State Bar Rules as determined in 

Mishcon's reasonable discretion: 

(iii) Client fails to perform any covenant (whether monetary or nonmonetary) of this Retention Agreement and the expiation of a fifteen 

(15) day right to cure period after written notice from Mishcon; 

(vi) 

Client breaches this Retention Agreement; 

Mishcon determines, after further investigation of the facts, that the 

value of the case does not justify its budgeted investment in the case; 

or 

Mishcon determines, after further investigation of the facts, that the 

facts are materially different from those represented to Mishcon by 

Client. 

77. Mishcon anticipatorily breached the contract by failing to perform under the 

agreement including: 

failing to prosecute the trade secret claims once the claims were filed; 

failing to communicate with Melon: and 

failing to withdraw from the case pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the agreement 

when it stopped prosecuting the matter. 

78. As a result of the anticipatory breach of contract, Molon suffered damages in the 

following categories: 

a. Attorney fees incurred after the malpractice had occurred in prosecuting both 

the patent case and attempts to reopen discovery to pursue the trade secrets 

case after the law firm withdrew. 

Page 31 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 31 of 48 PageID #:37
b. Damages from the misappropriation of Melon's trade secrets including Molon's 

cost of developing the trade secrets, Melon's loss of the business, Nidec's 

increase in business and marketplace share as well as punitive damages; and 

c. Attorney fees assessed in the fee petition brought against Molon. 

Wherefore, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation respectfully requests that judgment 

be entered in favor of Molon Motor Coil Corporation and against Defendants in an amount 

in excess of $50,000. 

COUNT IX 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

INVALID ARBITRATION PROVISION 

AGAINST MISHCON. PETRSORIC AND RASKIN 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. Molon and Mishcon entered into a Retainer Agreement for legal services. (Ex. A). 

75. The scope of services for the Retainer Agreement included the following: 

(a) Right to Pursue Infringers. Client is executing this Retention Agreement to 

engage Mishcon's services in connection with investigating and asserting 

potential patent infringement claims for one or more of the Patents as well as 

any ancillary and/or supplemental claims, including, but not limited to theft of 

trade secrets ("Claim(s)" or "Lawsuirtsp). Such representation might include 

negotiating agreements related to the Claims and/or prosecuting one or more 

Lawsuits ("Enforcement Activity") against entities selected by Client and 

Mishcon, referred to as "Infringer(s)". 

76 The Retainer Agreement contained a dispute resolution paragraph stating: 

11. Disputes 

(a) Arbitration. All parties to this Retention Agreement agree that any dispute 

or controversy arising out of or relating to any interpretation, construction, 

performance or breach of this Retention Agreement or arising out of or relating to 

Mishcon's representation of the Client, including disputes concerning Mishcon's 

fees or charges or any claims of malpractice, shall be finally settled by mandatory 

binding arbitration held in New York, New York and conducted in accordance with 

the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association ("W"), with each 

party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees and disbursements. Such 

proceeding shall be conducted before a single arbitrator, except in matters 

involving a dispute greater than five hundred thousand dollars, which shall be 

conducted before a three (3) arbitrator panel with each side selecting one arbitrator 

Page 32 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 32 of 48 PageID #:38
and the two arbitrators selected by the Parties choosing the third arbitrator. If any 

such dispute between the Parties concerning our fees or charges involves (i) an 

amount in question that is $50,000 or less; or (ii) each and every Party so agrees, 

such dispute or controversy shall be submitted to binding arbitration under Part 

137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the New York Courts. The Client 

agrees that it has read the official instructions and procedures for Part 137 (a copy 

of which is available upon request), and agree to resolve fee disputes under Pad 

137 where applicable. The Client expressly agrees that prejudgment remedies, 

including but not limited to attachments, garnishments, receiverships and 

preliminary injunctions in aid of any arbitration between the parties may be 

adjudicated before (i) the AAA subject to the Optional Rules for Emergency 

Measures of Protection and any other applicable rules, or (ii) a court of competent 

jurisdiction. Judgment on a binding arbitration award may be entered in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New York or any other court of 

competent jurisdiction. Such proceedings have the potential to provide a more 

timely, more economic and more confidential resolution of any dispute between 

the Parties. The Parties further agree that there will likely be less discovery and a 

determination by an agreed upon arbitrator or arbitrators rather than a judge or 

jury. The Parties mutually acknowledge that, by this agreement to arbitrate, each 

Party irrevocably waives its rights to court or jury trial of any such disputes. Client 

acknowledges that it has the right to consult separate legal counsel at any time as 

to any matter, including whether to enter into this Retention Agreement and 

consent to the foregoing agreement to arbitrate. 

(Sc.A) 

77. The Retainer Agreement is ambiguous and invalid. 

78. The Retainer Agreement fails to provide necessary items in order to apprise 

Plaintiff of any and all rights Molon is waiving, including the right to appeal. 

79. The Retainer Agreement fails to provide for how the costs for arbitration would be 

allocated. 

80. The Retainer Agreement fails to provide a method for notifying the opposing party 

of a demand for arbitration. 

81 The Retainer Agreement is one-sided, only putting the onus on the Client to 

arbitrate, is over-reaching and illusory. 

Wherefore the Plaintiff, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation, respectfully requests that this 

Court enter an order finding the arbitration provision invalid and set this case for trial in the Circuit 

Court of McHenry County and any additional relief it is entitled. 

Page 33 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 33 of 48 PageID #:39
COUNT X 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT 

AGAINST MISHCON, PETRSORIC AND RASKIN 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. Molon and Mishcon entered into a Retainer Agreement for legal services. (Ex. A). 

75. The scope of services for the Retainer Agreement included the following: 

(a) Right to Pursue Infringers. Client is executing this Retention Agreement to 

engage Mishcon's services in connection with investigating and asserting 

potential patent infringement claims for one or more of the Patents as well as 

any ancillary and/or supplemental claims, including, but not limited to theft of 

trade secrets ("Claim(s)" or "Lawsuit(s)"). Such representation might include 

negotiating agreements related to the Claims and/or prosecuting one or more 

Lawsuits ("Enforcement Activity") against entities selected by Client and 

Mishcon, referred to as Infringer(s)". 

76. The Retainer Agreement set forth methods for Mishcon to withdraw from providing 

services 

5. Withdrawal of Mishcon. 

(a) Client agrees that Mishcon, in its sole discretion and after completion of 

the Evaluation Period, may withdraw from its representation of Client in 

connection with this undertaking for any reason, including but not limited to 

the following remaining uncured after thirty (30)days' notice to Client.

(vii) Client insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted 

under existing law and cannot be supported by good- faith argument for 

an extension modification, or reversal of existing law as determined in 

Mishcon's reasonable discretion; 

(viii) Client insists that Mishcon pursue a course of conduct that is illegal 

or that is prohibited under the State Bar Rules as determined in 

Mishcon's reasonable discretion; 

(ix) Client fails to perform any covenant (whether monetary or nonmonetary) of this Retention Agreement and the expiration of a fifteen 

(15) day right to cure period after written notice from Mishcon; 

(x) Client breaches this Retention Agreement; 

Page 34 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 34 of 48 PageID #:40
Mishcon determines, after further investigation of the facts, that the 

value of the case does not justify its budgeted investment in the case; 

Or 

(xii) Mishcon determines, after further investigation of the facts, that the 

facts are materially different from those represented to Mishcon by 

Ghent. 

P. The Retainer Agreement contained a paragraph stating: 

11. Disputes. 

(a) Arbitration. All parties to this Retention Agreement agree that any dispute 

or controversy arising out of or relating to any interpretation, construction, 

performance or breach of this Retention Agreement or arising out of or relating to 

Mishcon's representation of the Client, including disputes concerning Mishcon's 

fees or charges or any claims of malpractice, shall be finally settled by mandatory 

binding arbitration held in New York, New York and conducted in accordance with 

the applicable rules of Oe American Arbitration Association (PAW, with each 

party to bear its owl costs and attorneys' fees and disbursements. Such 

proceeding shall be conducted before a single arbitrator, except in matters 

involving a dispute greater than five hundred thousand dollars, which shall be 

conducted before a three (3) arbitrator panel with each side selecting one arbitrator 

and the two arbitrators selected by the Parties choosing the third arbitrator. If any 

such dispute between the Parties concerning our fees or charges involves (i) an 

amount in question that is $50,000 or less; or (ii) each and every Party so agrees, 

such dispute or controversy shall be submitted to binding arbitration under Part 

137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the New York Courts. The Client 

agrees that it has read the official instructions and procedures for Part 137 (a copy 

of which is available upon request), and agrees to resolve fee disputes under Part 

137 where applicable. The Client expressly agrees that prejudgment remedies, 

including but not limited to attachments, garnishments, receiverships and 

preliminary injunctions in aid of any arbitration between the parties may be 

adjudicated before (i) the AAA subject to the Optional Rules for Emergency 

Measures of Protection and any other applicable rules, or (ii) a court of competent 

jurisdiction. Judgment on a binding arbitration award may be entered in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New York or any other court of 

competent jurisdiction. Such proceedings have the potential to provide a more 

timely, more economic and more confidential resolution of any dispute between 

the Parties. The Parties further agree that there will likely be less discovery and a 

determination by an agreed upon arbitrator or arbitrators rather than a judge or 

jury. The Parties mutually acknowledge that, by this agreement to arbitrate, each 

Party irrevocably waives its rights to court or jury trial of any such disputes. Client 

acknowledges that it has the right to consult separate legal counsel at any time as 

to any matter, including whether to enter into this Retention Agreement and 

consent to the foregoing agreement to arbitrate. 

Page 35 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 35 of 48 PageID #:41
(Exhibit A). 

78. Mishcon did not fulfill its obligations under the Retainer Agreement. 

79. Despite being retained to represent Molon in the trade secret matter, Mishcon 

stopped pursuing the trade secret claims several months prior to withdrawing. 

80. Mishcon did not complete discovery related to the trade secrets counts, failed to 

tell Molon that it was no longer pursuing the trade secret counts until several months after 

discovery had closed, pretended and misrepresented to Molon that Mishcon was still engaging in 

discovery after the discovery had closed, told the court without the permission or knowledge of 

Melon, that discovery was completed and that they were "probably" dismissing the trade secret 

81. Despite a provision permitting Mishcon to withdraw from the case, Mishcon simply 

stopped representing Melon in the trade secret issue. 

82. Mishcon anticipatorily breached its own Retention Agreement and should not be 

able to benefit from its terms. 

83. To permit Mishcon to enforce the Retention Agreement would be unconscionable. 

Wherefore the Plaintiff, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation, respectfully requests that this 

Court enter an order finding the arbitration provision invalid and set this case for trial in the Circuit 

Court of McHenry County and any additional relief it is entitled. 

COUNT XI 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

UNCONSCIONABLE 

AGAINST MISHCON. PETRSORIC AND RASKIN 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. Molon and Mishcon entered into a Retainer Agreement for legal services. (Ex. A). 

TR The scope of services for the Retainer Agreement included the following: 

(a) Right to Pursue Infringers. Client is executing this Retention Agreement to 

engage Mishcon's services in connection with investigating and asserting 

potential patent infringement claims for one or more of the Patents as well as 

any ancillary and/or supplemental claims, including, but not limited, theft of trade 

Page 36 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 36 of 48 PageID #:42
secrets ("Claim(s)" or "Lawsuit(s)") Such representation might include 

negotiating agreements related to the Claims and/or prosecuting one or more 

Lawsuits ("Enforcement Activity") against entities selected by Client and 

Mishcon, referred to as "Infringer(s)". 

76. The Retainer Agreement set forth methods for Mishcon to withdraw from providing 

services. 

Withdrawal of Mishear) 

(a) Client agrees that Mishcon, in its sole discretion and after completion of 

the Evaluation Period, may withdraw from its representation of Client in 

connection with this undertaking for any reason, including but not limited to 

the following remaining uncured after thirty (30) days' notice to Client 

(0 Client insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted 

under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument of 

an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law as determined in 

Mishcon's reasonable discretion; 

(ii) Client insists that Mishcon pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or 

that is prohibited under the State Bar Rules as determined in Mishcon's 

reasonable discretion; 

(iii) Client fails to perform any covenant (whether monetary or non-monetary) 

of this Retention Agreement and the expiration of a fifteen (15) day right 

to cure period after written notice from Mishcon; 

(iv) Client breaches this Retention Agreement; 

(v) Mishcon determines, after further investigation of the facts, that the value 

of the case does not justify its budgeted investment in the case; or 

(vi) Mishcon determines, after further investigation of the facts, that the facts 

are materially different from those represented to Mishcon by Client. 

77. The Retainer Agreement contained a paragraph stating: 

11. Disputes. 

(a) Arbitration. All parties to this Retention Agreement agree that any dispute 

or controversy arising out of or relating to any interpretation, construction, 

performance or breach of this Retention Agreement or arising out of or relating to 

Mishcon's representation of the Client, including disputes concerning Mishcon's 

fees or charges or any claims of malpractice, shall be finally settled by mandatory 

Page 37 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 37 of 48 PageID #:43
binding arbitration held in New York, New York and conducted in accordance with 

the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"), with each 

party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees and disbursements. Such 

proceeding shall be conducted before a single arbitrator, except in matters 

involving a dispute greater than five hundred thousand dollars, which shall be 

conducted before a three (3) arbitrator panel with each side selecting one arbitrator 

and the two arbitrators selected by the Parties choosing the third arbitrator. If any 

such dispute between the Parties concerning our fees or charges involves (i) an 

amount in question that is $50000 or less; or (ii) each and every Party so agrees, 

such dispute or controversy shall be submitted to binding arbitration under Part 

137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the New York Courts. The Client 

agrees that it has read the official instructions and procedures for Pad 137 (a copy 

of which is available upon request), and agrees to resolve fee disputes under Pad 

137 where applicable. The Client expressly agrees that prejudgment remedies, 

including but not limited to attachments, garnishments, receiverships and 

preliminary injunctions in aid of any arbitration between the parties may be 

adjudicated before (i) the AAA subject to the Optional Rules for Emergency 

Measures of Protection and any other applicable rules, or (ii) a court of competent 

jurisdiction. Judgment on a binding arbitration award may be entered in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New York or any other court of 

competent jurisdiction. Such proceedings have the potential to provide a more 

timely, more economic and more confidential resolution of any dispute between 

the Parties. The Parties further agree that there will likely be less discovery and a 

determination by an agreed upon arbitrator or arbitrators rather than a judge or 

jury. The Parties mutually acknowledge that, by this agreement to arbitrate, each 

Party irrevocably waives its rights to court °Mut/ trial of any such disputes. Client 

acknowledges that it has the right to consult separate legal counsel at any time as 

to any matter, including whether to enter into this Retention Agreement and 

consent to the foregoing agreement to arbitrate. 

(Exhibit A). 

78. Mishcon did not fulfill its obligations under the Retainer Agreement. 

79. Despite being retained to represent Molon in the trade secret matter, Mishcon 

stopped pursuing the trade secret claims several months prior to withdrawing. 

80. Mishcon did not complete discovery related to the trade secrets counts, failed to 

tell Molon that it was no longer pursuing the trade secret counts until several months after 

discovery bad closed, pretended and misrepresented to Molon that !Ashcan was still engaging in 

discovery after discovery had closed, told the court without the permission or prior knowledge of 

Page 38 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 38 of 48 PageID #:44
Melon, that discovery was completed and that they were "probably' dismissing the trade secret 

81. Despite a provision permitting Mishcon to withdraw from the case, Mishcon simply 

stopped representing Molon in the trade secret issue. 

82. Mishcon, through PetrsoriC, made material misrepresentations regarding the 

status of discovery, which prevented Molon from discovering the anticipatory breach and acting 

sooner to protect its interests. 

83. To permit Mishcon to enforce the Retention Agreement would be unconscionable. 

Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation, respectfully requests that this 

Court enter an orderfinding the arbitration provision invalid, and set this case for trial in the Circuit 

Court of McHenry County, and any additional relief it is entitled. 

COUNT XII 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

MISREPRESENTATIONS 

AGAINST MISHCON, PETRSORIC AND RASKIN 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. Molon and Mishcon entered into a Retainer Agreement for legal services. (Ex. A). 

75. The scope of services for the Retainer Agreement included the following: 

(a) Right to Pursue Infrincin Client is executing this Retention Agreement to 

engage Mishcon's services in connection with investigating and asserting 

potential patent infringement claims for one or more of the Patents as well as 

any ancillary and/or supplemental claims, including, but not limited to theft of 

trade secrets ("Claim(s)" or "Lawsuit(s)"). Such representation might include 

negotiating agreements related to the Claims and/or prosecuting one or more 

Lawsuits ("Enforcement Activity") against entities selected by Client and 

Mishcon, referred to as "Infringer(s)". 

76. The Retainer Agreement set forth methods for Mishcon to withdraw from providing 

Services 

5. Withdrawal of Mishcon. 

Page 39 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 39 of 48 PageID #:45
(a) Client agrees that Mishcon, in its sole discretion and after completion of 

the Evaluation Period, may withdraw from its representation of Client in 

connection with this undertaking for any reason, including but not limited to 

the following remaining uncured after thirty (30) days' notice to Client: 

(i) Client insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted 

under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument of 

an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law as determined in 

Mishcon's reasonable discretion; 

(ii) Client insists that Mishcon pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or 

that is prohibited under the State Bar Rules as determined in Mishcon's 

reasonable discretion, 

(iii) Client fails to perform any covenant (whether monetary or non-monetary) 

of this Retention Agreement and the expiration of a fifteen (15) day right 

to cure period after receipt of written notice from Mishcon; 

(iv) Client breaches this Retention Agreement; 

(v) Mishcon determines, after further investigation of the facts, that the value 

of the case does not justify its budgeted investment in the case; or 

(vi) Mishcon determines, after further investigation of the facts, that the facts 

are materially different from those represented to Mishcon by Client. 

77. The Retainer Agreement contained a paragraph stating: 

11. Disputes. 

(a) Arbitration. All parties to this Retention Agreement agree that any dispute 

or controversy arising out of or relating to any interpretation, construction, 

performance or breach of this Retention Agreement or arising out of or relating to 

Mishcon's representation of the Client, including disputes concerning Mishcon's 

fees or charges or any claims of malpractice, shall be finally settled by mandatory 

binding arbitration held in New York, New York and conducted in accordance with 

the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"), with each 

party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees and disbursements. Such 

proceeding shall be conducted before a single arbitrator, except in matters 

involving a dispute greater than five hundred thousand dollars, which shall be 

conducted before a three (3) arbitrator panetwith each side selecting one arbitrator 

and the two arbitrators selected by the Parties choosing the third arbitrator. If any 

such dispute between the Parties concerning our fees or charges involves (i) an 

amount in question that is $50,000 or less; or (ii) each and every Party so agrees, 

such dispute or controversy shall be submitted to binding arbitration under Part 

137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the New York Courts. The Client 

Page 40 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 40 of 48 PageID #:46
agrees that it has read the official instructions and procedures for Part 137 (a copy 

of which is available upon request), and agree to resolve fee disputes under Part 

137 where applicable. The Client expressly agrees that prejudgment remedies, 

including but not limited to attachments, garnishments, receiverships and 

preliminary injunctions in aid of any arbitration between the parties may be 

adjudicated before 0) the AAA subject to the Optional Rules for Emergency 

Measures of Protection and any other applicable rules, or (ii) a court of competent 

jurisdiction. Judgment on a binding arbitration award may be entered in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New York or any other court of 

competent jurisdiction. Such proceedings have the potential to provide a more 

timely, more economic and more confidential resolution of any dispute between 

the Parties. The Parties further agree that there will likely be less discovery and a 

determination by an agreed upon arbitrator or arbitrators rather than a judge or 

jury. The Parties mutually acknowledge that, by this agreement to arbitrate, each 

Party irrevocably waives its rights to court or jury trial of any such disputes. Client 

acknowledges that it has the right to consult separate legal counsel at anytime as 

to any matter, including whether to enter into this Retention Agreement and 

consent to the foregoing agreement to arbitrate. 

(Exhibit B). 

78. Mishcon did not fulfill its obligations under the Retainer Agreement. 

79. Despite being retained to represent Moron in the trade secret matter, Mishcon 

stopped pursuing the trade secret claims several months prior to withdrawing. 

80. Mishcon did not complete discovery related to the trade secrets counts, failed to 

tell Moron that it was no longer pursuing the trade secret counts until several months after 

discovery had closed, pretended and misrepresented to Moron that Mishcon was still engaging in 

discovery after the discovery had closed, told the court without the permission or knowledge of 

Molon, that discovery was completed and that they were "probably" dismissing the trade secret 

case. 

81. Despite a provision permitting Mishcon to withdraw from the case, Mishcon simply 

stopped representing Molon in the trade secret issue. 

82. Mishcon, through Petrsoric, made material misrepresentations regarding the 

status of discovery, which prevented Moron from discovering the anticipatory breach and acting 

sooner to protect its interests. 

83, To permit Mishcon to enforce the Retention Agreement would be unconscionable. 

Page 41 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 41 of 48 PageID #:47
Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation, respecffully requests that this 

Court enter an order finding the arbitration provision invalid and set this case for trial in the Circuit 

Court of McHenry County, and any additional relief that it is entitled. 

COUNT XIII 

FRAUD AGAINST PETRSORIC 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. Petrsoric had a fiduciary relationship and attorney-client relationship with Molon. 

75. One of his duties was the duty of utmost candor and fair dealings with his client. 

76. Petrsoric violated his duties of candor and fair dealings with Molon when he 

intentionally misrepresented the status of the case. 

77. Petrsonc's misrepresentations included continuing to take steps asking for 

information and preparation time from Molon with Molon deponents, even though these 

depositions were not going forward because (1) they were barred by the discovery cutoff, or (2) 

because Petrsoric had told the opposing party that he was awaiting a dismissal of the Trade 

Secret Counts as early as August or September of 2018, and thought the Trade Secret case 

was ending. 

78. Petrsoric further concealed the discovery closure and further delayed Molon's 

ability to reopen discovery with the court by falsely leading Molon to believe that discovery 

remained open and the case was ongoing, including sending purported outlines of deposition 

topics and requests to use conference rooms for depositions that he knew were never going to 

take place. 

79. Petrsoric failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly 

possessed by a member of the legal profession, and the attorney's breach of this duty 

proximately caused plaintiff to sustain actual and ascertainable damages. 

80. As a result of the fraudulent misrepresentations, Molon suffered damages in the 

following categories' 

Page 02 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 42 of 48 PageID #:48
Attorney fees incurred after the malpractice had occurred in prosecuting 

both the patent case and attempts to reopen discovery to pursue the trade 

secrets case after the law firm withdrew. 

Damages from the misappropriation of Molon's trade secrets including 

Molon's cost of developing the trade secrets, Molon's loss of the business, 

Nidec's increase in business and marketplace share as well as punitive 

damages; and 

Attorney fees assessed in the fee petition brought against Melon. 

Wherefore, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation respectfully requests that judgment be 

entered in favor of Molon Motor Coil Corporation and against Defendants in an amount in excess 

of $50,000. 

COUNT XIV 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

FRAUD AGAINST MISHCON 

PETRSORIC AND RASKIN 

1-73. Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above. 

74. Molon and Mishcon entered into a Retainer Agreement for legal services. (Ex. A). 

75. The Retainer Agreement contained a dispute resolution paragraph stating: 

11. Disputes. 

(a) Arbitration. All parties to this Retention Agreement agree that any dispute 

or controversy arising out of or relating to any interpretation, construction, 

performance or breach of this Retention Agreement or arising out of or relating to 

Mishcon's representation of the Client, including disputes concerning Mishcon's 

fees or charges or any claims of malpractice, shall be finally settled by mandatory 

binding arbitration held in New York, New York and conducted in accordance with 

the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AW), with each 

party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees and disbursements. Such 

proceeding shall be conducted before a single arbitrator, except in matters 

involving a dispute greater than five hundred thousand dollars, which shall be 

conducted before a three (3) arbitrator panel with each side selecting one arbitrator 

and the two arbitrators selected by the Parties choosing the third arbitrator. If any 

such dispute between the Parties concerning our fees or charges involves (0 an 

amount in question that is $50,000 or less; or (ii) each and every Party so agrees, 

such dispute or controversy shall be submitted to binding arbitration under Part 

Page 43 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 43 of 48 PageID #:49
137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the New York Courts. The Client 

agrees that it has read the official instructions and procedures for Part 137 (a copy 

of which is available upon request), and agree to resolve fee disputes under Part 

137 where applicable. The Client expressly agrees that prejudgment remedies, 

including but not limited to attachments, garnishments, receiverships and 

preliminary injunctions in aid of any arbitration between the parties may be 

adjudicated before (i) the AAA subject to the Optional Rules for Emergency 

Measures of Protection and any other applicable rules, or (ii) a court of competent 

jurisdiction. Judgment on a binding arbitration award may be entered in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New York or any other court of 

competent jurisdiction. Such proceedings have the potential to provide a more 

timely, more economic and more confidential resolution of any dispute between 

the Parties. The Parties further agree that there will likely be less discovery and a 

determination by an agreed upon arbitrator or arbitrators rather than a judge or 

jury. The Parties mutually acknowledge that, by this agreement to arbitrate, each 

Party irrevocably waives its rights to court or jury trial of any such disputes. Client 

acknowledges that it has the right to consult separate legal counsel at any time as 

to any matter, including whether to enter into this Retention Agreement and 

consent to the foregoing agreement to arbitrate. 

(Exhibit A). 

76. The Arbitration Agreement does not apply to fraud. 

77. Mishcon, through its attorney, Petrsoric, made fraudulent misrepresentations 

regarding the status of the trade secret case, purported to still engage in discovery despite 

discovery having already been closed, made representations to Molon that it was still engaging 

in discovery, prepared two Moron witnesses for depositions in the trade secret matter despite 

having told the District Court that discovery was complete, and Molon was considering dismissing 

the trade secret counts. 

Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Molon Motor and Coil Corporation, respectfully requests that this 

Page 44 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 44 of 48 PageID #:50
Court enter an order finding the arbitration provision invalid and set this case for trial in the Circuit 

Court of McHenry County and any additional relief it is entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s! Kristin Tauras 

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

MOLON MOTORS AND COIL CORP. 

Sara Cook —ARDC it 3126995 

scook(a)mckenn a-law corn 

Kristin Teams —ARDC X 6216004 

ktauras(Mmakenna-law corn 

James Cook — ARDC# 6325582 

Kook rimkenna-law corn 

McKenna Storer 

1004 Courtaulds Drive #A 

Woodstock, IL 60098 

815-334-9690 \Fax 815-334-9697 

Page 45 of 45 

Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 45 of 48 PageID #:51
Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 46 of 48 PageID #:52
Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 47 of 48 PageID #:53
Case: 1:20-cv-04475 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 07/30/20 Page 48 of 48 PageID #:54