Anda di halaman 1dari 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION SHADEFX

CANOPIES, INC., a Canadian corporation Plaintiff, CASE NO.: v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COUNTRY LANE GAZEBOS, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company and SAM STOLTZFUS, an individual Defendants. _______________________________/

COMPLAINT Plaintiff, SHADEFX CANOPIES, INC. (Plaintiff or ShadeFX), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against COUNTRY LANE GAZEBOS, LLC (Country Lane Gazebos) and SAM STOLTZFUS (Mr. Stoltzfus) (collectively referred to as Defendants) as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a patent infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition,

false designation of origin/passing off, unfair competition and deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida law action to stop Defendants willful infringement of Plaintiffs United States Patent No. 8,356,652 entitled Retractable Sun Shade (the 652 patent) (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) and to stop Defendants willful and malicious acts of using Plaintiffs ShadeFX trademark and logo as well as pictures of Plaintiffs ShadeFX

product without authorization in conjunction with the manufacture and sale of an infringing knock off at a much reduced cost. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, SHADEFX CANOPIES, INC. is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of Canada. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business at 8695 Escarpment Way, Milton, Ontario, L9T 0J5. 3. Defendant, COUNTRY LANE GAZEBOS, LLC, is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. Country Lane Gazebos principal place of business is located at 191 Jalyn Drive, New Holland, PA 17557. 4. Defendant, SAM STOLTZFUS, is a manager member of COUNTRY LANE

GAZEBOS, LLC who resides in Pennsylvania and who personally participated in, directed, controlled and financially benefited from the unlawful conduct alleged herein. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et

seq., including 35 U.S.C. 154(d), 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285 and the Trademark laws of the United States, including 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and 1114. This Court has subject matter

jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition and false designation of origin/passing off under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) and 15 U.S.C 1121. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of common law unfair competition and Floridas deceptive and unfair trade practices under 28 U.S.C. 1367. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because: Defendants have

minimum contacts with the State of Florida and the Southern District of Florida; Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business in the State of

Florida and in the Southern District of Florida; Defendants have sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Florida; Defendants regularly conduct business within the State of Florida and within the Southern District of Florida primarily through their distributor, Hitching Post Backyard Specialties, Inc., which is located in Delray Beach, Florida; Plaintiffs causes of action arise directly from Defendants business contacts and other activities in the State of Florida and in the Southern District of Florida; and Defendants committed a tort (trademark and patent infringement) in the State of Florida and in the Southern District of Florida. 7. More specifically, Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, through the participation,

direction, control and with the financial benefit and actual knowledge of Mr. Stoltzfus, manufactures, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises its products and services in the State of Florida and the Southern District of Florida. Defendants have committed patent and trademark infringement in the State of Florida and in the Southern District of Florida. Defendants solicit the business of customers in the State of Florida and in the Southern District of Florida. Defendants have many paying customers who are residents of the State of Florida and the Southern District of Florida and who each use Defendants infringing products in the State of Florida and in the Southern District of Florida. Upon information and belief, Defendants have a dealer in this District, Hitching Post Backyard Specialties, Inc., who has at least one of the infringing products on display at its location in Delray Beach, Florida, which was purchased from and manufactured by Defendants. Plaintiffs largest customer viewed the display at

Hitching Post Backyard Specialties, Inc. in this District and brought the presence of the display in Florida to Plaintiffs attention. Plaintiff has a number of customers and at least two dealers in Florida and is being harmed in this District as a direct result of Defendants activities.

8.

Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391

and 1400(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Southern District of Florida and because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in this judicial district. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9. Plaintiff, is a corporation registered in Ontario, Canada and is the owner of the

retractable sun shade and method of supporting and actuating a sun shade patent (the 652 Patent). In January 2008, ShadeFX was incorporated to fully develop and grow the retractable canopy market potential for the monorail drive canopy system relying on its innovative design and ShadeFX trademark and logo to establish its presence in the market. Since January 2008, ShadeFX has been selling its monorail drive canopy products in Canada and the USA directly to consumers and through reselling dealers, one of which was Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos. 10. ShadeFX invests heavily in marketing and branding and has developed an

excellent reputation for its unique design that solves all the problems associated with multi track canopy systems on outdoor structures. This reputation is closely associated with both the brand name and the unique and recognizable ShadeFX word mark and logo. A true and correct copy of the ShadeFX logo is inserted below for the Court reference:

11.

Plaintiff has been using its ShadeFX word mark in commerce since at least as

early as January of 2008 and its logo since August of 2008, in association with the sale of retractable canopies.

12.

Plaintiff has had over 1 million visits to its website, www.shadefx.com, and is

recognized all across the industry for its retractable sun shade sold under the ShadeFX word mark and logo. Plaintiff has shipped over 2,000 installed systems with the logo, brand name and patent pending marked on the retractable sun shades. Plaintiff has also been featured on

television on HGTV, Decked Out, George to the Rescue and Breakfast Television. Plaintiff has also been featured in Southern Living Magazine and House Beautiful Magazine. Plaintiff is a member of Industrial Fabrics Association International and Professional Awning Manufacturers Association and has displayed its retractable sun shade in trade shows all across the U.S. Moreover, it has dealers all across the United States that are displaying the product and it has sold the product all across the United States, including into this District. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs ShadeFX logo and word mark have become distinctive in the marketplace through Plaintiffs extensive efforts in marketing and advertising the product, extensive sales all throughout the U.S. and the world and in fact, when customers hear or see ShadeFX, they automatically think of the Plaintiff or its retractable sun shade product. 13. Therefore, the unique and patent protected retractable sun shade and method of

supporting and actuating the sun shade, along with the brand name and logo of ShadeFX, are assets of ShadeFX that hold and represent significant value in the market. 14. Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, is a previous dealer for ShadeFX and sold

Plaintiffs retractable sun shade to customers all throughout the United States, including in Florida and in this District from August of 2010 until September of 2011. 15. On or around July 1, 2010, one of the sales representatives for ShadeFX, Scott

Jaffe, met with Jason Rineer, the sales manager for Country Lane Gazebos and Sam Stoltzfus, the owner of Country Lane Gazebos. The meeting occurred after months of telephone

conversations, email correspondence, mailing of literature, price lists, and samples. An example of the literature provided to Defendant, which specifically references the fact that ShadeFX has a patent pending on its retractable sun shade and system is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 16. During the meeting, the sales representatives for ShadeFX brought additional

sales and product literature for Country Lane to distribute to their customers, as well as a newer ShadeFX drive beam, wing with fabric, gravity clip sample and fabric books. 17. The meeting was intended to educate Country Lane Gazebos about the ShadeFX

product and to measure for displays because Country Lane Gazebos was interested in becoming a ShadeFX dealer, distributor, and reseller for their customers nationwide and within their local area. 18. At the meeting, the fact that ShadeFX had a patent pending on its retractable sun

shade and canopy system was explained to Jason Rineer and Sam Stoltzfus by Scott Jaffe in detail. Sam Stoltzfus and Jason Rineer asked several questions about water drainage, wind forces, and sizing limitations. Sam Stoltzfus seemed especially curious about the drive beam attachment detail to pergolas and how the fabric threaded through the canopy wings. 19. Defendants appeared eager to become a distributer, dealer, and reseller and did in

fact become a distributor, dealer and reseller shortly thereafter by purchasing their first display canopy in August of 2010. Over the next year, Defendants ordered several canopies and then all of the sudden, the orders stopped in September of 2011. 20. On or around March 1, 2012, Plaintiff received a copy of a price calculator from

one of its dealers, which provides photographs of the product that infringes one or more claims of the 652 patent and Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, through the direction, control, with the financial benefit and with the actual knowledge of Mr. Stoltzfus, is selling such infringing

products for 30% less than ShadeFX, which has caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of the price calculator is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 21. As seen in the photographs of the infringing canopy system, Defendants

knockoff infringes at least one of the independent claims in the 652 Patent either directly or through the doctrine of equivalents. 22. Upon information and belief, the owner of the Hitching Post Backyard

Specialties, Inc., stated to one of ShadeFXs customers that Country Lane Gazebos is no longer selling the ShadeFX product because ShadeFX was making too much of a margin on the product. 23. Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, through the participation, direction, control,

and with the financial benefit and with the actual knowledge of Mr. Stoltzfus, is currently manufacturing, offering for sale and selling an infringing retractable sun shade to customers all throughout the United States, including in Florida and in this District to Hitching Post, Inc. specifically, who is located at 4013 W. Atlantic Ave., Delray Beach, Florida 33445, which infringes one or more of the independent claims of the 652 Patent literally and/or through the doctrine of equivalents. 24. In conjunction with Defendants sale of the infringing retractable sun shade and

system, Defendants are using Plaintiffs ShadeFX trademark and logo. A true and correct copy of a brochure downloaded from Defendants www.gazebos.com website is attached hereto as Exhibit D. As seen at page 14, Defendants are using Plaintiffs trademark and logo without Plaintiffs authorization.

25.

Defendants use of the trademark and logo in association with the sale of an

identical product to similar customers is likely to cause confusion among consumers. 26. In addition, the photographs used on Defendants brochure are photographs of

Plaintiffs patented product and are being used without Plaintiffs authorization and Defendants are instructing their dealers how to use the system in violation of the method claims of the 652 patent, which constitutes active inducement. See Exhibit D at page 14. 27. Finally, as seen in the price calculator, attached as Exhibit C and the brochure,

attached as Exhibit D, Defendants are continuing to sell the retractable sun shade, but it is not Plaintiffs canopy system it is a knockoff that Defendants are selling at 30% less than what Plaintiff sells its product for. 28. Plaintiff performed all conditions precedent to be performed by Plaintiff or the

conditions have occurred. 29. Plaintiff has been forced to retain the law firm of Beusse Wolter Sanks Mora &

Maire, P.A. for representation in this action. COUNT I DIRECT PATENT INFRINGEMENT 30. Plaintiff repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 31. Plaintiff is the owner of United States Patent No. 8,356,652 (the 652 Patent) at

all times material hereto. See Exhibit A. 32. The 652 Patent is for a retractable sun shade, comprising at least one fabric

section affixed to a boom, the boom supported and slideably engaged to a track at an intermediate portion of the boom, the track supported by a frame, and at least one flexible drawing element affixed to the boom at the intermediate portion, for drawing the boom in a first

direction along the track to extend the sun shade and for drawing the boom in an opposite direction along the track to retract the sun shade. 33. Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, through the participation, direction, control

and with the financial benefit and actual knowledge of Mr. Stoltzfus, manufactures, promotes, advertises, offers for sale and sells retractable sun shades that infringes one or more independent claims of the 652 patent either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents. 34. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, at the direction,

control, with the financial benefit and with the actual knowledge of Mr. Stoltzfus, have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of the 652 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling in this district and elsewhere in the United States, knockoff retractable sun shades. 35. Plaintiff. 36. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants the damages sustained by Defendants aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from

Plaintiff as a result of the Defendants wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284. 37. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover damages dating back to the publication of

the 652 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(d) because Defendants were on actual notice of the patent in July of 2010 during their meeting with Plaintiff where they were both told and provided with information and materials regarding the published patent application (attached as Exhibit E) and the claims of the patent as issued are substantially the same. E. See Exhibits A and

38.

Defendants infringement of Plaintiffs exclusive rights under the 652 patent will

continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. COUNT II INDIRECT PATENT INFRINGEMENT 39. Plaintiff repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 40. Plaintiff is the owner of United States Patent No. 8,356,652 (the 652 Patent) at

all times material hereto. See Exhibit A. 41. The 652 Patent includes independent and dependent claims related to a method

of supporting and actuating the sun shade. 42. Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, through the participation, direction, control

and with the financial benefit and actual knowledge of Mr. Stoltzfus is actively marketing the sale of the knock off to its dealers via the brochure at Exhibit B and the price calculator at Exhibit C wherein the Price Calculator specifically instructs its dealers how to actuate the sun shade. 43. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, at the direction,

control, with the financial benefit and with the actual knowledge of Mr. Stoltzfus is also verbally instructing its dealers how to actuate the sun shade all of which violate at least one of the independent method claims and constitutes active inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). 44. Defendants aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from

Plaintiff and are considered intentional and willful. 45. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants the damages sustained by

Plaintiff as a result of the Defendants wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which,

10

by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284. 46. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover damages dating back to the publication of

the 652 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(d) because Defendants were on actual notice of the patent in July of 2010 during their meeting with Plaintiff where they were both told and provided with information and materials regarding the published patent application (attached as Exhibit B) and the claims of the patent as issued are substantially the same. E. 47. Defendants infringement of Plaintiffs exclusive rights under the 652 patent will See Exhibits A and

continue to damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. COUNT III TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) 48. Plaintiff repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 49. Plaintiff is the owner of the ShadeFX word mark and logo for retractable

canopies. Plaintiff has used the Shade FX word in commerce since at least as early as January of 2008 and has used its logo since at least as early as August of 2008 and has dealers all across the United States including in this District. 50. Plaintiffs ShadeFX trademark and logo have become distinctive in the

marketplace, such that when a consumer hears or sees ShadeFX, they think of ShadeFX Canopies, Inc. and the ShadeFX retractable canopy.

11

51.

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), provides in pertinent part

that any person who, on or in connection with any goods or servicesuses in commerce, any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services , or commercial activities by another personshall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. 52. Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, through the direction, control and with actual

knowledge and financial benefit of Defendant, Mr. Stoltzfus, manufactured, marketed, promoted and sold knock off retractable canopies through the use of the ShadeFx word mark and logo, which constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). 53. Based on the similarity of the trademarks, goods, services, trade channels and

consumers, such actions by Defendants have caused and are likely to cause confusion among prospective or actual consumers and other members of the public in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and constitute unfair competition. 54. Defendants, as former dealers of the ShadeFX canopies acted in a malicious,

fraudulent, willful and deliberate manner in an attempt to trade on the recognition of, and have willfully intended to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff and its ShadeFX trademarks. 55. Defendants acts of infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) of the

Lanham Act has inflicted and, if not enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable harm on Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

12

56.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in an amount

to be determined at trial, including Defendants profits, losses sustained by Plaintiff due to Defendants conduct and costs of the action. Furthermore, the actions of Defendants were undertaken willfully and with the intention of causing confusion, mistake, or deception, making this an exceptional case entitling Plaintiff to recover additional treble damages and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117. COUNT IV FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN/PASSING OFF UNDER 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) 57. Plaintiff repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 58. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), provides in pertinent part

that any person who, on or in connection with any goods or servicesuses in commerce, any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services , or commercial activities by another personshall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. 59. Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, through the direction, control and with actual

knowledge and financial benefit of Defendant, Mr. Stoltzfus, manufactured, marketed, promoted and sold knock off retractable canopies through the use of the ShadeFx trademark and logo as well as through the use of photographs of Plaintiffs ShadeFX product (See Exhibit D) constituting a false designation of origin/passing off which has caused and is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or deception, as to Defendants affiliation with Plaintiff, and have

13

caused and are likely to cause confusion, or deception, to the effect that Plaintiff sponsors, approves or endorses Defendants infringing products, all in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). 60. Defendants, as former dealers of the ShadeFX canopies acted in a malicious,

fraudulent, willful and deliberate manner in an attempt to trade on the recognition of, and have willfully intended to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff and its ShadeFX trademarks. 61. Defendants acts of infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) of the

Lanham Act has inflicted and, if not enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable harm on Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 62. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in an amount

to be determined at trial, including Defendants profits, losses sustained by Plaintiff due to Defendants conduct and costs of the action. Furthermore, the actions of Defendants were undertaken willfully and with the intention of causing confusion, mistake, or deception, making this an exceptional case entitling Plaintiff to recover additional treble damages and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117. COUNT V UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER FLORIDA COMMON LAW 63. Plaintiff repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 64. Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, through the direction and control and with the

actual knowledge and financial benefit of Mr. Stoltzfus, is deceptively advertising, promoting, selling, manufacturing and offering for sale its infringing canopy through the unauthorized use of Plaintiffs ShadeFX trademarks as well as through images of Plaintiffs ShadeFX canopy product and is falsely and deceptively affiliating themselves with Plaintiff, which has caused, or is likely to cause confusion, deception or mistake.

14

65.

Defendants acts constitute unfair competition under Florida law from which they

have unlawfully benefited. 66. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages as a result of

Defendants actions, such that Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT VI DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES UNDER 501.201, et. seq. 67. Plaintiff repeats and makes a part hereof each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint. 68. The actions of Defendant, Country Lane Gazebos, through the direction and

control and with the actual knowledge and financial benefit of Mr. Stoltzfus, including but not limited to its unauthorized use of the ShadeFX trademarks and photographs of the ShadeFX products in conjunction with the sale of a knock off that violates Plaintiffs 652 patent, constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). 69. Defendants unauthorized use of the ShadeFX trademarks and images of ShadeFX

products in connection with its marketing, promotion and sale of knock off canopies that violate the 652 patent has created and continues to create a likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, association, origin, sponsorship or approval of Defendants goods and services with Plaintiff. 70. In addition, Defendants actions in misrepresenting or falsely implying that

Defendants are affiliated with, approved or endorsed by and/or continuing to sell the ShadeFX canopies, when in fact they are selling knockoff constitutes a violation of both 15 U.S.C. 125(a) and 35 U.S.C 271.

15

71.

By reason of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

suffer irreparable harm including, but not limited to, detriment and diminution in the value of the ShadeFX trademarks and product, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against Defendants, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 501.211(1). 72. Plaintiff is aggrieved by Defendants unlawful actions and has suffered and

continues to suffer losses and is therefore entitled to recover all actual damages sustained as a result of Defendants actions, plus attorneys fees and court costs, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 501.211(2) and 501.2105. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief: A. B. An adjudication that Plaintiffs rights in the 652 patent are valid and enforceable; An adjudication that one or more claims of the 652 patent have been infringed,

either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendants; C. An Adjudication that Plaintiffs ShadeFX trademark and logo are valid and

enforceable and have been infringed by Defendants; D. An Adjudication that Defendants actions constitute unfair competition, passing

off, false designation of origin and unfair and deceptive trade practices; E. An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the

Defendants acts of infringement together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

16

F.

An award to Plaintiff of damages for patent infringement dating back to October

7, 2010 when Defendants were on actual notice of the 652 patent application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 154(d); G. A grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283 and 15 U.S.C.

1117, enjoining the Defendants, their agents, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from further acts of infringement of the 652 patent and the ShadeFX trademark and logo and from making, using, offering or sale or selling any canopies or sun shades that infringe one or more of the independent claims of the 652 patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; H. That this Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award Plaintiff its

reasonable attorneys fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 285 and 15 U.S.C. 1117; and, I. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

DATED this 7th day of March, 2013. Respectfully submitted, Beusse Wolter Sanks Mora & Maire, P.A. 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 2500 Orlando, Florida 32801 Telephone: (407) 926-7716 Facsimile: (407) 926-7720 E-mail: adavis@iplawfl.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, SHADEFX CANOPIES, INC. /s/ Amber N. Davis Amber N. Davis Florida Bar No: 0026628

17