UKnight Interactive

 

Supporting Documents

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson


Civil Action No. 2017-CV-210-RBJ

 

LIST INTERACTIVE, LTD. d/b/a Uknight Interactive, and
LEONARD LABRIOLA
     Plaintiffs,

v.

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
     Defendant,

v.
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
LIST INTERACTIVE, LTD. D/B/A UKNIGHT INTERACTIVE,
LEONARD S. LABRIOLA,
WEBSINC.COM, INC.,
STEPHEN MICHLIK,
JONATHAN MICHLIK, and
TERRY A. CLARK,
Counterclaim Defendants.

 

Key Documents: Current Status

Click on the links below to open and read the documents

35.

2018 08 01 – ORDER REGARDING RECENT DISCOVERY ISSUES

UKnight's claims:

25.

2018 01 11 – UKNIGHT’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (REVISED)

 

23.

2017 10 10 - RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

 

The court's most current ruling on UKnight's claims:

34.

2018 03 20 – Omnibus Order of the Court

 

 

Summary of this Order:

 
  1. Membership Information: The Judge ordered that, with respect to UKnight request for membership information, KC and KC councils are to provide UKnight with the requested membership information stating that, "In sum, I find no merit in the hodge-podge of arguments the Knights of Columbus have put forth in what appears to be an almost desperate attempt to preclude any discovery concerning membership information."
     
  2. Tax-Exempt Status: The Judge found that UKnight does not have standing to bring its IRS claim. In plain English, the Judge decided that this matter is between the IRS and KC, and regardless of the facts of the matter, whether the IRS wants to give KC tax-exempt status or not is none of UKnight’s business.
     
  3. RICO: The Judge found that regardless of the facts in UKnight’s claim, there are only specific, limited conditions under which a plaintiff can sue under the RICO statutes, and he believes that UKnight did not meet all of those specific conditions.
     
  4. Trademark Infringement: The Judge found that KC's trademark claims against UKnight were sufficiently credible to let the jury hear both sides and make the decision. UKnight disagrees that it is infringing on any of KC’s trademarks, but decided to comply with KC’s demands anyway and has deleted all of the domains and other elements of its various websites KC characterized as infringing except for one, kofcknights.org.

    UKnight is in the process of deleting this domain, as UKnight subscribers are learning. UKnight has been building upon kofcknights.org since 2009, and the Knights of Columbus has even worked together with UKnight to expand UKnight’s platform on kofcknights.org. So every UKnight subscriber, every Knights of Columbus council, agent, agency, assembly, chapter/diocese, state, and district deputy who uses UKnight, has their site built on the domain kofcknights.org. Therefore, this is going to be a complicated process for UKnight and its subscribers alike. Regardless, as of this date KC still demands it, so UKnight is continuing through the processes necessary to comply.
     
  5. Surreptitiously Recording Conversations: Recording conversations with only one parties knowledge is legal according to Colorado law, legal according to Texas law, legal according to Federal law, but illegal according to Connecticut law. UKnight has recorded conversations between UKnight managers in Colorado and Texas, and KC executives in Connecticut. KC does not want these conversations to be used as evidence and claims they were recorded illegally. The Judge ruled that this is for the Jury to decide.
     
  6. Breach of Contract: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.
     
  7. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.
     
  8. Promissory Estoppel: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.
     
  9. Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Relations: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.
     
  10. Fraudulent Misrepresentation: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.
     
  11. Negligent Misrepresentation: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.
     

8.

2017 03 02 – Transcript on Hearing for the Emergency Protective Order

 

Key Quote from Federal District Court Judge Jackson (transcript excerpt)


When addressing concerns of KofC retaliation against agents/deputies/members for cooperation with Plaintiff the Judge said:

 

“But it should be absolutely clear… and trust me when I tell you I mean this, may not be retaliated against. They can't be terminated, fired, or sanctioned in any way because of their cooperation with the plaintiff, and I suggest that if somebody comes up with an alternate reason for terminating some of these people, it better be very darn good, or I will assume and conclude that it is pretextual, and you will not be happy campers. I want these people to be freely able to say what they have to say without being sanctioned by the company for what they have said.”


ALL DOCUMENTS IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

 

35.

2018 08 01 – ORDER REGARDING RECENT DISCOVERY ISSUES

 

34.

2018 03 20 – Omnibus Order of the Court

    In this Order, the Judge agrees with the IRS on UKnight's standing, does not agree that UKnight sufficiently supported its RICO claim, allows KC's trademark claims to move forward, and with regard to the membership information, the Judge ordered that KC and KC councils provide UKnight with the requested membership information stating that, "In sum, I find no merit in the hodge-podge of arguments the Knights of Columbus have put forth in what appears to be an almost desperate attempt to preclude any discovery concerning membership information."

 

33.

2018 03 19 – Motion from IRS to Dismiss Second Claim for Relief

    In this motion from the IRS, they do not make any decision on the claims that UKnight was making in challenging KC's tax exempt status, just that UKnight Interactive does not have the standing necessary to challenge KC's tax-exempt status.

 

32.

2018 02 06 - Transcript of 2nd Hearing on whether UKnight can have member list data

    This is the hearing in front of the Judge where UKnight and KC challenge each other's claims.

 

31.

2018 02 01 – UKNIGHT'S RESPONSE TO KC’S MOTION TO BAR CONSIDERATION OF MEMBERSHIP FRAUD

   
a.   EXHIBIT 1 - DISCOVERY CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT
b.   EXHIBIT 2 - KC – COUNCIL’S DUES PAYMENT COUPON

 

30.

2018 01 25 – KC’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - BOTH WITH REGARD TO ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO MEMBERSHIP STATUS

   
a.   Exhibit 1 - Affidavit of Brian Caulfield
b.   Exhibit 2 - Affidavit of Gary Nolan
c.   Exhibit 3 - Affidavit of Javier Martinez
d.   Exhibit 4 - Affidavit of Albert Cala
e.   Exhibit 5 - Affidavit of Alton Pelowski
f.   Exhibit 6 - Affidavit of Jerome Shaefer

 

29.

2018 01 15 – UKNIGHT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

 

28.

2018 01 13 – UKNIGHT’S RESPONSE TO KC'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

27.

2018 01 11 – KC'S ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS

 

26.

2018 01 11 – KC'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

25.

2018 01 11 – UKNIGHT’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (REVISED)

 

24.

2017 10 13 - COURT ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

 

23.

2017 10 10 - RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
UKnight: The membership records UKnight is seeking will prove that either UKnight is correct or that KC Inc. is correct.

 

22.

2017 10 11 - RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TRO (Amended)
KC Inc.: The court should prohibit UKnight from getting any Knights of Columbus membership information.

   

a.

  Exhibit 1 - Kevin Brady email: “Uknight may be a piece of the puzzle that brings Ingenium, Member Management & Smartoffice all into real time synchronization for the benefit of everyone.”

b.

  Exhibit 2 - Ian Kinkade: Report from 2015 06 16 v2.01
c.   Exhibit 3 - UKnight: 15-page response to KC Inc. explaining elements of its business and responding to specific questions from KC Inc.
d.   Exhibit 4 - UKnight: Final Proposals to KC Inc.
e.   Exhibit 5 - Ian Kinkade: Report from 2015 11 04 v1.3

f.

  Exhibit 6 - KC Inc: UKnight Plan 2 Assessment

g.

  Exhibit 7 - KC Inc: CBI Report: Review of UKnight Interactive Proposals of September 4, 2015
h.   Exhibit 8 - KC Inc e-Business: UKnight Plan 2 Assessment
i.   Exhibit 9 - KC Inc: Memo from Matt St. John, Denise, Tanya, and Chuck regarding UKnight
j.   Exhibit 10 - KC Inc: Affidavit of David Nolan

k.

  Exhibit 11 - UKnight: Email Comment on KC Inc member list security

l.

  Exhibit 12 - UKnight: Email regarding available Member Reports
m.   Exhibit 13 - KC Inc: Affidavit of Javier S. Martinez
n.   Exhibit 14 - KC Inc: Affidavit of Albert A. Cala

o.

  Exhibit 15 - KC Inc: Affidavit of Brian Caulfield

 

21.

2017 09 25 - Reply in Support of Motion to Amend
UKnight: The information in the Amended Complaint is valid, it is relevant, it is important, and it should be allowed to be part of this case.

   

a.

  Exhibit 1 - Bob Ippoliti Email

b.

  Exhibit 2 (Part 1) - Unredacted Affidavits
c.   Exhibit 2 (Part 2) - Unredacted Affidavits
d.   Exhibit 3 - KC Internal Discussion re Competition
e.   Exhibit 4 - KofC Charter

 

20.

2017 09 25 - Emergency TRO Witness Tampering Sanctions
UKnight: The information that UKnight received from Councils prior to the misleading email sent by KC Inc. validates UKnight's claims, and the Court should, among other things, order KC Inc. to issue an immediate retraction email to all recipients of its September 22, 2017 email because UKnight's request for information was legitimate.

   

CLICK HERE to see the transcript from #18 - bottom of page 11, "MR. VAIL (UKnight's attorney): We have numerous contacts with the individual local councils. We would contact them and ask for -- they have what's called membership secretaries in each local council, and ask them for their internal records, are these the people you have as members, and have they, in fact, paid dues to you."

 

CLICK HERE to see the transcript from #18 - middle of page 15, "The Court's order is that the defendant produce to the plaintiff what he calls membership information."

 

a.

  Exhibit 1 - 3/20/2017 Hearing Transcript Excerpts

b.

  Exhibit 2 - Defendant's 9-22-17 Email
c.   Exhibit 3 - Plaintiff's 9-22-17 Email
d.   Exhibit 4 - Response to Request for Admission No 4
e.   Exhibit 5 - Email forwarded by Archdiocese of Denver
f.   Exhibit 6 - KoC Charter Constitution
g.   Exhibit 7 - Reply from MI Council

 

19.

2017 09 25 - Defendant's Motion for Protective Order
KC Inc.: The Court should order UKnight to cease receiving membership information or data provided as a result of the Mass Email, be ordered to disclose all information and data obtained in connection with the Mass Email, to destroy all copies of any information they received, and certify to KC Inc. and the Court that they have done so.

 

18.

2017 09 12 - Transcript of Hearing on whether UKnight can have member list data
This telephonic hearing addressed UKnight's request for KC membership information.

 

17.

2017 08 16 – UKnight – Motion to Amend the Complaint
UKnight: Judge already gave UKnight permission, UKnight is asking for permission anyway.

   

a.

 

2017 08 16 – UKnight – Second Amended Complaint
UKnight: Given the kinds of salaries taken by KC executives and other issues, UKnight believes the court has much more to consider

 

16.

2017 07 28 – Order of the Court – Motions to Dismiss
The Judge ruled to retain most of the claims, dismiss others, and give UKnight permission to replead, or "fix", elements of the RICO claim that was dismissed.

 

15.

2017 03 22 – KC Inc. – Reply in Support of Lack of Jurisdiction over Smith and St. John
KC Inc.: UKnight is wrong, and the Court really does not have jurisdiction over Tom and Matt

 

14.

2017 03 22 – KC Inc. – Reply in Support of Dismissing Certain Claims in UKnight's Complaint
KC Inc.: UKnight is wrong, and the Judge should dismiss certain claims

 

13.

2017 03 12 – UKnight – Response to their Motion to Quash and Protective Order
UKnight: The more facts we can get the more likely we will find the truth.

 

12.

2017 03 10 – KC Inc. – Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order
KC Inc.: UKnight should be blocked from getting information from certain parties

 

11.

2017 03 08 – UKnight – Response to their Motion to Dismiss Jurisdiction
UKnight – This is why Colorado Federal Court does have jurisdiction.

 

10.

2017 03 08 – UKnight – Response to their Motion to Dismiss Claims
UKnight – This is why the Court should not dismiss certain claims.

 

9.

2017 03 02 – Order of the Court – Minute Order Regarding Protective Order
The judge issued this ruling from the bench after listening to both sides

 

8.

2017 03 02 – Transcript on Hearing for the Emergency Protective Order
The judge ordered both sides to come in and explain – this is the transcript.

 

Key Quote from Federal District Court Judge Jackson (transcript excerpt)


When addressing concerns of retaliation against KofC agents/deputies/members for cooperation with Plaintiff the Judge said:

 

“But it should be absolutely clear… and trust me when I tell you I mean this, may not be retaliated against. They can't be terminated, fired, or sanctioned in any way because of their cooperation with the plaintiff, and I suggest that if somebody comes up with an alternate reason for terminating some of these people, it better be very darn good, or I will assume and conclude that it is pretextual, and you will not be happy campers. I want these people to be freely able to say what they have to say without being sanctioned by the company for what they have said.”

 

7.

2017 02 26 – UKnight – Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for Protective Order
UKnight – Yes KC was trying to intimidate potential witnesses

 

6.

2017 02 23 - KC Inc - Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in the UKnight Amended Complaint
KC Inc. – Certain claims brought by UKnight are not legitimate.

 

5.

2017 02 23 - KC Inc - Motion to Dismiss Smith & St. John for lack of Personal Jurisdiction
KC Inc – Why UKnight cannot sue Smith and St. John in Colorado

 

4.

2017 02 23 - KC Inc - Response to Emergency Motion for Protective Order
KC Inc. – We were not trying to keep members from talking to UKnight

 

3.

2017 02 14 Motion for Forthwith Consideration: It was important to let Knights of Columbus members know as soon as possible that there would be no negative consequences if they spoke to UKnight. So UKnight filed this Motion for Forthwith Consideration to let the Court know that time was of the essence.

 

2.

2017 02 14 Emergency Motion for a Protective Order: When the Knights of Columbus heard that UKnight had so much support among the Councils and Agents, they sent out a mass email in an effort to keep any of their members from talking to UKnight. UKnight thought this was improper, and filed this request for a Protective Order with the Court.

   

a.

  Exhibit A - Labriola Affidavit (Signed)

b.

  Exhibit B - 2/10/2017 Email from Supreme (REDACTED)
c.   Exhibit C - Whistleblower #1 Affidavit (REDACTED)
d.   Exhibit D - Whistleblower #2 Affidavit (REDACTED)
e.   Exhibit E - Whistleblower #3 Affidavit (REDACTED)
f.   Exhibit F - Whistleblower #4 Affidavit (REDACTED)
g.   Exhibit G - Whistleblower #5 Affidavit (REDACTED)
h.   Exhibit H - Whistleblower #6 Affidavit (REDACTED)
i.   Exhibit I - Whistleblower #7 Affidavit (REDACTED)

 

1.

2017 02 10 First Amended Complaint: The initial lawsuit was filed on January 24, 2017. There were a few new bits of information that came up that UKnight thought were important to add, so they quickly amended that first complaint. That is why this is called the "First Amended Complaint".

 

 

 

 

Information of Interest

 

The Denver Post

 

Press Release

 

Church Militant

 

UKnight Letter to K of C Board of Directors