1. society
2. crime
3. property crime
4. fraud

( ) cosh /,1.)
( ) Money
Feo Pcllcl &
Hercules Pappas" Esquire
423 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights" NJ 08035
Tel: (B56) 222-999I
Fax: (856) 222-9994
k
dCEVINVISE
Plaintitr,
tlf;T 1 5 20
Amoirnf
Bolch
$
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW IERSEY
BURLINGTON COUNTY
LAWDI\TSION
vs,
DOCKET NO.:
UGFORDAND VISETAG
LABEL COMPAI..{Y, INC
CTVILACTION
/t 2<>1 \r / \r
'>EQD -
12
(Iunfkint
Plaintiff, Kevin Wise, residing at 466 Atsion Road, Shamong" New
Jersey 0B0BB by way of Complaint, say:
L
Plaintiff, Kevin Wise rs an adult individual residing at 466 Atsion
Road, Shamong, New Jersey 0B0BB.
2.
Defendant, Doug Ford is the President of Wise Tag & Label Co, Inc''
located
at
1077 Thomas Busch Memorial HighwaR PennsauLen, New Jersey
08110.
3.
Defendant, Wise Tag & Label Co, Inc' is a company doing business at
1077 Thomas Busch Memorial Highway, Pennsauken, New Jersey 08110'
n(9
\n
Ifurtr Oummln tu All
4.
Plfitiff
CInuntr
'wise Tag & Label co., Inc. for
Kevin.vise was an employee of
over twenty (20) years.
5.
He was the acting manager and Company Secretary'
6.
The plaintiff's father, W. Sprague Wise, was the President of the
company and had been so since the time
1.
it opened in 1976'
In 2008, due to illness and pending heart surgery, the plaintiff,s father
started to look for a partner/investor for the business'
B.
Sprague Vise and the
plaintiff met with defendant, Doug Ford, from
Deco Label Company and discussed a potential buyout of the company'
g.
In lune of 2008, a Stock Purchase Agreement was circulated for review
and execution (Exhibit "A").
10. Plaintiff was asked by defendant
and his attorney to complete the
schedules that needed to be attached to the stock Purchase Agreement and
was asked to collect the sigrratures on the sigrrature page'
71.
As secretary of the company
it
was
Plaintiffs responsibility to gather
the Stock Certificates in preparation for the sale and transfer'
72.
Plaintiff took no part in the negotiations of the sale of the company'
13.
Plaintiff in no way acted as an agent for Vise Tag & Label Co', Inc, or
for his father.
74.
Shortly after the takeover, Defendant terminated plaintiff from his
position.
75.
Currently Wise Tag
& Label Co.' Inc. owes plaintiff a total
of
s779.654.27.
76. This sum is comprised of money loaned to the company by the
plaintiff, money the company charged on the plaintiff's credit card(s), and
money owed to the
plaintiff by way of compensation.
17. Plaintiff and counsel tried to deal with the defendants and their
counsel directly to resolve the issue and seek reimbursement of the
outstanding obligations owed to him, however, those efforts failed'
Ouunt (Dnr - frrts
18.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs
as
though they were more fully set forth herein.
79. Plaintiff
either loaned and/or paid out sums for the benefit of the
Defendant in exchange for a promise to repay that debt by the Defendants.
20.
Despite said promise to pay, Plaintiff has yet to receive those funds'
21.
Currently Wise Tag
& Label Co'' Inc'
owes plaintiff
a total
of
fi179,654.27.
22. This sum is comprised of money loaned to the
company by the
and
plaintiff, money the company charged on the plaintiff's credit card(s),
money owed to the plaintiff by way of compensation'
23.
plaintiff
Defendants have breached the contract with the plaintiff and
is hereby entitled to damages for said breach'
24.
Plaintiff has
As a result of the breach of contract by the Defendants,
to suffer from
suffered severe economic and financial harm and continues
same.
lflillurfnrt, Plaintiff, Kevin Vise
demands judgment against
Defendants and prays for this Court to grant relief as follows:
(")
Damages in the amount of fi77 9,654'27;
(b)
Punitive damages for fraud;
k)
(d)
Interest;
(")
For such other relief and further relief as the Court may deem
For attorneys fees and costs of suit; and
equitable and iust'
Orunt
25.
Ghun-
lfrsui
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs
though they were more fully set forth herein.
26. The
Defendants falsely
misrepresentation
and fraudulently made a
material
to plaintiff that he would be reimbursed of all
debt
obligations owed to him by Wise Tag & Label Co., Inc.
27.
When the defendant, Doug Ford made these representations he knew
them to be false, and these representations were made by defendant with the
intent to defraud and deceive plaintiff and with the intent for plaintiff to rely
upon them and to induce plaintiff to act in the manner herein alleged. At the
time defendant made the promises to plaintiff, defendant had no intention
of per{orming them.
28. Plaintiff, at the time these representations
were made by defendant
and at the time plaintiff took the actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the
falsity of defendant's representations and believed them to be true' Had
plaintiff known the actual facts, he would not have taken such action and
vould have sought out legal advice on how to
secure the debt owed to him.
Plaintiff did, in fact, rely upon the statements and Plaintiffs reliance on
defendant's representations was iustified because when defendant Doug Ford
took over wise Tag & Label co., Inc., he assumed all of its liabilities per the
Stock Purchase Agreernent.
29. As a prorimate result of
defendant's actions as aforementioned'
plainti{f has been damaged in the sum of fi179,654'27 and has su{fered
severe financial, economical and emotional hardship and
will continue to
suffer into the future.
ilfttrtfufr, Plaintiff, Kevin Wise demands judgment against
Defendants and prays for this Court to grant relief as follows:
(")
Damages in the amount of fi119,654'21;
(b)
Punitive damages for fraud;
For interest;
(d)
For attorneys fees and costs of suit; and
(eJ
For such other relief and further relief as the Court may deem
equitable and just.
0uunt @hrrt-MniastfinB
30.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs
though they were more fully set forth herein'
31.
Defendants greatly benefitted
from plaintiffs
aforementioned
financial support without having done anything in reJurn for same'
32.
Defendants did not deserve plaintiff's financial support nor were they
entitled to it.
33.
Defendants were unjustifiably enriched and/or benefitted
from the
financial support of the Plaintiff, all to their benefit and the Plaintiff's
detriment.
34.
Thus, defendants received this financial support neutrally or by false
pretenses.
ffillrrtfnn, Plaintiff, Kevin Vise
demands judgment against
Defendants and prays for this Court to grant relief as follows:
(")
Damages in the amount of $179,654'27;
(b)
Punitive damages for fraud;
(")
For interest;
(d)
For attorneys fees and costs of suit; and
(")
For such other relief and further relief as the Court may deem
equitable and just.
CIuunt lffnra'
(Df Guub iflst
35.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs
as
though they were more fully set {orth herein'
36.
New lersey law provides that every contract contains an implied
though not
covenant of good faith and fair dealing' This means that' even
specificallystatedinthecontract,itisimpliedorunderstoodthateachparty
tothecontractmustactingoodfaithanddealfairlywiththeotherpartyin
performing or enforcing the terms of the contract
37.
yiolated the implied
As a result of the actions of defendants have
covenant
of good faith and fair dealing contained in the Stock
Agreement
Purchase
to pay all liabilities and debts owed to the Plaintiff' and as a
result thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to damages'
38. The actions of said
defendants are
in violation of said implied
covenantofqoodfaithandfairdealinghavecausedthePlaintifftosuffer
damages
in the sum oI
fi779,654'27 and has continued
to
suffer severe
to suffer
financial, economical and emotional hardship and will continue
into the future.
llfllpEfnrr, Plaintiff, Kevin Wise demands iudgment
against
Defendants and prays for this Court to grant relief as follows:
(")
Damages in the amount oI fi77 9,654'27;
(b)
Punitive damages for fraud;
(")
For interest;
(d)
For attorneys fees and costs of suit; and
(")
For such other relief and further relief as the Court may deem
eguitable and just.
Onunt lfriut- @nnmrsion
39.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs
as
though they were more fully set forth herein'
40. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiff was and is entitled to the
Inc
reimbursement of the monies that he loaned Vise Tag & Label' Co''
totaling $179,654.27.
41,. The plaintiff has clear legal ownership or right to
possession
of the
property at the time of the conversion;
42.
The defendants used plaintiff's monies and converted same to their
own use and benefit and were not rightfully entided to the funds'
trr.r..
,t::i:irtt,fjiccoowit\
'o':on ta
43.
Defendants did not have legal ownerrhip or possession
pn
z,tr
tfrSe$$:.|,
vhen used.
ilftfrrflra
Plaintiff, Kevin Vise demande judgment agairst
Defendants and prays for this Court to grant relief as follows:
(.)
Damages in the amount of.fi119,654'27'
(b)
Punitive damages for fraud.
(")
For interest;
(d)
For attotneys feeg aJrd
(")
For such other relief and further relief as the Court nay deem
equitable and
ju*.
c,ogts
of flrit; and
,,
',
i iii :i i' I i ijl,"tt'o'ilt
?0120C1 l2
PH
2' I
ttt?
I
sg tStp
**rr*
@crttfirutbn lFunruflil::ta 4ul* 4:5'l
et
Pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, the undersigned cerrifies that to the best of his
knowledge, the within matters
in controversy are not the subject of any other
nor
action pending in any other court or of a pending arbitration proceeding
is any action or arbitration proceeding contemplated nor are other
required to be joined in this action.
Herculed Pappas, Esquire
Dated:
SePtember 74,2012
Hercules Pappas, Esquire' is hereby designate
Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated:
September L4,2072
Sfuru
Bununi
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by j"ty'
Hercules PIPpas, Esquire
Dated:
September L4,2072
Parties