Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Monte Cahn v. Oversee.Net et al

February 6, 2012

MONTE CAHN
v.
OVERSEE.NET ET AL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul M. Cruz N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

INTRODUCTION

The instant action concerns Plaintiff Monte Cahn's relationship with his former employer, Defendant Oversee.net ("Oversee"). In 2005, Cahn sold his company Domain Systems, Inc. d/b/a Moniker.com ("Moniker") to Seevast Corporation. In 2007, Oversee acquired Moniker from Seevast. Oversee decided to retain Cahn's services. Cahn and Oversee entered into a Management Incentive Plan ("MIP") pursuant to which participants including Cahn would have earned large bonus payments if various segments of Moniker (the "Moniker Business Segments") and/or Oversee achieved certain Performance Goals. In short, Cahn alleges that he is owed millions of dollars in payments under the

On November 16, 2011, Oversee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Cahn's First Claim for Relief. (Dkt. No. 63). The Court denied that Motion on December 29, 2011. (Dkt. No. 209). Cahn's First Claim essentially consists of two key issues: (1) whether the Moniker segments achieved any of the Performance Goals under the MIP; and (2) whether Oversee promised Cahn that his Performance Goal under the MIP would be identical to a target (the "Company Budget") used as part of the process for determining bonuses for Oversee legacy management employees (i.e. Oversee management who had been at the company since before the acquisition of Moniker).

On January 24 and 25, 2012, the Court held a trial on the second issue. This Order contains the Courts findings of fact and conclusions of law as to that narrow issue only. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court finds that Defendants did not set the Oversee Performance Goal at the same target as was used to determine bonuses for Oversee legacy employees, nor did they ever represent that they would do so. Furthermore, the Court finds that the pertinent provisions of the MIP are not reasonably susceptible to Cahn's proposed interpretation, under which Cahn claims that the Oversee Performance Goal was identical to the Company Budget.

Initials of Preparer PMC

FACTS

A. Acquisition of Moniker ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.