Date: 04-10-2015

Case Style: Benefits Technologies Division 10, LLC and Benefits Technologies, LLC v. David Brenner

Case Number: CJ-2014-852

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Alexander King, Terry Thomas and Randall Snapp

Defendant's Attorney: Pat O'Connor

Description: Tulsa, OK - Benefits Technologies Division 10, LLC and Benefits Technologies, LLC sued David Brenner on breach of contract theory. Defendant counterclaimed on breach of contract, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, restitution, constructive trust, accounting, indemnification and constructive discharge theories.

Plaintiffs' petition stated:

1. Plaintiff Benefits Technologies is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Sapulpa, Oklahoma. All of the members of Benefits Technologies are citizens of Oklahoma.
2. Upon information and belief, Brenner is a citizen of Michigan.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Under 12 O.S. § 1651, the Court has jurisdiction to determine rights, status, or other legal relations, including the construction or validity of a contract.
4. The contract at issue between the parties contains an enforceable forum selection clause, which specifies the courts located in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma as the sole venue for any action arising out of the agreement thus Brenner agreed to venue in this Court.
5. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in this Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
6. Benefits Technologies specializes in the design, communication, enrollment and administration of core and worksite benefit plans.
7. Effective November 1, 2009, Benefit Technologies entered into a “Sale of Membership Interest and Earn-Out Compensation Agreement” (the “Earn-Out Agreement”) with Brenner. Pursuant to the Earn-Out Agreement, Benefit Technologies purchased Brenner’s interest in Titan Benefit Communications, LLC. As part of that transaction, the Earn-Out Agreement provided that Brenner could possibly receive annual earn-out payments in the amount of $162,000.00 commencing on March 1, 2011 and continuing thereafter until March 1, 2015 if certain contingencies were met.
8. Effective November 1,2009, Titan Benefit Communications, LLC entered into an
“Employment Agreement” (the “Employment Agreement”) with Brenner. The Employment
Agreement contained a five year term commencing November 1, 2009 and continuing until
October 31, 2014. Titan Benefit Communications, LLC changed its name to Benefits
Technologies Division 10, LLC on or about December 3, 2009. Effective February 15, 2013,
Brenner and Benefits entered a “Modification of Employment Agreement.”
9. The relevant portion of Section 6 of the Employment Agreement states:
By execution hereof, Employee agrees that, except as set forth below, if Employee ceases to provide services to the Company resulting in the loss of the book of business described herein, and if such loss of such book of business results in damages to the Company, the Employee shall be liable for such loss, but in an amount not to exceed the unpaid amounts payable to Employee, under the Sale of Membership Interest and Earn-Out Compensation Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Employee shall have no liability whatsoever for any such loss or damage if Employee ceases to provide services to Company for one or more of the following reasons: (a) Employee’s death; or (b) Employee’s total disability as determined by a physician licensed in Michigan or as determined under
any disability policy maintained by Employee or Company; or (c) if Employee terminates his employment for Good Reason.
10. SectionS of the Employment Agreement states:
As used herein, the term “Good Reason” means that Company requires Employee to be permanently based anywhere other than within 35 miles of Employee’s present office location in Royal Oak, Michigan.
Il. On or about June 11, 2013, Brenner gave Benefits Technologies his two week notice of resignation. Brenner’s stated reasons for his resignation do not fall within the Good Reason definition contained in Section 5 of the Employment Agreement. As a result of his resignation, Brenner’s employment with Benefits Technologies ended on June 24,2013.
12. Brenner’s departure prior to the expiration of the term of the Employment Agreement has resulted in damage and loss to Benefits Technologies in excess of the amount remaining due to Brenner under the Earn-Out Agreement.
DECLARATORY RELIEF
13. Benefits Technologies realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
14. There is an actual controversy between the parties.
15. Benefits Technologies claims that Brenner resigned from Benefits Technologies prior to the expiration of the term of the Employment Agreement without Good Reason as that term is defined in the Employment Agreement. Due to Brenner’s resignation, Benefit Technologies has suffered loss and damage and such loss and damage may be off-set by the remaining earn-out payments.
16. Brenncr states that his resignation was for Good Reason and maintains that the March 1, 2014 earn-out payment is due in full.
17. Benefits Technologies is entitled to a declaration that (a) Brenner’s resignation was not for Good Reason as defined by the Employment Agreement, (b) Benefits Technologies suffered loss as a result of Brenner’s resignation in excess of the amount remaining due to Brenner under the Earn-Out Agreement, (c) Benefits Technologies may off-set the loss and damage caused by Brenner’s resignation against the future earn-out payments and (d) Benefit Technologies has no obligation to pay Brenner the earn-out payments scheduled to be paid in 2014 and 2015 pursuant to the Earn-Out Agreement.
WHEREFORE, in satisfaction of all claims and counterclaims, Benefits Technologies respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Brenner as follows:
A. A declaration that (a) Brenner’s resignation was not for Good Reason as defined by the Employment Agreement, (b) Benefits Technologies suffered loss as a result of Brenner’s resignation in excess of the amount remaining due to Brenner under the Earn-Out Agreement, (c) Benefits Technologies may off-set the loss and damage caused by Brenner’s resignation against the future earn-out payments and (d) Benefit Technologies has no obligation to pay Brenner the earn-out payments scheduled to be paid in 2014 and 2015 pursuant to the Earn-Out Agreement;
B. Attorney’s fees allowable under law and by contract;
C. All costs incurred in the prosecution of this action; and
D. Any such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Defendant answered and counterclaimed alleging:

1. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore
denies same.
2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. Jurisdiction and Venue:
3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs 4 and 6 of Plaintiffs’ Amended
Petition.
4. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. Factual Background:
5. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore denies same.
6. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to characterize and does not accurately quote from the Earn-Out Agreement. The terms of the Earn-Out Agreement speak for themselves.
7. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to quote the “relevant” portion of Section 3.12 of the Earn-Out Agreement. The terms of the Earn-Out Agreement speak for themselves.
8. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, except as to the third sentence regarding a name change. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the accuracy of the third sentence and therefore denies same.
9. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to quote the “relevant” portion of Section 6 of the Employment Agreement. The terms of the Employment Agreement speak for themselves.
10. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to quote Section 5 of the Employment Agreement. The terms of the Employment Agreement speak for themselves.
11. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 and 14 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
Count I
12. Defendant reiterates and incorporates each of his prior responses in connection with Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
5. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore denies same.
6. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to characterize and does not accurately quote from the Earn-Out Agreement. The terms of the Earn-Out Agreement speak for themselves.
7. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to quote the “relevant” portion of Section 3.12 of the Earn-Out Agreement. The terms of the Earn-Out Agreement speak for themselves.
8. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, except as to the third sentence regarding a name change. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the accuracy of the third sentence and therefore denies same.
9. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to quote the “relevant” portion of Section 6 of the Employment Agreement. The terms of the Employment Agreement speak for themselves.
10. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to quote Section 5 of the Employment Agreement. The terms of the Employment Agreement speak for themselves.
11. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 and 14 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
Count I
12. Defendant reiterates and incorporates each of his prior responses in connection with Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
5. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and therefore denies same.
6. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to characterize and does not accurately quote from the Earn-Out Agreement. The terms of the Earn-Out Agreement speak for themselves.
7. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to quote the “relevant” portion of Section 3.12 of the Earn-Out Agreement. The terms of the Earn-Out Agreement speak for themselves.
8. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, except as to the third sentence regarding a name change. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the accuracy of the third sentence and therefore denies same.
9. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to quote the “relevant” portion of Section 6 of the Employment Agreement. The terms of the Employment Agreement speak for themselves.
10. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition to the extent it seeks to quote Section 5 of the Employment Agreement. The terms of the Employment Agreement speak for themselves.
11. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 and 14 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
Count I
12. Defendant reiterates and incorporates each of his prior responses in connection with Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
13. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 and 17 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
Count II
14. Defendant reiterates and incorporates each of his prior responses in connection with
Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
15. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Amended
Petition.
16. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 20 and 21 of Plaintiffs’ Amended
Petition.
17. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Amended
Petition.
18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Amended
Petition, and the relief requested in the Wherefore clause.
Affirmative Defenses
1. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in Count I.
2. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in Count II. Plaintiffs are
not entitled to the Declaratory Relief requested because any such determinations or judgments
would not terminate all of the controversies between the parties pursuant to 12 0. S. § 1651.
3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part under the doctrines of waiver, laches,
estoppel and/or unclean hands.
4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by acquiescence, release and/or ratification.
5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by their prior material breach of the
contracts sought to be recovered upon.
6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by their breach of duty of good faith and
fair dealing.
7. Plaintiffs did not incur any damage or loss as a result of any act or conduct of Defendant.
Any alleged damages by Plaintiffs would be speculative at best.
8. Plaintiffs have failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate their alleged damages.
9. If Plaintiffs suffered or sustained any damages or losses, the same were directly and
proximately caused by the conduct, acts, omissions, carelessness, negligence, and/or intentional
misconduct of Plaintiffs or others, not Defendant.
10. Plaintiffs would be unjustly enriched if allowed to recover on their Amended Petition.
11. The Defendant currently has insufficient knowledge or information from which to form a
belief as to whether he may have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses available. The
Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses and/or claims in the event discovery
indicates additional defenses and/or claims would be appropriate.
Wherefore, having fully answered, the Defendant prays that Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary and Declaratory Relief be denied, that Plaintiffs’ take nothing by reason of the Amended Petition, and that the Court grant Defendant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, including Counterclaim relief, and the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action by Defendant.
COUNTERCLAIMS
First Counterclaim Cause of Action
(Breach of Earn-Out Agreement)
1. This Counterclaim is asserted by Defendant against the Plaintiff, Benefits Technologies, LLC (“BenTech”).
2. Effective November 1, 2009, BenTech entered into a “Sale of Membership and Earn-Out Compensation Agreement” (the “Earn-Out Agreement”) with Defendant. Pursuant to the Earn- Out Agreement, BenTech was obligated to pay Defendant a base annual amount of $162,000.00 (“Base Amount”) due on March 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. The Base Amount was subject to adjustment based on the annual income earned during the prior calendar year. In order to make the adjustments to the Base Amount due Defendant, BenTech was obligated to provide Defendant by February 15, 2014 with a written report detailing the annual income for the calendar year 2013 (“Written Report”).
3. BenTech has breached the Earn-Out Agreement by failing to provide the Written Report to Defendant and failing to pay Defendant the amount due him. BenTech’s actions and inactions as of March 1, 2014 constituted a material breach of the Earn-Out Agreement.
4. Defendant is due Earn-Out compensation for the calendar years 2013 and 2014 in the approximate amount of $324,000.00. The Earn-Out compensation due Defendant constitutes “wages” pursuant to 40 O.S. § 165.1. Pursuant to 40 O.S. § 165.9, Defendant is entitled to recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with this cause of action.
Second Counterclaim Cause of Action
(Breach of Employment Agreement)
5. This Counterclaim is asserted by Defendant against the Plaintiff, Benefits Technologies
Division 10, LLC (“Division 10”).
6. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
7. Effective November 1, 2009, Division 10 entered into an “Employment Agreement” (the
“Employment Agreement”) with Defendant. On February 15, 2013, Division 10 and Brenner
entered into a “Modification of Employment Agreement” (the “Modification”). The term of
employment was for a period of five (5) years commencing on November 1, 2009 and expiring on October 31, 2014.
8. Pursuant to the Modification, Defendant’s annual base rate of compensation was
$150,000.00 as of February 15, 2013. Defendant was also employed as the President of Division
10 as of February 15, 2013. Defendant’s duties as President included the power to manage and grow the book of business, to procure clients, and to assess whether the sale and enrollment of benefits to a client is profitable according to Company guidelines. Pursuant to Section 16 of the Employment Agreement any amendment to the Employment Agreement required written consent by both Division 10 and Defendant.
9. Subsequent to the Modification, Division 10 breached the Employment Agreement by taking numerous actions to negate and undermine Defendant’s duties as President and force him to resign. None of these detrimental and unilateral actions were agreed to by Defendant. These actions included: a) a change in the brokerage fee split which could be charged by Division 10 thus jeopardizing prior commitments and long term relationships with clients and brokers; b) instructions to terminate three (3) employees; c) instructions that the remaining two key Division 10 employees will be reporting to someone other than Defendant; d) instructions that effective May 1, 2013 the Division 10 office lease will be terminated; e) instructions that the Division 10 operations will be headquartered out of a BenTech office in San Diego, and that Defendant will report to Jim Barrett in San Diego with regard to Division 10 operations; and I) instructions that all of the Division 10 business will be transitioned to another division, or divisions of BenTech.
10. The Actions of Division 10 constituted a material breach of Defendant’s Employment Agreement.
11. Defendant is entitled to damages equal to the unpaid annual salary due him from June 25,
2013 through October 31, 2013. The unpaid annual salary due Defendant constitutes “wages”
pursuant to 40 O.S. § 165.1. Defendant is also entitled to liquidated damages in the amount set
forth in 40 O.S. § 165.3 (B). Pursuant to 40 O.S. § 165.9, Defendant is entitled to recover his
reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with this cause of action.
Third Counterclaim Cause of Action
(Constructive Discharge)
12. This Counterclaim is asserted by Defendant against Division 10.
13. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
14. The improper actions of Division 10 contrary to the Employment Agreement resulted in a
constructive discharge without cause of Defendant’s employment. In that regard, Defendant was
forced to resign his respective employment prior to the completion of his term on October 31,
2013.
15. Defendant is entitled to damages equal to the unpaid annual salary due him from June 25,
2013 through October 31, 2013. The unpaid annual salary due Defendant constitutes “wages”
pursuant to 40 O.S. § 165.1. Defendant is also entitled to liquidated damages in the amount set
forth in 40 O.S. § 165.3(B). Pursuant to 40 O.S. § 165.9, Defendant is entitled to recover his
reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with this cause of action.
Fourth Counterclaim Cause of Action
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
16. This Counterclaim is asserted against Division 10.
17. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
18. As Defendant’s employer, Division 10 owed a fiduciary duty to Defendant in his capacity
as President. Defendant reasonably placed his trust and confidence in Division 10 as its President.
Division 10 owed a duty to assist and cooperate with Defendant in good faith with regard to the duties and powers provided to him under the Employment Agreement so that Defendant could receive what was bargained for under both the Employment Agreement and the Earn-Out Agreement.
19. Despite the fact that Division 10 promised to allow Defendant the power to manage and grow the book of business, Division 10 undermined the Defendant, disregarded his suggestions on how to run and grow the business, and effectively removed him from his role as President of Division 10.
20. The improper actions of Division 10 evidenced a wilful disregard for the financial interests of Defendant and an improper effort to force Defendant to resign and retain for its benefit revenues without compensation to Defendant.
21. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned breach of fiduciary duties, Defendant has suffered financial losses and been damaged as referenced herein.
Fifth Counterclaim Cause of Action
(Civil Conspiracy)
This Counterclaim is asserted against the Plaintiffs, Division 10 and BenTech, jointly and
22.
severally.
23. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
24. Division 10 and BenTech wilfully, intentionally, and knowingly agreed and conspired to
engaged in the wrongful breach of fiduciary duty and other wrongful conduct as more fully set
forth above. Plaintiffs’ did the acts alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of the conspiracy by
cooperating, encouraging, ratifying, or adopting the acts of others.
25. As a direct and proximate result of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendant has
suffered injury, damages, loss and harm for all sums due under the prior Cases of Action in a sum
in excess of $10,000.00. As a result of Plaintiffs’ wilful, malicious and oppressive conduct, Defendant is entitled to punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and to deter future wrongful conduct.
Sixth Counterclaim Cause of Action
(Unjust Enrichment/Restitution/Constructive Trust)
26. This Counterclaim is asserted by Defendant against Plaintiffs jointly and severally.
27. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
28. The Earn-Out payments and salary due Defendant under the Earn-Out Agreement and the Employment Agreement are based on “Annual Income” which is comprised of gross commissions payable to one or more of the Plaintiffs. As a result of the breach of the Earn-Out Agreement and the Employment Agreement, Plaintiffs continue to receive and improperly retain the benefit of commissions which should be utilized to pay Defendant the sums due him. Retention of those monies had and received results in unjust enrichment at Defendant’s expense, and Defendant is entitled to restitution from Plaintiffs.
29. Based on this improper conduct, Defendant also requests that this Court impose a constructive trust upon all such funds and direct that Plaintiffs escrow such funds pending resolution of these claims.
Seventh Counterclaim Cause of Action
(Request for an Accounting)
30. This Counterclaim is asserted by Defendant against BenTech.
31. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
32. Pursuant to Paragraph 3.10 of the Earn-Out Agreement, BenTech was required to provide
Defendant with a detailed written report by February 15, 2014 disclosing the details of Division
10’s Annual Income during the previous fiscal year. These details were to include a listing of the
cases and commissions received during that fiscal year in order to determine the earn-out amounts owed to Defendant. This same paragraph gave Defendant the right to review the written report and to have access to all underlying applicable records to verifr all calculations to assure that Defendant was being paid the appropriate amount due.
33. BenTech has intentionally refused to provide the required accounting due February 15, 2014 and Defendant requests that the Court order a complete and full accounting to determine the amounts due Defendant for the 2013 calendar year and any and all subsequent periods.
Eighth Cause of Action
(Indemnification)
34. This Counterclaim is asserted by Defendant against Division 10.
35. Defendant realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations.
36. The Amended Petition seeks relief and damages against Defendant based upon his “resignation” while serving as an officer (President) of Division 10. The claims asserted against Defendant relate to or arise out of the assets, business or affairs of Division 10. Defendant ceased being a member of Division 10 on or about November 1, 2009.
37. Section 7.2 of the Operating Agreement of Division 10 provides that officers of Division
10 shall be indemnified and held harmless by Division 10 from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities, expenses (including legal fees and expenses) arising from any lawsuits against Defendant which relate to or arise out of the assets, business or affairs of Division 10. The officer is entitled to indemnification so long as he acted in good faith, in a manner in which he believed to be in the best interests of Division 10, and such conduct did not constitute gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. At all relevant times, Defendant acted so as to be entitled to the indemnification protections contemplated by Section 7.2.
38. Defendant is entitled to be indemnified and held harmless as aforesaid, including all legal fees and expenses incurred by Defendant in connection with the claims asserted against him in this litigation.

Docket
Date Code Description Count Party Amount
03-03-2014 TEXT

Civil relief more than $10,000 Initial Filing.
1
03-03-2014 CONTRACT

BREACH OF CONTRACT - AGREEMENT

03-03-2014 DMFE

DISPUTE MEDIATION FEE
$ 2.00
03-03-2014 PFE1

PETITION

Document Available (#1024422561)
$ 163.00
03-03-2014 PFE7

LAW LIBRARY FEE
$ 6.00
03-03-2014 OCISR

Oklahoma Court Information System Revolving Fund
$ 25.00
03-03-2014 CCADMIN02

Court Clerk Administrative Fee on $2 Collections
$ 0.20
03-03-2014 OCJC

Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund
$ 2.00
03-03-2014 OCASA

Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates
$ 5.00
03-03-2014 CCADMIN04

Court Clerk Administrative Fee on Collections
$ 0.50
03-03-2014 LTF

Lengthy Trial Fund
$ 10.00
03-03-2014 SMF

Summons Fee (Clerks Fee)
$ 5.00
03-03-2014 SMIP

Summons Issued - Private Process Server

03-03-2014 TEXT

OCIS has automatically assigned Judge Morrissey, Linda G. to this case.

03-03-2014 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2014-2793179 on 03/03/2014.
Payor:CROWE & DUNLEVY Total Amount Paid: $218.70.
Line Items:
CJ-2014-852: $168.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.
CJ-2014-852: $6.00 on AC23 Law Library Fee.
CJ-2014-852: $0.70 on AC31 Court Clerk Revolving Fund.
CJ-2014-852: $5.00 on AC58 Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates.
CJ-2014-852: $2.00 on AC59 Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund.
CJ-2014-852: $2.00 on AC64 Dispute Mediation Fees.
CJ-2014-852: $25.00 on AC79 OCIS Revolving Fund.
CJ-2014-852: $10.00 on AC81 Lengthy Trial Fund.

03-04-2014 SMF

Summons Fee (Clerks Fee)
$ 5.00
03-04-2014 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2014-2793731 on 03/04/2014.
Payor:CROWE & DUNLEVY Total Amount Paid: $5.00.
Line Items:
CJ-2014-852: $5.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.

04-24-2014 EAA

SPECIAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (PATRICK O'CONNOR ENTERS AS COUNSEL - COVERSHEET ATTACHED) / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1024972151)
BRENNER, DAVID
05-15-2014 AMP

AMENDED PETITION / COVER SHEET

Document Available (#1024731771)
BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC
06-02-2014 AC/C

ANSWER & COUNTER CLAIMS OF DEFENDANT / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1025765526)
BRENNER, DAVID
06-23-2014 A

BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S AND BENEFIT TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC'S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1026255328)
BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
04-02-2015 CTFREE

MORRISSEY, LINDA G: CASE IS SET FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ON 4/29/15 AT 1:30 PM, ROOM 601. COUNSEL OR PARTIES WITHOUT COUNSEL SHOULD APPEAR OR DISPOSITION MAY BE MADE IN THEIR ABSENCE. CONTINUANCES WILL NOT BE GRANTED.

NOTICE MAILED TO: ALEXANDER KING; PATRICK O'CONNOR

04-02-2015 NOH

NOTICE OF HEARING/ SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET ON 4-29-15 @ 1:30 PM IN ROOM 601 / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1029179302)

04-10-2015 DISM

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Document Available (#1029071929)
BRENNER, DAVID
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1 BRENNER, DAVID
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
2 BRENNER, DAVID
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
3 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
3 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
4 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
4 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
5 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
5 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
6 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
6 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
7 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
7 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
8 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
8 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
9 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
9 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
10 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION 10 LLC
04-10-2015 DISPCVDMWP

JOINT DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
10 BENEFITS TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Outcome: Joint Dismissal With Prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: