FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/05/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/05/2013

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/05/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/05/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY JOHN McKAY, Plaintiff, Index No. -against- COMPLAINT DIANE WESTWOOD WILSON, SHARON HOLAHAN, CLYDE & CO US LLP, CLYDE & CO LLP and GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC., Defendants. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: For its Complaint against Defendants, Diane Westwood Wilson, Sharon Holahan, Clyde & Co US LLP, Clyde & Co LLP and Global Aerospace, Inc., Plaintiff, John McKay, respectfully alleges the following: 1. Plaintiff is an individual licensed as an attorney at law in New York, as well as in other jurisdictions. Plaintiff also holds a Commercial Pilot license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. At all times relevant to the matters alleged herein, Plaintiff concentrated his practice on international aviation-related litigation. Until March 18, 2013, Plaintiff was employed as a Senior Counsel at the law firm of Clyde & Co US LLP in Manhattan, and worked in its Aviation Group. Although Defendant Clyde & Co US LLP paid Plaintiff, he also worked closely and frequently with Defendant Clyde & Co LLP s London, England office, and had been engaged in a project with the latter to expand its presence in the Canadian aviation law market at the time of his termination.

2 2. At all times relevant to the matters alleged herein, Defendant Diane Westwood Wilson ( Wilson ) was a Senior Equity Partner of Defendant Clyde & Co US LLP working in its New York City office, and acted as an authorized agent of Defendant Clyde & Co US LLP. Upon information and belief, Wilson was also an authorized agent of Defendant Clyde & Co LLP. 3. At all times relevant to the matters alleged herein, Defendant Sharon Holahan ( Holahan ) was employed as an Executive Vice President and Director of Claims at Defendant Global Aerospace, Inc. ( Global ), working from its corporate offices in Parsippany, New Jersey, and acted as an authorized agent of Global. Upon information and belief, Holahan owns a second residence in New York, lives several weeks a year in New York, is an active member of the New York Bar, and regularly and purposefully transacts business with persons and entities in New York in the conduct of her business affairs, including, inter alia, participating in business meetings and continuing legal education panels in New York City and hiring and managing defense attorneys there to defend parties who are insured by underwriters for whom Global acts as pool manager and/or claims manager (such parties are hereinafter referred to as Global s insureds ). 4. Defendant Clyde & Co US LLP ( Clyde US ) is a Delaware limited liability partnership with its principal executive office located at 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. Clyde US also has offices in Florham Park, New Jersey and San Francisco, California. 5. Defendant Clyde & Co LLP ( Clyde UK ) is a United Kingdom Limited Liability Partnership organized in England and registered at Companies House pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 and/or other similar legislation. Upon information and belief, Clyde UK 2

3 provides oversight, management, personnel, monetary resources, and infrastructure such as computer network equipment and management, marketing support, Human Resources management and other essential services to its affiliated offices around the world, including those in the United States and Canada. Upon information and belief, Clyde UK regularly and purposefully transacts business in New York, including overseeing the management of Clyde US s New York office and holding meetings and conferences in New York City. The Managing Partner of Clyde US, who is based in New York, serves on the Managing Board of Clyde UK, and another member of that Managing Board who is a Partner of Clyde UK oversees the operations of Clyde US in the United States as well as the operations of the Canadian offices in Toronto and Montreal. Income derived from the operations of Clyde US in New York is aggregated with income derived from Clyde UK s other offices and reported by Clyde UK as the income of Clyde UK to various trade journals and other media. 6. Global is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business and corporate offices in Parsippany, New Jersey. Global is manager of a pool of insurers that underwrite aviation and aerospace risks. Global regularly and purposefully transacts business in the state of New York, including New York City, by, inter alia, sending its employees there to solicit insurance business and participate in business meetings and continuing legal education seminars, and hiring and managing defense attorneys there to defend claims against its insureds. 7. In late 2010, prior to accepting employment at the New York office of Clyde US, Plaintiff was employed as an Assistant Vice President and Claims Attorney at Global, handling claims for The Boeing Company, GE Aviation, and Intel. 8. Plaintiff left Global at the end of January 2011 and began work at the New York office of Clyde US on February 1, 2011, at an annual salary of $275,000. 3

4 9. Plaintiff maintained excellent relations with his colleagues at Global through the date of his departure on January 31, 2011, and had received assurances from claims handlers there that they were likely to hire him on future aviation cases. 10. Global s Claims Department, which is managed by Holahan, routinely hires attorneys in New York City and elsewhere to defend its insureds in litigation. A number of inhouse Claims Attorneys and other claims handlers work under Holahan and middle managers whose duties are overseen by Holahan. Those Claims Attorneys and other claims handlers regularly hire attorneys to work on cases that are under their management. 11. Karen D Amico ( D Amico ), who is employed as a Vice President and Claims Attorney at Global, and who works directly under Holahan in the Claims Department, told Plaintiff in 2011 that she intended to hire Plaintiff to work on cases under her management in the future. D Amico and Plaintiff had worked together on cases when Plaintiff was working at Global. 12. After starting work with Clyde US, Plaintiff organized and participated in a number of client entertainment events for Global s Claims Department personnel, including a dinner in Manhattan during the summer of 2011 and several lunches in New Jersey. Plaintiff also attended the wedding of one of Global s Claims Attorneys in New Jersey in November of Shortly after the aforementioned dinner in Manhattan, a member of Global s Legal Department who had attended the dinner contacted Clyde US about a legal matter and subsequently retained Plaintiff to handle the matter. 14. From the date of his employment by Clyde US to summer 2011, Plaintiff worked closely with Wilson on some cases that were under her control. By the summer of 2011, if not 4

5 earlier, Plaintiff had developed concerns about the manner in which Wilson handled her cases and her methods of practicing law in general. 15. Plaintiff kept notes of his concerns about Wilson in a document stored on the H: Drive of his computer. Those notes included references to instances in which Plaintiff felt that Wilson was overbilling client files for unnecessary and/or inefficient work. During his initial orientation at the firm in February, 2011, the then-director of Information Technology at the office (who was a close friend of Wilson s) had told Plaintiff that only Plaintiff and the IT Department had password access to his H: Drive, and that it was not on the system, meaning the firm s server. Plaintiff discovered later, in 2013, that what he had been told about the H: Drive was false: The current management of the IT Department told Plaintiff in early 2013 that when the office s computer system had been installed in 2006, under Wilson s direction as the then Managing Partner, Wilson had instructed the computer network installer to provide her with secret backdoor access to every employee s H: Drive files, and had obtained such access. Upon information and belief, this was done so that she could secretly read the contents of documents that employees stored there. Clyde US and Clyde UK s employees knew of Wilson s secret backdoor access to Plaintiff s documents but willfully kept it secret from Plaintiff until he caused them to reveal it in early Upon information and belief, the IT employee who revealed the information to Plaintiff was subsequently reprimanded by his superior and/or Clyde US s Director of Human Resources, Carolyn Babula, for revealing those facts to Plaintiff. 16. On June 29, 2011, Wilson reprimanded Plaintiff and said that he was out of line for complying with his obligations to a client imposed by New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(iii). Plaintiff subsequently met with the new Managing Partner of Clyde US, 5

6 Michael Knoerzer, and told him that he could no longer work with Wilson in good conscience. Knoerzer agreed that Plaintiff would no longer have to work with Wilson. 17. Shortly thereafter, Wilson came to Plaintiff s office and pleaded with him to remain on the matter in which she had reprimanded him. Plaintiff declined to do so. 18. Subsequently, on or about September 16, 2011, D Amico hired Plaintiff to provide services to Global in connection with the defense of one of its insureds, Air 1 st Aviation Companies, Inc. ( Air 1 st ). 19. With Knoerzer s assistance, Plaintiff opened the Air 1 st file without designating Wilson as the responsible partner who would be credited with the dollar amounts billed on the case. Plaintiff explained to Knoerzer that he did not feel comfortable with Wilson having any control over the exercise of his professional judgment on behalf of a client. Wilson subsequently came to Plaintiff s office and complained to Plaintiff that, in her opinion, the file should have been opened with her as the responsible partner. 20. After retaining Plaintiff, D Amico asked him to review the court record in the Air 1 st litigation, plus certain discovery and other background information such as witness and party depositions, the NTSB docket from the investigation of the crash that precipitated the litigation, and technical documents, and to render a report to her of his findings and conclusions about the current posture of the case, which was being defended by another attorney. At that time, the Air 1 st litigation had been ongoing for nearly a decade, had had an interlocutory appeal, and concerned an aircraft model on which the FAA had ordered multiple special safety reviews to be conducted due to numerous crashes, so the amount of materials Plaintiff had to review were voluminous. Plaintiff performed the review that D Amico requested, and subsequently rendered a comprehensive report to D Amico on December 2,

7 21. All of the work that Plaintiff performed on the Air 1 st matter had been requested and authorized by D Amico, at a billing rate of which she was aware. 22. Clyde US subsequently billed D Amico for the work performed by Plaintiff, and D Amico authorized payment of the bill by Global. Global paid the bill without objection, and D Amico continued to provide new information on developments in the Air 1 st litigation to Plaintiff and to seek Plaintiff s advice on the case throughout In May of 2012, Clyde US s Human Resources Director, Carolyn Babula, instructed Plaintiff to fill out a form titled Senior Counsel Self Review/Career Development Review (CDR)/ (the CDR Form ). Although the title of the CDR Form referenced the firm s prior fiscal year, i.e., , the CDR Form s questions asked Plaintiff to review his performance during fiscal year Babula informed Plaintiff that completion and return of the form was a necessary prerequisite to a review of Plaintiff s salary for fiscal year The CDR Form was labeled PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL in large red letters near the top of its cover page. 25. Plaintiff completed the CDR Form as instructed and returned it to Babula in hard copy format on or about May 17, At that time, Plaintiff requested that the CDR Form not be shown to Wilson, because Plaintiff no longer worked with Wilson, and because Wilson had complained about the fact that the Air 1 st matter had been credited to him and not her. The CDR Form contained statements regarding Plaintiff s billings on the Air 1 st matter, and Plaintiff did not wish to incur additional complaints from Wilson about those billings. Babula agreed with Plaintiff that Wilson would not be allowed access to the CDR Form. 7

8 26. In particular, Plaintiff had stated the following in response to one of the questions on the CDR:... I managed to bring in five new matters (aviation and commercial) that have produced [a stated amount] in billings the Firm would not otherwise have had. The aviation matters Plaintiff referenced were the Air 1 st matter and the previous matter from Global. 27. Plaintiff saved a copy of the CDR Form on his H: Drive prior to printing it and delivering the printed copy to the Babula. Upon information and belief, Wilson used her secret backdoor access to Plaintiff s H: Drive at a later date to obtain a copy of the CDR Form surreptitiously, as well as a copy of Plaintiff s notes about his concerns with her handling of her cases, all without Plaintiff s knowledge or consent. 28. Upon information and belief, Wilson shared the contents of the confidential CDR Form with Holahan and told Holahan that Plaintiff had overbilled and churned the file on the Air 1 st matter. Plaintiff did not discover that Wilson had done so until after December 4, Those statements were untrue, and, upon information and belief, Wilson made them knowing that they were false, for the purpose of injuring Plaintiff s reputation with Global. 29. On December 4, 2012, D Amico conducted a conference call with Plaintiff and another attorney working for Global on the Air 1 st litigation. During the call, D Amico instructed Plaintiff to perform a substantial amount of additional work to prepare the case for a certain pretrial exercise. Plaintiff agreed to perform the work within the next several weeks, and D Amico informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be participating in the pretrial exercise that was to be scheduled at some point in the future, after the requested preparatory work was done. 30. Upon information and belief, on December 4, 2012 shortly after the conference call had concluded, Holahan met with D Amico and instructed D Amico to tell Plaintiff not to do the preparatory work that she had assigned to him. Holahan also told D Amico that 8

9 D Amico should not give any more work to Plaintiff. When D Amico protested that she needed Plaintiff s insight as a pilot to assist with the defense of the case, Holahan handed D Amico a basic text on piloting and told D Amico to read it instead of seeking advice from Plaintiff. Following Holahan s instructions, D Amico sent an to Plaintiff on December 4, 2012 telling him not to do the work. 31. Upon information and belief, also on December 4, 2012, Holahan told Angela Savino ( Savino ), another Vice President working in the Claims Department of Global, that Plaintiff had churned the file on the Air 1 st matter. Holahan knew that statement would be injurious to Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, Holahan told Savino during the same conversation that D Amico should not have hired Plaintiff at all, and that Plaintiff had improperly taken credit for billings on the Air 1 st case that should have been credited to Diane [Wilson]. The aforesaid statements by Holahan were false, and Holahan made them with knowledge of their falsity, with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, or after negligently failing to ascertain their truth or falsity. In addition, upon information and belief, Holahan used the confidential information in the CDR Form that she had received from Wilson, and which both Wilson and Holahan knew to be confidential, to disparage Plaintiff by quoting the language where he took credit for bringing in work from Global that the Firm would not otherwise have had. 32. Upon information and belief, Holahan made the aforesaid false statements to D Amico and Savino in furtherance of her own personal interests, and not in furtherance of the corporate interests of Global. 33. Although Savino also works within the Global Claims Department, she is assigned to a single large insured and hires defense counsel from a short list of counsel 9

10 approved by that insured, a list that does not include Plaintiff or Clyde US. Savino therefore had no business interest in Plaintiff s retention by D Amico, and relayed the false statements to D Amico in furtherance of her own personal interests and not in furtherance of the corporate interests of Global. Alternatively, Savino relayed the statements as Holahan s agent. 34. Upon information and belief, Holahan published the aforesaid statements with the knowledge and expectation that Savino would relay them to D Amico, in order to damage Plaintiff s reputation with D Amico and his career, and to harm his standing at his place of employment. 35. Upon information and belief, Savino knew that the statements she repeated to D Amico were false, or she acted with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, or after negligently failing to ascertain their truth or falsity. 36. Upon information and belief, Holahan wanted D Amico to terminate the attorneyclient relationship between Plaintiff and Global. When D Amico subsequently failed or refused to do so, Holahan reassigned the Air 1 st case to another claims handler within the Claims Department, Rick Polesak, and, upon information and belief, instructed him to fire Plaintiff. 37. Polesak, following Holahan s order and acting in the capacity of her authorized agent, fired Plaintiff from the Air 1 st matter on March 5, Plaintiff reported to Knoerzer the content of Polesak s telephone call in an on or about March 5, At that time, Knoerzer was attending management or other meetings at Clyde UK s offices in London. 39. Shortly after sending the to Knoerzer, Plaintiff received a telephone call from Charlie Keeling, Clyde UK s Global Director of Human Resources. Keeling informed Plaintiff during that call that the subject matter of Plaintiff s recent was being discussed in 10

11 London by Keeling, Knoerzer, and James Burns, a UK Solicitor who served at the time as Clyde UK s head of U.S. operations. Both Keeling and Burns are based in London, at Clyde UK s main office. 40. On March 18, 2013, after Knoerzer s return to the United States, Knoerzer called Plaintiff into a meeting at the New York office. Keeling, who had flown over from London, was also in attendance at that meeting. Knoerzer and Keeling informed Plaintiff that his employment was terminated as of that day. Knoerzer and Keeling attempted to base the firing on a false scenario they had concocted, but Knoerzer admitted during that meeting that the termination was attributable to Plaintiff s failure to maintain a steady flow of work from Global. 41. Upon information and belief, Wilson, Holahan and Savino willfully conspired to damage Plaintiff s professional reputation, his business relationship with D Amico, his standing and employment at Clyde US, and his future economic prospects in his field of practice, through the use of defamation, misrepresentation, deceit, and the unauthorized use of confidential information. 42. In the absence of their improper and defamatory actions, Plaintiff would have continued deriving economic advantage from working on the Air 1 st litigation, and would have derived economic advantage from future assignments from D Amico and others at Global, which would have led to his advancement at Clyde US and in his career in general. 43. Wilson s actions were intentional and were actuated by malice, or were accompanied by wanton and willful disregard of Plaintiff s rights and interests. 44. Upon information and belief, Holahan s actions were actuated by malice, or were accompanied by wanton and willful disregard of Plaintiff s rights and interests. 11

12 45. Upon information and belief, Savino s actions were actuated by malice, or were accompanied by wanton and willful disregard of Plaintiff s rights and interests. 46. As a result of the aforementioned actions, Plaintiff has suffered harm and special damages and will continue to suffer harm in the future, including, without limitation: a. Harm to his reputation generally; b. Harm to his reputation in the relevant legal community; c. Harm to his reputation in the aviation insurance community, which interferes with his ability to obtain work from sources other than Global; d. Loss of billings on the Air 1 st matter, that would have been used to calculate his entitlement to bonuses and advancement to partnership within the firm; e. Loss of billings and hours from future assignments from D Amico and others at Global, that would have been used to calculate his entitlement to bonuses and advancement to partnership within the firm; f. Loss of his employment, salary and benefits, in an amount to be determined exceeding the sum of $5,000,000; and g. Costs associated with Plaintiff s factual investigation, relocation and replacement of lost benefits, in an amount not less than $25,000; Altogether amounting to losses to Plaintiff in a total amount to be determined exceeding the sum of $5,025, Wilson performed the aforementioned actions and made the aforesaid false statements in the ordinary course of conducting her regular duties for Clyde US and Clyde UK, and the making of them was within the scope of her responsibilities for Clyde US and Clyde UK. In the alternative, Wilson performed and made them with the apparent authority of Clyde 12

13 US and Clyde UK, as manifested by those Defendants holding her out as their authorized Senior Equity Partner and agent. 48. Holahan performed the aforementioned actions and made the aforesaid false statements in the ordinary course of conducting her regular duties for Global, and the making of them was within the scope of her responsibilities for Global. In the alternative, Holahan made them with the apparent authority of Global, as manifested by that Defendant holding her out as its authorized Executive Vice President and agent. 49. Savino performed the aforementioned actions and made the aforesaid false statements in the ordinary course of conducting her regular duties for Global, and the making of them was within the scope of her responsibilities for Global. In the alternative, Savino made them with the apparent authority of Global, as manifested by that Defendant holding her out as its authorized Vice President and agent. 50. Following Plaintiff s termination on March 18, 2013, Clyde US and Clyde UK continued for at least the next ten weeks to make use of Plaintiff s portrait, name, and biographical information on their jointly-maintained Web site, which is used for the purpose of advertising their services to existing and potential clients worldwide, including within the State of New York. They also improperly kept Plaintiff s account active for a similar amount of time, if not longer, and adjusted its settings so that it automatically sent an Out of Office message to senders, including potential clients of Plaintiff, that informed the senders, in a message intentionally designed to appear as though Plaintiff had written it, that they should instead speak to Andrew Harakas, who heads the Aviation Group in the United States for Clyde US and Clyde UK. Upon information and belief, Clyde US and Clyde UK did so with the intent of redirecting for themselves any business that otherwise would have reached Plaintiff after his 13

14 termination. Clyde US and Clyde UK never obtained Plaintiff s written (or oral) consent to use his name, image, or other information personal to him in their marketing efforts after his termination. Clyde US and Clyde UK have thereby falsely, knowingly and willfully made use of Plaintiff s image and name in violation of his protected rights of privacy and publicity, and in violation of New York Civil Rights Laws, Section 50. By falsely claiming that Plaintiff is still employed by them, Clyde US and Clyde UK created confusion that has damaged Plaintiff s ability to obtain other work. COUNT I: DEFAMATION 51. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 50 as though they were set forth fully herein. 52. Wilson s and Holahan s published false statements as detailed above constitute defamation of Plaintiff, which has caused Plaintiff substantial injury as detailed in Paragraph 46 of this Complaint. 53. Wilson and Holahan are liable to Plaintiff, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the defamation. 54. Since Wilson s acts of defamation were within the scope of her duties to Clyde US and Clyde UK, Clyde US and Clyde UK are liable, jointly and severally, for Wilson s actions and for compensatory and punitive damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 55. Since Holahan s and Savino s acts of defamation were within the scope of their employment at Global, Global is liable to Plaintiff for their actions and for compensatory and punitive damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior. COUNT II: VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF S RIGHTS OF PRIVACY AND PUBLICITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS LAW SECTION 50 (CLYDE US AND CLYDE UK ONLY) 14

15 56. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 50 as though they were set forth fully herein. 57. Clyde US s and Clyde UK s use of Plaintiff s portrait and biographical information in its advertising media after Plaintiff s termination without Plaintiff s written consent, violates Plaintiff s rights of privacy and publicity, and is unlawful under New York Civil Rights Law, Section Plaintiff has been harmed by the violations of his rights of privacy and publicity, and the violation of Section 50, by the loss of business and business opportunities, in an amount to be determined, in excess of this Court s minimum jurisdictional limit. 59. Due to their knowing and willful violation of Plaintiff s rights, Clyde US and Clyde UK are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and exemplary damages pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law, Section In addition, or in the alternative, Clyde US and Clyde UK are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and exemplary damages under the common law of New York, and the common and statutory laws of the jurisdictions from which their online advertisements are capable of being viewed by existing and potential clients of Clyde US, Clyde UK and/or Plaintiff. DEMAND WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Wilson, Holahan, Clyde US, Clyde UK and Global, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, not less than Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000), plus punitive/exemplary damages in an 15

16 amount to be determined at trial, plus interest from December 4, 2012, costs and such other relief as the Court finds to be just and proper. Dated this 5th day of June, 2013 /s/ John D. McKay John D. McKay Plaintiff Pro Se P.O. Box 92 Calais, Vermont (802)

17 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY JOHN McKAY, Plaintiff, -against- DIANE WESTWOOD WILSON, SHARON HOLAHAN, CLYDE & CO US LLP, CLYDE & CO LLP, and GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC., Defendants. SUMMONS Index No.: Date Index No. Purchased: June 5, 2013 To the Person(s) Named as Defendant(s) Above: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint of the Plaintiff(s) herein and to serve a copy of your answer on the Plaintiff(s) at the address indicated below within 20 days after the service of this Summons (not counting the day of service itself), or within 30 days after service is complete if the summons is not delivered personally to you within the State of New York. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT should you fail to answer, a judgment will be entered against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: June 5, 2013 /s/ John McKay Signature John D. McKay, Plaintiff Pro Se P.O. Box 92 Calais, VT (802) Defendant's Address: Diane Westwood Wilson, 19 Four Winds Lane, New Canaan, CT Venue: Plaintiff(s) designate(s) New York County as the place of trial. The basis of this designation is (check one): Defendant(s) reside(s) in New York County. NOTE: THIS FORM OF SUMMONS MUST BE SERVED WITH A COMPLAINT

18 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY JOHN McKAY, Plaintiff, -against- DIANE WESTWOOD WILSON, SHARON HOLAHAN, CLYDE & CO US LLP, CLYDE & CO LLP, and GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC., Defendants. SUMMONS Index No.: Date Index No. Purchased: June 5, 2013 To the Person(s) Named as Defendant(s) Above: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint of the Plaintiff(s) herein and to serve a copy of your answer on the Plaintiff(s) at the address indicated below within 20 days after the service of this Summons (not counting the day of service itself), or within 30 days after service is complete if the summons is not delivered personally to you within the State of New York. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT should you fail to answer, a judgment will be entered against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: June 5, 2013 /s/ John McKay Signature John D. McKay, Plaintiff Pro Se P.O. Box 92 Calais, VT (802) Defendant's Address: Sharon Holahan, 19 Sunset Park, Montclair, NJ Venue: Plaintiff(s) designate(s) New York County as the place of trial. The basis of this designation is (check one): Defendant(s) reside(s) in New York County. NOTE: THIS FORM OF SUMMONS MUST BE SERVED WITH A COMPLAINT

19 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY JOHN McKAY, Plaintiff, -against- DIANE WESTWOOD WILSON, SHARON HOLAHAN, CLYDE & CO US LLP, CLYDE & CO LLP, and GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC., Defendants. SUMMONS Index No.: Date Index No. Purchased: June 5, 2013 To the Person(s) Named as Defendant(s) Above: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint of the Plaintiff(s) herein and to serve a copy of your answer on the Plaintiff(s) at the address indicated below within 20 days after the service of this Summons (not counting the day of service itself), or within 30 days after service is complete if the summons is not delivered personally to you within the State of New York. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT should you fail to answer, a judgment will be entered against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: June 5, 2013 /s/ John McKay Signature John D. McKay, Plaintiff Pro Se P.O. Box 92 Calais, VT (802) Defendant's Address: Clyde & Co US LLP c/o Cesar A. Perales, N.Y. Secretary of State, as Statutory Agent, One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Avenue Albany, NY Venue: Plaintiff(s) designate(s) New York County as the place of trial. The basis of this designation is (check one): Defendant(s) reside(s) in New York County. NOTE: THIS FORM OF SUMMONS MUST BE SERVED WITH A COMPLAINT

20 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY JOHN McKAY, Plaintiff, -against- DIANE WESTWOOD WILSON, SHARON HOLAHAN, CLYDE & CO US LLP, CLYDE & CO LLP, and GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC., SUMMONS Index No.: Date Index No. Purchased: June 5, 2013 Defendants. To the Person(s) Named as Defendant(s) Above: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint of the Plaintiff(s) herein and to serve a copy of your answer on the Plaintiff(s) at the address indicated below within 20 days after the service of this Summons (not counting the day of service itself), or within 30 days after service is complete if the summons is not delivered personally to you within the State of New York. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT should you fail to answer, a judgment will be entered against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: June 5, 2013 /s/ John McKay Signature John D. McKay, Plaintiff Pro Se P.O. Box 92 Calais, VT (802) Defendant's Address: Clyde & Co LLP (unauthorized foreign LLP) c/o Cesar A. Perales, N.Y. Secretary of State, as Statutory Agent, One Commerce Plaza 99 Washington Avenue Albany, NY Venue: Plaintiff(s) designate(s) New York County as the place of trial. The basis of this designation is (check one): Defendant(s) reside(s) in New York County. NOTE: THIS FORM OF SUMMONS MUST BE SERVED WITH A COMPLAINT

21 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY JOHN McKAY, Plaintiff, -against- DIANE WESTWOOD WILSON, SHARON HOLAHAN, CLYDE & CO US LLP, CLYDE & CO LLP, and GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC., Defendants. SUMMONS Index No.: Date Index No. Purchased: June 5, 2013 To the Person(s) Named as Defendant(s) Above: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint of the Plaintiff(s) herein and to serve a copy of your answer on the Plaintiff(s) at the address indicated below within 20 days after the service of this Summons (not counting the day of service itself), or within 30 days after service is complete if the summons is not delivered personally to you within the State of New York. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT should you fail to answer, a judgment will be entered against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: June 5, 2013 /s/ John McKay Signature John D. McKay, Plaintiff Pro Se P.O. Box 92 Calais, VT (802) Defendant's Address: Global Aerospace, Inc. c/o The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc., Registered Agent, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE Venue: Plaintiff(s) designate(s) New York County as the place of trial. The basis of this designation is (check one): Defendant(s) reside(s) in New York County. NOTE: THIS FORM OF SUMMONS MUST BE SERVED WITH A COMPLAINT