UPDATE as of April 14, 2025 - Pando Electric has fired back against Orange Charger Inc. in court, accusing Orange Charger of "filing a frivolous lawsuit to prevent Pando raising investment with malicious intention to sabotage Pando Electric as its competitor."
In a counterclaim filed March 20, Pando asserted Orange Charger accused Pando of stealing its trade secrets to allegedly obscure Orange's alleged failure to comply with certification standards needed to "legally charge its customers through its installed EV charging systems" in California. Pando asserted Orange "merely copied Pando Electric’s pricing and marketing approaches without making efforts to for legal requirements" (sic).
Pando asserts in its counterclaim that Orange has allegedly persisted in its allegedly frivolous legal action after Pando demanded evidence in support of Orange's accusations and "while knowing it could not prevail its false allegations against Pando."
Pando has accused Orange of unfair business competition; intentional interference with Pando's business; and unjust enrichment.
Pando has asked the court to order Orange to pay unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, plus "restitution and disgorgement of all illicit proceeds generated as a result of Orange Charger’s wrongful conducts."
Pando is represented by attorney Shanshan Zou, of Vincit Law, of San Francisco.
ORIGINAL STORY, PUBLISHED Dec. 22, 2024:
Electric vehicle charger company Orange Charger Inc. has filed a lawsuit against a former employee and his new employer for allegedly stealing confidential information. The complaint was filed by Orange Charger Inc. on December 12, 2024, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against Joseph Nagle and Pando Electric Inc.
The lawsuit stems from allegations that Joseph Nagle, who was previously employed as part of Orange Charger's marketing division, unlawfully accessed and downloaded confidential information after his termination. According to the complaint, Nagle was terminated on December 15, 2023, due to poor performance and subsequently signed a separation agreement on January 18, 2024. This agreement required him to return all company information and maintain confidentiality regarding any knowledge acquired during his employment.
However, Orange Charger claims that Nagle breached this agreement by accessing their computer systems and downloading sensitive data such as client lists. This breach allegedly occurred after he began working for Pando Electric Inc., a direct competitor of Orange Charger. The company discovered this when a customer presented them with a sales presentation from Pando that contained slides identical to those used by Orange Charger.
Orange Charger accuses both Nagle and Pando Electric of misappropriating trade secrets under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA). They allege that Pando Electric is using the stolen information for competitive advantage and financial gain. "These misappropriations can only be for the purpose of Pando gaining an unfair advantage," states the complaint.
The plaintiff is seeking several forms of relief from the court. They request an injunction to prevent further use or disclosure of their trade secrets by the defendants. Additionally, they seek actual and consequential damages, restitution for unjust enrichment obtained by the defendants through these actions, reasonable royalties, punitive damages including doubled damages under Cal. Civ. Code Section 3426, as well as attorneys' fees and investigative costs incurred due to these incidents.
Representing Orange Charger in this legal battle is attorney Rob Buccieri from VLP Law Group LLP. The case is presided over by Judge Marivic Viray under Case ID CGC-24-620536.