PUBLIC CASE REPOSITORY

VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION: PAGES 6-10 OF 17

Webb's Post-Settlement Agreement Conduct

26. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Webb continued to violate the terms of all three agreements. Specifically, Webb utilized Plaintiff's computer equipment and videoconferencing account to communicate with representatives of Ten Peaks Media, LLC (doing business under the assumed name Hero Marketing Agency, LLC) ("Hero") to establish three more competing businesses, solicit Plaintiff's Clients for the competing business, and conspire to copy and use Plaintiff's intellectual property. These conversations were held while Webb was on company time working for Plaintiff.

27. Webb and Hero discussed establishing three businesses: BGS (a nonprofit), Hero Academy (a for profit entity) and Live Better Now (a nonprofit). In order to develop a new standard curriculum for the "new" coaching business, Webb and Hero conspired to copy and use Service Excellence's intellectual property. For example, Webb utilized Plaintiff's confidential information about Plaintiff's new business model when describing his new business to one of Plaintiff's Clients, evidencing that he was using Plaintiff's business development plans to compete directly with Plaintiff via the new business. Webb was tasked with developing content for the new business model while employed with Plaintiff, and therefore had access not only to the general strategic modeling plan but also to the proprietary content needed to implement it. Webb described recreating Service Excellence's "Business Scorecard," "Tech Scorecard," "sales and CSR Scorecards," "Profit Tracker," "True Break-Even Calculator," "Gross Margin Calculator," and "Pricing Books for Service and Install" and, utilizing Plaintiff's intellectual property as a guide, developed a plan for Integrated Service Offerings, Client Transition Strategies (Service Excellence Clients), Shared Revenue Model, Messaging Sequences to Clients, and Public Announcements for the new businesses. Given Webb's extensive utilization of Plaintiff's confidential and proprietary information, Plaintiff believes that Webb may have retained the content he developed for Plaintiff's new business model and/or shared it with others to be utilized for his "new" business.

28. Moreover, Webb utilized proprietary information gained from one of Plaintiff' Clients to develop a competing business model. Webb was privy to the Client's proprietary business model development because he was part of Plaintiff's trusted leadership team. Webb knew that this information was proprietary and confidential, and used the Client's confidential and proprietary information to develop a competing business in violation of his Non-Solicitation Agreement, which defines "Confidential Information" to include "information...not readily accessible to the public and not a matter of common knowledge...about [Plaintiff]...or any of its clients." In fact, one of Hero's employees requested access to Plaintiff's Dropbox files, which contain proprietary and Confidential Information. Although this person was not granted access, the request reflects the brazen attempts by and on behalf of Webb to facilitate providing Confidential Information to a competing business.

29. Hero's representatives were actually aware that Webb had a non-solicitation agreement and, together, they devised what they apparently thought was an end-around. Webb acknowledged that he couldn't call the clients directly and said that the Hero representatives would have to make the calls to Clients. He disclosed to Hero the names of four of Plaintiff's Clients and informed Hero that they would have to "work them." The Hero representatives told Webb that Hero would adjust those clients' budgets to include "coaching" and would tell the Clients that they would be "staying with Kerry [Webb]." These communications reflect that Webb was aware of the terms of his agreements with Plaintiff, that he intended to facilitate and actually facilitated providing Plaintiff's Confidential Information to a competing business, and worked with the competing business to interfere with Plaintiff's relationships with its Clients and induce the Clients to leave Plaintiff and join the competing business.

30. Moreover, Webb communicated directly with Plaintiff's Clients regarding these new businesses. He told the Clients that he was partnering with Hero, that he would be "coaching their clients who need manager coaching," that Hero had "called any of [Plaintiff's] clients who were interested and sent them a contract." When the Client asked Webb whether Webb would be subject to "penalties for stealing," Webb admitted telling Hero "exactly what [Plaintiff's Clients] are paying now, what their new rate would be, [and] what their loyalty discount would be." He told at least one Client that he had a non-solicitation agreement "[w]hich means I cannot ask [Plaintiff's] clients to come with me" but that if "[a]ny of them, if they give notice by December 1, they could come with me January 1 if they want." He told another Client that he had already confirmed six Clients that would be moving to the new business with him, and that with those Clients he could "increase my income about 50% of what I make right now." These (and numerous other) communications reflect that Webb communicated directly with Plaintiff's Clients about his departure while suggesting that they could "come with" him to his new business.

31. Further, Webb engaged in gratuitous comments to Plaintiff's Clients designed to harm Plaintiff's business, complained about his pay structure with Plaintiff, and disparaged Plaintiff and its members and officers in order to encourage the Clients to terminate their relationship with Plaintiff in favor of joining Webb's competing business.

32. Webb's interference with Plaintiff's Clients has likely expanded beyond the Clients of which Plaintiff is aware. Webb informed Hero that he had already spoken to "5 bigger [Clients]" and discussed transitioning nine Clients away from Plaintiff with plans to target 40 or 50 customers with the new company.

33. Webb told at least one of Plaintiff's Clients that he had already formed the new business, obtained a tax identification number, and opened a bank account, stating that he would provide "very similar types of training" to Plaintiff and although he was "not supposed to try to get [his] clients to leave" and couldn't recruit them directly, they could "sign up" with a third party and pay them, and then "she will shift those funds over to my organization once a month." Webb advised this Client to be "very vague" when questioned by Plaintiff and coached the client on what to say when terminating its relationship with Plaintiff. He also told at least one Client that their "your costs will go down" when they transition to his new business, stating that "[o]ur plan is to launch this January 1st."

34. In short, Webb planned and structured a competing coaching business while still employed with Plaintiff, identified current clients of Plaintiff's that he expected to transition to his new venture, acknowledged that he was prohibited from soliciting Plaintiff's clients but actively developed a strategy to attempt to circumvent his Non-Solicitation Agreement and Nondisclosure Agreement (as well as the Settlement Agreement) using third parties, discussed replicating Plaintiff's proprietary tools, frameworks, and training systems as part of the new business, coordinated compensation, ownership and revenue structures for the competing entity, outlined a public launch timeline for the new program while still employed with Plaintiff, and collaborated with a marketing partner to jointly redirect clients and revenue.

35. Moreover, upon information and belief, Webb continued working with one of Plaintiff's former Clients after the Client's departure from Plaintiff's services, provided Plaintiff's proprietary information directly to the Client via Webb's company email and was receiving payments directly from that Client while employed with Plaintiff, in direct violation of the Non-Solicitation Agreement which precludes Webb from "in any way directly or indirectly...do or attempt to do business, with any then-existing or Past customer or licensee of [Plaintiff]...”

36. In addition, Webb began utilizing the company email provided to him by Plaintiff to send emails containing a signature block referencing him as "CCO and President" of "Business Growth Solutions," an organization not affiliated in any way with Plaintiff. This signature block included Webb's email address for "Business Growth Solutions."

37. In or around November 13, 2025, Webb submitted an email to Plaintiff providing formal written notice of his resignation with Service Excellence. Shortly thereafter, several of Plaintiff's Clients submitted cancellations of their relationship with Plaintiff. Many of these cancelling Clients were those that had been assigned to Webb for coaching or otherwise had relationships with Webb, prompting Plaintiff to become concerned about the reason for the cancellations. Plaintiff began to conduct an internal review of Webb's conduct while employed with Plaintiff, and uncovered Webb's numerous violations of the Non-Solicitation Agreement, the Nondisclosure Agreement, and the Settlement Agreement.