I procured the actual lawsuit: http://www.nachi.org/documents2012/Nathan-sues-his-members.pdf
In a related legal story, McDonald’s announced that they are suing anyone who has ever eaten a Big Mac and then went on to open their own hamburger stand or eat at Burger King. 
Don’t forget.
You two were buddies once!
The special ESOP Committee was right all along.:roll:
I’m staying out of this one. 
I can’t. But Nate said he didn’t sue any inspectors.
Damn, I am in big trouble.
He always told the truth, eh?
Who new? :twisted:
Most everyone that was paying attention.
Any Dingleberry is a pain in a s s.
So is a hemorrhoid.
Nathan contacted me tonight and objects to my use of the word “members.” I used that term as that is how he refers to the defendants in his suit.
My thinking: Non-compete agreements are difficult enough to enforce against employees, I don’t see how they can be enforced against mere customers of his services.
Anyway, I’ve offered to mediate settlement discussions. We have real enemies who are attacking our industry from outside it, we don’t need to be fighting with each other within our own industry. As Rodney King once said…
There were multiple “Exhibits” noted in the document. Do you have access to those? They would be an interesting read as well.
I’ll try to get them.
Then why did you start a thread with an intentionally misleading title?
How is it misleading? Why do you only quote part of what Nick stated?
Juan:
-
I used the word “members” because that is how Nathan referred to the defendants in his lawsuit.
-
I paid to procure the actual lawsuit (I believe I am the first to publish it). That way everyone can read it for themselves.
-
This is industry news and you’re on an industry legal forum, so it is reasonable to post something about it.
-
If you author me a new thread title, I’ll move this one to NFE and start a new thread using your suggested thread title.
I’ll wait for your new thread title.
I just got off the phone with Nathan. If he authors a new thread title, I’ll do the same for him.
Interesting that one of the defendants is a home inspection company located in Nathan’s hometown of Carmel Indiana.
I think what is interesting is that Nathan had no problem hiring PRO-LAB’s top employees who were under non-compete agreements, but then enforces non-compete clauses that he makes his mere inspector/customers sign.
In Nathan’s defense, he has alerted me to other issues which, if true, would be valid reasons to file a lawsuit IMHO.
Anyway, I’m working on settling it.
Settling it? How?
I hope that’s not “code” for “paying someone off”.
I say let the vendors have at it, and although I disagree with the way both parties do business in respects to the requirements they have for Inspectors giving them client contact information to participate in certain programs/gimmicks, I hope O’Malley comes out on top.