Case Background
Thierry Lemaitre and his wife, Ahlam Algaouni, had built a successful business partnership with Ahlam’s brother, Muntaser "Victor" Elgaouny, and his wife, Nam Suk "Jenny" Lee. Together, they operated Z-Tech Advanced Technologies, Inc., a company that designed and sold specialized laser systems, and South Milliken Investment Company, LLC (SMIC), which owned their business premises in Ontario, California.
By July 2020, the relationship soured, leading to a heated management dispute. In September 2020, the parties attended a marathon 15-hour mediation session where they signed a settlement agreement to separate their business interests. The plan was simple: sell the Milliken building, use Victor and Jenny’s half of the proceeds to buy out Thierry and Ahlam’s shares in Z-Tech for $1.3 million, and then dissolve SMIC. However, by December 2020, Victor and Jenny’s lawyer sent a letter abruptly terminating the agreement, alleging that Thierry and Ahlam had breached the deal.
Cause
The fallout intensified when Victor allegedly withdrew $280,000 from Z-Tech’s accounts just before Christmas in 2020, keeping half of it for himself despite demands to return the money. Plaintiffs also alleged that Victor had sabotaged Z-Tech by seizing control of its website, social media, and customer phone lines to divert business to his own new company, Zad Supply & Services.
Injury
Z-Tech suffered a total loss of access to its digital presence and vital customer communication channels. The company lost significant revenue as old customers were funneled to Victor's competing business. Furthermore, the company was deprived of the $140,000 Victor had kept from the unauthorized withdrawal.
Damages Sought
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in January 2021 seeking several forms of relief. They asked the Court to declare the original settlement agreement valid and sought damages for breach of contract. On behalf of Z-Tech, they sought the return of the converted $140,000 and compensation for lost profits caused by Victor’s interference with their customer relationships. They also requested punitive damages, claiming Victor acted with malice and fraud.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Thierry Lemaitre | Ahlam Algaouni.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Scott J. Sheldon
Defendant(s): Muntaser "Victor" Elgaouny | Nam Suk "Jenny" Lee | South Milliken Investment Company, LLC | Zad Supply & Services.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Harold Jung | and later represented by Fullerton, Lemann, Schaefer & Dominick, LLP during the litigation | David P. Colella
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Thierry and Ahlam argued that Victor had systematically dismantled Z-Tech from the inside. They contended that the $280,000 withdrawal was a blatant theft of corporate funds and that Victor’s control over the company’s phone and website was a calculated move to "usurp" Z-Tech's business opportunities for his own benefit.
Defense
Victor and Jenny defended their actions by claiming that Thierry and Ahlam had breached the settlement agreement first, which justified terminating the deal and taking protective measures. They maintained that Victor’s actions were not wrongful but were necessary responses to the Plaintiffs' own alleged failures to perform under their agreement.
Jury Verdict
A San Bernardino County jury handed Z-Tech Advanced Technologies, Inc. a sweeping victory on February 26, 2026, finding Muntaser "Victor" Elgaouny, his associate Nam Suk "Jenny" Lee, and three related companies liable for stealing money, poaching customers, and running off with the company's trade secrets. The jury awarded more than $11 million in compensatory damages and opened the door to punitive damages against the corporate Defendants. The case, filed back on January 26, 2021, was tried in Department S-25 before the Honorable Khymberli S. Apaloo.
The $140,000 Conversion
The jury started with the money. Jurors found that Z-Tech owned the $140,000 Victor kept from a $280,000 withdrawal, and that he took it and refused to give it back without the company's permission. They pegged the date the damage happened as December 21, 2020, and awarded Z-Tech the full $140,000.
Interfering with Z-Tech's Customers
Jurors found that Z-Tech enjoyed real business relationships with customers who would likely have kept doing business with the company, and that Victor knew about those relationships and wrecked them. The jury reached the same conclusion two different ways — once under a negligence theory and once under an intentional interference theory — and awarded $1,002,249 in past lost profits on each. The jury declined to reduce the award for any failure to mitigate and said Z-Tech deserved prejudgment interest on top.
The jury spelled out exactly what Victor did wrong: he took control of Z-Tech's website, email, and social media accounts, used the company's product samples and photos on his own websites, and held onto a Z-Tech phone (with the number ending in 6943) along with a company Toshiba laptop.
Stealing the Trade Secrets
This is where the damages really added up. The jury found Z-Tech owned genuine trade secrets — its customer list, its financial details like pricing and profit margins, and its manufacturing methods and supplier sources. The company kept that information confidential, and Victor used it improperly to enrich himself and hurt Z-Tech.
The jury broke the damages down this way: $4,584,667 for past unjust enrichment and $5,334,364 for future economic loss. (A separate future unjust enrichment figure on the form was crossed out and marked "N.L.") The total came to $9,919,031, with no reduction for mitigation, plus prejudgment interest.
Jenny and the Companies Join the Hook
The verdict did not stop with Victor. On the conspiracy questions, jurors found that Jenny knew about Victor's plan to take the $140,000 and agreed to go along with it. They reached the same conclusion about Jenny and the three corporate Defendants ZAD dba Zantech, VTron, and Trabem when it came to the customer interference and the trade secrets theft. Each one knew what Victor was doing and signed on to the scheme.
On the aiding and abetting questions, jurors went a step further. They found Jenny knowingly helped Victor pull off the conversion, and that all four co-Defendants actively pitched in to help with the customer interference and the trade secrets misappropriation. Their assistance, the jury said, directly caused Z-Tech's losses.
Punitive Damages on the Table
The jury saved its sharpest finding for last. Jurors concluded that both Victor and Jenny acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, and that they pulled off this conduct while serving as officers, directors, or managing agents of ZAD dba Zantech, VTron, and Trabem. That finding exposes all three companies to punitive damages in the next phase of the case.
The foreperson signed the verdict form on February 26, 2026.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
