Case Number BC292517 Russell Armstrong v Anthony Vinatieri, aka Anthony Sawin, and Does 1-25

8/4/2019 Case Number BC292517 Russell Armstrong v Anthony Vinatieri, aka Anthony Sawin, and Does 1-25

1/9

. 20

0 :223 '.-23#,.i}24rJ1(..-~."'-25

6

C OM PL AIN T fO R D AM A GE S

FILEDL OS A NO EL ES SU PE RIO R e o U R I '1 A rthur H . Barens, Bsq., SBN 43215 .LAW OmCES OF ARTHUR H. BARENS2 10209 Santa Monica BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90067 JOHN A . CUF:\Ke, CL~AII'1'I ...~ ~ fiH;j ~:a~'""Ot;;~ . rn~~~ooP laintiff alleges. as fo llows: . ~ ~ i2 ;;' ;; "" !;''. '. ~ ~ ~R ~ ." .. ~

1. Plainti ff . RUSSELL ARMSTRONG is) and at all times !d&tion.ed Jij~, an~~~~i nd i vi dua l r es id ing inLos A ngeles County , S tate o f Califo rnia. ~ a ~ ; :~ ~~Based upon plaintiiPs infonnation and belief, Defendant ANTHtlNY ~IERl"'l ,.,aka ANTHONY SAWIN is, and at all times men ti on ed h ere in was) an individual : r e s i l i n g " i n th e~ .. .~e~

7.

2 .


2/9

2

C OM PLA IN T FO R D AM AG ES

1 Co unty o f Lo s A ngeles. S tate o f C alifo rnia.

3. P laintiff is ig no rant o f th e true name s and c ap ac ities o f d efend ants sued herein as3 DOES 1 th ro ug h 2 5, inc lusiv e, and therefo re sues said d efe nd ants by such f ic ti ti ous names . Plaintiff4 w in amend th is c ompl ai nt to a lle ge th eir tru e n ames a nd c ap ac iti es when asce rt ai ned .5 4. Upon info rm ation and belief. each o f the defendants designated herein as D OE is6 legally respo nsible fo r the events and happenings herein a lleged , and the p laintiff s dam ages herein7 were proximately caused by s ai d d e fendant s.8 5 . Upo n in fo rm atio n an d belief, at all tim es m entio ned herein , each defendant w as the9 agent. servant, and em plo yee o f each o f the rem aining defendants a nd a ctin g w ith in th e p urp o se ,

. 10 scope. I'II1dourse of said agency, se rv ic e a nd emp lo ym en t w ith th e express o r implied k now l ed g e,11 perm issio n and/o r co nsent o f the remaining defendants. and each o f them , each said defendant12 ratified and ap pro ved the ac ts o f the o ther d efend ants.13 6 . On o r a bo ut J an ua ry 2 4~2 00 3, d efe nd an ts ANTHONYVINA T IER} a ka ANTHONY14 SA \VJN and DOES 1th ro ug h 2 5, i nc lu siv e, w as present at a meeting of investors of Br igh ton15 O ppo rtunity Fund in L os A ngeles. C alifo rn ia, In particu lar. defendants A NT HO NY V IN AT IE RI1 6 aka A NT HO NY S AW IN and D OE S 1 t hro ug h 2 5. inclusive, i nt en ti ona ll y de famed plaintiff11 RUSSELL ARMSTRONG by makin g fa lse an d unpr iv i leged publ ic a ti ons by o ra l d is sem in ati on, a s18 wen as o n other o ccasio ns. A s a direct, leg al and pro xim ate result o f the afo rem entio ned actions,19 the p laintiff was damaged as set fo rth inthis complaint .2 0 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR DEFAMAT ION IS LANDER(Against De fe nd an ts ANTHONY VJNAT IER I a ka A NTHO NY SA W IN and D OES 1 through 25,

21

inclusive)7. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained inparagraphs 1 thro ugh 6 as though se t fo rth h ere in .8 . O n o r about January 24. 2003, defendants, and each o f them , m ade the fo llo wing

false and unprivileged publications about plainti ff: thatplainti ffmisappropriated funds; that plaintiff

-2-


3/9

6 9. Thes e pub li ca ti on s a re unambiguous a nd l ib el o us on thei r f ac e. The r ep re se nta ti o ns

1 is invo lved w ith o rganized crim e; that p lain ti ff i s invo lved in m oney laundering; that plaintiffhas2 falsified d oc um en ts; th at p lain tiff is a crim in al; an d th at n obo dy sh ou ld do business with plain ti ff3 On informat ion an d bel ie f, t he se fal se and unpr iv i leged publ ic at ions were made by defendants , and4 each o f them . abo ut plaintiff o n o ther o ccasio ns as w ell. These publications were made to se ve ra l5 ind iv id uals d uring an inv esto r m eeting and to s ev er al o th er individuals on other o cc asio ns a s w ell.

7 and actions which def endan ts . a nd e ac h o fth em , have a ttr ib ute d to p la in ti ff a re a ll untrue. They have8 ex po sed plain tiff to embarrassm en t, co ntempt.rid icu le an d d isg race, bo th p erso nally an d9 professionally.10 10. Defendants, and each ofthem, have imputed to pla int if f qua li ties, including bu t no t11 l imited to , l ow mo ra li ty , untrustworthiness and disho nesty . E ach false statem ent had a natural12 tendency to in ju re h im personalty and p ro fessio nally . and which, by natural c onsequen ces, hav e13 c au se d a ctu al d amage ..As a r e su lt o f th es e f al se , unp ri vi le ge d anddef ama to zys ta temen ts , d ef endan ts14 have caused RUSSELL ARMSTRONG p erso nally and p ro f es si o na ll y to b e shunned by members15 of the bus in es s c ommun ity . Thes e pub li ca ti o ns were malic ious a n d motivated by personal illwilt1 6 Def en dan t's in ten ti on s w ere d esi gn ed to debase and d i sc red it p l ain ti ffper sona ll y and p ro fes si ona ll y .17 11. As a d i re c t and proximate result ofthe conduct of the defendants. and each o f them ,18 p la in tiffh as su sta in ed g en era l an d spec ia l d amages. including but n o t l im i te d to emotional distress.19 lo ss o f the benefits of'his c ontr ac ts , l os t p ro fi ts , loss o feam ings,lo ss o f goodwill and actual harm20 to p la in tif fs re pu ta tio n in a sum no t le ss th an $ 5~OOO~OOO .OO .21 12. By engaging in this co nduct, the d efe nd an ts, an d ea ch o f them. ac ted intentiona lly ,

i . i ; 2 2 mali ci ou sl y, o pp res si ve ly a nd w ith w ill fu l a nd c on sc io us d isreg ard f or th e ri gh ts o f p lai ntif f.~23 Punitive damages should be assessed.c: .I;~24f : . J : SECONQ CAUSE OF AS:;T ION~ . . . -.::;'25 FOB INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH. .~~1"1:~26 CONTRACTUAL R E L A IU 1 N S A N D PRQSPECTIVEf~~J ;Z7 ECONOl\fIC APVANIAGEf

n :28COMPLA INT POR .DAMAGES ~3-


4/9


5/9

1011121 3

COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES

1 19. Ai; a p rox imat e result o f the conduct o f defendants, and each o f them, a s a ll eged2 above, plaintiff suffered 'severe emotio na l d is tre ss an d sustained general and special damages,3 includ ing but no t limited to severe em otional d istress. lo ss o f the benefits o f his contracts and4 business relatio nship s, lo st pro fits, J oss o f earnings, lo ss o f go odw ill and actual harm to plainti rr s5 reputation, a l l in an am o un t no t l e s s t h a n $ 5 ~ O O O .O O O .O O .6 20. By engaging in this co nduct, the defendants, and each o f them , acted intentio nally .7 m alicio usly , o ppressively and w ith w illfu l and co nscio us disregard fo r th e r ights ofplainti f f. Punitive8 damages should be a ss es se d a ga in st th es e d ef en dants and each o f them fo r the sake o f exam ple and9 to p un ish th e d efen dan ts ..

21.

FO!!BTH CAUE OF ACTIONFORNEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(Aga in st A l l D e fe nd an ts )P laintiff realle ges a nd inc orp orate s herein by reference eac h and every allegation

14 c on ta in ed in p ara gr ap hs 1 through 20 as though s et f o rth a.bove.15 22. Due to the defendants' n eg lig en ce a s se t f orth h ere in , th e p la in tif f s uf fe re d s ev er e16 em otional d i stress, as he was treated inappropriately by th e defendants, and each o f them .17 23. A s a . d ire ct a nd proximate result o f the ac ts o f the defendants, and each o f them, as18 mentioned herein, plaintiffhas been dam aged in an amount n o t J es s th an $ 5,0 00 ,0 00 .0 0.192021

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTIONFOR VlQLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS

SECTION 17200(Against Al l Defendan ts )

24. P laintiff realleges a n d i nc o rp o ra te s h er ei n by re fe re nc e e ac h and e ve ry a ll eg ati oncontained inparagraphs t through 2 3 as tho ugh set forth above.

25. P laintiff'is info rm ed and believes that defendants. and each of them. have effectivelyblocked plaintiff's ability to succeed in the business community. As a proximate result of theseactio ns, plaintiff'bas been prevented fro m co ntrac ting o r effectively carry ing o ut the tenus o f

- 5-


6/9

89

COM PL AIN T F OR DAM A .C JE S

I contracts and furthering existing business relationships and from successfu lly developing and2 o btaining the benefit o f new business and co ntractual relatio nships.3 26 . The conduct o f d efendants, and each of them, as alleged abo ve, is in vio latio n o f4 Business & P ro fessio ns C ode S ec tio n 172 00. A s a p ro xim ate result o f t he ac tio ns o f d efend ants, and5 each o f them . plaintiff has been prejudiced. P laintiff seeks restitution of the m o nies that plaintiffs6 would have received but fo r the actio ns o f defendants, and each o f them , pursuant to B usiness &7 Pro fessions C ode Sectio n 172 00.

10

5mB CAUSE OF ACTIONFRAUD AND DECEIT -lNTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION

(Against All Defendants)11 27. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26 ate reaUeged and incorporated herein by12 refere nc e a s though fully se t f or th i n th is p ar ag ra ph .13 28. Beginning in or about July or2002~De fe nd an ts i nte nti on al ly , f als el y, deceitfully and1 4 a nd fra ud ule ntly rep re se nted to sev era l in div id ua ls d uring an inv esto r m eetin g a nd to several other15 individuals on other occasions as welt. false and unprivileged publications about plaintiff: that1 6 p la in ti ff 'm i sa pp ro p ri ate d funds; that p laintiff is invo lved w ith o rganized crim e; that plaintiff is17 invo lved in m oney laundering; that plaintiff has falsified do cum ents; that p la in ti ff i s a c rim in al ; and18 that nobo dy sho uld do business with plaintiff.19 29. The representations were i n fac tfa lse .20 30. 'When Defendants m ade these representatio ns, the D efendants; and each o f them ,21 knew them to be false, and these representatio ns. w ere m ade by and/o r o n behalf o f the D efendants

w i th t he i nt en t t o exposep ia in ti ff to embarrassment . contempt) r id ic ul e a nd d is gr ac e. b o th p er so n al lyan d p ro fe ssio na lly . T he se re presen tatio ns w ere a lso m ad e by a nd /o r o n be half o f D efen dan tswith the intent to Cause Plaintiff's business rela tio nship s a nd le gitim ate c on tra ctua l re la tio nsh ip s todisregard ex is ting profitable bus ines s and cont ractua l r el at ion sh ips and f utu re busi ne ss andcontractual relationships wi th p lain ti ff .


7/9

15

C OM PL AIN T FO R D AM A GE S

31. A t the tim e these representations were m ade and at the tim e D efendants to ok the

2 act ions here in a ll eg ed , th e abov e s ev er al i nd iv id ua ls d ur in g th e above i nv es to r meet in g and to s ev era l3 o ther indiv iduals on other oc ca si ons a swe ll ( he re in af te r re fe rre d to a s " "th eabov e i nd iv id ua ls ") , wer e4 igno rant o f the falsity o f defendants' representations and believed. them to be true. In relianc e o n5 these representations, t he above ind ivi dua ls d i sr ega rded ex is ti ng profitable bus ines s and con tr ac tual6 relationships and future business and contractual relatio nships all to the substantial dam age o f7 plaintiffherein . H ad th o above individuals k nown th e actual facts, they would n ot have taken such8 actio n. T he abo ve individ uals reliance o n D efendants' re pre se nta tio ns w as ju stifie d b ec au se9 Defendants appeared to be reasonable businessmen.10 32. As a proximate result of the fraud and deceit of the Defendants, and each of them ,11 and the facts herein alleged, plaintiff has sustained general and special dam ag es, inc lud ing but no t12 l im i te d to emo ti ona l d istress, lo ss o f the ben efit o fhis c on trac ts, bus iness r el at ion sh ips, l o st p ro f it s,13 lo ss o f earnings, lo ss o f goodwill, and ac tua l h arm to plaintiff's reputation, an in a sum no t less than

33. T he afo remen tio ned c ond uc t o f D efen dants, an d eac h o f them, was an intentional16 misrepresentation, d ec eit, o r c onc ealm ent o f a m aterial fact known to th e Defendants with the17 intentio n o n the part o f the D efendants, and each o fthem , o f depriv ing plaintiff o f pro perty o r legal18 rights o r o therw ise causing injury~ and w as d esp ic ab le c on duc t that subjected plaintiff to a cruel andt 9 unjust hard ship in co nscio us disreg ard o f plaintiffs' rights, so as to justify an aw ard of exemplary20 and punitive damages against the D efendants, and each o f them , which is r eques ted he re in ,21 SEytNTU CAUSEOF ACTION

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION(Against al l Defendants)

34. The allegations o f pam graphs 1 t hro ugh 33 are realleged and i nc o rp o ra te d h er ei n byr ef er en ce a s th ough fully se t forth inth is paragraph .

35. Beginning inor about July of 2002, Defendants neg l ig ent ly r ep re sent ed to severalindiv iduals during an investo r m eeting and to several o ther ind iv id uals o n other o cc asio ns as w ell,


8/9

123 456789101 11213141516171819202122e~:23r " : .t..G : 2 4e.: - ; : 2 5

C - 2 61 2 (f27'" '..128r .;_ ,-

fa lse a nd un priv ileg ed p ub lic atio ns a bo ut p lain ti ff: that plaintiff mi sa pp ro p ri ate d f un ds ; th at p la in ti ffi s i nv o lv ed with o rganized crim e; that plaintiff is invo lved in m oney laundering; that plaintiff hasfa lsifie d d oc uments; th at plaintiff is a crim inal; and that no bo dy sho uld do business with plainti ff.

36. When Defendants made these representations, there was no r ea so n ab le g ro u nd forbeliev ing them to be true. D efendants, and each o f them, knew, o r sho uld have known, that thesere pre se ntatio ns w ere q uite possibly not tr ue . D e fe nd an ts , and each o f them , co ncealed fro m theabo ve individuals their lack o f Info rm atio n and their co nsequent inability to make the alleg edrepresentations ac curately . T hese rep resentatio ns w ere m ad e by Defendants with th e i nte nt to e xp o seplaintiff to em barrassm ent, co ntem pt, rid icule and disgrace, bo th perso nally an d professionally.T hese representations were also m ade by and/o r o n behalf of D efendants with the intent to causeP la in ti ff s b us in es s r el ati on sh ip s and l eg itimate c o ntr ac tu al r el ati on sh ip s to d is rega rd ex is ti ngprofitable business and c on tra ctu al re la tio nsh ip s a nd future b usin ess a nd c on tra ctu al rela tio nship swi th p lain ti ff .

37. A t the time these representations were m ade and at the time D efendants took thea ctio ns h ere in alle ge d, th e a bo ve sev era l in div id ua ls d urin g the abo ve inv esto r m eeting and to sev eralother individuals o n o th er o cc asio ns a s w ell (h ere in after re fe rred to as ..the above indiv idua ls") , wereignorant o f the falsity o f defendants' representatio ns and believed them to be true. In relianc e o nthese rep re se nta tio ns, th e a bo ve in div id ua ls d isre ga rd ed e xistin g p ro fita ble business and con tractua lrelationships and furore business and contractual relationships all to the substantial damage ofplaintiff herein. H ad the abo ve indiv iduals kno wn the actual facts. they wo uld no t have taken suchac tio n. T he.abo ve ind iv id uals relianc e On D efend ants' rep resentatio ns w as justified bec auseD efendants ap peared to be reaso nable businessm en.

38.M a pro xim ate result o f D efendants' negligent m isrepresentatio ns and the factsh ere in a lleg ed , p la in tiffh as susta in ed general and special dam ages, including but no t lim ited toemotional distress, loss of the benefit of his contracts. business relationships, lost profits. lo ss o fearnings, lo ss o f go odw ill, and actual harm t o p lain ti ff 6: re puta tio n, all in a sum no t less than$5,OOO,OOO.OO~

C OM PL AIN T F OR D AM A GE S - 8-


9/9

1

1. On al l c au ses o f action. f or d amag es, in clu di ng b ut n ot limited to , g en eral d amag es,2 W HEREFORE~ Plaintiff p ray s as follows:34 special d am ages, co mpensato ry d am ages, and all o ther d am ages as allo wed by law , ac co rd in g to5 proo f.6 On the First" S eco nd , T hird and S ix th causes o f actio n, fo r punitiv e dam ages in an.7 amount to be d ete rm in ed at trial .89

1011 DATED: March 7, 2003

3 . On all cau ses o f ac tio n, fo r co sts o f su it incu rred h erein ; andF or such o ther and further relief as this C ourt may d eem just and pro per..

121 31415161718192021

C OM PL AIN T F OR D AM AG ES -9-

Documents

Case Number BC292517 Russell Armstrong v Anthony Vinatieri, aka Anthony Sawin, and Does 1-25