BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner

21 - 40 of 110 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
49,477 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
Got you. Great, looking forward to it!

Gustav,

As a forum owner I would think you would not rely on rumor for the things you can be quoted on. As for you saying we stole our M5 tune, wtf? Where do you get off? As for the Gintani M5 SC the car's performance was awesome just to add. This car was returned to stock due to the owner's lease being up. We are in the middle of moving shop and once settled we will release details of the car and its performance. We have another one........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Anybody with a tuning business near alex know exactly what type of person he is. Alex loves to call and threaten lawsuits. Im sure hes already done that to gustav a few times already. Then when the lawsuit threat doesnt work, he treatens to hurt people or he tells people arno will come and hurt them because arno is a big guy. He even threatens to hurt his customers if he doesnt like what they say about gintani. One local tuner called the police on him after a threat and even his own customer had to call the police on him just to get his own car back. Anybody who follows the forums and these stories knows that these gintani stories pop up and then get removed only because alex threatens lawsuits to get them remove. Alex doesnt realize that the admins share this information and many of us have seen the emails alex has sent.

Alex is a world class scumbag who will even play the race card against his competitors or make up some **** that theyr meth cookers. He tells our customers that parts made at a sweatshop in thailand and korea just because beacuse the people are asian. Come on eloy I know you have similar experiences with this scumbag so cut loose and tell people if this is all bs or right on the money. Just give us a smiley face or frowny face because I know this scumbag has pulled this on you.

We all know about the stolen gpower software. Some gintani insider sent an email to gpower with the who what where when how much it cost to steel their m3 software. I saw the email last year sometime and I saw it posted on another forum maybe two other forums. I also know about the m5 customer being really pissed off that gintani couldnt tune the car. He was so fed up he returned the car to stock but not before alex sold his stock exhaust and he had to get another one. Anybody who follows the forums should know this isnt anything new because gintani is a recking yard for failed projects and cars that never run right. Theres three or four cars like this right now half finished and never run right. It seems that all of their projects turn out this way.

We also know exactly how gintani keeps their customers quiet. Weve all experienced jeremys mediocre tunes and the problems. When the customer complains hes told they have a fix and they must keep their mouth shut or else he wont get the new software. One kid in texas was waiting for months for the fix for his tune and his limp modes jeremy created. No idea if he ever got a fix. Just think back to all of the stories youv seen on every forum about the crappy tuning and youll realize these stories are not bs they all have the same things in common.

But nothing compares to the scam alex put on that football player. He got scammed for $500k had to sue to get his money back and had to call the police to just get his car back. The scam was a good one because gintani was so much in debt that they loaned the company money to keep it floating. All they had to do was declare bankrupsy when the lawsuit came and then as creditors they get paid back with the football players money before he can even get a dime. Great scam by great scam artists. Just read the court documents because its all in there how they did it. Everybody should read these documents and see for themselves. Then think of all failed gintani projects or projects that never seem to get completed or running correctly and youll all see the same common things in them. The cars go in, but they never come out running correctly just like the football players car never ran correctly. Read the docs and see for yourself and then remember all of the projects you see announced and never updated after they failed.
YouShare - 2008-12-08 - Complaint for Damages and Accounting.pdf - Files by Corey_J_Dillon

Hey everyone, so I want to clear this up. This was all a doing of Alex's old partner/tuner JESSE DIAKAS (at the time Speed Innovation). Corey Dillon brought in his Ferrari to get FI done to his car. All the hardware was done and it was installed onto the car, all it needed was a tune. Jesse couldn't tune the car and while he noticed that he couldn't do the job, he kept feeding false information to Mr. Dillon, blaming Gintani for the reason why his car wasn't finished. After Gintani parted ways with Jessey, Jeremy (OE TUNING), our new tuner was going to Tune the car, but Mr. Dillon wanted his car back. He took his car back because Jessey was telling him that Gintani didn't know what we were doing and that everything that had happened was Gintani's fault. This was close to two years ago and the case has been closed and everything was taken care of and back to normal.

The reason why Jesse wasn't involved is because he had no assets, nothing for them to go after. Would you go after someone who doesn't have anything?
Gintani only had $1K in assets was running a $100k defecit and was getting loans just to stay afloat. Its hard to think that jesse wasnt sued because he had even less than gintani. Thats bs. Innocent people dont settle out of court and agree to pay for many years to come like gintani did. Jesse isnt mentioned in the lawsuit because jesse didnt scam the money, alex, arno, and saro did. The football player didnt tell about conversations he had with jesse because they were conversations he had with alex and arno. This lawsuit was filed a year before gintani ever heard of jeremy and 1.5 years before jeremy was fired by powerchip. In fact jeremy only started tuning a few months before this lawsuit was filed and a year after the scam was put in place. Your story is bs raz and the timeline doesnt add up. Its time for people to be exposed to the real gintani and hopefully gustav wont buckle to his bs threats and intimidation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Anybody with a tuning business near alex know exactly what type of person he is. Alex loves to call and threaten lawsuits. Im sure hes already done that to gustav a few times already. Then when the lawsuit threat doesnt work, he treatens to hurt people or he tells people arno will come and hurt them because arno is a big guy. He even threatens to hurt his customers if he doesnt like what they say about gintani. One local tuner called the police on him after a threat and even his own customer had to call the police on him just to get his own car back. Anybody who follows the forums and these stories knows that these gintani stories pop up and then get removed only because alex threatens lawsuits to get them remove. Alex doesnt realize that the admins share this information and many of us have seen the emails alex has sent.

Alex is a world class scumbag who will even play the race card against his competitors or make up some **** that theyr meth cookers. He tells our customers that parts made at a sweatshop in thailand and korea just because beacuse the people are asian. Come on eloy I know you have similar experiences with this scumbag so cut loose and tell people if this is all bs or right on the money. Just give us a smiley face or frowny face because I know this scumbag has pulled this on you.

We all know about the stolen gpower software. Some gintani insider sent an email to gpower with the who what where when how much it cost to steel their m3 software. I saw the email last year sometime and I saw it posted on another forum maybe two other forums. I also know about the m5 customer being really pissed off that gintani couldnt tune the car. He was so fed up he returned the car to stock but not before alex sold his stock exhaust and he had to get another one. Anybody who follows the forums should know this isnt anything new because gintani is a recking yard for failed projects and cars that never run right. Theres three or four cars like this right now half finished and never run right. It seems that all of their projects turn out this way.

We also know exactly how gintani keeps their customers quiet. Weve all experienced jeremys mediocre tunes and the problems. When the customer complains hes told they have a fix and they must keep their mouth shut or else he wont get the new software. One kid in texas was waiting for months for the fix for his tune and his limp modes jeremy created. No idea if he ever got a fix. Just think back to all of the stories youv seen on every forum about the crappy tuning and youll realize these stories are not bs they all have the same things in common.

But nothing compares to the scam alex put on that football player. He got scammed for $500k had to sue to get his money back and had to call the police to just get his car back. The scam was a good one because gintani was so much in debt that they loaned the company money to keep it floating. All they had to do was declare bankrupsy when the lawsuit came and then as creditors they get paid back with the football players money before he can even get a dime. Great scam by great scam artists. Just read the court documents because its all in there how they did it. Everybody should read these documents and see for themselves. Then think of all failed gintani projects or projects that never seem to get completed or running correctly and youll all see the same common things in them. The cars go in, but they never come out running correctly just like the football players car never ran correctly. Read the docs and see for yourself and then remember all of the projects you see announced and never updated after they failed.
YouShare - 2008-12-08 - Complaint for Damages and Accounting.pdf - Files by Corey_J_Dillon



Gintani only had $1K in assets was running a $100k defecit and was getting loans just to stay afloat. Its hard to think that jesse wasnt sued because he had even less than gintani. Thats bs. Innocent people dont settle out of court and agree to pay for many years to come like gintani did. Jesse isnt mentioned in the lawsuit because jesse didnt scam the money, alex, arno, and saro did. The football player didnt tell about conversations he had with jesse because they were conversations he had with alex and arno. This lawsuit was filed a year before gintani ever heard of jeremy and 1.5 years before jeremy was fired by powerchip. In fact jeremy only started tuning a few months before this lawsuit was filed and a year after the scam was put in place. Your story is bs raz and the timeline doesnt add up. Its time for people to be exposed to the real gintani and hopefully gustav wont buckle to his bs threats and intimidation.
Gustav, Mods. Please.
Is this PedM5, [email protected], Pedram Bekam, Wayne - hotbmwm3, Bijan, etc?
Matt sounds allot like you. All frosting no cake. lol
What about how you tried threaten me over the phone that time before Bimmerfest. Acting all hard..... What was that name calling all about? Wanting to see Jeremy dead.......
How about the time you came to my shop trying to act like someone else? lol You got caught !
Anyway we haven't threatened anyone or Gustav. so who are you ?

This is exactly why we normally never reply to stupid threads like this, because no good comes out of it and idiots like this put out false information. We still keep in touch with Corey and will be meeting with him again very soon. The reason why the lawsuit was settled out of court was because both parties came to an agreement and settled out of court on good terms. It was a big mistake on our part to reply to this thread, but we are also human and there comes a point where the cup over fills and you can't hold it in anymore. For all of you who know us per business or friendship you know the truth and the kind of people we really are. For those of you who don't, believe what you like.
 

·
Company Representative of RPI Power
Joined
·
2,432 Posts
Anybody with a tuning business near alex know exactly what type of person he is. Alex loves to call and threaten lawsuits. Im sure hes already done that to gustav a few times already. Then when the lawsuit threat doesnt work, he treatens to hurt people or he tells people arno will come and hurt them because arno is a big guy. He even threatens to hurt his customers if he doesnt like what they say about gintani. One local tuner called the police on him after a threat and even his own customer had to call the police on him just to get his own car back. Anybody who follows the forums and these stories knows that these gintani stories pop up and then get removed only because alex threatens lawsuits to get them remove. Alex doesnt realize that the admins share this information and many of us have seen the emails alex has sent.

Alex is a world class scumbag who will even play the race card against his competitors or make up some **** that theyr meth cookers. He tells our customers that parts made at a sweatshop in thailand and korea just because beacuse the people are asian. Come on eloy I know you have similar experiences with this scumbag so cut loose and tell people if this is all bs or right on the money. Just give us a smiley face or frowny face because I know this scumbag has pulled this on you.

We all know about the stolen gpower software. Some gintani insider sent an email to gpower with the who what where when how much it cost to steel their m3 software. I saw the email last year sometime and I saw it posted on another forum maybe two other forums. I also know about the m5 customer being really pissed off that gintani couldnt tune the car. He was so fed up he returned the car to stock but not before alex sold his stock exhaust and he had to get another one. Anybody who follows the forums should know this isnt anything new because gintani is a recking yard for failed projects and cars that never run right. Theres three or four cars like this right now half finished and never run right. It seems that all of their projects turn out this way.

We also know exactly how gintani keeps their customers quiet. Weve all experienced jeremys mediocre tunes and the problems. When the customer complains hes told they have a fix and they must keep their mouth shut or else he wont get the new software. One kid in texas was waiting for months for the fix for his tune and his limp modes jeremy created. No idea if he ever got a fix. Just think back to all of the stories youv seen on every forum about the crappy tuning and youll realize these stories are not bs they all have the same things in common.

But nothing compares to the scam alex put on that football player. He got scammed for $500k had to sue to get his money back and had to call the police to just get his car back. The scam was a good one because gintani was so much in debt that they loaned the company money to keep it floating. All they had to do was declare bankrupsy when the lawsuit came and then as creditors they get paid back with the football players money before he can even get a dime. Great scam by great scam artists. Just read the court documents because its all in there how they did it. Everybody should read these documents and see for themselves. Then think of all failed gintani projects or projects that never seem to get completed or running correctly and youll all see the same common things in them. The cars go in, but they never come out running correctly just like the football players car never ran correctly. Read the docs and see for yourself and then remember all of the projects you see announced and never updated after they failed.
YouShare - 2008-12-08 - Complaint for Damages and Accounting.pdf - Files by Corey_J_Dillon



Gintani only had $1K in assets was running a $100k defecit and was getting loans just to stay afloat. Its hard to think that jesse wasnt sued because he had even less than gintani. Thats bs. Innocent people dont settle out of court and agree to pay for many years to come like gintani did. Jesse isnt mentioned in the lawsuit because jesse didnt scam the money, alex, arno, and saro did. The football player didnt tell about conversations he had with jesse because they were conversations he had with alex and arno. This lawsuit was filed a year before gintani ever heard of jeremy and 1.5 years before jeremy was fired by powerchip. In fact jeremy only started tuning a few months before this lawsuit was filed and a year after the scam was put in place. Your story is bs raz and the timeline doesnt add up. Its time for people to be exposed to the real gintani and hopefully gustav wont buckle to his bs threats and intimidation.
wow. How did I come up? lol. I heard rumors of their customers saying things like RPi exhausts are made with "China steel" but I just laughed about it and posted pictures of US making the exhausts. They were just rumors so I didnt think anything of it. In fact Alex did call me today but I dont take any of it personal. We just had a normal conversation and I told him exactly what was on my mind. It was nothing hostile and there were no threats. I'd like to think of the M5board as a step above other forums and that is why I choose to be a supporting vendor on here. Hopefully this debate/argument wont bring down the quality of posts on the forums. This Sept will be our 12th year in business and you see these things happen all the time. Its nothing new really and I only post things to poke fun at the actual situation. So about the rumors, yeah, they were said. Did it come from Alex? Who knows, and I really dont care. I do take threats very seriously though as any threat should. With that, sorry Gustav, unpaid advertising, those who feel threatened can come take my firearms and close combat classes :) ( southbaytactical.com ) Happy Monday to you all :) BTW< yes, I am Asian, no, I am not from China. In fact, I was born in Brazil and I bleed red, white and blue as I am American patriot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Gustav, Mods. Please.
Is this PedM5, [email protected], Pedram Bekam, Wayne - hotbmwm3, Bijan, etc?
Matt sounds allot like you. All frosting no cake. lol
What about how you tried threaten me over the phone that time before Bimmerfest. Acting all hard..... What was that name calling all about? Wanting to see Jeremy dead.......
How about the time you came to my shop trying to act like someone else? lol You got caught !
Anyway we haven't threatened anyone or Gustav. so who are you ?
Hey alex this isnt e90 post where you have southlight and jason doing all of your dirty work and delete these posts. That **** doesnt work here on m5board. And yes you do threaten people youv treatened me many times. But Im going to guess you cant figure out who I am because youv probably threatened too many people to remember all of them. Hey hows your bar license going? I noticed this morning that gintani still isnt licensed to even work on cars. Some things never change alex you didnt even learn from that cory dilon lawsuit. Did you run out his money and you have to vacate your shop and move to a new one or havent you found a new mark to scam out of money? Is that why you keep threatening lawsuits trying to find another sugar daddy to get money from?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
576 Posts
Gustav, Mods. Please.
Is this PedM5, [email protected], Pedram Bekam, Wayne - hotbmwm3, Bijan, etc?
Matt sounds allot like you. All frosting no cake. lol
What about how you tried threaten me over the phone that time before Bimmerfest. Acting all hard..... What was that name calling all about? Wanting to see Jeremy dead.......
How about the time you came to my shop trying to act like someone else? lol You got caught !
Anyway we haven't threatened anyone or Gustav. so who are you ?
Nope, not me. Apparently you have a lot of enemies out there. You know what they say about people in glass houses throwing stones right? Maybe not, it's something you learn if you get through high school ;)

I feel bad that you are so severely illiterate that you can't understand what "Stop messaging me or I'll report you" means. Or "I don't care if Jeremy lives or dies," apparently is also a ***** threat. I'm a witness to your empty threats as I have a text message history full of it. You apparently were going to have people jump me at Bimmerfest according to your texts, but what happened when you were there? Nothing, empty threats. If Jesse scammed you for a few hundred grand like you say and not a single hair on his head has been displaced then I don't think anyone has anything to fear from your weak threats. Apparently you threaten people by saying someone who is actually intimidating will hurt them instead of you because let's face it, nobody is scared of a pudgey uneducated mildly ******ed looking fellow, even if they always carry a sidearm. I don't tell people I'll have Mr. T show up at their door if they don't do what I want lol.

I pity the fool who comes to gintani looking for trouble lol. You know, if anyone came to your shop who is not used to a "business owner" bragging about carrying a handgun at all times or dressing like a homeless guy who recently came off parole or leaving their car parked next to the army of homeless people who serve as Gintani's security group (literally 10 homeless people living in front of your shop hanging around your customers cars) then I don't think you are much of a threat to anybody in any way. The irony is I'd trust the homeless people way more than trusting anything that comes out of your shop at least they have honesty and integrity, that's something money can't buy. Especially scammed/stolen dishonest money ;)

Yours truly,



Matt aka [email protected] aka PedM5 (you added a few but you are wrong half the time anyway)
:byebye:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
If anyone actually knows Alex or Arno, they would know that they wouldnt ever pull any kind of scam or do any shady business . They are very honorable guys and if you do business with them they will make sure you are taken care of. This is why anyone who has done business with them will support them to the maximum and be a repeat customer. They will know that gintani will back up anything they do, take care of any problems that arise. Both of them are genuine, honest, and have great character. This is the reason i go back to them and always recommend them. I wont give my car to anyone, but im looking into doing some stuff with the GT3 and I will be leaving it with Alex for a few days, there would not be any other shop i would trust, not just doing their job but to take care of an issue if one came up and I know it would be dealt with in an immediate and responsible manner.


and is Hurricane M5G a Robert C. ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
Text from the Corey Dillon complaint

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY – STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE
Case No.: BC403424
COREY J. DILLON,
Plaintif
Vs
GINTANI MINI WORKS, INC., a California corporation; SARO MARUKOGLU, a/k/a SARO MARUKIAN, an individual; ALEX MARUKIAN, a/k/a ALEX MARUKOGLU, an individual; ARNO MARUKIAN, a/k/a ARNO MARUKOGLU, an individual; and DOES I through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND ACCOUNTING:
1. Breach of Contract
2. Rescission [Civil Code §1689(b)]
3. Conversion
4. Securities Fraud [Corp. Code §§25401,25501 ]
5. Fraud Civil Code 15721
6. Deceit Civil Code §1709, 17101
7. Accounting
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff, Corey J. Dillon ("Plaintiff"), is, and at all relevant times was a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant Gintani Mini Works, Inc. (the "Company"), is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business presently located in Los Angeles County, California, at 14333 Bessemer Street, Van Nuys, California 91401.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant Saro Marukoglu a/k/a Saro Marukian ("Saro"), is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant Alex Marukian a/k/a Alex Marukoglu ("Alex"), is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant Arno Marukian a/k/a Arno Marukoglu ("Arno'), is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
6. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as does 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues them by those fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff believes that each of the fictitiously named defendants is indebted to the Plaintiff as alleged in this Complaint, and that Plaintiffs rights against the fictitiously named defendants arise from this indebtedness.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, alter egos, employees, joint venturers and/or co-partners of each of the other Defendants named herein and, in doing the acts and in carrying out the wrongful conduct alleged herein, each of said Defendants acted within the scope of said relationship and with the permission, authority, consent and ratification of each of the other Defendants named herein.
8. There exists, and at all times mentioned herein there existed, a unity of interest and control (whether through ownership or as a principal/promoter of the Company) between Saro and the Company, such that any individuality and separateness between Saro and the Company have ceased, and the Company is the alter ego of Saro in that (A) Saro was the principal and promoter of the Company, (B) the Company did not issue stock and/or failed to obtain proper authority for the same, at least insofar as the interests of Saro and his affiliates, including, but not limited to, Alex and Arno, are concerned, (C) Saro has held himself out to Plaintiff as being responsible for the debts of Plaintiff, (D) the Company failed to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records and (E) the Company was inadequately capitalized, with virtually no equity base until such time as Plaintiff made his initial investment with the Company (some three (3) years after its formation) as described herein.
9. There exists, and at all times mentioned herein there existed, a unity of interest and control between Alex (the executive officer, director and purported 50% owner of the Company) and the Company, such that any individuality and separateness between Alex and the Company have ceased, and the Company is the alter ego of Alex in that Alex used assets of the Company for his personal uses, caused assets of the Company to be transferred to him without adequate consideration, and withdrew funds from the Company's bank accounts for his personal use, while improperly accounting for such disbursements as a Company business expense.
10. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the Company as an entity distinct from each of Saro and Alex would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud and promote injustice in connection with matters alleged as concerns each of the Causes of Action set forth in this Complaint.
11. The acts of Defendants that form the basis of this action occurred in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract Against the Company, Saro, Alex and Does 1-20)
12. By this reference, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs I through inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
13. In or about May 2007, Plaintiff took his 2005 Ferrari F430 (the "Vehicle") to the Company for automotive work. In particular, Plaintiff sought to have a twin-turbo system added to the Vehicle. Plaintiff was advised by Alex, on behalf of the Company (as well as by Jesse De La Vega ("Jesse"), the Company's customer service representative) that in order to enhance the Vehicle's performance, it would need to reprogram the Vehicle's computer system, in addition to making other modifications associated with the addition of the twin-turbo system.
14. The Company was not, and is not, an authorized Ferrari repair service centre. Plaintiff was unaware of this fact, and was never so advised by Alex or anyone else acting on behalf of the Company.
15. Moreover, the Company is not, and never was at all relevant times, licensed as a repair shop as required by the Automotive Repair Act (California Business and Professions Code (the "BPC") §§9880 et seq.) (the "ARA") and the supporting regulations of the California Bureau of Automotive Repair of the California Department of Consumer Affairs, as contained in Title 16, fraud and promote injustice in connection with matters alleged as concerns each of the Causes of Action set forth in this Complaint.
11. The acts of Defendants that form the basis of this action occurred in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract Against the Company, Saro, Alex and Does 1-20)
12. By this reference, Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs I through inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
13. In or about May 2007, Plaintiff took his 2005 Ferrari F430 (the "Vehicle") to the
Company for automotive work. In particular, Plaintiff sought to have a twin-turbo system added to the Vehicle. Plaintiff was advised by Alex, on behalf of the Company (as well as by Jesse De La Vega ("Jesse"), the Company's customer service representative) that in order to enhance the Vehicle's performance, it would need to reprogram the Vehicle's computer system, in addition to making other modifications associated with the addition of the twin-turbo system.
14. The Company was not, and is not, an authorized Ferrari repair service center. Plaintiff was unaware of this fact, and was never so advised by Alex or anyone else acting on behalf of the Company.
15. Moreover, the Company is not, and never was at all relevant times, licensed as a repair shop as required by the Automotive Repair Act (California Business and Professions Code (the "BPC") §§9880 et seq.) (the "ARA") and the supporting regulations of the California Bureau of Automotive Repair of the California Department of Consumer Affairs, as contained in Title 16, Work was near complete, and (iii) Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) to be paid upon delivery of the Vehicle after satisfactory completion of the Work.
19. Plaintiff made an initial payment of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) to the Company on or about May 19, 2007. Plaintiff made a second payment of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) to the Company on or about November 8, 2007. This payment was included as part of a Seventy Thousand Dollar ($70,000) check that was tendered by Plaintiff to the Company on or about November 8, 2007, for reasons further described herein. A final payment of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) was tendered by Plaintiff to the Company, on or about July 21, 2008. Plaintiff made these payments aggregating Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000) based on the false assurances provided to him by the Company (acting primarily through Alex) that the Work was being done. The final payment of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) was tendered by Plaintiff to obtain the return of the Vehicle as explained herein.
20. The "Work" that was to be performed by the Company constituted the repair of a motor vehicle, with the meaning of the ARA. No written estimate for parts and labor concerning the Work was given to Plaintiff by, or on behalf of, the Company and, accordingly, no authorization was received to do the Work, as required by Section 9884.9(a) of the BPC.
21. Notwithstanding that the Company received Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) for the Work by early November 2007, virtually none of the Work had been properly completed at that time.
22. Plaintiff made repeated inquiry of the Company as to the status of the Work over the course of the approximately fourteen (14) months that the Vehicle was in the possession of the Company. Each time, Plaintiff was assured by Alex or Jesse that things were moving along and the work was being completed, although, on occasion, it was mentioned that there was a delay in obtaining certain of the needed parts for the Work.
23. Finally, Plaintiff had enough. On or about July 21, 2008, Plaintiff demanded release of the Vehicle. He engaged Camino Real Towing (a towing company in Canoga Park, California) to tow the Vehicle from the Company's premises to The Auto Gallery in Canoga Park, California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that The Auto Gallery, unlike the Company, is licensed with the Bureau of Automotive Repair and is an authorized Ferrari repair shop.
24. Notwithstanding that, as of July 21, 2008, little or no work had been done to the Vehicle, and that prior payments aggregating Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) had been paid to the Company, Alex refused to allow the Vehicle to be moved from the Company's premises. On July 21, 2008, Plaintiff handed Alex a check made payable to the Company in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) in order to ensure the Vehicle's release, as he did not want the Company to assert that it failed to receive the final payment, even though it was not entitled to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), or any amount, based on the Work actually done. Once Alex had the Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000) check in hand, Plaintiff left the Company's premises. (To the best of Plaintiffs knowledge, as of the date hereof, the Company has not cashed the Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000) check.)
25. Plaintiff received a phone call from the towing company's dispatcher around thirty (30) minutes subsequent to his departure from the Company's premises. The dispatcher said that Alex would not permit the release of the vehicle despite the Plaintiffs clear and unequivocal request that he do so.
26. Plaintiff had no choice but to seek the assistance of the Los Angeles Police Department. He filed a police report concerning the Vehicle on or about July 21, 2008. Once the police interceded, Alex agreed to release the Vehicle to Camino Real Towing. The towing company thereafter transported the Vehicle to The Auto Gallery in Canoga Park, California.
27. The Auto Gallery had the Vehicle for approximately two (2) months, during which time it did some of work necessary to put the Vehicle back in running order (i.e., in the condition it was in when the Vehicle was delivered to the Company in or about May 2007). The cost to Plaintiff for the work done by The Auto Gallery for this purpose was approximately Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($15,200).
28. The Auto Gallery was unable to do all of the work necessary to put the Vehicle back in running order, however. Accordingly, three (3) days after Plaintiff received the Vehicle from The Auto Gallery, he took it to Ferrari Maserati Beverly Hills for completion of the balance of the work needed to put the Vehicle back in running order.
29. The Vehicle was with Ferrari Maserati Beverly Hills for approximately two (2) months. The fully repaired Vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff on or about November 20, 2008. Plaintiff paid charges of approximately Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($19,200) to Ferrari Maserati Beverly Hills for the work done by that concern to put the Vehicle back in running order (i.e., in the condition it was in when it was delivered to the Company in or about May 2007).
30. The Company failed to do all or substantially all of the Work, notwithstanding that Plaintiff tendered checks to the Company aggregating Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000), and of which not less than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) of such checks were cashed.
31. In all, Plaintiff incurred repair charges of approximately Thirty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($34,400) to repair the Vehicle based on the state of disrepair it was left in by the Company on or about July 21, 2008. The Vehicle was repaired over a 4-month period by two different repair shops to put the Vehicle back in the running order it was in when the Vehicle was delivered to the Company in May 2007.
32. Plaintiff did everything he needed to perform under the oral contract with the Company concerning the Work. Any failure by Plaintiff to perform was for such matters as were excused as a result of the Company's non-performance or by virtue of a waiver of such matters by the Company.
33. The Company breached the oral contract by not completing the Work. At the time that the Vehicle was redelivered to Plaintiff, on or about July 21, 2008, no modification had been made to the Vehicle that might be deemed to enhance or improve the value of the Vehicle. Indeed, it is believed that because the Company was unqualified to do the Work and did not use authorized Ferrari parts (or other suitable parts) for the Work, the engagement was doomed for failure from the onset.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Rescission against the Company, Saro, Alex and Does 1-20)
34. By this reference Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs I through 33, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
35. In or about May 2007, the Company received the Vehicle from Plaintiff, for purposes of doing the work. At that time and at all relevant times thereafter (through and including July 21, 2008), Plaintiff was unaware that the Company was not licensed as required by the ARA. It was illegal for the Company to perform the Work due to its failure to be licensed under the ARA. The interests of Plaintiff, as well of those of the public at large, will be prejudiced if the contract between the Company and Plaintiff is permitted to stand.
36. Even if the Company was properly licensed under the ARA to do the Work, it failed to provide a written estimate to Plaintiff for the Work, or obtain the authorization required from Plaintiff to do the Work, in each case per the requirements of the ARA.
37. Plaintiff was also unaware that the Company was not an authorized Ferrari service center and that the Company was not qualified to do the Work. The Company knew, or reasonably should have known, that it lacked the expertise to do the Work.
38. Plaintiff was also unaware that the Company was intending to use parts for the Work that were not Ferrari parts or parts otherwise authorized by Ferrari for the Work.
39. All or substantially all of the Work was either not performed by the Company or not performed properly by the Company, despite the Company's receipt of payment from Plaintiff of all amounts required by oral agreement between the Company and Plaintiff for the Work, assuming it had been done timely and properly. As such, there was a failure of consideration on the part of the Company.
40. Based on the allegations above, grounds exist under California Civil Code Sections 1689 (b)(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) to permit Plaintiff to rescind the contract with the Company for the Work.
41. In accordance with such rescission, Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of payment of not less than Eighty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($84,400) (which amount assumes that the Company has not, and will not, cash the Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000) check tendered to it by Plaintiff), consistent with Section 1692 of the California Civil Code, subject to proof at trial. In particular, Plaintiff is entitled to consequential damages of Thirty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($34,400), subject to proof at trial, in connection with such rescission (which amount is included within the $84,400 demanded) as the Company knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff would incur significant repair charges to repair the Vehicle due to the Company's failure to complete the Work or do it properly.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conversion Against the Company, Saro, Alex and Does 1-20)
42. By this reference Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
43. In or about May 2007, the Company received the Vehicle from Plaintiff, for purposes of doing the Work. The Work was to be completed by or about November 2007.
44. On or about July 21 , 2008, the Company took the Vehicle and converted the same to its own use. On that date, Plaintiff orally demanded the immediate return of the Vehicle, but the Company, acting under Alex's orders, failed to comply with such demand until the Los Angeles Police Department interceded.
45. Plaintiff had the right to immediate possession of the Vehicle on July 21, 2008, after making demand for it. The Company, acting on Alex's orders, substantially interfered with Plaintiff's right to 46. The Company's and Alex's acts alleged above were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, were undertaken with intent to defraud Plaintiff, and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Securities Fraud Against the Company, Saro, Alex and Does 1-20)
47. By this reference Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 46, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
48. Plaintiff was introduced to the Company in or about May 2006 by a car stereo dealer. The Company did some minor work on Plaintiff's Mercedes and Bentley vehicles in or about May 2006. As far as Plaintiff was concerned, this work was done satisfactorily. Plaintiff was unaware that the Company was not licensed to do this work, however, for reasons alleged in Paragraphs 15 and 16 above. As with the Work, no written estimate, or proper authorization, was received from Plaintiff for work done by the Company on Plaintiff's Mercedes and Bentley vehicles.
49. In or about May 2006, Plaintiff was heading into what would be his final season as a professional football player in the National Football League. Recognizing that Plaintiff was a potential source of capital for the Company's business, he was approached by Alex and Jesse in or about May 2006 to consider investing several hundred thousand dollars in the Company. Alex's proposition to Plaintiff was that in exchange for a mutually agreed to investment, Plaintiff would be made a fifty percent (50.0%) owner of the Company and, additionally, Plaintiff would receive fifty percent (50.0%) of the gross profit generated from each job done by the Company. Based on his discussions with Alex, Plaintiff understood that (i) he would receive fifty percent (50.0%) of the revenues generated from each job (excluding sales tax), less the direct cost of parts and labor to do each job (i.e., costs, for this purpose, would not include general overhead of operations, such a rent, utilities, and so forth) and (ii) he would receive an income from this gross profits interest of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) or more per month. Plaintiff was told by Alex that the Marukians (Saro and Alex) would be responsible for covering all overhead of operations, including rent, utilities, administrative costs and so forth out of their share of the gross profits.
50. At this time (in or about May 2006), Alex shared with Plaintiff that his Father, Saro, controlled the Company's business and would be Plaintiff's co-owner. Alex assured Plaintiff that Saro was very wealthy and that Saro himself had already invested Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) of his own money into the Company.
51. The proposed investment opportunity remained dormant for the next eight (8) months or so, while Plaintiff played football with the New England Patriots. His football career ended in January 2007, after which he returned to Southern California on a full-time basis.
52. Within a month or so of Plaintiffs return, preliminary discussions resumed between Plaintiff and Alex concerning a potential investment by Plaintiff of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) in the Company. A couple of meetings were held over the next few months, including a meeting, in or about May 2007, at the Cheesecake Factory in Woodland Hills, California that was attended by Plaintiff, Alex and Jesse. Alex reiterated at that time that his Father, Saro, would be Plaintiff's co-owner and that Saro had already invested Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) in the Company. Alex and Jesse laid out a basic plan for the use of a Five Hundred Thousand Dollar ($500,000) investment from Plaintiff; namely, that the funds would be used in their entirety to acquire sophisticated diagnostic equipment that would allow the Company to do high-end repair and service work for high-performance vehicles, including Ferrari and Porsche. Alex and Jesse further laid out a plan for the Company's move to a new facility in Van Nuys (to its current location at 14333 Bessemer Street). Plaintiff was told by Alex and Jesse that the costs of the move, including any leasehold improvements, would be paid by Saro to the extent that the Company lacked the funds.
53. At no time during any of the meetings with Plaintiff did Alex, Jesse or anyone else mention to Plaintiff that the Company was not licensed to do repair work in the State of California. At no time during any of the meetings with Plaintiff did Alex, Jesse or anyone else tell Plaintiff that the Company was struggling, had incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses and had negligible revenues. Rather, the picture painted by Alex and Jesse was that while the Company was successful and profitable, Plaintiff's investment would take the Company to an even higher level of profitability. Alex reconfirmed to Plaintiff time and again that Plaintiff would receive payment from the Company for each job done by the Company, which amount would equal sales revenues (excluding sales tax) from each job, less associated direct costs for parts and labor (i.e., the "gross profits" referred to above).
54. Plaintiff ultimately agreed, in or about June 2007, to invest Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) in the Company, subject to his receipt of proper documentation to protect his investment and allow for his advisors to confer with him concerning his prospective investment in the Company. As a good faith gesture, on or about July 2, 2007, Plaintiff gave a check to the Company in the amount of Three Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($325,000). The check was tendered to Alex, on behalf of the Company, with express instructions from Plaintiff to Alex to not cash the check until Plaintiff received and approved documents to evidence his investment in the Company, as well as any financial and other materials that might be required by Plaintiffs advisors for due diligence purposes. Despite repeated requests over the course of many subsequent months, no documentation was provided to evidence Plaintiffs prospective investment or to enable him or his advisors to conduct due diligence. Rather, the check was cashed by the Company.
55. By November 2007, the Company was running out of money. A request for further funds was made to Plaintiff by Alex, with assurances that Plaintiff's investment would now be documented properly and that Plaintiff would receive financial and other information concerning the Company to verify the terms of his investment, among other matters. At this point, Plaintiff felt that he had no choice but to make further payment in order to safeguard the Three Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($325,000) that he already paid to the Company. Accordingly, on or about November 8, 2007, he tendered a Seventy Thousand Dollar ($70,000) check to the Company, telling Alex that Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) was being paid for the Work being done to the Vehicle, and the remaining Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000) was being paid as an additional investment in the Company, thereby bringing his total investment in the Company to Three Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($370,000) at the time.
56. On or about December 15, 2007, Plaintiff made an additional payment to the Company in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), thus bringing his total investment in the Company to Four Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($420,000). At the time that Plaintiff tendered this payment was assured by Alex that Plaintiff was a fifty percent (50.0%) owner of the Company (with Saro as the other 50.0% owner), that Plaintiff would be made a director of the Company, that Plaintiff would receive fifty percent (50.0%) of the gross profits from work done on each job by the Company, that Plaintiff would soon receive an accounting of gross profits due to him and that the money paid by Plaintiff in November and December 2007 would be used solely for the Company's leasehold improvement and working capital needs.
57. The Company failed to live up to its promises, despite continuing requests from Plaintiff. In particular, no documentation was provided to Plaintiff to evidence his investment in the Company or state the Company's financial condition or Plaintiffs share of gross profits. Rather, on or about April 10, 2008, when the Company was again running out of cash, Plaintiff was called to a meeting at the Company (at its Van Nuys location), which meeting was attended by Alex, Saro, Alex's brother, Arno Marukian and Jesse. During the course of this meeting, each of Saro, Alex and Arno confirmed (i) Plaintiff's fifty percent (50%) ownership in the Company, (ii) that Plaintiff was entitled to, and would soon receive, his fifty percent (50%) share of gross profits attributable to the Company's business, (iii) that Plaintiff would be provided an accounting of net profits and access to the Company's books and records, (iv) that Saro had invested Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) in the Company and (v) that Sara would immediately infuse another Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) into the Company to match a proposed further infusion of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) into the Company by Plaintiff.
58. Based on these various representations, Plaintiff tendered a check to the Company in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) on or about April 17, 2008, thereby raising his total investment in the Company to Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000).
59. Notwithstanding the statements made by and on behalf of the Company, as described in this Fourth Cause of Action, there were various and numerous misstatements and omissions of material fact by and on behalf of the Company, as follows, as concern's Plaintiff's investment in the Company:
i. No Company stock was ever issued to Saro. Rather, an unsigned stock certificate no. 1 exists in the corporate records representing One Thousand (1,000) shares of Company common stock in the name of Alex Marukian. No valid corporate approval exists for the issuance of these shares.
ii. According to draft documents prepared by Company counsel in or about May 2008, the Company proposed issuing Five Hundred (500) shares of Company common stock to Plaintiff, which would have given Plaintiff 33.33% of the Company, not the 50.0% share as repeatedly represented.
iii. Only one stock certificate exists in the corporate records, representing shares of the Company common stock issued to Plaintiff. That certificate is numbered "2" and is for Three Hundred Sixty-One (361) shares only. The certificate was not properly endorsed as it was only signed by the President. It was never tendered to Plaintiff.
iv. Plaintiff was never made a director of the Company, although it was represented to him by Alex and Jesse that he would be made a director based on his initial investment of Three Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($325,000) in the Company.
v. As of June 30, 2007, the Company's books and records indicate that only One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) was invested in the Company by Alex. No investment was indicated as having been made by Saro as of that date.
vi. As of June 30, 2007, the Company's books and records additionally indicated a loan payable to Alex in the amount of One Hundred Thirty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seven Dollars and Seventeen Cents ($138,707.17) and a loan payable to Saro in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000). These combined loans, totaling One Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seven Dollars and Seventeen Cents ($168,707.17) were well below the Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) that Alex, Saro and Arno represented had been invested in the Company by Saro.
vii. At the time of his equity investments, Plaintiff was never advised by the Company that the prior cash infusions made by Alex and Saro were loans (with the exception of $1,000) and not equity investments. As such, Plaintiff's equity investment would be junior to the interests of Alex and Saro, as purported creditors of the Company.
viii. At the time of his initial equity investment on or about July 2, 2007, and on repeated occasions prior and subsequent thereto, Plaintiff was told by Alex and Jesse that the Company was profitable and that Plaintiff's investment would take the Company to a higher level of profitability. Instead, the Company was highly unprofitable, having incurred approximately One Hundred Seventy-Two Thousand Dollars ($172,000) in aggregate losses through June 30, 2007. It was highly unprofitable, Company's second full year of operations, were only Twenty-Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Four Dollars and One Cent ($22,754.01). While sales in 2007 were One Hundred Fifty-FourThousand Six Hundred Ninety-One Dollars and Thirty-Four Cents ($154,691.34), the Company lost One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Five Dollars and Fifteen Cents ($175,655.15) in 2007. Its sales revenue was not even sufficient to cover direct parts and labor costs associated with jobs, which costs totaled Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Nine Dollars and Sixty-Three Cents ($215,589.63) in 2007. As such, it is unlikely that any "gross profits" were generated from jobs done in 2007, contrary to the representations of Alex and Jesse that Plaintiff would earn not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) per month from his "gross profits" share.
ix. According to corporate records, Saro loaned Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) to the Company, as of January 31, 2008. He has never invested any amount in the equity of the Company, contrary to the repeated misrepresentations of Alex, Saro and Arno.
X. Plaintiff invested Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) in the Company on April 10, 2008, based on the express representations of Alex, Saro and Arno that Saro would invest a further Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) in the Company on that date. Instead, Saro loaned the Company Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) on that date. He did not provide the Company with further funds until July 8, 2008, when he loaned the Company Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500).
xi. Alex advised Plaintiff that his anticipated investment of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) was going to be used solely to acquire equipment necessary to turn the Company into a high-end repair and service center for high-performance vehicles. Instead, less than fiffy percent (50.0%) of Plaintiff's investment was used to acquire shop equipment. Approximately Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) was used to repay a portion of the loan in Alex's name on the Company books, such loan repayment not having been agreed to or authorized by Plaintiff. Subsequent to Plaintiff's initial investment in the Company, thousands of dollars were expended by the Company for personal expenses of Alex (and potentially others) for things such as fast food, perfume, liquor, groceries and gasoline.
xii. The Company repeatedly misrepresented that documents would be forthcoming to Plaintiff concerning his investment in the Company (which was only a "contemplated investment" in July 2007 when the initial $325,000 was tendered). The documents were never provided until approximately September 2008, based on a demand made by Plaintiffs legal counsel. The documentation consisted of materials in the Company's minute book and financial information, all of which information is supportive of the allegations in this Paragraph 59.
xiii. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs various meetings with Alex, Saro, Arno and/or Jesse in connection with Plaintiff's investments in the Company, Plaintiff was never told by any of them or anyone else that the Company (x) was unlicensed to do repair or service work on automotive vehicles or (y) was not an authorized Ferrari service shop.
xiv. Plaintiff was never provided an accounting of the gross profits from jobs done by the Company from and after July 2, 2007. Plaintiff never received any gross profits, payment, distribution or other consideration from the Company as a result of his investment in the Company.
60. Section 25401 of the California Corporations Code provides, in pertinent part, that "t is unlawful for any person to offer or sell a security in this state ... by means of any written or oral communication which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading."
61. Plaintiff purchased stock in the Company based on numerous misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, some of which have been alleged above. Plaintiff had no knowledge of such misrepresentations or omissions on each occasion in which he invested money in the Company through and including his last investment on or about April 17, 2008.
62. Plaintiff seeks to rescind the purchase of his shares in the Company, in exchange for the return of Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000), plus interest at the legal rate, consistent with Section 25501 of the California Corporations Code.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud Against the Company, Saro, Alex, Arno and Does 1-20)
63. By this reference Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 62, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
64. The various misrepresentations of material fact recited in Paragraph 59 of this Complaint were made in order to induce Plaintiff to invest Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000) in the Company.
65. Plaintiff was unaware that these representations were false. Rather, he justifiably relied on them in investing Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000) in the Company.
66. In addition, Alex, Saro and Arno concealed material facts, as described in said Paragraph 59, further causing Plaintiff to invest such funds in the Company.
67. Had Plaintiff been aware of the actual facts, he would not have invested any amount in the Company.
68. As a result of such false representations and concealment, Plaintiff sustained damages by investing Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000) in a corporation that is believed to be worthless, or nearly so. In addition, Plaintiff never received any of the gross profits promised to him by the Company, which were anticipated to produce ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more in monthly income to Plaintiff according to the representations and assurances made repeatedly by Alex and Jesse. Alex and Saro, as officers, directors, shareholders and/or persons in control of the Company had a fiduciary duty to be candid and forthcoming to Plaintiff concerning the Company's state of affairs, including matters pertaining to its finances, outstanding loans, lack of working capital and lack of proper licensing, among a host of matters. Instead, they repeatedly misrepresented the Company's state of affairs to Plaintiff in order to induce him to invest Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000) in the Company.
70. The conduct described in this Fifth Cause of Action constitutes "actual fraud" as the same is defined and interpreted, consistent with Section 1572 of the California Civil Code.
71. The false representations and suppression of information were made by each of Alex, Saro and Arno with malice, oppression and fraud in order to induce Plaintiff to invest Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000) in the Company, all to Plaintiffs great financial detriment as each of such persons knew that the Company was in distressed financial condition and not licensed to do service or repair work in the State of California, among other matters.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Deceit Against the Company, Saro, Alex, Arno and Does 1-20)
72. By this reference Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs I through 71, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
73. The conduct described in this Sixth Cause of Action constitutes a "deceit", as the same is defined and interpreted, consistent with Sections 1709 and 1710 of the California Civil Code.
74. The false representations and suppression of information were made by each of Alex, Saro and Arno with malice, oppression and fraud in order to induce Plaintiff to invest Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000) in the Company, to Plaintiff's great financial detriment, as each of such persons misrepresented and omitted to provide material information concerning the Company's true state of affairs. Had such persons been honest and not engaged in deceit in explaining the Company's financial situation to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would not have invested any amount in the Company.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Accounting Against the Company and Does 1-20)
75. By this reference Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 74, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
76. The Company promised to pay Plaintiff fifty percent (50.0%) of the gross profits from jobs done by the Company from and after July 2007. It promised to provide information to Plaintiff to support the amount due to Plaintiff, along with payment of the amount due. No information has been provided to date that would enable Plaintiff to determine the amount due as his share of "gross profits.
77. The amount of money due from the Company to Plaintiff for Plaintiff's share of "gross profits" cannot be determined without an accounting of sales from and after July 2007 and direct costs associated with such sales. Accordingly, an accounting is required to address these matters.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
As to the First Cause of Action:
1. Eighty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($84,400) and such other general damages and consequential damages according to proof;
2. Interest according to law;
3. Costs of suit incurred; and
4. Such further relief that the Court determines to be just and proper.
As to the Second Cause of Action:
1. Eighty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($84,400) and such other general damages and consequential damages according to proof;
2. Interest according to law;
3. Costs of suit incurred
As to the Third Cause of Action:
1. General damages according to proof;
2. Special damages according to proof;
3. Exemplary damages, consistent with Section 3294 of the California Civil Code, according to proof;
4. Damages, consistent with Section 3336 of the California Civil Code, according to proof;
5. Costs of suit incurred; and
6. Such further relief that the Court determines to be just and proper.
As to the Fourth Cause of Action:
1. Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000) and such other general damages and consequential damages according to proof;
2. Special damages according to proof;
3. Exemplary damages, consistent with Section 3294 of the California Civil Code, according to proof;
4. For interest at the legal rate, consistent with California Corporations Code Section 25501;
5. Costs of suit incurred; and
6. Such further relief that the Court determines to be just and proper.
As to the Fifth Cause of Action:
1. General damages according to proof;
2. Special damages according to proof;
3. Exemplary damages, consistent with Section 3294 of the California Civil Code, according to proof;
4. Interest according to law;
5. Costs of suit incurred; and
6. Such further relief that the Court determines to be just and proper.
As to the Sixth Cause of Action:
1. General damages according to proof;
2. Special damages according to proof;
3. Exemplary damages, consistent with Section 3294 of the California Civil Code, according to proof;
4. Interest according to law;
5. Costs of suit incurred; and
6. Such further relief that the Court determines to be just and proper.
As to the Seventh Cause of Action:
1. An accounting between Plaintiff and the Company;
2. For determination of "gross profit" due to Plaintiff, consistent with such accounting;
3. Interest according to law;
4. Costs of suit incurred; and
5. Such further relief that the Court determines to be just and proper.
DATED: February 17, 2009
DANIEL S. LATTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORP.
Daniel S. Latter, Esq. (SBN 99848)
DANIEL S. LATTER APC
15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1010
Encino, California 91436
818-971-7350 telephone
818-783-7396 fax
Attorneys for Plaintiff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Powerchip does what you say really have any validity?

Gustav, Mods. Please.
Is this PedM5, [email protected], Pedram Bekam, Wayne - hotbmwm3, Bijan, etc?
Matt sounds allot like you. All frosting no cake. lol
What about how you tried threaten me over the phone that time before Bimmerfest. Acting all hard..... What was that name calling all about? Wanting to see Jeremy dead.......
How about the time you came to my shop trying to act like someone else? lol You got caught !
Anyway we haven't threatened anyone or Gustav. so who are you ?

This is exactly why we normally never reply to stupid threads like this, because no good comes out of it and idiots like this put out false information. We still keep in touch with Corey and will be meeting with him again very soon. The reason why the lawsuit was settled out of court was because both parties came to an agreement and settled out of court on good terms. It was a big mistake on our part to reply to this thread, but we are also human and there comes a point where the cup over fills and you can't hold it in anymore. For all of you who know us per business or friendship you know the truth and the kind of people we really are. For those of you who don't, believe what you like.
Wayne,

It is common knowledge that a G-Power file was read from a car after it blew up on my dyno. This was determine the cause of the failure. It was caused from excessive timing. Before this occurred I had 2 customer cars as well as my own car running superchargers, driving, on the road. So I can't see any inference. Ask the customer who's car is in question. He will tell you how he had ridden in my own car before this car was even finished build.
As for Jon Martin a Gintani customer and also G-power customer (his engine blew up too after installing a G-power supercharger kit), he was a customer of yours who had Jeremy custom dyno tune his vehicle at Gintani. This was paid for in full to Powerchip.
As for the gun, I have never told you I carry a gun nor do I need one for protection. FWI I can do just fine with out one. But I am a proud gun owner. So what???
I did not want to resort to desperate name calling..... Well here goes.
How are the assault charges going Wayne? Can't leave your hands to yourself?
What about Meth-Amphetamine Production at your House which is also Powerchip office in Melbourne, Australia? Or what about said current employee doing the same while in the USA working briefly in the USA office? Or perhaps the white powders that would arrive at offices in USA and Australia? Or instruction to send on powders onto Australia office after it arrived at USA office? How many times has the PC AUS office been raided by Drug Squad/Police in relation to drug investigations? What was seized in said raids? How many drug addicts and criminals are currently employed at your Australian office? What about your taxes Wayne? Do you pay them? How many employees never had 1099s or W2s signed? Did you pay their taxes? What about not paying Travis? Or how you revoked his ownership after 10 loyal years of service? The list goes on and on......
I feel embarrassed that I have been led to this point. We are known not to name call or even post on threads, but you have kept pushing.
Wether it is good or bad thanks for the publicity Wayne. Any member's want jucier details please call or PM.
If you want to keep pushing all criminal details of you and employees will be posted, just like you did to Jeremy. I hope it does not lead to that.

Alex



Gustav,

As a forum owner I would think you would not rely on rumor for the things you can be quoted on. As for you saying we stole our M5 tune, wtf? Where do you get off? As for the Gintani M5 SC the car's performance was awesome just to add. This car was returned to stock due to the owner's lease being up. We are in the middle of moving shop and once settled we will release details of the car and its performance. We have another one........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
i have only seen Gintani go out of their way to help customers and people. I only see PC attacking companies like Gintani and ESS
Maybe then this will let you see things differently.

It has come to our attention that you have been posting false and defamatory information about our company Gintani. We request that you immediately cease and desist from any further false and defamatory information. You are to immediately to post a statement retracting all false and defamatory information that you have previously posted. If this matter is not taken care of by December 29, 2009 no later than 3pm, we will take all legal measures against you. There is absolutely no problem with your dislike of our products or defending other vendors, however false information is not tolerable. If you are to decide at any point in time to educate yourself with facts about our company and products you are more than welcome to visit us at our shop to see for yourself what are company consists of. Thank you for your cooperation.
Gintani
Lemans_Blue_M said:
Alex,
You really need to take a step back here. :thumbdown
What are you talking about?
I have never defamed your company. Cut and paste the exact things you have a problem with...
In case you didn't know, I'm a harsh critic of just about every company out there. My personal standards are extremely high, and very few products make the cut. That is why my posts come off in a negative way sometimes, because I want to see the bar raised by all product manufacturers.
You are taking one mans opinion waaaaay too personally, and your reaction is over the top.
I am not out to get your company. :confused2
Your going to take legal action against me for posting an opinion about things related to your company?
I don't understand why you would go to those lengths, when this occurs on the boards every day.
I have no axe to grind with you, but you seems to think that I'm trying to destroy what you have built.
I assure you that I am not. You shouldn't confuse my posts as defamatory. My point in many of the posts referencing you company, are directed at the inexperience factor, the sheer number of products you have produced, and the definition of what constitutes a 'kit' in my opinion.
Where have I ever stated that you products are INFERIOR or poorly constructed? Where have I ever stated that people should not buy you products because of substandard build quality, poor engineering, or bad customer support?
Please link me to statements where I directly defamed your products.
You are not being rational and or fair here.
I believe that you are too sensitive when it comes to any critical statements made about Gintani.
Maybe I would be as well in your shoes, but that doesn't change the fact that I would just rather defend my company if someone made statements that I thought were incorrect or misleading in nature.
That's the great thing about the internet. Both parties can chime in on a wide variety of subjects.
Alex, I really think that we are a lot alike. (believe it or not)
Although my personal standards are very high, I do not hate all products. I promote and recommend several outstanding products to my friends. (including Gintani)
You have got me all wrong, and your reading way too much into the things I post on the boards. You are imagining that I'm out to get you, and nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe in certain things, and my personal standards are different that the majority of the people who post on these boards.
If I get some compelling information about a company that changes my opinion about them, I always reserve the option to change my opinion based on that new information. (providing the information is accurate and reliable)
I said all that to say this...
I have nothing against Gintani, and I have never gone out of my way to disparage your brand name.
It's just my opinion Alex. That's all.
Do you actually believe that everything on the board is 100% accurate 100% of the time?
Come on, you know better than that Alex.
If someone has other information that contradicts what you have to say...then they post that information. (or correction) That keeps things balanced on the boards.
This threat is an overreaction. (way over the top)

If you have an issue or problem with the accuracy of what I have posted on the boards, then post up a correction. That's all you needed to do. :confused2
I don't sell any competing products, so you are barking up the wrong tree man.
I'm not anti-Gintani. Your company is NEW (relatively speaking), and I'm hard on any new brand that doesn't have a long history of producing certain parts.
It's nothing against you personally. I actually like the direction that you are taking the company in, but it will take time for you to build Gintani into a powerhouse in the BMW aftemarket parts business.
Your regional success stories are your ticket into that arena. :thumbsup:
You may not like some of things that I have said, but it's my honest appraisal of your current business model.
I have made a distinction between my impression of Gintani vs. the other players in the marketplace.
I think that's why you are so upset.
I apologize if that upsets you, but it's just my appraisal based on all the info I have received from a variety of sources.
I can offer you some valuable input to making Gintani better. If you're smart (which I suspect is the case) you will take my offer to help and stop trying to see me as the devil.
I can be a huge asset to you and Gintini, if you would take a step back and not get so worked up over a random posting about your company on the internet.
Please consider this olive branch, because I can offer you help in ways that you cannot imagine. I can give you some valuable business consulting tips that will improve your business model. I have over 15 years experience in this field, so you'd be wise to take me up on this offer Alex.
In the world of consulting, you cannot help your client improve their business model without first IDENTIFYING where they are weak and or need improvement. If you cannot offer that, you won't be working in the industry very long. I have had executives that looked like they wanted to strangle me after giving them an honest assessment of their current business model. It's difficult for them to hear, but it's a necessary step in the process. No one wants to hear that their business model is not 'perfect'. And no one wants to hear their pride and joy criticized by an outsider.
But in order to improve the business, every owner needs a qualified outside voice to help guide them to where they want to go.
Business consulting is a necessity these days...not an option.
For the record: I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY. :sigh:
Best Regards,
-Sean
Dear Sean:
I received your response to my email. I want to reiterate Gintani’s demand that you retract your false statements which you posted on December 27, 2009 immediately. I frankly don’t care what you think of Gintani’s product and you are entitled to your own opinion. However, I have told you and I am telling you again that it is inappropriate and legally actionable to publish false statements about a business which tend to interfere with prospective business opportunities. Make no mistake about it. You posted false statements about Gintani and its business operations on a public internet forum devoted to BMWs and aftermarket BMW products. The false statements were as follows:

“BTW: You know exactly what I meant about this being Gintani's first forced Induction kit. (one-off, or modified FI kits off of someone else's basic design doesn't count and you know it)
"My information is accurate"
"My claim was accurate and you know it."

These statements are false. This is not Gintani’s first forced Induction kit. Gintani has manufactured induction kits for the BMW E36 model and the E46 model. I demand this statement be clarified in a follow up post since you admit in your own email that if you get “information about a company that changes [your] opinion about them, I always reserve the option to change my opinion based on that new information.”

“Since it wasn't, you decided to go with a local tuning shop that builds custom forced induction kits in your back yard".

This statement is obviously false and insulting. If you have never been to Gintani’s offices, there is no basis in posting such nonsense. Gintani is located in an 11,000 sq. ft. warehouse. We have a Dyno,C & C Mill,Lathe and lots more equipment that manufactures parts…

For someone with so much “experience” and “expertise” in the field of BMW aftermarket products, one would think you’d be more responsible when posting to a forum of individuals who may or may not know much about these products. You posted false information and make it appear as truth. If you have so much concern about the development of Gintani, you can send me an email. It is moronic of you to think that your statements are constructive or helpful in any way when you post false information on such a site. Your offer of business consultation to Gintani after such a post is laughable. You are clearly not a professional.

I again demand that you retract and clarify your false statements since I have provided you with “new information”. It’s not a joke to publish false statements about a business to damage its reputation and harm potential business opportunities, especially in these challenging economic times.

If you have any questions or comments, you can call, email or come to Gintani’s office located at 14333 Bessemer St. Van Nuys Ca 90014.
Gintani
Lemans_Blue_M never changed his post, and Gintani never sued him. Hard to think this guy thinks he can actually sue over some guy saying his opinion on a car forum. What a blow hard. But this is the kind of **** that everybody has to deal with when it comes to alex and gintani.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Ah yes, I knew I saved this. Just took a long time to find it.

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: XXXX
Bereitgestellt: Montag, 5. Oktober 2009 05:42
Bereitgestellt in: Export (Postfach)
Unterhaltung: Contact form G-POWER
Betreff: Contact form G-POWER

Your supercharger software was stolen by XXX and YYY. Your customer sold the software copy to XXX and YYY. Your customer can be named but I want to be nameless.

I will contact again but this is true and your customer was paid 1200!!! for all your hardwork now that XXX and YYY has them....XXX has stolen many many programs and have made alot of money because of stolen programs.

THIS IS REAL THIS IS NOT FAKE. Your customer who sold it has his e92 blown up on the dyno. I know you can figure out now....I dont care anymore I will tell the truth on all these bastards

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
 
21 - 40 of 110 Posts
About this Discussion
109 Replies
36 Participants
dpaul9
BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums
M5Board is the best forum community for information on the BMW M5 E60 (V-10), E39 (V-8), E34 (straight 6), E28, F90 and F10. Discuss performance, specs, reviews and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top