,tfi!-Zy-zyru
rlr
¡UrZ¡ flIt Sigetnan
'i -;
il tlr i'l I'i i,ll ll ,i ;' ïl f i,i
ir;i,ifi,'
!|¡L:r' i I'r
l
! l¡ i l;:.' .l
l:i I ii, ;2ll +sg'h[,CåmÈi?n'Driv rb lil rt ¡¡ neV,Þ+lv,tüllÈi; Cirlifo ,;' iì il I I:' :, ' I ! il:: ; i iI 3ll Teliìß10127S-801I ; ll Fndt3ld) 278-1¿54
La'1,¡
l'irin' ,:ii,i
',
i,i
'il
IRX
ii: $
1.10.
131 g2 I
'¡'
,i,*Y.d i4 N
iili; li ì
Í 7 b I
P
10 ,t
li1 I
rtz
t't 'i,'
t4 15 ;l
6
,
i\r \\ \,r i rt-ô.
\ \ \v- \s
ft ¡7\:': \\>*-t\' "..
7
I
ñ
Y\
OF ÀCTION ALLEGATÍONS COTVÍYÍON TO ALIJ CAÜSEÆ
l'
1r ir'
ocl-eg-eøLø
u6fi4
From¡ I?LqSltA¿F4
ID¡ciui I Fax Ft llng
3.
I 2 a
J
Defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive, are sued herein pursuant to the provisions
of
Califomia code of Civil Procedure $474. Plaintiff will amend this aotion accordingly when the true trarnes and capacities of saíd Defendants arc known.
4'
4
At all times herein rnentioned, Defendants and each of them, wero the agents, srüvants,
5
and employees of aÌl other Defendants and were acting within the course and scope of their agency,
6
seÏl/íce' arrd employment, and each Defend"ûnt hâs ratified and approved the acts of the remaiaiug
7
Defendants- ÁIl Defendants herein, whether rlesignated by real or fictitious nârne are in soÌre manner
I
or fashion responsible for the acts aud çonduct complained of herein and all of said Defendants
9
approved, ratiñed or participated in such conduct.
10
LitÍeation Holrt
1i
5.
Demand is hereby made that Defendant preserve all electronically stored information
72
('ESI'),
13
this complaint including by way of example! corïespondence, memorandq pertaining to Colocation
L4
Americq AIbert Ahdoot, Unitedlayer or related isdividuals of Unitedlayer, and be prepared to
15
prodrrce such documents and ESI in discovery. ESI includes by way of exarnple, informatíon
16
elech'onically, magnetícally or optically stored, such as digitat communications" wold processecl
I7
docunents, calendar and diary entry data" backup and archival files. all äs stoïed on Defendads'
18
computer systems and employee systems, or other media and devices, such as their personal
L9
assistant, voioe messaging systems, on-line repositories a¡d oell phones. It is
20
Defendants pursue immediate intervention to prevent loss
2l
litigation hold for potentially relevant ESI, and to prevent degradation of the ability to sea¡ch ESI by
22
electonio means. Such litigation hold is to secu¡e ESI on offioe work stations and servers, honre and
23
portable systerns, to anticipato and not deleto or destroy infonnatiorr that Defendant may regard as
24
confidential or embarrassing, and to secure documonts which are requiled to access, interprot or
25
search releva¡t ESI (Íncluding logs, control sheets, specificatioo.s, naming protocols, diagrams, and
26
user identification and password rosters).
27
t/t
28
as
well
as documents and tangibls tÉings,
potentially relevant to the facts and issues pled in
digikl
frlther demanded that
1
FIRST CAUSE OF.A,CTION
2
Trade Libel
3
(á.gainst AII Defendnnts)
4
6.
Plaintiffincorporates by reference allegations contained in paragraphs l_5.
5
7.
On one or more occasioltso Defendants and Does 1-5 published, conrmunicated-
6
caused to be published, caused to be conrmunicated antVor caused to be maintained nnd/or continues
7
to publish to other Persons! statemonts in writing including, "When dealing or conducting business
I
with
9
pleuse exercise CAUTION
tr¿h'
Albert Ahdoot dba colocation A¡reric4 lrrc...and his re]ated businesses o¡ d¿ta centers,
AND ÇARE
as
Mr. A-trcloot is not arnan of his.word..,, said statement
10
was cornmunicatecl in a coDtext that falsely referenced Plaintiffs as cleoeitful and meaning ând
11
referenÖe to Plaintiffs was unde¡stood. by those ¡eceiving said statenrent to mean and refer
n
Plaintiffs.
8'
13
t4
I' 10' 11' 12'
Said statements impute dishonesly, ûaud" and a failure to effectively couunruricate the
The statement of Defendants' as set for the herein were and a¡e false. The statenrents
Said statements constitute ttade libel per se- Such statements as madc by the
Defendants imputes to the
13'
23
24
The statements of Defenclants disparaged Plaintiffs business in th¿t the Defendants,
were made to inoite disruption.
2L
22
and was so understood by flrose who read such statements-
Èutlr to others and have jeopardized the business of plaintiffs.
T9
20
Plaíntifl
stafements falsely indicated that Plaintiffwas does not honor business conhacts.
r7 18
The Defendants' slatements wet'e made of and ooncerníng the business of the plaintiff.
the quality of the business of the
15
16
to
Plaíúiffs clíshonesty and fraudulent conduct.
Tho staternents made by Defendants have causcd persons to whom such statemeuts
were made to deter from doing business with plaintiff.
74'
25
As a proxirnate result of the Defendants' publication as set forth herein, plainriff has
26
been made to sufFer and is entitled to an awaïd
27
lil
28
t//
of damages according to pleading anrl proof.
t
SDCOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2
I¡tentlonal Interference with prospectlve Economic
3
(Against All Defendants)
4 5
6 7
15' 16.
Plaintifß incorporate by reference the allegatior:s contained in pæagraphs 1-9. There exists betweon Plaintiffs and its existing customers and prospective customers
the probability of fi.rhrre economic benefit and prospeotivo eoonomic relationship.
17,
Defe[dants, \¡/ith knowledge of srrch benefits undertook a¡.d continue to undertake
I
rvitlr intent and design to disrupt and interfere with Plaintiffls ecorromic benefits and prospective
9
economic relationships, aûd while doing so made inteirtional misrepresentations.
10 11
t2
18'
Defendants knew that. at the time of the representations, that customers and./or
prospective custorners would rely and aot upon those representations.
19-
Plaintiffs' beneÊts and prospective economic relationships wcr.e actually interfcrecl
l3
with and disrupted. Such interference and disruption were proximately caused by the wrongfirl
14
mislepresentation of Defendants as described.
15
20.
As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have lost benefit of
r6
business, goodwill and has otherwise been clamagecl, all in an amount accorcling to
t7
be offered at t¡ial.
1B
t9
21.
proo! which r,vill
The conduct of Defeudants was willful, oppressive, malicious and Êaudulent, suchÏ}at
Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount aeoording to proof.
20
2l
THIRD CAUSE OÌ'ACTION
22
Negligent rnterference with Pro
23
sp
ectlve Economic Advanta ge
(Against AII Defendants)
24
22.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs t-9.
25
23.
Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs, in that:
26
(a)
27 28
The actiorrs of defendant were specifically intended to affect the prospective economiçs and good
(b)
will of Plaíntiffs;
Harm to Plaintiffs was higÍJy foreseeable as a result of Defendants' conduct; -4-
COMPLAJNT
I
(c)
2
There was e high degree of oertainty that Plaintiffs would suffcr damage to its business and good
(d)
^J
4
will;
The nexus between the conduct of Defþnd¿nts a¡d the d.amage from suflered
by Plaintiffs is clear';
(e)
5
6
The conduct of Defendants, and each ofthem, was and is morally Ìepugruut; and
(Ð
7
The policy of preventing future hartr1
will
be substantially firtfrcrcd by holding
I
Defenda¡rfs accountable for their conduct in disnrpting arrd.interfering with the
9
business relationship betiveen Plaintiffs arrd oustomers øld prospecfive
10 11
L2 T3
customers.
24.
Defendant negligently undertook wr.ongfrrl by commnnicating misrepresentations as
described above which wordd disrupt and interfcre with Plaintiffs ecoromic relationships.
25.
As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, the economic
t4
relationship between Plaintiffls a¡rd its members was actually interfcred with ancl disrupted, thereby
t5
damaging Plaiffiffls.
r6
26.
I7
As aproximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have lost goodwill and
has othcrwise been darnaged, all
in an amount according to proof, which will be offored at trial.
1B
T9
20
WHEREFORE, Ptaintiff prays for judgurent as follows:
(A)
2l 1n
$25,000;
(B)
23
24
compensatory dam¿ues according to proof at trial, ancl not less than
Punitive darnages according to ¡rroof at rial on the second cause of Actíon, not less than $25,000;
(c)
PJaintiff may have no adequate remedy of raw to protect its interests
25
and business, which may sustain great and irreparable injury, and may
26
require multiplicity of sepalate actiöns, unless Defendants are restrained
27
by way of Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injrrnction;
28
1
(D)
Costs and other just relief.
2 3
Respectñrlly submitted,
4 5
6 7 B
9 10 11
12 13
t4 15 T6
17 1B
T9
20 2T
22 L3
24 25
26 27 28
DATED: October 27.2010
I
t
VERIFICATiON
I
arn an officer
of Colocation A¡lenìca, hc.,
a parly to this
action- I have read the foregoing
3
complaint and know the contents thercof. The complaint is tue of my own knowledge, except
4
those mafieß stated ou i¡fonrration and belíef, as to those rnatters I believe it to be true,
5
6
I
is true and correct and that this decla¡ation was exeçuted on August
--,
2010 at Beverly Hills,
I 9
l0 72 73
14 15
L6
t7 18
19
20
2l 22 23
24 25 26 27 28
to
deolare uuder penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the for.egoing
7 California.
11
as
Albert Ahdoot an Officer of Colocation America Inc.
