Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
THOMAS
B.
MOORE
III,
SB
#
11
5
1
7NICOLE
V.
ECONOMOUSB#154485
2 THE MOORE LAW TEAM
228 Hamilton Ave.
Third
Floor
3
PaIo
Alto,
CA94301
4
Telephone: (650)
798-5352
Facsimile No.:
(650)
798-5001
5
Attorneys
for
Plaintiff
6 R
CITY,INC.
7
C
ONFORNiED
copy
Ii'
ORIGINAL FILED
L~
Angeles
superior Court
JUl
.\
920\0
10M
A.
Clarke/prtrlive
Officer/Clerk
BY
MARY
O~
Deputy
89
SUPERIOR
COURT OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE
COUNTY
OF
LOS
ANGELES
10
11
12
13
1415
16
17
18
19
R
CITY, INC
•
a California
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOES
t
through
20,
inclusive,Defendants.
NO.
COMPLAINT FOR
CONVERSION,
POSSESSION
OF
PERSONALPROPERTY, THEFT. CONSPIRACY,INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCEWITH ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE.
.NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH
ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE. TRESPASS.
UNFAIR
COMPETITION
AND
NEGLIGENCEUNLIMITED JURISDICTION
20
PlaintiffR City,
Inc.
("R
City")
allege as follows:
21
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
22
1.
Plaintiff R City
is,
and
at
all
times
herein
mentioned was, a
CaJifomia
coiporation
23
operating
in
this
County. Until
July
3,
2010,
R
City
operated a wine bar called
"The
Must"
at
118
24
West
Sth
Street, Los
Angeles.
25
2.
Weeneez
LLC
C'·Weeneez")
is,
and
at
all
times herein
mention
was.
a
California
26 limited
Jiability
company
with its
principal
place
of
business
in
Los
Angeles. Weeneez' principals
27
are Sid
Carter
and
Julie
Rico
cnWeeneez'
Principals").
R City. Weeneez
and
Weeneez'
Principals
28 areengaged
in
binding arbitration
under
the
administration
andrules
of
he American Arbitration
·1
.
COMPLAINT FOR CONVERSION.
ETC.
 
1 Association. The matter has been assigned case number 72
115
E 00271 10. R City
is
informed2 and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the arbitration has jurisdiction over the matters set forth3 below with respect to Weeneez and its Principals, otherwise they would be named as defendants4 herein.5
3.
The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise
of
the6 defendants named herein as Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to R City at this time who,7 therefore, sues these defendants by such fictitious names. R City will further amend this complaint8 to state the true names and capacities
of
these unknown defendants when the same have been9 ascertained, together with further appropriate charges and allegations.
10
4.
R City is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each fictitiously
11
named defendant is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that R
12
City'S damages as herein alleged were directly and proximately caused by defendants' acts or
13
failures to act. Specifically, R City is informed and believes that Does 1 through 5 are currently in
14
possession
of
the Premises as one or more new tenants ("New-Tenant Does").
155.
R City is informed and believes and, on that basis alleges that at all times relevant
16
hereto, the defendants, and each
of
them, were acting within the scope
of
their authority on behalf
17
of
the other defendants and with the permission and consent
of
each
of
the other defendants and
18
further, that said defendants conspired with and aided and abetted each other in the commission
of
19
the acts set forth below.20
6.
The acts and omissions alleged below took place in this county, and the New-Tenant
21
Does have their principal place
of
business in this county.22
7.
RCity was incorporated in July 2008, and the founders started looking for a location
23
at which to operate a wine bar. They found a potential location at 118 West 5th Street in Los24 Angeles (the "Premises"). The main tenant
was,
Weeneez. Weeneez had more space than it could25 use, so it made sense for RCity to sublet a portion
of
the premises from it.
26
8.
R City gained its right
of
possession
of
the Premises by means
of
an idiosyncratic27"Agreement" which R City and Weeneez entered into on or about November
8,
2008. A copy
of
28
the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference. Under the
-2 -
COMPLAINT FOR CONVERSION. ETC.
 
terms
of
the Agreement, R City agreed to pay a "Monthly Working Capital Payment," i.e., rent,
of
2 $4,000 per month, to Weeneez for the Premises. The term
of
the Agreement was3 contemporaneous with the master lease agreement that Weeneez had entered into with the landlord,4 Security Building Loft Partners LP ("Security Building Loft Partners"). That master lease was not5 due to terminate until January 2012 and could be extended a further five years to January 2017.6
9.
Certain aspects
of
the Agreement were abundantly clear: First, the Agreement did7 not form any sort
of
partnership or other joint venture between Weeneez and R City. Section 13.138 expressly states: "The parties to this Agreement are independent contractors. There
is no
9 relationship
of
agency, partnership, joint venture, employment,
or
franchise between the parties.
10
Neither party has the authority to bind the other or to incur any obligation on behalf
of
the other."
11
Second, the Agreement specified that R City's personal property was unambiguously its property
12
and would remain so upon termination
of
the Agreement. Section 11.9
of
the Agreement states:
13
"Upon termination or expiration
of
this Agreement, [R City] may retain title to any furniture,
14
fixtures, and equipment that were acquired by
[R
City] during the term
of
this Agreement."
15
10.
In reliance on the Agreement and the lease term, R City began construction on
16
improvements
to
the premises in order to open its wine bar. It invested over $250,000
in
those
17
improvements, and RCily opened The Must
in
December 2008. It become a popular place in the
18
area.
19
11.
At
or
near the opening
of
The Must, R City orally notified Security Building Loft20 Partners that it was Weeneez' subtenant. R City secured the written consent
of
Security Building
21
Loft Partners via an exchange
of
emails dated June 26, 2009, by which Security Building Loft
22
Partners gained the benefit
of
being named as an additional insured on R City'S insurance policies.
23
Security Building Loft Partners also ratified R City's subtenancy in a variety
of
ways subsequent
to
24 that date. Security Building Loft Partners received a copy
of
the Agreement on or about November
25
10,2009.2612.Over the course
of
the R City's sublease, a variety
of
significant disputes emerged.27 RCity discovered, for example, that the rent that Weeneez was charging RCity was significantly28 more, on a percentage basis, than the amount
of
space that
Reity
was occupying. Weeneez also
-3 -
COMPLAINT FOR CONVERSION. ETC.
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more