3 u 1s 16 u a8 I Vito Torchia, Jr. (SBN.244687) Deron Colby (SBN 196686) Aalok Sikarid (SBN 248165) BROOKSTONE LAW, PC 4000 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1110 ‘Newport Beach, California 92660 ‘Telephone: (800) 946-8655 Facsimile: (888) 801-6274 Attorneys for Plaintiff BROOKSTONE LAW, PC ED NERS CENTRAL UST MAR 2 > 200 AS CARLSON, Clark othe Cour ay ___BLEA___oepury SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER BROOKSTONE LAW, a California professional law corporation, Plaintiff, vs. ATTORNEY PROCESSING CENTER, an entity of unknown form; GARY L DIGIROLAMO, an individual; CHRIS YANELLI, an individual; JANICE OTOUPALIK, an individual; BILL STEPHENSON, an individual; ROBERT GOODRICH, an individual; NANCY TORRES, an individual; JENNIFER TORRE! individu individu }ETTY BETTANOWE, an LAURI GERALD, an individual; and DOE! through 100, inclusive, Defendants. an individual; DIANE ALFARO, an RACHEL WEBB, an individual; ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) a ) ) Si) ) ) } ‘! ) ) a 5 ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT Case No.t COMPLAINT FOR: 1 20-9144 00461745 Assigned to the Honorable: JODS! LUISA. ROD CG UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS & PROF. CODE $17200; INTENTIONAL INTERFERANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS; NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS; INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE. WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC FALSE LIGHT, [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] |COMES NOW Plaintiff BROOKSTONE LAW, PC, in filing a complaint against Defendants ATTORNEY PROCESSING CENTER, an entity of unknown form; GARY L. 3 || DIGIROLAMO, an individual; CHRIS YANELLI, an individual; JANICE OTOUPALIK, an « |] individuals BILL STEPHENSON, an individual; ROBERT GOODRICH, an individual; 5 || NANCY TORRES, an individual; JENNIFER TORRES, an individual; DIANE ALFARO, an ¢ |j individual; BETTY BETTANOWE, an individual; RACHEL WEBB, an individual; LAURI + || GERALD, an individual; and DOES | through 100, inclusive (sometimes collectively referred to # ||as “Defendants”), and each of them, and for causes of action allege the following: 10 ‘THE PARTIES uD 1. During all times relevant herein, Plaintiff BROOKSTONE LAW, PC } (“BROOKSTONE” or sometimes “Plaintiff”) was, and still is, a California professional law corporation with its principal place of business located in Newport Beach, California, 2. During all times relevant herein, Defendant ATTORNEY PROCESSING 5 | CENTER (APC), was, and stil is, » California based company with its principal place of | | business located in Santa Ana, California 3, During all times relevant herein, Defendant GARY L. DIGIROLAMO a9 || (DIGROLAMO”) is an individual over the age of eighteen who was, and stil is, doing business in the County of Orange, State of California, 20 4. During all times relevant herein, Defendant CHRIS YANELLI (“YANELLT) is. | an individual over the age of eighteen who was, and still is, doing business in the County of 22 || Orange, State of California. i 5. During all times relevant herein, Defendant JANICE OTOUPALIK. || COTOUPALIK”) is an individual over the age of eighteen who was, and still is, doing business the County of Orange, State of California. H 6. During all times relevant herein, Defendant BILL STEPHENSON 27 || STEPHENSON”) is an individual over the age of eighteen who was, and still is, doing 29 || business in the County of Orange, State of California. compat19 20 aa 22 7. During all times relevant herein, Defendant ROBERT GOODRICH (“GOODRICH”) is an individual over the age of eighteen who was, and still is, doing business in| the County of Orange, State of California. 8. During all times relevant herein, Defendant NANCY TORRES (“NTORRES”) is an individual over the age of eighteen who was, and still is, doing business in the County of Orange, State of California 9. During all times relevant herein, Defendant JENNIFER TORRES (“JTORRES”) is an individual over the age of eighteen who was, and still is, doing business in the County of Orange, State of California, 10. During all times relevant herein, Defendant DIANE ALFARO (“ALFARO”) is an| individual over the age of eighteen who was, and stil is, doing business in the County of Orange, State of California. 11, During all times relevant herein, Defendant BETTY BETTANOWE (“BETTANOWE”) is an individual over the age of eighteen who was, and still is, doing business in the County of Orange, State of California, 12. During all times relevant herein, Defendant RACHEL WEBB (“WEBB”) is an individual over the age of eighteen who was, and still i, doing business in the County of Orange, State of California, 13. During all times relevant herein, Defendant LAURI GERALD (“GERALD”) is an| individual over the age of eighteen who was, and still is, doing business in the County of Orange] State of California, 14, OTOUPALIK, STEPHENSON, GOODRICH, NTORRES, JTORRES, ALFARO, BETTANOWE, WEBB and GERALD shall collectively be referred to herein as the “EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS”. 15, Plaintiff is not aware of the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of DOES | through 100, inclusive, or any of them, and will ask leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to substitute the names and capacities of said DOE COMPLAINT1. || defendants prior to the time of trial. Plaintiff alleges that each of the herein designated DOE defendants was and is liable to Plaintiff with respect to the matters herein alleged. 16. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that the tortuous acts forming the basis of the actions herein were performed in the County of Orange, California, and within the judicial district in which these actions are brought. 6 17. Plaintiffis informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all material | times Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees, partners, joint venturers, co- | conspirators, owners, principals and employees of the remaining Defendants and each of them ¢ | and are, and ar all times herein mentioned were, acting within the scope of that agency, || employment, partnership, conspiracy, ownership or joint venture. a 18, Plaintiff's further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the acts 12 ||and conduct alleged herein were known to, authorized, directed and/or ratified by, the officers, 43 | directors and managing agents of Defendants’ corporations or business entities, and each of ag ||them. 19. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the APC is a mere sham and shell entity, organized and operated as the alter ego of DIGIROLAMO x7 ||and YANELLI as well as of one or more of the yet undefined individual DOE defendants and for a || their personal benefit and advantage, in that DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI have, at all relevant 1g ||times, exercised total dominion and control over APC. | | 20. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that there now 20 | | 21 || exists, and at all times material hereto has existed, such unity of ownership, interest and control 22 || between APC on the one hand and DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI on the other hand such that | 23 | any individuality or separateness which may have existed between them has ceased. An injusti 24 || will result if APC is not disregarded and DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI are not held liable for 2s || the claims against APC. 7 21. Plaintiffs informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the officers, directors and/or managing agents of APC authorized, directed and/or ratified the wrongful acts of the employees and representatives of APC and Defendants. couptarne1 [ENT OF FACTS 2 22. Defendant APC was formed by DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI. Plaintifis also 3 |} be ve that APC was formed for the sole purpose of “feeding” various law firms clients 4 | interested in what is now commonly referred to as “Mass Joindes” litigation. Plaintiff does not believe that APC is a law firm or is properly licensed andor registered to provide marketing and ¢ |{client generation for law firms. 7 23, Plaintiff believes that at some point APC, run and controlled by DIGIROLAMO « ||and YANELLL, decided that BROOKSTONE was too much competition for the law firms that 5 || APC was “feeding”. They also decided that there simply was too much “bad press” about law firms that APC was feeding. To combat the bad press about law firms APC was feeding and in ‘an effort to destroy BROOKSTONE's reputation, APC, through DIGIROLAMO and YANELLT ‘set about organizing a campaign to interfere with BROOKSTONE’S business by concocting a “smear campaign”. 7 24, Specifically, on or about March 9, 2011, DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI held an 150, 15 }}“Thate Brookstone” meeting at APC 16 || Irvine, CA. At this meeting, DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI instructed the EMPLOYEE, ffices located 18012 Sky Park Circle, Su DEFENDANTS that they were to begin posting negative reviews of BROOKSTONE on the ie || Internet in an obvious attempt to “smear” BROOKSTONE’S name. 1s 25. DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI also told the EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS that 20 || APC would pay the EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS to post bad reviews on BROOKSTONE and 1 || would also pay fiends and family of the EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS to post positive reviews 22 |Jor the taw firms that APC was feeding, a 26. ‘The idea was that the fake positive reviews on APC’s partner law firms would 24 || replace the authentic negative reviews on those law firms and, in tum, the fake negative BROOKSTONE reviews would replace the authentic positive BROOKSTONE reviews. 2 27, DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI specifically instructed the EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS to use their home computers to post the fake reviews, not their work computers, ‘9 || im an effort to further disguise their scheme. COMPLAINTa 22 23 24 25 26 an 28 28. Starting on or about March 10, 2011, and continuing to the present, Defendants, their friends and family posted a number of the fake posts about BROOKSTONE. In these posts, Defendants and their agents pretend to be either clients or employees of BROOKSTONE. 29, Onor about March 10, 2011, DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI conspired to create ‘and publish a fake post on the Better Business Bureau’s website whereby YANELLI pretended to be a former elient and a self-described “victim” of a firm named United Law Group (“ULG"), law firm with a troubled past, YANELLI’s intent was to link ULG with BROOKSTONE. Based on information and belief, YANELLI’s post had the intended effect in that several readers believed that ULG was the same as BROOKSTONE. 30. Onorabout March 10, 2011, YANELLI was observed creating a fake review and warning on BROOKSTONE’s TrustLink page! (which is part of the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) website) wherein YANELLI posed as a potential client of BROOKSTONE named “Steve R” 31. ‘The fake YANELLI post was then published on the BBB website. He then reposted and republished the same post on several other consumer advocacy websites’, The fake post reads as follows: “{ have been struggling for the last couple of years to keep my home, I catch up and fal! behind again on my mortgage and the economy is just not getting better for me. Ihave tried everything, to no avail. I started trying to work with ‘my lender (WAMU now Chase) back in 2008, [attempted to work with chase ‘and grew frustrated that after one year of sending and resending paperwork ‘and them losing they denied my modification, I was in the exact same position as when I first contacted them. Afterall the frustration of trying to ‘work with them, I thought I had found the answer when I came aeross United Law Group. Anthony was very helpful at first and told me that they could help me. He took my information over the phone and "Qualified " me for a Joan modification, He told me that I qualified, but after my experience with ‘Chase on me to work with them I was skeptical at best. Anthony re-assured iQue to Plaintit® challenging this posting, the BBB has terporarily removed the post pending further investigation Das of the filing of thig Complaint the Court can find YANELLI‘s blog as “victim of Brookstone Law ~ ULG Fraud” at http://w .complaintsboard.con/complasnts/brookstone—lav-c428450. html, and as Bonn Davis” at http://brookstone=Lan.pissedconsumer. con/ scambrookstone-Law— vito-torchia-and-damian-kutzner-20110226223843. html coupcarwr10 1 12 a pay 23 24 25 26 a 28 me and told me that the difference between "ULG" and others was that they were going to file a class action lawsuit against my lender and use that as leverage to modify my loan. HE SOLD ME, I paid my fee and that is when the nightmare started, after morths of no return calls or emails I finally got ahold of someone. By this point i was looking for a refund, they told me that the reason I did not get a modification was that I had too much credit card debt and needed to enroll in "Debt Settlement’, since i was mad at their lack of customer service, to "make it up to me” they would give me a discount on that service, that they lso provided, told me that they had addressed their issues and "moving forward" they would not happen again. ! GOT SOLD AGAIN! A few months later Fcalled to get an update, their phones were no longer working, panicking i went on line and found out that they had been raided by the FTC, FBI, the BAR, I found out that the major reason they got shut down is that they promised thousands of people (myself included) that they would sue my bank and NEVER FILED ONE CASE. needless to say 1 am still in the same situation except I am out thousands of dollars and i am still struggling to make my mortgage payment. I am still trying to save my house, that is when i heard about Brookstone Law and that they were suing the banks. 1 contacted Brookstove and imagine my surprise when I the phone on the other end was familiar to me, It was Anthony! the same person from ‘ULG who i had first spoken to a year and a half eartier and never returned my call while he was at ULG. | did a search of Brookstone Law and found out that it is the SAME PEOPLE AS ULG, THE SAME ATTORNEY (The one that did not get disbarred) and the same person orchestrating a new SCAM , mastermind behind ULG. I feel silly enough to have been fooled by them twice. 1 WILL NOT BE FOOLED AGIAN! BEWARE BEWARE BEWARE.” 32. YANELLI has repeatedly republished the fake post online in its entirety under various aliases including “John Davis.” 33. Onor about March 19, 2011, DIGIROLAMO and YANELLI yet again conspired to create a fake post this time pretending to be a current BROOKSTONE employee with “insider| info.” 34. — On or about March 20, 2011, YANELLI, in furtherance of his conspiracy with DIGIROLAMO to harm and defame Plaintiff's reputation and business, published the following fake post online as “Current employee at Brookstone Law Wrinsider info!:” “qt is all true!! I work at Brookstone Law and | am planning to leave soon! The entite mn there is very shady. When you get a phone call from them they make it sound as if they are some sort of official coMBLATTgroup that will lead a "joinder / class action case" against the banks \ ‘They never tell you how much it will cost you to join until they have 2 worked your emotions. The employees are also trained and hired based off of playing the emotions of the people they call / olients. It is true that Vito is the puppet of Kutzner and Kutzner is operating the ‘ business. This place is making lots of money and they make it sound : as if it is a sure thing with the way they will go after the banks. Even when you get hired there as an employee they lie to you. I would not pay these people to do legal work, especially if they lie to there (sic) 7 ‘own employees then they will lie and deceive (sic) there (sic) clients. To be honest there are plenty other law firms out there and Brookstone should be the last resort or not an option at all. Like I said there are ° plenty of other lawyers out there. They also work their employees 10- 12 hours a day 6 days a week. They get away with it by contracting their employees as "indepenant (sic) contractors" and they pay their u employees through a "so called temp agency” from a corp. in Nevada. These people are barley legal and I hope that they get what they deserve. They play with the emotions of employees and their clients. ‘Vito Torchia’s rebuttal (sic) against the original report is laughable and “4 just part of the smoke and mirrors!!! This place should be investigated further!!!!!! You all will hear more from me T will be quiting (sie) this next pay period.” 35. Defendants, all of whom also work for a law firm called Mass Litigation Alliance, located at 18012 Sky Park Circle in Irvine, the same address as APC, use the fake postings as marketing material. Specifically, Defendants send the fake postings to current and potential 19 |) clients of those firms that APC feeds as well as current and potential BROOKSTONE clients. oe 36. Onor about March 24, 2011, GOODRICH sent an email to a BROOKSTONE 22 || ctient with a link to one of the many online defamatory posts created by Defendants. A true and 22 || correct copy of said email is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” a 37. As shown in Exhibit “A,” GOODRICH, among other Defendants, uses a fake 24 1 BBB logo showing a rating of “A¥” when in fact Mass Litigation Alliance has a BBB rating of 25 l]yR,” meaning that the company is “Not Rated.” | 2s || 5 hap www Jobb one/B usingss-ReporyMassLitigation-Allianee-100103596 coMpLAzIY38. Based on information and belief, the email evidenced in Exhibit “A” is used rogularly and as a matter of business practice by Defendants, including defendants to be named later as DOE defendants. 39, Asof the date of the filing of this Compliant, based on information and belief, all Defendants continue to create anonymous online identities and publish and republish false defamatory statements, on consumer advocacy websites, regarding BROOKSTONE and its attorneys and staff and will continue to do so until this Court intervenes, 40, These posts along with numerous others have been seen and read by a vast array of persons on the internet, the sum of which cannot be calculated with absolute precision due to the nature of the Intemnet. The posts were read by numerous current and potential clients of BROOKSTONE. The posts continue unabated. 41. ‘These eetions of DIGIROLAMO are in furtherance of his eriminal background. DIGIROLAMO has a long and troubled history of breaking the law. DIGIROLAMO was sentenced to 5 years in prison following his conviction on 27 counts of securities fraud, 8 counts of wire fraud, and 14 counts of mail fraud.* 42, DIGIROLAMO has been “on the lam” since 1993 running from authorities and moving from stite to state in order to avoid a judgment against him for over one million one |) hundred dottars ($1,100,000), stemming fiom a trial in Ohio in 1993.° 43, Asa proximate result of the above-described actions, BROOKSTONE has suffered damage to its reputation, and irreparable harm to its business, reputation and good | name. The above-described publications were not privileged because they were published by Defendants with malice, hatred and ill will toward BROOKSTONE and with the desire to injure BROOKSTONE’s goodwill and name. Defendants’ intent was clear: Destroy BROOKSTONE’s name and reputation. * sownsee goviensidiges’1979/dig011179.pa + htpsfnwy. fearollaw.com/articles/atcle9134.hmL1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of 3 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200--Against All Defendants as well as DOES 1-10) 4 44. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as thought fully « |] set forth hereafter. 6 45, Defendants intentional, wrongful and unlawful dissemination of misleading, false, + || defamatory and untrue information with regard to BROOKSTONE, its employees, attorneys, and] ¢ || the manner in which BROOKSTONE conducts its business constitutes unfair and unlawful «¢ || business practices in violation of, among other things, California Business and Professions Code x0 |] §17200. a 46. Defendants’ unfuir, unlawful and fraudulent acts and practices present a a2 ||eontinuing threat to BROOKSTONE and to members of the public in that these acts and 13 |] practices are ongoing, harmful and disruptive. Specifically, the posting of false positive 14 |] information about the business practices and reputation of firms fed by APC deceives and is || misleads the public regarding APC’s business practices and reputation and those firms that APC 1¢ |] feeds. The posting of false negative information about BROOKSTONE's business practices and 17 || reputation likewise deceives and misleads the public regarding BROOKSTONE’s: business practices and reputation, Defendants’ posting of the false and defamatory statements has had, 19 || and will continue to have, a damaging effect on BROOKSTONE’s reputation and ability to do zo || business. Further, such conduct has eroded and will continue to erode confidence in BROOKSTONE’s ability to do business, as well as adversely affect the confidence of both current and future BROOKSTONE clients. 2 47. Asadirect and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and practices, BROOKSTONE has suffered damages. BROOKSTONE is also entitled to aworneys' fees. 5 48. California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) permits civil recovery and injunctive relief for “any unlawful unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” including if a practice or act violates or is considered unlawful under any other state, federal or foreign law. Defendants have violated the UCL by refusing to comply with California state laws.10 49. Accordingly, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §17200, BROOKSTONE requests the issuance of temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief) ‘enjoining Defendants, and each of them, and their agents, employees, officers, directors, and anyone else acting on Defendants’ behalf, from the following: 2 Publishing, posting, distributing and/or otherwise disseminating, whether directly, information about BROOKSTONE or any of or indirectly, any false and misleadi BROOKSTONE’s agents, employees, officers, directors and partners; and b. Causing or inducing, through the payment of money or otherwise, any other person to publish, post, distribute and/or otherwise disseminate, whether directly, or inditectly, ‘ny false and misleading information about BROOKSTONE or any of BROOKSTONE"s agents, ‘employees, officers, directors and partners. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Intentional interference with Contractual Relations— Against All Defendants as well as DOES 11-20) 50. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth hereafter. SL. BROOKSTONE operates law offices in Orange and Los Angeles County and services clients throughout the nation in various practice areas. BROOKSTONE’s economic relationships with its clients are continuing and renewable with a reasonable likelihood of future economic benefit to BROOKSTONE, but only at the clients’ discretion. BROOKSTONE is able to maintain its contractual relationships by providing quality legal services and by maintaining a favorable reputation within the legal community, 52. | BROOKSTONE is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have knowledge of the contractual relationships between BROOKSTONE and its clients. As set forth above, Defendants’ intentional acts were designed to interfere with, erode and ultimately destroy certain contractual relationships between BROOKSTONE and its clients.1 53, Asa result of Defendants’ ongoing scheme to post false and misleading information, Defendants have caused interference with or disruption of the regular business 3 || operations of BROOKSTONE, including BROOKSTONE’s contractual relationships, and its 4 [ability to do business, 5 3. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional interference with « || BROOKSTONE’s contractual relationships, BROOKSTONE has been injured in an amount to > || be determined according to proof at trial, but which exceeds the jurisdictional requirements of is Court. 4 55, Defendants’ acts alleged above were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive ao ||and therefore justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages. 2 ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIO? B (For Negligent Interference with Contractual | 7 Relations—Against All Defendants as well as DOES 21-30) | sil 56. Plains reallege and incorporate by this reference all of the preceding | a6 || paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth hereafter. 7 57. BROOKSTONE operates law offices in Orange and Los Angeles County and ‘1g || Services clients throughout the nation in various practice areas, BROOKSTONE’s economic 49 || relationships with its clients are continuing and renewable with a reasonable likelihood of future | 29 || economic benefit to BROOKSTONE, but only at the clients’ discretion. BROOKSTONE is able 41 || to maintain its contractual relationships by providing quality legal services and by maintaining a 22 || favorable reputation within the legal community. 23 | 58 BROOKSTONE is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants aq | have knowledge of the contractual relationships between BROOKSTONE and its clients. As set 45 || forth above, Defendants’ negligent acts had the effect of interfering with, eroding and ultimately destroying certain contractual relationships between BROOKSTONE and its clients. 59, Asaresult of Defendants’ ongoing scheme to post false and misleading information, Defendants have caused interference with or disruption of the regular business compLATNToperations of BROOKSTONE, including BROOKSTONE’s contractual relationships, and its ability t0 do business. 60. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional interference with /BROOKSTONE’s contractual relationships, BROOKSTONE has been injured in an amount t0 be determined according to proof at trial, but which exceeds the jurisdictional requirements of this Court. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage— Against All Defendants as well as DOES 31-40) 61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth hereafier. 62. BROOKSTONE’s business involves negotiating and entering into certain legal service agreements in order to provide legal services. BROOKSTONE’s client relationships and agreements are developed in order to further their business activities. 63. Defendants knew of BROOKSTONE's relationships and a; i ements as | Defendants are in a similar business. In fact, BROOKSTONE believes that Defendants have | access to some or all of BROOKSTONE’s business information, 64. During all relevant times herein, Defendants have communicated, either directly or indirectly, with customers, clients, service providers and business associates of BROOKSTONE and falsely represented the nature of BROOKSTONE’s business. Defendants, have also made and continue to make untrue and derogatory statements, both oral and written, about BROOKSTONE with the specific intent of harming BROOKSTONE financially and t0 induce BROOKSTONB’s business associates, clients, customers and service providers to sever their relationship with BROOKSTONE. Defendants have also made similar statements to ents of BROOKSTONE which were intended to, and indeed || potential business partners and isrupt and interfere with BROOKSTONE’s business relationships with those individuals couPLALNT1 65. As aresult of Defendants’ intentional acts and wrongful conduct, certain service 2 || providers, clients and others have terminated and/or otherwise reduced their relationships with BROOKSTONE and refused to conduct business with BROOKSTONE. ofl 66, Asaproximate result of Defendants’ conduct and the resulting termination of | relationships by certain service providers, clients, customers and potential business partners, BROOKSTONE has been injured in an amount according to proof at tral, but at least in excess » || of jurisdictional requirements of this Cour. al 67. Defendants’ acts alleged above were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, 9 land justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages. 10 | n | FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 | (For Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage— re Against All Defendants as well as DOES 41-50) u 68, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all of the preceding 1s || paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth hereafter. | as 69. BROOKSTONE’s business involves negotiating and entering into certain legal service agreements in order to provide legal services. BROOKSTONEs client relationships and | agreements are developed in order to further their business activities. 70, Defendants knew of BROOKSTONE’s relationships and agreements as Defendants are in a similar business. In fact, BROOKSTONE believes that Defendants have ‘21 || access to some or all of BROOKSTONE’s business information. : 71, During all relevant times herein, Defendants have communicated, either directly 23 || or indirectly, with customers, clients, service providers and business associates of BROOKSTONE and falsely represented the nature of BROOKSTONE’s business. Defendants | 25 ||have also made and continue to make untrue and derogatory statements, both oral and written, 2¢ || shout BROOKSTONE. Defendants’ negligent acts have had the effect of harming | BROOKSTONE financially in that as a direct result of Defendants’ negligent acts, certain of || BROOKSTONE’s business associates, clients, customers and service providers have either coMpLATITray 2 13 uw Pe as 19 22 23 24 25 severed their relationship with BROOKSTONE or refused to do business with BROOKSTONE. | Defendants have also made similar statements to poteatial business partners and clients of | BROOKSTONE which disrupted and interfered with BROOKSTONE’s business relationships with those individuals and entities. 72. Asaresult of Defendants’ negligent acts and wrongful conduct, certain service providers, clients and others have terminated and/or otherwise reduced their relationships with BROOKSTONE and refused to conduct business with BROOKSTONE. 73. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ negligent conduct and the resulting loss of relationships with certain service providers, clients, customers and potential business partners, BROOKSTONE has been injured in an amount according to proof at tril, but at least in excess of jurisdictional requirements of this Court. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Libel--Against All Defendants as well as DOES 61-70) Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth hereafter. 53. Defendants’ conduct described herein is intentional, ongoing and threatens to ineparably harm, and likely has already irreparably and permanently harmed, BROOKSTONE's reputation in the legal communi 54. Defendants’ posts relating to BROOKSTONE are malicious, false, defamatory and disparaging, These messages, authored and published by Defendants, were published on the Internet. 55. Defendants have actively and aggressively distributed false and defamatory information about BROOKSTONE to a countless number of individuals in and around the United States and abroad, including persons in the State of California, Defendants’ smear campaign is designed to destroy BROOKSTONE’s reputation and make BROOKSTONE the object of ridicule, contempt, hatred and attack, coweLaryr2 56. BROOKSTONE’s ability to generate business and service its clients depends on ® | its reputation inthe Tegal community, At various times, Defendants deliberately, and with actual | * || malice, disseminated false, defamatory and malicious statements about BROOKSTONE. 57. The specific stated or implied derogations pertaining to BROOKSTONE include: a, That BROOKSTONE is the same as “United Law Group”. b, The legal services offered by BROOKSTONE are a sham, with no actual possibility of success. ¢. BROOKSTONE and its atomeys are committing fraud, d. BROOKSTONE is a “seam”. e. BROOKSTONE “fools” people, f. BROOKSTONE has no regard for the welfare of its clients and potential clients. 59. The above-mentioned statements are false and were published and republished || maliciously with the specific intent to harm BROOKSTONE and to advance, protect and bolster activities of Defendants. Defendants, and each of them, and their officers, the commer directors and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified and 11 |/had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth herein, Defendants 1a ||knew, or reasonably should have known, that the statements were false when Defendants made 19 || the statements. 20 60. Asa proximate result of Defendants" conduct, BROOKSTONE has been injured | 21 |lin an amount according to proof at trial, but at least in excess of jurisdictional requirements of 22 this Court. 61. Defendants’ acts alleged above were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages. baad (False Light—Against All Defendants and DOES 71 through 80) compiarwt.| 62. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference al ofthe preceding 2 || paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully set forth hereafter. 3 63. As disseminators of false and defamatory information, as described herein 4 || Defendants published false information to the public that placed BROOKSTONE iin a false light s || The information was published without BROOKSTONE’s knowledge or consent. ‘ 64, The negative publicity created by Defendants is offensive and objectionable to 1 | BROOKSTONE and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that the Defendants « |} posted the statements with spite and ill-will and for the specific purpose of damaging » || BROOKSTONE’s reputation and standing in the legal community. 10 65. The statements were published with malice in that they were made either with 11 |} knowledge of falsity orin reckless disregard forthe trath, 2 66. Asaproximate result of Defendants’ conduct, BROOKSTONE has been injured 22 |[iman amount according to proof at trial, but at least in excess of jurisdictional requirements of 21 | | this Court 67. Defendants’ acts alleged above were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, 15 || and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages. 1 Plaintiff anticipates filing a First Amended Complaint to incorporate causes of action to 19 || include, among others, fraud, conversion and potential civil liability for “spoofing,” evidence of 20 || which will be uncovered through discovery, including depositions of all Defendants in this 23 |] matter. Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional causes of action after evidence of same 2 || shall have been ascertained. . WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and each of them for: os 1. A temporary restraining ord 26 2. A preliminary injunction; et 3. A permanent injunction; 28 4, Compensatory damages according to proof: COMPLAINT5. Punitive damages; 2 6. Costs of suit; 3 7. For interest on the above-requested general and special damages and at the ‘maximum legal rate as provided by law; | 8. Attorneys’ fees where allowed by statute; and 9. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper DATED: aren 2011 BROOKSTONE LAW, PC ao eron Colby, #torney Jor Plaintifi cf BROOKSTONELAW,C a u a 2 2a COMPLAINTEXHIBIT “A”Original Message~ From: Robert Goodrich (maiito:rgoodrich@mlalliancepe.com) Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 To: Subject: scam brookstone law vito torchia jr damian kutzner united law group sean rutledge robert buscho are a scam | Ripoff Report Directory | Scams, Frauds, Reviews And Complaints Company Directory | scam brookstone law vito torchia jr damian kutzner united law group sean rutledge robert buscho are a scam Approximately 1 Reports Found Showing 1-1 ‘Wondering if a report is missing? We DO NOT remove reports from our database. However, as the leading consumer advocacy website, our technology is being continually upgraded to handle the volume of searches from consumers, the media, the authorities and millions of others from around the world, While we are always in the process of upgrading, our search results may not return all reports, This is only temporary and intermittent. If you are an attorney helping victims, the media, of law-enforcement, please contact us to have us run a complete database search Ces a 1 Brookstone Law, Vito Torchig Jr. Damian Kutzner, United Law Group, Sean Rutledge 3/20/2011 Robert Buscho ate a SCAMII!I SCAMIIIJII! Newoort Beach, California 7:22AM Employee ..inside information...Current employee at Brookstone Law W/insider info! ‘HEE> —_—_ Author: Los Angeles California Loan Mosification : SCAMIIII Brookstone Law, Vito ‘Su Torchia Jr. Damian Kutzner, United Law Graup, Sean Rutledge, Robert Buscho are a SCAMIIN California Approximately 1 Reports Found ‘Showing 1-1 | Showing Page 1 of 1 Robert Goodrich Office (888) 938-5554 x3098 Direct (349) 313-3098 Fax (714)845-9017 Rgoodrich@mlalliancepc.com WWW. Mlalfiancene.com Au Mass Litigation Alliance (wrwvuta,bbb.ore/8