1 Kristopher P.

Diulio SBN 229399

2
kdiulio@forddiulio.com
Brendan M. Ford SBN 224333
3 bford@forddiulio.com
4 FORD & DIULIO PC
650 Town Center Drive Suite 760
5 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
6 Phone: 714-714-450-6830

7 Attorneys for Gianfranco Interlandi

8
Thomas D. Sands, Esquire (Bar No. 270902)
9 thomas@thesandslawgroup.com
10 Thomas L Reynolds, Esquire (Bar No. 320275)
The Sands Law Group, APLC
11 205 S Broadway Ste 903,
12 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3618

13 Attorneys for Luigi Interlandi

14
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
16
SANTA MONICA DISTRICT – CIVIL DIVISION
17 CASE NO. 19SMCV01806
Gianfranco Interlandi; Luigi Interlandi,
18

19 Plaintiffs, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

20
v.
21

22
Lyle R. Mink; Lyle R. Mink, a Law
23 Corporation; DOES 1 through 10,
24 inclusive
Defendants.
25

26 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

27 Plaintiffs Gianfranco Interlandi; Luigi Interlandi does hereby allege as follows:
28

1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 1. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Gianfranco Interlandi is an Elder
2 (born in 1942) and resides in the County of Los Angeles.
3 2. Plaintiff Luigi Interlandi is a resident of the County of Los Angeles.
4 3. Defendant Lyle Mink is a resident of the County of Los Angeles and a
5 member of the State Bar of California (SBN 51162).
6 4. Defendant Lyle R. Mink, a Law Corporation, has as its sole shareholder,

7 Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Agent for Service of

8
Process as Lyle Richard Mink with the address of January 8, 2001, Century Park East,
Suite 2600, Los Angeles, CA 90067, bearing Secretary of State identifier number of
9
C3361795 Incorporated and registered with the Secretary of State of California on
10
February 24, 2011.
11
5. Though defendant Lyle Mink has been practicing law since 1972, Lyle R.
12
Mink, a Law Corporation, was formed in 2011 in the response and as a prophylactic
13
that had caused Mr. Mink to declare a personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011;
14
dishonest dealings with third parties leading to liabilities to which Mr. Mink could not
15
compensate for.
16 6. Lyle R. Mink, a Law Corporation, is an alter ego of Mr. Mink and serves
17 no other purposes than to facilitate illegal and fraudulent acts by Mr. Mink and
18 provide a thin only transparent layer of protection and has been instituted by Mr. Mink
19 solely as a means to escape liability for his own fraudulent and prohibited and illegal
20 conduct. Lyle R. Mink, a Law Corporation, does not abide by corporate formalities,
21 operates in a manner consistent with how a corporation should be generally conducted
22 and has no staff other than Mr. Mink himself.
23 7. Lyle R. Mink, a Law Corporation and Mr. Mink, are collectively referred
24 to as “Mr. Mink” hereafter.

25 8. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,

26
or otherwise, of Defendants Does 1 to 10, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to
Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names and Plaintiffs
27

28

2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 will ask leave of the court to amend this Complaint when the same shall be
2 ascertained.
3 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, based on such information and
4 belief allege that each Defendant designated herein as “DOE” was responsible,
5 negligent or in some other manner actionable, for the events referred to herein which
6 proximately caused injury to Plaintiff as herein otherwise alleged.

7 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that all times

8
herein mentioned, Defendants, DOES 1 to 10, inclusive were the agents, employees,
servants, consultants, principals, employers and / or masters of each of their co-
9
defendants.
10
11. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that each of
11
the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts,
12
omissions, or indebtedness herein alleged and that said Defendants are indebted to
13
Plaintiff as hereinafter set forth and that each defendant operated and acted with the
14
permission or consent of the other.
15

16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT

17
(AGAINST ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1-10)
12. Paragraphs 1 to 11 supra are incorporated herein by reference as though
18
fully set forth herein.
19
13. In early October 2018, a friend of both Mr. Gianfranco Interlandi and Mr.
20
Luigi Interlandi (“Interlandis” when referring to both, or Luigi or Gianfranco when
21
referring to each1) requested to borrow $100,000.00 from the Interlandis for payment
22
to his attorney for attorneys’ fees for him as a cross-complainant and his two co-
23
defendant companies. The friend of the Interlandis has been and is currently
24
embroiled in a very contentious legal matter that is very costly.
25
14. The Interlandis refused to lend the money as the friend was asking for a
26 sum that he could not adequately collateralize with proper security.
27

28 1
No disrespect is intended by the use of the first names of messieurs Interlandi. The
use of the first names is due to desire to avoid confusion.
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 15. A few days later, the same friend approached the Interlandis and offered
2 the following terms: he represented that he had invested hundreds of thousands of
3 dollars in attorneys’ fees already and he would not have done so if he did not harbor
4 the confidence and the conviction that he would prevail.
5 16. The Interlandis again refused to lend the money as the friend was asking
6 for a sum that he could not adequately collateralize with proper security.

7 17. A few days later, the same friend approached the Interlandis again and

8
asked to borrow the same $100K, but stated: “Your money will be safe. The financial
arrangement that I have reached with the new perspective lawyer, who is a seasoned
9
attorney, is that he is given $100,000.00. $50,000.00 of that money will remain as a
10
‘deposit’ in the lawyer’s trust account till conclusion of the case (if the case concluded
11
pretrial) and the other $50,0000 will remain in the lawyer’s trust account as a ‘deposit’
12
till conclusion of the case (if the case concluded only after a trial). At the happening of
13
either of these two events, the lawyer would charge the Interlandi friend $750 per hour
14
for every hour of work that he has done and then liquidate the properties that are
15
worth millions to satisfy what he is due and return the Interlandi money to them
16 directly and return the money of the Interlandis to them in full plus the interest that the
17 money earned.”
18 18. The absolute pre-requisite to any entitlement for any money of the
19 Interlandis for Mr. Mink being that Mr. Mink and his law firm would be the attorney
20 of record for both the friend and his companies at the time of a loss; whether before
21 trial or by a jury verdict and Mr. Mink or else Mr. Mink and his company would not
22 be entitled to any fees.
23 19. Interlandis’ friend assured that the only risk that they bore regarding the
24 money that was to be lent was in the event the opposing parties prevailed, that the

25 $100,000.00 would then be kept by the attorney and that the attorney would ask for no

26
more monies no matter how many hours he’d spent on the case (the absolute pre-
requisite to any entitlement for any money from the Interlandis being that Mr. Mink
27
and his law firm would be the attorney of record for both the friend and his
28

4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 companies at the time of a loss; whether before trial or by a jury verdict and if they
2 were not, then neither Mr. Mink or his company would be entitled to any money of
3 Interlandis).
4 20. The friend implored that he would not have engaged in such a
5 contentious and expensive litigation if he was not convinced that he will prevail. The
6 litigation is still. The friend shared with the Interlandis copies of the unchallenged Lis

7 Pends that he had filed against both the properties.

8
21. Luigi spoke with Mink on or about October 9, 2018, to verify that his
friends’ request as articulated in ¶13 supra was a legitimate “cannot do without” need
9
of his friend and that Luigi and Gianfranco money would be held by Mr. Mink as a
10
“deposit” in a trust account till the occurrences of the contingencies that were
11
specified by the friend of Mr. Interlandi described in ¶17 supra.
12
22. Mink replied to Luigi during the course of that conversation that the
13
representations of Interlandis friend (as said in ¶¶ 13, 17 supra) to the Interlandis were
14
“1000%” accurate.
15
23. It was also explained to the Interlandis that the matter was extremely
16 time-sensitive in nature as that it was said to Interlandis that the friends’ companies
17 would be defenseless once the former attorneys were no longer attorneys of record for
18 them as of October 11, 2018.
19 24. The friend paid Mr. Mink $2K.
20 25. On October 10, 2018, the Interlandis began giving Mr. Mink the first of
21 what would be a total of 6 checks totaling $98,000.00 that was to be put in a trust
22 account for them to only to be used if the case of the friend went to trial and that the
23 friend lost (the absolute pre-requisite to any entitlement for any money from the
24 Interlandis being that Mr. Mink and his law firm would be the attorney of record for

25 both the friend and his companies at the time of loss; whether before trial or by a jury

26
verdict)(Mr. Mink was to have returned the money of the Interlandis to them, plus
interest if he withdrew from representing the Interlandi friend). See Ex. A.
27

28

5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 26. On October 11, 2018, Mr. Mink began representing the friend of Mr.
2 Interlandi and his two companies as he’d promised to.
3 27. All checks of Mr. Interlandi were made payable to Mr. Mink. See Ex. A.
4 28. Beginning on the first day that he could, Mr. Mink breached the contract
5 between him on the one hand and the Interlandis on the other by depositing the initial
6 $8000 check in an account ending in 6304, which is not a trust account. See Ex. A.

7 page 1.

8
29. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th check was deposited into a trust account ending in
account number 0597; however, the last 2 checks were deposited into an account
9
ending in 0119 which is not a trust account. See Ex. A, page 2-6.
10
30. Furthermore, sometime soon after receiving the 1st installment of the
11
$98,000, Mr. Mink breached the contract by ceasing to represent the friend’s
12
corporation without ever informing the Interlandis or returning any money to the
13
Interlandis.
14
31. Less than 90-days after receiving the full $98,000 deposit, on August 13,
15
2019, Mr. Mink and Luigi spoke at the courthouse. The trial was at that time to occur
16 on Oct 22, 2019, and Mr. Mink told Mr. Interlandi that “I will see this case to its
17 winning end.” Then Mr. Mink quoted from the movie “A Few Good Men” and
18 impersonated Jack Nicholson for Luigi saying “You want me on that wall”; “You
19 need me on that wall.”
20 32. On August 14, 2019, Mr. Mink quit the case. Defendants Mink were by
21 their promise and agreement with the Interlandis to have returned the $98,000.00 plus
22 all interest to the Interlandis on the date of withdrawal but they did not and as of this
23 writing have not.
24 33. The friend asked the Interlandi for more money as he was now faced with

25 an inevitable trial that had been represented would not be a necessity due to the

26
flagrant discovery violations by the opponents of Mr. Moda. The discovery
violations were said to mandate terminating sanctions being entered against the
27
opponents in the litigation (concern regarding winning or losing pretrial was the
28

6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 reason why the $100,000 deposit was split into two separate items; if Moda lost pre-
2 trial, Mr. Mink would be entitled to only $50K, and the Interlandis would get $50K
3 back)(if Mr. Moda lost at trial the Interlandis would not get back any of their
4 deposit)(if Mr. Moda won at either stage, the Interlandis would get their full $98K
5 back and Mr. Mink operating at $750 per hour would liquidate the assets of Mr.
6 Moda’s opponents for his recovery) (the absolute pre-requisite to any entitlement for

7 any money from the Interlandis being that Mr. Mink and his law firm would be the

8
attorney of record for both Moda and his companies at the time of loss; whether
before trial or by a jury verdict). Mink knew that he had to return the Interlandi
9
money to them if he withdrew from the representation of Interlandi Friend. Yet Mink
10
withdrew but didn’t return any of the funds to the Interlandis.
11
34. The Interlandis complied with every term of the agreement that they had
12
with Mr. Mink and performed as promised.
13
35. Mr. Mink never returned the Interlandis $98,000.
14
36. As a result of Mr. Mink’s conduct, the Interlandis have been damaged in
15
the amount of no less than $98,000.
16 37. Wherefore, the Interlandis pray for damages as follows.
17
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD
18
(AGAINST ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1-10)
19

20 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37, supra are incorporated herein by reference as

21
though fully set forth herein.
39. Mr. Mink and his law corporation defrauded the Interlandis in the
22
amount of $98,000.00 (Gianfranco Interlandi lost his $25,000.00 and interest and
23
Luigi Interlandi was swindled out of $73,000.00 and interest).
24
40. In derogation of the representations that were affirmatively and
25
expressly and orally made by Mr. Mink to Luigi that Gianfranco also relied on, Mr.
26
Mink took the Interlandis money, and instead of depositing that money in his trust
27
account and keeping it safe for the Interlandis, Mink spent the money instead.
28
41. In derogation of the representations that were affirmatively and expressly
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 and orally made by Mr. Mink to Luigi that Gianfranco also relied on, Mr. Mink was
2 going to represent the Interlandi friend and his corporations throughout the litigation
3 until the conclusion of the matter, Mr. Mink stopped representing the corporations
4 nearly simultaneously with the initial deposit on October 10, 2018.
5 42. Mr. Mink never told the Interlandis that he was not representing the
6 corporations. Had the Interlandis known that Mr. Mink was not going to represent the

7 corporations, they would have immediately asked for at least 2/3 of their deposit back

8
immediately as there were only 3-entities (the friend and two of his corporations) that
Mink was to have represented.
9
43. Mr. Mink was duty-bound to tell the Interlandis that he was not
10
representing the corporations, but in derogation of that duty, he fraudulently did not
11
and yet continued to unlawfully accept monies from the Interlandis.
12
44. Before ever winning or losing, either at trial or pre-trial, the friend’s’
13
case, Mr. Mink quit the case and did not return any of the Interlandi money to them
14
even though that is what they had been promised by Mr. Mink orally on his own, and
15
his companies behalf as an inducement that the Interlandis had reasonably relied on in
16 entrusting Mr. Mink was $98,000 of their money.
17 45. Instead of keeping the $98,000.00 secluded in a trust account and safe for
18 the Interlandis, Mr. Mink, in August 2019, declared that he had spent the money and
19 had none of it left.
20 46. On September 18, 2019, Mr. Mink filed formal motions to be relieved in
21 the entirety from representations of everyone in the friend’s case.
22 47. Mr. Mink knew that the representations that he was expressly making to
23 Luigi in inducing the Interlandis to deposit money with him were false when he made
24 them in October 2018, and Mr. Mink knew that Mr. Luigi Interlandi would tell Mr.

25 Gianfranco Interlandi what had been said to him.

26
48. Mr. Mink made the representations with the intent to defraud and induce
the Interlandis to act as described above.
27

28

8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 49. At the time that the Interlandis were giving Mr. Mink money, the
2 Interlandis did not know that the representations that Mr. Mink had expressly made to
3 them were false, and instead, the Interlandis believed that the representations that Mr.
4 Mink had made that none of the $98,000 would ever be utilized unless the friend lost
5 the case in the entirety were true. Concern regarding winning or losing pretrial was
6 the reason why the $100,000 deposit was split into two separate items; if Moda lost

7 pre-trial, Mr. Mink would be entitled to only $50K, and the Interlandis would get

8
$50K back (if Mr. Moda lost at trial the Interlandis would not get back any of their
deposit)(if Mr. Moda won at either stage, the Interlandis would get their full $98K
9
back and Mr. Mink operating at $750 per hour would liquidate the assets of Mr.
10
Moda’s opponents for his recovery) (the absolute pre-requisite to any entitlement for
11
any money from the Interlandis being that Mr. Mink and his law firm would be the
12
attorney of record for both Moda and his companies at the time of loss; whether
13
before trial or by a jury verdict).
14
50. The Interlandis acted in justifiable reliance upon the truth of the
15
representations made expressly by Mr. Mink on his own behalf and on behalf of his
16 corporation orally to Luigi on October 9, 2018, and that reliance continued to August
17 13, 2019.
18 51. Mr. Mink and his corporation, concealed and suppressed the fact that
19 Mink was not keeping the monies of the Interlandis in a trust account, and Mink never
20 told the Interlandis that Mink was spending their money, and Mink did this to mislead
21 the Interlandis and to prevent them from discovering the truth of the suppressed facts.
22 52. Because of the misrepresentations of Mr. Mink to the Interlandis and in
23 justifiable reliance upon Mr. Mink’s express words and conduct, the Interlandis gave
24 Mr. Mink $98,000 to hold in trust. Mr. Mink did not hold the money in trust and

25 instead spent the money of the Interlandis in the entirety without having any legal

26
right to.
53. Mr. Mink must be subject to exemplary and punitive damages (Civ Code
27
§3294) as a result of the breach of his fiduciary duties owed to the Interlandis and
28

9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 because of his fraud on them.
2 54. Wherefore, the Interlandis pray for judgment as follows hereunder.
3
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION
4
(AGAINST ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1-10)
5
55. Paragraphs 1 through 54, supra are incorporated herein by reference as
6
though fully set forth herein.
7
56. Between October 10, 2018, and May 16, 2019, Defendants Lyle R. Mink
8
and Lyle R. Mink, a Law Corporation, received $98,000.00 from the Plaintiffs.
9
57. $25,000.00 of that $98,000.00 belongs to Plaintiff Gianfranco Interlandi.
10
58. $73,000.00 of that $98,000.00 belongs to Plaintiff Luigi Interlandi.
11
59. Defendants Lyle R. Mink and Lyle R. Mink, a Law Corporation were not
12 to have used any of the $98,000.00 entrusted to them and were to have instead kept
13 the entire $98,000.00 in an interest-bearing trust account (unless their friend lost his
14 case pre-trial, where then Mr. Mink would be entitled to only $50K, and the
15 Interlandis would get $50K back)(if Mr. Moda lost at trial the Interlandis would not
16 get back any of their deposit) (the absolute pre-requisite to any entitlement for any
17 money from the Interlandis being that Mr. Mink and his law firm would be the
18 attorney of record for both the friend and his companies at the time of loss; whether
19 before trial or by a jury verdict)(if Mr. Moda won at either stage, the Interlandis would
20 get their full $98K back and Mr. Mink operating at $750 per hour would liquidate the

21
assets of Mr. Moda’s opponents for his recovery).
60. Instead of keeping the $98,000.00 in an interest-bearing trust account for
22
the Interlandis, Defendants Mr. Mink and his law corporations instead wrongfully
23
disposed of and used the entire $98,000.00 and withdrew from representing Moda
24
before a loss of any kind and moved to be relieved as counsel for the corporations as
25
well.
26
61. The Defendants were asked to return the $98,000.00 by the Plaintiffs and
27
did not return any of it and instead have said that they have used all of the money.
28
62. As a result of the acts of conversion by Lyle R. Mink and his law
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 corporation, Mr. Gianfranco Interlandi has been damaged in the amount of $25,000.00
2 and Mr. Luigi Interlandi has been damaged in the amount of $73,000.00.
3 63. As a result of the intentional conversion of the $25,000.00 of Gianfranco
4 Interlandi and $73,000 of Luigi Interlandi, Mr. Mink and his corporation must be
5 jointly and severally held liable for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code §3294 in
6 an amount to be fixed by the trier of fact.

7
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE OF AN
8 ELDER
9 (AGAINST ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS AND DOES 5-10 BY MR.
10 GIANFRANCO INTERLANDI)
11
64. Paragraphs 1 through 63, supra are incorporated herein by reference as
12 though fully set forth herein.
13 65. At all relevant times, Gianfranco was and is an “elder” as defined by
14 Welfare and Institutions code §15610.27 and is therefore entitled to statutory
15 protections provided by Welfare and Institutions code §15610.70.
16 66. Mr. Mink and DOES 5 to 10 knew or should have known that Gianfranco
17 was an elder when they were defrauding him, were acting in derogation of the contract
18 between them, and converting his property for their own use.
19 67. Mr. Mink and DOES 5 to 10 knew at all times that their conduct was
20 detrimental to an elder protected by Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30(b).

21
68. Financial abuse of an elderly victim applies when a person or entity
takes, secretes, appropriates, or retains the property of the victim, or assists with the
22
taking, secreting, appropriating, or retention of property, for wrongful use or with
23
intent to defraud and elder as Mr. Mink has done.
24
69. A claim of financial elder abuse arises when an elder or dependent adult
25
is deprived of any property right, whether or not the property is held directly by the
26
victim or the victim's representative. The claim arises employing any transfer of an
27
elder's money. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30(c).
28
70. Financial Elder Abuse is often statutorily defined in the alternative as
11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 taking or retaining property either for a wrongful use or with a fraudulent intent and
2 Mr. Mink and DOES 5-10 harbored evil intent from inception as illustrated by the fact
3 that they used all of Interlandis money, in violation of the promise to hold it in
4 “deposit” and spending every bit of it without ever informing Gianfranco that Mr.
5 Mink was not representing the trust or ever sending the Interlandis a single bill or
6 statement stating that their money was being used. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §

7 15610.30(a)(1).

8
71. The conduct of Mr. Mink and his fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and
conversion of the Interlandi money were done in a malicious and wanton manner,
9
entitling Gianfranco and Luigi to both punitive as well as treble damages.
10
72. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against Mr. Mink and Lyle R.
11
Mink, a Law Corporation and does 1-10 as follows:
12
1. For general damages according to law and proof;
13
2. For special damages according to law and proof;
14
3. For defendants to return all of Interlandis property;
15
4. For statutory damages;
16 5. For treble damages;
17 6. For all allowable damages in accordance with the Welfare and Institutions
18 Code Sections;
19 7. For punitive damages;
20 8. For prejudgment interest according to law;
21 9. For costs of suit;
22 10. For attorney's fees as allowed by law;
23 11. For an attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred
24 or other property of the transferee in accordance with the procedures described in Title

25 6.5 (commencing with Section 481.010) of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or

26
as may otherwise be available under applicable law.
12. An injunction against further disposition by any of the Defendants of the
27
asset transferred and other property of Mr. Mink and Lyle R. Mink, a Law Corporation.
28

12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 13. Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the assets of Mr. Mink and
2 Lyle R. Mink, a Law Corporation and other property of them.
3 14. Any other relief the circumstances require.
4 15. For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and
5 16. For such further relief as the court considers proper.
6

9 DATED: November 25, 2019

10

11 BY:
Thomas D. Sands, Esquire
12 Thomas Reynolds, Esq.
13 The Sands Law Group, APLC
Attorney for Luigi Interlandi
14

15 Kristopher Diulio, Esq.

Brendan M. Ford, Esq.
16 FORD & DIULIO PC
17 Attorneys for Gianfranco Interlandi
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT “A” 
Post date: 10/11/2018 Account:

Amount: $ 8000.00 Check Number:

© 2016 JPMorgan Chase & Co.

1
 Account:
Post date:
Check Number:
Amount:

© 2016 JPMorgan Chase & Co.

1
 Account:
Check Number:

© 2016 JPMorgan Chase & Co.

1
© 2016 JPMorgan Chase & Co.
1
2016 JPMorgan Chase & Co.
1
© 2016 JPMorgan Chase & Co.
1