1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case No. 05_______

_________________________________________________________________

DIANA R. MEYERS

Plaintiff,

v.

HERBERT K. SUDFELD, JR., ESQ.; FOX, ROTHCHILD, LLP; POWER, BOWEN,

and VALIMONT, LLP; EDWIN C. ANGSTADT, JR., ESQ.; EASTBURN and

GRAY, P.C.; JOHN KATSOCK, C.P.A.; and J.J. KATSOCK and COMPANY;

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

_________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Diana R. Meyers ("Ms. Meyers"), by and

through her legal counsel, Ralph A. Cantafio, Esq., of the Law

Offices of Ralph A. Cantafio, P.C., who complains of Defendants

as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO MS. MEYERS

1. Ms. Meyers is a widowed senior citizen whose place

of residence is Steamboat Springs, Routt County,

Colorado.

2. Ms. Meyers pursues civilian activities and is not

a member of the armed forces of the United States

or its allies.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO DEFENDANT SUDFELD, 

DEFENDANT FOX ROTHCHILD, AND DEFENDANT POWER, BOWEN AND VALIMONT

3. Defendant Herbert K. Sudfeld, Jr., Esq. ("Attorney

Sudfeld") is an individual duly licensed to

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 1 of 41
2

practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

where he possesses attorney registration number

24691. 

4. Upon information and belief, Attorney Sudfeld is

currently a partner at the law firm of Fox,

Rothchild, LLP, located at 2700 Kelly Road, Suite

300, Warrington, Pennsylvania. 

5. Upon information and belief, Attorney Sudfeld was

previously a partner of the law firm of Power,

Bowen and Valimont, LLP, which was located in

Doylestown, Pennsylvania. 

6. Attorney Sudfeld is an attorney in good standing

with the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

7. Fox Rothchild and Power, Bowen and Valimont are

each vicariously liable for the acts, errors and

omissions of Attorney Sudfeld as alleged herein.

8. Upon information and belief, Attorney Sudfeld

pursues civilian activities and is not a member of

the armed forces of the United States or its

allies.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO 

DEFENDANT ANGSTADT AND DEFENDANT EASTBURN AND GRAY, P.C.

9. Defendant Edwin C. Angstadt, Jr., Esq. ("Attorney

Angstadt"), is also an individual duly licensed to

practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

where he possesses attorney registration number

9860. 

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 41
3

10. Upon information and belief, Attorney Angstadt is

now retired from the practice of law. Attorney

Angstadt was an attorney in good standing at the

time he is alleged to have provided legal services

to Ms. Meyers as set forth in this Complaint, but

is currently on inactive status.

11. Prior to his retirement and at all times set forth

herein, Attorney Angstadt practiced with the law

offices of Eastburn and Gray, P.C., located at 60

E. Court Street, Doylestown, Pennsylvania. 

12. Defendant Eastburn and Gray, P.C. is vicariously

liable for the acts, errors and omissions of

Attorney Angstadt as alleged herein.

13. Upon information and belief, Attorney Angstadt

pursues civilian activities and is not a member of

the armed forces of the United States or its

allies.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO 

DEFENDANT KATSOCK AND DEFENDANT J.J. KATSOCK AND CO.

14. Defendant, John Katsock, C.P.A. ("C.P.A. Katsock")

is an individual who practices accounting in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where he is

recognized as a Certified Public Accountant. 

15. Upon information and belief, C.P.A. Katsock is the

sole shareholder of J.J. Katsock and Company,

where he is also a director and officer. 

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 3 of 41
4

16. At all times set forth herein, C.P.A. Katsock

practiced accounting with J.J. Katsock and Company

with offices located in Morrisville, Pennsylvania.

17. J.J. Katsock and Company is vicariously liable for

the acts, errors and omissions of C.P.A. Katsock

as alleged herein.

18. Upon information and belief, C.P.A. Katsock

pursues civilian activities and is not a member of

the armed forces of the United States or its

allies.

JURISDICTION

19. Jurisdiction is proper in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania pursuant to the diversity provisions

of 28 U.S.C. §1332.

20. The damages sought by Ms. Meyers well exceed the

sum of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00),

an amount exclusive of interest, costs and

attorneys fees.

VENUE

21. Venue is proper in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as the causes of

action complained of, as well as a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 4 of 41
5

claim, occurred in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO MR. AND MS. MEYERS

22. Ms. Meyers was married to Francis John Meyers

("Mr. Meyers") of New Hope, Pennsylvania in Pitkin

County, Colorado, on January 16, 1968. (Exhibit

A) 

23. Mr. Meyers was at the time of this marriage and

until his death a businessman. 

24. Among the varied business interests of Mr. Meyers

included those in a restaurant located in New

Hope, Pennsylvania known as the Canal House. 

25. The real property upon which the Canal House was

operated was utilized not only for a restaurant

and lounge, but included apartment units, as well

as commercial rental space. The totality of this

enterprise shall be referred to hereinafter in the

singular as the "Canal House."

26. During the course of their marriage, Mr. Meyers

acted as a traditional "breadwinner" and was

responsible for all significant financial

decisions and the business affairs of this couple. 

These business ventures included the operation of

the Canal House. 

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 5 of 41
6

27. Ms. Meyers, who was 20 years the junior of Mr.

Meyers, possesses only a high school degree and

has attended one year of college. 

28. At the time she wedded Mr. Meyers, Ms. Meyers was

employed as a cocktail waitress and hostess at the

Canal House. 

29. After her marriage to Mr. Meyers, Ms. Meyers had

no significant financial responsibilities for the

operation of the Canal House, nor was she in any

fashion responsible for financial decisions in any

of the other business affairs of Mr. Meyers. It

is conceded that Ms. Meyers continued to be

employed at the Canal House as, among other

things, a hostess and bartender until the death of

her husband.

THE PASSING AWAY OF MR. MEYERS

30. In the Spring of 1998, Mr. Meyers entered the 

terminal phase of his bout with cancer. He had

fought against this cancer since approximately

1993 and for some 5 years thereafter until he

passed away on June 9, 1998. (Exhibit B) 

31. At the time Mr. Meyers passed away, Mr. Meyers had

been married to Ms. Meyers for a bit more than 30

years.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 6 of 41
7

32. Prior to his death, Mr. Meyers was reunited with

his previously estranged biological granddaughter,

Karen Torina ("Ms. Torina"). 

33. Ms. Torina was related by blood to Mr. Meyers as a

grand daughter from a previous marriage. The

parent of Ms. Torina was a child the first wife of

Mr. Meyers and Mr. Meyers.

THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MR. MEYERS

AND OMNIBUS LEGAL COUNSEL

34. Traditionally, Mr. Meyers, personally and on

behalf of the Canal House, had utilized the legal

services of Herbert K. Sudfeld, Jr., Esq., then of

Power, Bowen and Valimont, LLP. Attorney Sudfeld

was known to Ms. Meyers as the Meyers family

attorney.

35. At a time after learning that Mr. Meyers was

entering the terminal phase of cancer, Mr. Meyers,

Ms. Meyers and Attorney Sudfeld met personally. 

At that meeting Mr. Meyers, knowing that he was

close to death and that his wife was not

sophisticated in business affairs, represented to

Ms. Meyers that Attorney Sudfeld would always

"look after" Ms. Meyers subsequent to the time of

Mr. Meyers inevitable death. Attorney Sudfeld

personally agreed and replied to Mr. Meyers that

he would always "look after" Ms. Meyers.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 7 of 41
8

36. Immediately prior to his death on June 9, 1998,

Mr. and Mrs. Meyers, at the insistence of Ms.

Torina, visited with Edwin C. Angstadt, Jr., Esq.

of Eastburn and Gray, P.C. for the purpose of

drafting Wills and other documents of an estate

planning nature for both Mr. Meyers and Ms.

Meyers. (Exhibits C and D)

37. At that time, Ms. Torina had a previous

professional relationship with Attorney Angstadt

and Eastburn and Gray, P.C.

38. After Mr. Meyers passed away, the Estate of Mr.

Meyers was filed for probate with the Court of

Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. 

39. Ms. Meyers was named Executrix of that estate in

the Last Will of her husband (Exhibit E). Letters

Testamentary were executed by Barbara G. Reilly,

Register of Wills on June 17, 1999. (Exhibit F) 

40. Eastburn and Gray, P.C. was retained as legal

counsel to assist with the probating of the estate

of Mr. Meyers.

41. During the course of probating Mr. Meyers' estate,

representations were made by Attorney Angstadt to

Ms. Meyers as to the value of certain real

property and assets in which Mr. Meyers possessed

a legal interest at and ultimately after the time

of Mr. Meyers' death.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 8 of 41
9

42. Ms. Meyers received by Executors Deed, among other

things, two significant pieces of real property. 

These two real properties are referred to

hereafter as the Canal House property and the

Parking Lot property, each situate in New Hope,

Pennsylvania. (Exhibit G)

THE "ANNUITY TRANSACTION"

43. In late 1999, Ms. Meyers was diagnosed with

uterine cancer. (Exhibit H) 

44. By 1999, Ms. Meyers had relocated to Routt County,

Colorado, where she continues to reside full time.

45. After this diagnosis of uterine cancer, a regiment

of radiation and chemotherapy was entered into by

Ms. Meyers. 

46. As of today, Ms. Meyers is in complete remission.

47. At or about the time Ms. Meyers was being treated

for her uterine cancer in 1999, Ms. Torina and her

husband, Ciro, made an offer to purchase from Ms.

Meyers not only her interest in the Canal House

(i.e. the business and the real estate), but the

Parking Lot property. The parties executed an

Agreement of Sale dated December 31, 1999. 

(Exhibits I and J)

48. At that time, Ms. Torina and her husband, Ciro,

had business interests in New Hope, Pennsylvania

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 9 of 41
10

including a bar and restaurant known as Fran's

Pub.

49. In contradistinction to Ms. Meyers, both Mr. and

Mrs. Torina were and are relatively sophisticated

as to business affairs.

50. In this transaction in which the Canal House

property and the Parking Lot property were to be

sold by Ms. Meyers to Karen and Ciro Torina, Mr.

and Mrs. Torina were represented by Attorney

Angstadt of Eastburn and Gray. The interests of

Ms. Meyers as to this proposed transaction were

represented by Attorney Sudfeld of Fox, Rothchild.

51. There were never executed at that time or since

any documents in which Ms. Meyers waived any

conflict of interest as to the fact that her

previous legal counsel, Eastburn and Gray, were

now representing Mr. and Ms. Torina in this

transaction; nor was such ever discussed by

Attorney Sudfeld.

52. In 1999, Ms. Meyers was also introduced by Ms.

Torina to Ms. Torina's accountant, C.P.A. Katsock.

53. Ms. Meyers, at the behest and suggestion of Ms.

Torina, retained the accounting services of C.P.A.

Katsock and J.J. Katsock and Company. 

54. Ms. Meyers thereafter relied upon accounting

advice provided to her by C.P.A. Katsock. 

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 10 of 41
11

55. C.P.A. Katsock simultaneously provided accounting

advice to Mr. and Mrs. Torina, as well as Ms.

Meyers.

56. The Canal House property and the Parking Lot

property were conveyed by Ms. Meyers to Mr. and

Mrs. Torina. This ultimate transaction in which

Mr. and Ms. Torina received title to the Cana

House property and the Parking Lot property was,

however, unorthodox at best. 

57. The structure of the transaction was conceived in

part by C.P.A. Katsock. Generally speaking, an

"annuity" would be created by which Ms. Meyers

would be paid $4,500.00 per month during the

duration of her life in exchange for conveying the

entirety of her interests in the Canal House and

Parking Lot to Ciro and Karen Torina.

58. Ms. Meyers, as a consequence of the advice of

Attorney Sudfeld and C.P.A. Katsock, on May 11,

2000, conveyed both the Parking Lot property and

the Canal House to Karen Torina and her husband,

Ciro (the "annuity transaction"). (Exhibit K) In

exchange for receiving title to the Parking Lot

property and the Canal House property, a Mortgage

(Exhibit L) securing a Promissory Note (Exhibit M)

benefitting Ms. Meyers was duly recorded with the

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 11 of 41
12

Recorder of Deeds of Bucks County, Pennsylvania at

Book 2056, Pages 0107 through 0147, inclusive.

59. At no time did any representative of Eastburn and

Gray, despite their previous legal representation

of Ms. Meyers, require that Ms. Meyers execute any

waiver of conflict documents permitting their

legal representation of Karen and Ciro Torina in

this "annuity transaction." 

60. At no time did Attorney Sudfeld or any

representative of Fox Rothchild discuss with Ms.

Meyers this conflict of interest involving

Eastburn and Gray or seek the execution of a

waiver of conflict of interest document as to Ms.

Meyers and Eastburn and Gray.

61. Approximately one year prior to his death, Mr.

Meyers, on or bout June 20, 1997, had completed a

personal financial statement dated June 30, 1997,

and submitted to Premier Bank of Doylestown,

Pennsylvania, setting forth that the Parking Lot

property and the Canal House restaurant were worth

1.5 million dollars. (Exhibit N)

62. At the time Attorney Sudfeld represented Ms.

Meyers pertaining to this "annuity transaction,"

Attorney Sudfeld failed to secure any appraisal of

the real property being conveyed to Karen and Ciro

Torina to determine its fair market value. Nor

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 12 of 41
13

did Attorney Sudfeld secure any business appraisal

to determine the value of the restaurant itself. 

63. The real property conveyed to Karen and Ciro

Torina in exchange for the annuity, without even

considering the value of the Canal House

restaurant, far exceeded the value being provided

to Ms. Meyers as consideration in support of the

"annuity transaction."

64. Ms. Meyers utilized the accounting advice of John

Katsock, C.P.A. to provide to her accounting

services and information as to this "annuity

transaction."

65. During this period of time when C.P.A. Katsock was

representing Ms. Meyers as to the "annuity

transaction," C.P.A. Katsock simultaneously

represented Mr. and Mrs. Torina, the Canal House,

and, now, Ms. Meyers. 

66. Ms. Meyers was never advised as to any conflict of

interest pertaining to these multiple

representations of C.P.A. Katsock.

67. Both C.P.A. Katsock and Attorney Sudfeld approved

of Ms. Meyers participating in this "annuity

transaction."

68. Not only did Ms. Meyers fail to receive anything

close to adequate compensation for the conveyance

of her interest in the Canal House property and

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 13 of 41
14

the Parking Lot property to Karen and Ciro Torina,

but arguably Ms. Meyers unwittingly entered into a

scheme designed and implemented by C.P.A. Katsock

and Attorney Sudfeld that not only failed to

provide to Ms. Meyers adequate compensation for

the conveyance of these properties, but

simultaneously defrauded the United States

Department of the Treasury. More specifically,

Attorney Sudfeld and C.P.A. Katsock represented to

Ms. Meyers that none of the monies received by Ms.

Meyers as compensation for conveying these real

properties would be subject to any taxation of any

type or kind.

69. As with Attorney Sudfeld, C.P.A. Katsock also

failed to ever suggest, let alone actually secure,

any appraisal of either the Canal House property

or Parking Lot property so as to provide to Ms.

Meyers objective third party information to

determine whether or not from an economic point of

view the proposed conveyance of these real

properties were in her financial best interests.

70. Like Attorney Sudfeld, C.P.A. Katsock also

entirely failed to conduct any adequate legal

research to determine whether or not the proposed

"annuity" transaction was consistent with the

Internal Revenue Code and other legal authority. 

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 14 of 41
15

MODIFICATION OF THE "ANNUITY TRANSACTION"

71. In the Spring of 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Torina were

interested in modifying the "annuity" agreement. 

At that point in time, the original debt was

amended and a new Promissory Note (Exhibit O) and

Mortgage dated February 1, 2001 (Exhibit P) was

executed and recorded with the Recorder of Deeds

of Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

72. Although Attorney Sudfeld continued to provide

legal counsel to Ms. Meyers pertaining to this

"annuity transaction," it was Mr. and Mrs. Torina

that were paying the legal fees of Attorney

Sudfeld and Fox, Rothchild incurred by Ms. Meyers

pertaining to modification of the "annuity

transaction." (Exhibit Q)

73. Attorney Sudfeld never secured any documentation

advising Ms. Meyers of this inherent conflict of

interest of having Karen and Ciro Torina pay for

these legal fees involving the modification of

this "annuity" agreement. 

74. Attorney Sudfeld also acted negligently in that

the revised Mortgage securing the "annuity"

payment never in any fashion allocated any amount

of debt to either the Canal House restaurant or

the Parking Lot property.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 15 of 41
16

75. Throughout 2003, Attorney Sudfeld, never

terminating his professional relationship with Ms.

Meyers, provided legal counsel benefitting Karen

and Ciro Torina. This legal counsel of Attorney

Sudfeld addressed a series of different entities

in which Karen and Ciro Torina possessed an

interest including another restaurant and bar

establishment located in New Hope, Pennsylvania,

known as Fran's Pub. Attorney Sudfeld also

provided legal counsel as to the Canal House. 

(Exhibit R) 

76. At no time has Attorney Sudfeld ever identified

any conflict of interest as to the simultaneous

legal representation of the interests of Karen and

Ciro Torina and the independent interests of Ms.

Meyers.

TAX REPORTING OF C.P.A. KATSOCK

77. C.P.A. Katsock, as well as J.J. Katsock and

Company, for tax years 2002 (Exhibit S) and 2003

(Exhibit S-1) prepared state and federal income

tax returns for Ms. Meyers. 

78. These tax returns contained material

misrepresentations pertaining to, among other

things, the residence of Ms. Meyers. 

79. Despite the fact that Ms. Meyers had been a full

time resident of the State of Colorado for years,

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 16 of 41
17

C.P.A. Katsock fraudulently filed Pennsylvania

state income taxes designating Ms. Meyers as a

Pennsylvania resident.

80. Further, C.P.A. Katsock improperly instructed Ms.

Meyers that she had no duty to file any Colorado

State income tax return. 

81. The filing of these tax returns amount to tax

fraud.

SALE OF THE PARKING LOT PROPERTY

82. By the Fall of 2004, Karen and Ciro Torina decided

to liquidate certain assets they either controlled

or possessed located in New Hope, Pennsylvania. 

83. This plan of liquidation included the sale of the

Canal House property and Parking Lot property,

upon which Ms. Meyers continued to hold a

mortgage.

84. On or about August 22, 2004, Mr. and Mrs. Torina

received a Standard Agreement for the Sale of

Vacant Land (Exhibit T) so as to sell the Parking

Lot property.

85. Attorney Sudfeld represented the interests of Ms.

Meyers pertaining to this proposed sale of the

Parking Lot property.

86. Attorney Sudfeld, despite representing the

interests of Ms. Meyers, never secured a copy of

the Standard Agreement for the Sale of Vacant Land

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 17 of 41
18

or any other document pertaining to this proposed

sale. Attorney Sudfeld contends that he never

reviewed any documents concerning this

transaction.

87. Attorney Sudfeld, unilaterally and without the

consent of Ms. Meyers, thereafter agreed that from

the sale of the Canal House property and the

Parking Lot property Ms. Meyers would receive a

total sum of $560,000.00. (Exhibit U)

88. This $560,000.00 would be paid $150,000.00 at the

time of the closing on the Parking Lot property,

reducing the remaining balance to an amount due of

$410,000.00. This $410,000.00 would then be

reduced by payments of $6,000.00 per month by

Karen Torina to Ms. Meyers consistent with the

February 2001 amendment to the "annuity"

agreement. The balance payable would be tendered

to Ms. Meyers upon the sale of the Canal House

property. 

89. There exist no written documents confirming that

this agreement was ever acceptable to Ms. Meyers. 

Ms. Meyers maintains such was not ever acceptable

to her nor even proposed to her before being

accepted unilaterally and without authority by

Attorney Sudfeld.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 18 of 41
19

90. Ms. Meyers consistently refused to in any fashion

to execute any document in furtherance of this

transaction.

91. Attorney Sudfeld affirmatively represented to

Michael Sheridan, Esq. of Fox, Differ, Callahan,

Sheridan and McDevitt, in Attorney Sudfeld's

capacity as legal counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Torina

that Attorney Sudfeld possessed authority to

accept this $560,000.00 financial settlement

aforementioned on behalf of Ms. Meyers. Such

representation by Attorney Sudfeld was untrue.

92. Attorney Sudfeld also never attempted to secure

nor actually secured any real estate appraisal so

as to determine whether or not the agreed upon

sales price of the Parking Lot property of

$535,000.00 was fair or the proposed payment of

$150,000.00 to Ms. Meyers appropriate.

93. Attorney Sudfeld was also negligent in failing to

make any determination as to the tax implications

upon Ms. Meyers as a consequence of her receiving

any lump sum payment whether $150,000.00 or

otherwise in lieu of the previous "annuity"

agreement.

94. Attorney Sudfeld made no effort whatsoever to

provide any justification as to how he determined

that $150,000.00 would be paid to Ms. Meyers as a

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 19 of 41
20

consequence of the sale of the Parking Lot

property.

95. Attorney Sudfeld represented to third parties that

he could secure Mortgage Satisfaction Pieces

executed by Ms. Meyers releasing any interest of

hers in the Parking Lot property. After the real

estate closing conveying the Parking Lot property,

Ms. Meyers refused to execute any Mortgage

Satisfaction documents. (Exhibit V) 

REQUEST FOR CLIENT FILES

96. Written demand on behalf of Ms. Meyers has been

made of Attorney Sudfeld and Fox, Rothchild, as

well as Attorney Angstadt and Eastburn and Gray

requesting that they provide any and all documents

pertaining to, among other things, the "annuity"

agreement, as well as documents involving the sale

of the Parking Lot property. (Exhibit W) 

97. Attorney Angstadt and his office have provided no

documents whatsoever.

98. Similar request for documents has been made upon

C.P.A. Katsock and J.J. Katsock and Company. 

(Exhibit X) Again, no such documents have been

provided by these entities.

99. While Attorney Sudfeld since the fall of 2004 has

provided numerous documents pertaining to his

legal representation of Ms. Meyers, he provides

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 20 of 41
21

virtually no documents whatsoever pertaining to

the "annuity transaction" or the sale of the

Parking Lot property. Attorney Sudfeld and Fox

Rothchild have provided numerous copies of

documents already part of the public record duly

recorded with the Recorder of Deeds of Bucks

County and documents sent to Ms. Meyers. 

100. Attorney Sudfeld and Fox Rothchild have provided

absolutely no billing records pertaining to either

the "annuity transaction" or the sale of the

Parking Lot property transactions.

101. Under these circumstances, it is inconceivable

that no billing files exist as to the "annuity

transaction" or the sale of the Parking Lot

property.

102. Ms. Meyers terminated her professional

relationship with Attorney Sudfeld and Fox

Rothchild in October, 2004.

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

103. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6, Confidentiality

of Information, includes:

a. A lawyer shall not reveal information

relating to representation of a client unless

the client consents after consultation...

104. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, Conflict of

Interest, General Rule, includes:

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 21 of 41
22

a. A lawyer shall not represent a client if the

representation of that client will be

directly adverse to another client, unless:

(1) The lawyer reasonably believes the

relationship will not adversely affect

the relationship with the other client;

and

(2) Each client consents after consultation.

b. A lawyer shall not represent a client if the

representation of that client may be

materially limited by the lawyer's

responsibilities to another client or to a

third person, or by the lawyer's own

interests, unless: 

(1) The lawyer reasonably believes the

representation will not be adversely

affected; and

(2) The client consents after

consultation....

c. For the purpose of this Rule, a client's

consent cannot be validly obtained and those

instances in which a disinterested lawyer

would conclude that the client should not

agree to the representation under the

circumstances of a particular situation.

105. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8, Conflict of

Interest, Prohibited Transactions, includes: 

f. A lawyer shall not accept compensation for

representing a client from one other than the

client unless:

(1) The client consents after consultation;

(2) There is no interference with the

lawyer's independence of professional

judgment or with the client-lawyer

relationship; and 

(3) Information relating to representation

of a client is protected as provided by

Rule 1.6.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 22 of 41
23

106. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9, Conflict of

Interest, Former Client, includes: 

a. A lawyer who has formerly represented a

client in a matter shall not thereafter

represent another person in the same or

substantially related matter in which that

person's interests are materially adverse to

the interests of the former client unless the

former client consents after consultation.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence of Attorney Sudfeld, Fox, Rothchild, L.L.P., Attorney

Angstadt and Power, Bowen and Valimont, L.L.P.)

107. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 106 above.

108. At all times set forth herein, Attorney Sudfeld

was, upon information and belief, a partner of

Power, Bowen and Valimont, L.L.P., which was

subsequently purchased or otherwise consolidated

with Fox Rothchild.

109. There exists imputed liability for the actions of

Attorney Sudfeld resulting in liability to Power,

Bowen and Valimont and then Fox, Rothchild.

110. Attorney Sudfeld failed to render legal services

to Ms. Meyers in a competent and non-negligent

manner by engaging in conduct, acts and omissions

that fall below acceptable professional standards.

111. Attorney Sudfeld owed to Ms. Meyers a duty to

perform all necessary and reasonable legal

services in a fair and uncompromised fashion for

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 23 of 41
24

the benefit of Ms. Meyers and to fairly and

adequately perform as her legal counsel.

112. Attorney Sudfeld violated his duty and failed to

represent Ms. Meyers in a professional and

competent manner.

113. In particular, and without limitation, Attorney

Sudfeld engaged in the following acts and

omissions that fell below acceptable professional

standards:

a. Failed to meet the standard of care in his

representation of Ms. Meyers pertaining to

the "annuity transaction" by failing to

secure appraisals prior to approving the

participation of M. Meyers in this

transaction, as well as failing to adequately

and completely investigate the tax

ramifications of the same;

b. Represented the interests of multiple

conflicting parties as to the "annuity

transaction" and the sale of the Parking Lot

property to the detriment of Ms. Meyers, all

without providing proper counsel to her;

c. Engaged in unethical billing practices;

d. Improperly advised Ms. Meyers of her legal

alternatives and the consequences of those

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 24 of 41
25

alternatives as to the "annuity transaction"

and the sale of the Parking Lot property;

e. Used unethical tactics to coerce and

intimidate Ms. Meyers, an elderly widow, so

as to consummate the sale of the Parking Lot

property in 2004;

f. Failed, despite request, to provide to Ms.

Meyers copies of legal and billing files; and

g. Failed to inform Ms. Meyers as to any

conflict of interest or disqualify Attorney

Angstadt as attorney for Karen and Ciro

Torina as to the "annuity transaction."

114. As a direct and proximate result of Attorney

Sudfeld's negligence, Ms. Meyers has suffered

substantial injuries, damages and losses, in an

amount to be proven at trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract by Attorney Sudfeld, Fox, Rothchild, L.L.P. 

and Power, Bowen and Valimont, L.L.P.)

115. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 114 above.

116. As it pertains to the legal representation of Ms.

Meyers, there existed a contract between Attorney

Sudfeld, as well as the law firms with whom he was

affiliated, and Ms. Meyers.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 25 of 41
26

117. A term of this agreement, whether or express or

implied, is that only reasonable attorneys would

be charged by Attorney Sudfeld to Ms. Meyers.

118. The fees charged by Attorney Sudfeld to Ms. Meyers

were not reasonable.

119. Ms. Meyers has been damaged by Attorney Sudfeld's

breach of contract.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Warranty by Attorney Sudfeld, Fox, Rothchild, L.L.P.,

and Power, Bowen and Valimont, L.L.P.)

120. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 119 above.

121. Attorney Sudfeld represented to Ms. Meyers, both

expressly and impliedly, that he was competent and

skilled in the handling of all legal matters

entrusted to him by Ms. Meyers.

122. Relying upon Attorney Sudfeld's representations,

Ms. Meyers was induced to initially retain and

thereafter continue to utilize Attorney Sudfeld as

her attorney to represent her in matters set forth

more specifically in this Complaint.

123. In failing to represent Ms. Meyers in a proper

fashion, Attorney Sudfeld breached a warranty

implied in law of good and workmanlike legal

services.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 26 of 41
27

124. In failing to represent Ms. Meyers in a proper

manner, Attorney Sudfeld breached an expressed

warranty of competence and skill.

125. Attorney Sudfeld's breach of warranty arose out

of, but is not necessarily limited to, those acts

and omissions specifically delineated in the

"annuity" transaction and the sale of the Parking

Lot property.

126. As a direct and proximate result of Attorney

Sudfeld's breach of express and implied

warranties, Ms. Meyers has suffered substantial

injuries, damages and losses, in an amount to be

proven at trial. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Attorney Sudfeld, Fox, Rothchild,

L.L.P., Attorney Angstadt and Power, Bowen and Valimont, L.L.P.)

127. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 126 above.

128. As her legal counsel, Attorney Sudfeld owed to Ms.

Meyers a fiduciary duty.

129. Attorney Sudfeld violated this fiduciary duty by

failing to, among other things, properly represent

Ms. Meyers pertaining to the "annuity"

transaction, as well as the sale of the Parking

Lot property.

130. Attorney Sudfeld also represented Ms. Meyers

during periods of time while there existed

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 27 of 41
28

conflicts of interest on his part because of his

legal representation of Karen and Ciro Torina or

entities under their control.

131. Attorney Sudfeld also failed to communicate with

Ms. Meyers that a conflict of interest existed or

disqualify Attorney Angstadt in his representation

of Karen and Ciro Torina as to the "annuity

transaction."

132. Ms. Meyers has incurred damages and losses as a

consequence of this breach of fiduciary duty by

Attorney Sudfeld.

133. Attorney Sudfeld's breach of fiduciary duty was a

cause of Ms. Meyers' losses and damages.

134. The damages complained of by Ms. Meyers are

attended by circumstances of malice or insult, or

as a consequence of wanton and reckless disregard

of her rights and feelings, such that the conduct

complained of by Ms. Meyers was purposely

committed during a period when Attorney Sudfeld

must have realized that such was done heedlessly,

reckless, and without due regard to the

consequences of the rights of Ms. Meyers.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unjust Enrichment of by Attorney Sudfeld, Fox, Rothchild, L.L.P.

and Power, Bowen and Valimont, L.L.P.)

135. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 134 above.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 28 of 41
29

136. The fees for legal services provided by Attorney

Sudfeld as to the "annuity transaction" and the

sale of the Parking Lot property were not

reasonable.

137. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 states:

a. A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The

factors to be considered in determining the

reasonableness of the fee include the

following:

(1) The time and labor required, the novelty

and difficulty of the questions involved

and the skill requisite to perform the

legal service property;

(2) The likelihood, if apparent to the

client, that the acceptance of the

particular employment will preclude

other employment for the lawyer;

(3) The fee customarily charged in the

locality for similar legal services;

(4) The amount involved and the results

obtained;

(5) The time limitations imposed by the

client or by the circumstances;

(6) The nature and length of the

professional relationship with the

client;

(7) The experience, reputation, and ability

of the lawyer or lawyers performing the

services; and

(8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

138. Attorney Sudfeld, as well as the law firm with

whom he was at the time affiliated at the relevant

time, was unjustly enriched as a benefit was

conferred upon Attorney Sudfeld and the law firms

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 29 of 41
30

who employed his services by payment of Ms. Meyers

as a consequence of Attorney Sudfeld charging Ms.

Meyers unreasonable legal fees.

139. Such payments were appreciated by Attorney Sudfeld

and these law firms to the detriment of Ms. Meyers

and Ms. Meyers has been damaged.

140. The benefit paid by Ms. Meyers and accepted by

Attorney Sudfeld under these circumstances would

be inequitable.

141. Attorney Sudfeld was unjustly enriched in a sum

defined by the amount of monies received by his

law firm from Ms. Meyers for legal services,

interest and costs, minus the reasonable fee of

legal services provided by Attorney Sudfeld, if

any.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Outrageous Conduct by Attorney Sudfeld, 

Fox, Rothchild, L.L.P. and Power, Bowen and Valimont, L.L.P.)

142. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 141 above.

143. Attorney Sudfeld's conduct is so outrageous in

character and so extreme in degree so as to go

beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be

regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a

civilized community, particularly in light of the

fact that Attorney Sudfeld is a long time member

of the Pennsylvania bar and experienced counsel.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 30 of 41
31

144. Attorney Sudfeld's actions as set forth herein

constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct.

145. Attorney Sudfeld engaged in the conduct complained

of herein recklessly and with the intent of

causing Ms. Meyers, a widow and senior citizen,

severe emotional distress such that Ms. Meyers

experienced severe emotional distress caused by

Attorney Sudfeld's conduct.

146. The damages complained of by Ms. Meyers are

attended by circumstances of malice or insult, or

as a consequence of wanton and reckless disregard

of Ms. Meyers' rights and feelings such that the

conduct complained of by Attorney Sudfeld was

purposely committed during a period when Ms.

Meyers was particularly vulnerable and Attorney

Sudfeld had to have realized that such was done

heedlessly, recklessly and without due regard to

the consequences or of the rights of Ms. Meyers. 

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Fraud by Attorney Sudfeld, Fox, Rothchild, L.L.P. and Power,

Bowen and Valimont, L.L.P.)

147. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 146 above.

148. Attorney Sudfeld concealed a past facts and failed

to disclose to Ms. Meyers his conflicting legal

relationship with Karen and Ciro Tornia, as well

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 31 of 41
32

as legal entities in their control or owned by

them.

149. These facts were material.

150. Attorney Sudfeld concealed and otherwise failed to

disclose this information to Ms. Meyers with the

intent of creating a false impression of the

actual facts in the mind of Ms. Meyers.

151. Attorney Sudfeld concealed and otherwise failed to

disclose this information to Ms. Meyers with the

specific intent that Ms. Meyers would continue to

utilize his legal services, which she might not

have done had she known of this conflict of

interest.

152. Ms. Meyers continued to utilize the legal services

of Attorney Sudfeld relying on the assumption that

the concealed and undisclosed facts did not exist

or here different then what such actually were.

153. This reliance caused injuries, damages and losses

to Ms. Meyers.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence of Attorney Angstadt and Eastburn and Gray, P.C.)

154. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 153 above.

155. At all times set forth herein, Attorney Angstadt

was, upon information and belief, a partner of

Eastburn and Gray, P. C. 

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 32 of 41
33

156. There exists imputed liability for the actions of

Attorney Angstadt resulting in liability to

Eastburn and Gray. 

157. Attorney Angstadt failed to render legal services

to Ms. Meyers in a competent and non-negligent

manner by engaging in conduct, acts and omissions

that fall below acceptable professional standards.

158. Attorney Angstadt owed to Ms. Meyers a duty to

perform all necessary and reasonable legal

services in a fair and uncompromised fashion for

the benefit of Ms. Meyers and to fairly and

adequately perform as her legal counsel.

159. Attorney Angstadt violated his duty owed to Ms.

Meyers as a former client in his representation of

Karen and Ciro Torina in the "annuity

transaction."

160. In particular, and without limitation, Attorney

Angstadt engaged in the following acts and

omissions that fell below acceptable professional

standards:

a. Represented the interests of conflicting

parties to the detriment of Ms. Meyers, all

without providing proper counsel to her or

seeking and securing a written waiver of

conflict;

b. Engaged in unethical billing practices;

161. As a direct and proximate result of Attorney

Angstadt's negligence, Ms. Meyers has suffered

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 33 of 41
34

substantial injuries, damages and losses, in an

amount to be proven at trial.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Warranty by Attorney Angstadt and 

Eastburn and Gray, P.C.)

162. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 161 above.

163. Attorney Angstadt represented to Ms. Meyers, both

expressly and impliedly, that he was competent and

skilled in upholding his professional duties as to

Ms. Meyers.

164. Relying upon Attorney Angstadt's representations,

Ms. Meyers was induced to retain Attorney Angstadt

as her attorney to represent her in matters set

forth more specifically in this Complaint.

165. In failing to uphold his professional duties to

Ms. Meyers by engaging in conflicting legal

representation of Karen and Ciro Tornia, Attorney

Angstadt breached a warranty implied in law of

good and workmanlike legal services.

166. In failing to uphold his professional duties to

Ms. Meyers, Attorney Angstadt breached an

expressed warranty of competence and skill.

167. Attorney Angstadt's breach of warranty arose out

of, but is not necessarily limited to, those acts

and omissions specifically delineated in the

"annuity transaction."

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 34 of 41
35

168. As a direct and proximate result of Attorney

Angstadt's breach of express and implied

warranties, Ms. Meyers has suffered substantial

injuries, damages and losses, in an amount to be

proven at trial. 

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Attorney Angstadt 

and Eastburn and Gray, P.C.)

169. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 168 above.

170. As her legal counsel, Attorney Angstadt owed to

Ms. Meyers a fiduciary duty, even after his formal

legal representation of her had been completed.

171. Attorney Angstadt violated this fiduciary duty by

representing the interests of Karen and Ciro

Tornia as to the "annuity transaction." 

172. Ms. Meyers has incurred damages and losses as a

consequence of this breach of fiduciary duty by

Attorney Angstadt. 

173. Attorney Angstadt's breach of fiduciary duty was a

cause of Ms. Meyers' losses and damages.

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract by Attorney Angstadt and 

Eastburn and Gray, P.C. 

174. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 173 above.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 35 of 41
36

175. As it pertains to the legal representation of Ms.

Meyers, there existed a contract between Attorney

Angstadt and Ms. Meyers.

176. The term of this agreement, whether or express or

implied, is that Attorney Angstadt would act

consistent with his professional duties to former

clients. 

177. Attorney Angstadt breached his contract with Ms.

Meyers by representing the interests of Mr. and

Mrs. Torina in the "annuity transaction."

178. Ms. Meyers has been damaged by Attorney Angstadt's

breach of contract.

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence of C.P.A. Katsock and J.J. Katsock and Company)

179. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 178 above.

180. At all times set forth herein, C.P.A. Katsock was,

upon information and belief, the sole shareholder,

officer and director of J.J. Katsock and Company.

181. There exists imputed liability for the actions of

C.P.A. Katsock resulting in liability to Power,

J.J. Katsock and Company.

182. C.P.A. Katsock failed to render accounting

services to Ms. Meyers in a competent and nonnegligent manner by engaging in conduct, acts and

omissions that fall below acceptable professional

standards.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 36 of 41
37

183. C.P.A. Katsock owed to Ms. Meyers a duty to

perform all necessary and reasonable accounting

services in a fair and uncompromised fashion for

the benefit of Ms. Meyers and to fairly and

adequately perform as her accountant.

184. C.P.A. Katsock violated his duty and failed to

represent Ms. Meyers in a professional and

competent manner.

185. In particular, and without limitation, C.P.A.

Katsock engaged in the following acts and

omissions that fell below acceptable professional

standards:

a. Failed to meet the standard of care in his

representation of Ms. Meyers pertaining to

the "annuity transaction" by failing to

adequately and completely investigate the tax

ramifications of the same;

b. Represented the interests of multiple

conflicting parties to the detriment of Ms.

Meyers, all without providing proper advice

to her;

c. Engaged in unethical billing practices;

d. Improperly advised Ms. Meyers of her tax

alternatives and the consequences of those

alternatives;

e. Filed tax returns with the United States

Department of the Treasury and the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that he knew

contained material misrepresentations of

fact.

f. Failed to advise Ms. Meyers of her duty to

file state income tax returns with the State

of Colorado.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 37 of 41
38

186. As a direct and proximate result of C.P.A. Katsock

negligence, Ms. Meyers has suffered substantial

injuries, damages and losses, in an amount to be

proven at trial.

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty by of C.P.A. Katsock and J.J. Katsock

and Company)

187. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 186 above.

188. As her accountant, C.P.A. Katsock owed to Ms.

Meyers a fiduciary duty.

189. C.P.A. Katsock violated this fiduciary duty by

failing to properly represent Ms. Meyers

pertaining to the "annuity" transaction, as set

forth above.

190. Ms. Meyers has incurred damages and losses as a

consequence of this breach of fiduciary duty by

C.P.A. Katsock.

191. C.P.A. Katsock's breach of fiduciary duty was a

cause of Ms. Meyers' losses and damages.

192. The damages complained of by Ms. Meyers are

attended by circumstances of malice or insult, or

as a consequence of wanton and reckless disregard

of her rights and feelings, such that the conduct

complained of by Ms. Meyers was purposely

committed during a period when C.P.A. Katsock must

have realized that such was done heedlessly,

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 38 of 41
39

reckless, and without due regard to the

consequences of the rights of Ms. Meyers.

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Outrageous Conduct of C.P.A. Katsock and J.J. Katsock and

Company)

193. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 192 above.

194. C.P.A. Katsock conduct is so outrageous in

character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond

all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded

as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a

civilized community, particularly in light of the

fact that C.P.A. Katsock is a licensed Certified

Public Accountant and experienced accountant. 

195. C.P.A. Katsock's actions as set forth herein

constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct.

196. C.P.A. Katsock engaged in the conduct complained

of herein recklessly and with the intent of

causing Ms. Meyers severe emotional distress such

that Ms. Meyers experienced severe emotional

distress caused by C.P.A. Katsock's conduct.

197. The damages complained of by Ms. Meyers are

attended by circumstances of malice or insult, or

as a consequence of wanton and reckless disregard

of Ms. Meyers' rights and feelings such that the

conduct complained of by C.P.A. Katsock was

purposely committed during a period when Ms.

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 39 of 41
40

Meyers was particularly vulnerable and C.P.A.

Katsock had to have realized that such was done

heedlessly, recklessly and without due regard to

the consequences or of the rights of Ms. Meyers. 

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unjust Enrichment of C.P.A. Katsock and J.J. Katsock and

Company)

198. Ms. Meyers realleges and reincorporates that set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 197 above.

199. The fees for accounting services provided by

C.P.A. Katsock are not reasonable.

200. C.P.A. Katsock may charge Ms. Meyers for

reasonable and necessary accounting related

services consistent with the customs of billing in

the locale in which he practices.

201. C.P.A. Katsock was unjustly enriched as a benefit

was conferred upon C.P.A. Katsock and the

accounting firm who employed his services by

payment of Ms. Meyers as a consequence of C.P.A.

Katsock charging Ms. Meyers unreasonable fees.

202. Such payments were appreciated by C.P.A. Katsock

to the detriment of Ms. Meyers and Ms. Meyers has

been damaged.

203. The benefit paid by Ms. Meyers and accepted by

C.P.A. Katsock under these circumstances would be

inequitable;

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 40 of 41
41

204. C.P.A. Katsock was unjustly enriched in a sum

defined by the amount of monies received by his

law firm from Ms. Meyers for accounting services,

interest and costs, minus the reasonable fee of

accounting services provided by C.P.A. Katsock, if

any.

WHEREFORE, Ms. Meyers demands judgment in favor of Plaintiff

against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be

determined by this court in an amount in excess of Seventy-five

Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), plus interest as provided by law

at a rate calculated in accordance with applicable law in effect,

exemplary or punitive damages, economic and non-economic damages,

special, general and consequential damages, as well as

reimbursement of costs, expert witness fees, attorneys' fees, and

costs and for such further relief as deemed appropriate in this

matter.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY 

CONCERNING ALL ISSUES RAISED HEREIN

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of June, 2005. 

RALPH A. CANTAFIO, P.C.

By: Ralph A. Cantafio, Esq.

Signature Validation Code: RAC5431

P. O. Box 774567

Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477

(970) 879-4567 Fax:(970) 879-4511 

Plaintiff's Address:

Diana R. Meyers

P. O. Box 881854

Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80488

Cantafio Law

Computer Code: Y:\CIVIL\Meyers Diana\Complaint 061305.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-02970-TR Document 1 Filed 06/20/05 Page 41 of 41