IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC

6 SYLVAN WAY

PARSIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07054

Plaintiff,

vs.

ABG CAR AND TRUCK RENTALS, LLC

5283 NIKE STATION WAY

HILLIARD, OHIO 43026

and

EFRAIN A. JARAMILLO, JR.

5169 WILDCAT FALLS DRIVE

DUBLIN, OHIO 43016

and 

EVELYN POMARICO

5169 WILDCAT FALLS DRIVE

DUBLIN, OHIO 43016

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.

DISTRICT JUDGE

COMPLAINT

(WITH JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON)

Plaintiff Avis Rent A Car System, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Avis”), for its Complaint against 

the Defendants ABG Car and Truck Rentals, LLC (“Car Rentals”), Efrain A. Jaramillo, Jr. 

(“Jaramillo”), and Evelyn Pomarico (“Pomarico”) (Car Rentals, Jaramillo, and Pomarico are 

hereinafter referred to collectively as “Defendants”), respectfully states as follows:

NATURE OF THE SUIT

1. This is an action for attachment, conversion, breach of contract, unjust 

enrichment, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, and 

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 1
2

civil conspiracy under Ohio law based on Defendants’ unlawful possession, retention, and 

conversion of $275,376.29 belonging to Avis and their related tortious interference with Avis’s 

business interests. Avis seeks an injunction enjoining Defendants from continued wrongful 

detention of the funds and an order awarding Avis possession of the funds held unlawfully by 

Defendants. In addition, Avis seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and payment of 

Avis’s costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this action.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Avis is a limited liability company existing under the laws of the State of 

Delaware with its principal place of business at 6 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, New Jersey, 07054.

3. Defendant Car Rentals is a limited liability company existing under the laws of 

the State of Ohio with its principal place of business in Hilliard, Ohio. “ABG” in “ABG Car and 

Truck Rentals” is believed to be an abbreviation for “Alpha Beta Group,” as the entity is 

sometimes referred to by that name.

4. Defendant Jaramillo is an individual who, on information and belief, resides in 

and is domiciled in Dublin, Ohio, and is a citizen of the State of Ohio. Jaramillo is a member of 

Car Rentals.

5. Defendant Pomarico is an individual who, on information and belief, resides in 

and is domiciled in Dublin, Ohio, is a citizen of the State of Ohio, and is the wife of Jaramillo. 

On information and belief, Pomarico was at all relevant times a manager of, or the manager of, 

Car Rentals, and may have a membership interest in Car Rentals.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has original jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332, as the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is 

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 2 of 19 PAGEID #: 2
3

between Plaintiff, which is a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey, and Defendants, who and 

which are citizens of Ohio.

7. Defendant Car Rentals is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district as 

it is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of business within the boundaries 

of the Southern District of Ohio. In addition, Car Rentals breached its contract with Avis in 

Ohio and committed the pleaded tort claims in Ohio.

8. Defendant Jaramillo is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district 

because, on information and belief, he resides in and is domiciled in the State of Ohio and within 

the boundaries of the Southern District of Ohio. In addition, Jaramillo caused the breach of Car 

Rental’s contract with Avis in Ohio and committed the pleaded tort claims in or from Ohio.

9. Defendant Pomarico is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district 

because, on information and belief, she resides in and is domiciled in the State of Ohio and 

within the boundaries of the Southern District of Ohio. In addition, Pomarico caused the breach 

of Car Rental’s contract with Avis in Ohio and committed the pleaded tort claims in or from 

Ohio.

10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because (i) a 

substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district; and/or 

(ii) Defendants do business, may be found, and are subject to personal jurisdiction, in this 

judicial district.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

11. Effective on or about May 8, 2016, Avis entered into a written contract with Car 

Rentals entitled an Independent Operator Agreement, wherein Avis agreed to provide Car 

Rentals a car rental facility out of which Car Rentals agreed to rent vehicles on behalf of Avis. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 3 of 19 PAGEID #: 3
4

The Independent Operator Agreement included a Schedule A—Location/Commission 

Formula/Corporate Data, a Compensation Amendment, and an Operator Agreement Amendment 

(collectively, the “Contract”). 

12. A true and correct copy of the Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

13. Jaramillo signed the Contract on July 27, 2016, listing his title as “Pres[ident]” of 

Car Rentals. (See Ex. A.)

14. The Car Rentals rental facility (the “Car Rentals Facility”) was located at 5283 

Nike Station Way, Hilliard, Ohio 43026. 

15. Both Jaramillo and Pomarico were involved in managing the operations of the Car 

Rentals Facility, with Pomarico handling a substantial portion of the accounting aspects of the 

business.

16. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Car Rentals was to remit daily to Avis all 

money received from vehicle rentals. 

17. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, Avis was to pay Car Rentals commission 

payments in consideration for rental of its vehicles, in accordance with the terms of the Contract. 

18. Specifically, Car Rentals was to receive a commission of 12% of the net total 

revenue (less certain deductions) derived from each rental, and 12% of refueling service revenue 

and prepaid gasoline.

19. The Contract specifies that the commission payments were to be paid monthly, 

and were to be paid electronically via direct deposit into a bank account designated by Car 

Rentals.

20. The Contract expressly states that no other commissions are due to Car Rentals. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 4 of 19 PAGEID #: 4
5

21. In the period between September 2016 and June 2017, Avis paid Car Rentals 

monthly commissions ranging from approximately $1,500 to $3,800. 

22. These commission payments were deposited directly into Car Rentals’s specified 

bank account, per the terms of the Contract. Car Rentals directed that deposits be made into an 

account with SunTrust Bank (the “Car Rentals/SunTrust Account”). 

23. Car Rentals’s contractual commission payment due for the period ending June 30, 

2017, was $1,978.88. Car Rentals was also due a separate amount of $1,844.23.

24. Due to an accounting processing error, on or about July 18, 2017, Avis 

erroneously direct deposited $279,199.40 from its account with JPMorgan Chase into the Car 

Rentals/SunTrust Account.

25. This totaled $275,376.29 more than the commission payment Defendant Car 

Rentals was due (the “Overpayment”). (Due to an accounting error, an additional $20 was also 

transferred to the Car Rentals/SunTrust Account.)

26. According to Avis’s bank records, the July 18 Overpayment transaction cleared 

the next day.

27. After detecting the error, Avis made several attempts to contact Car Rentals, 

seeking return of the overpayment.

28. On one such occasion, Chris Dale (“Dale”), Territory Performance Manager for 

Avis, contacted Pomarico, who was involved in the accounting aspects of Car Rentals, informed 

her of the error, and requested return of the Overpayment. Pomarico responded to the effect that 

she would talk to the “accountant” and get back to Dale. Pomarico never thereafter contacted 

Dale or anyone else at Avis about the Overpayment.

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 5 of 19 PAGEID #: 5
6

29. On or about August 11, 2017, Avis contacted JPMorgan Chase (through which it 

had made the erroneous direct deposit) and attempted to reverse the transaction. However, the 

recall transaction was rejected due to insignificant funds in the Car Rentals/SunTrust Account.

30. On August 15, 2017, Avis sent a letter to the Car Rentals Facility and Jaramillo’s 

home, by overnight delivery and regular mail, reiterating that the July 2017 Overpayment 

transaction was in error; stating that Car Rentals, Jaramillo, and Pomarico had no legal right to 

retain the Overpayment; stating that, to date, they had refused to return the Overpayment; and 

demanding that Jaramillo contact Avis and immediately effectuate a return of the Overpayment. 

31. A true and correct copy of the August 15 letter with its enclosures is attached as 

Exhibit B.

32. On or about August 17, 2017, Avis personnel visited the Car Rentals Facility and 

spoke with Justin Gelber, a Car Rentals employee.

33. Gelber informed the Avis personnel that he had not seen or spoken with Jaramillo 

for a few weeks, and had not spoken with Pomarico for several days. Gelber further informed 

Avis that all of Jaramillo’s and Pomarico’s personal property had been removed from the Car 

Rentals Facility several days before.

34. While at the Car Rentals Facility, Avis personnel attempted to contact Jaramillo 

and Pomarico, but all calls were directed to voicemail, and Avis personnel were unable to leave 

messages as the mailboxes were full.

35. Gelber also attempted to contact Jaramillo and Pomarico, but was also 

unsuccessful. Gelber noted that Jaramillo’s and Pomarico’s unresponsiveness was unusual and 

uncharacteristic of them both.

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 6 of 19 PAGEID #: 6
7

36. As of the filing of this Complaint, no portion of the Overpayment has been 

returned to Avis by anyone, including Car Rentals, Jaramillo, and Pomarico.

37. Car Rentals, Jaramillo, and Pomarico have no legal right to the Overpayment but 

continue to retain it.

38. Upon information and belief, some portion of the Overpayment remains in the 

Car Rentals/SunTrust Account, over which Car Rentals, Jaramillo, and Pomarico have 

possession or control.

39. There exists a present danger that the Overpayment funds will be withdrawn from 

the Car Rentals/SunTrust Account and/or spent or otherwise disposed of. In fact, on information 

and belief, certain of the funds have already been withdrawn from the Car Rentals/SunTrust 

Account.

40. Avis will sustain irreparable harm if Defendants are not enjoined from use and/or 

enjoyment of the Overpayment funds. 

COUNT I

(Attachment Pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2715.01 et seq. – As to All Defendants)

41. Avis incorporates Paragraphs 1-40 as if fully stated herein.

42. Avis is the sole legal owner of the Overpayment funds.

43. Defendants have no right, title, or interest in the Overpayment funds.

44. Upon information and belief, given the Defendants’ conduct in removing their 

personal effects and not appearing at work for an extended period of time, and given that the 

balance in the Car Rentals/SunTrust Account is inadequate to restore the Overpayment, the 

Defendants are about to remove property (the Overpayment), in whole or part, out of the 

jurisdiction of the court, with the intent to defraud Avis.

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 7 of 19 PAGEID #: 7
8

45. Upon information and belief, given the Defendants’ conduct in removing their 

personal effects and not appearing at work for an extended period of time, and given that the 

balance in the Car Rentals/SunTrust Account is inadequate to restore the Overpayment, the 

Defendants are about to convert property (the Overpayment), in whole or part, into money, for 

the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of Avis.

46. Upon information and belief, given the Defendants’ conduct in removing their 

personal effects and not appearing at work for an extended period of time, and given that the 

balance in the Car Rentals/SunTrust Account is inadequate to restore the Overpayment, the 

Defendants have assigned, removed, disposed of, or are about to dispose of, property, in whole 

or part, with the intent to defraud Avis.

47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Avis has suffered and 

will continue to suffer irreparable harm and injuries unless enjoined and restrained by the Court.

WHEREFORE, Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

judgment against Defendants ABG Car and Truck Rentals, LLC, Efrain A. Jaramillo, Jr., and 

Evelyn Pomarico, as follows:

A. That this Court enter a judgment finding that (a) Avis is the sole legal and rightful 

owner of the Overpayment funds as described herein, and (b) Defendants have 

wrongfully maintained possession of the Overpayment funds with the intent to 

defraud Avis or place the funds beyond the reach of Avis;

B. That this Court enter a mandatory temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants from moving, disposing of, 

concealing, or otherwise impairing the value of the Overpayment funds until the 

Court determines which party has the right to possession of it;

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 8 of 19 PAGEID #: 8
9

C. That this Court enter a permanent injunction that enjoins Defendants from the 

continued wrongful possession of the Overpayment funds and which requires 

Defendants to return the Overpayment funds to Avis;

D. That this Court issue an order pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2715.01 et seq. 

attaching, without notice, the Car Rentals/SunTrust Account owned by and now 

in the possession of Defendants;

E. That this Court order Defendants to pay Avis its costs and expenses incurred in 

and related to this action; and

F. That this Court award such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper 

under the circumstances.

COUNT II

(Conversion – As to All Defendants)

48. Avis incorporates Paragraphs 1-47 as if fully stated herein.

49. Avis was at all relevant times the owner with the right of possession of the 

Overpayment funds.

50. Defendants are aware that they were not entitled to possession of the 

Overpayment funds.

51. Defendants have converted the Overpayment funds for their own use by refusing 

to return the Overpayment funds and by, on information and belief, withdrawing all or a portion 

of the funds from the Car Rentals/SunTrust Account and converting and using such funds for 

their own personal use.

52. By Defendants’ refusal to return the funds and by withdrawing all or a portion of 

the funds and using such funds for personal purposes, Avis has sustained damages in the amount 

of the Overpayment.

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 9 of 19 PAGEID #: 9
10

53. Defendants’ conduct in not returning the Overpayment and by converting such 

funds to their own uses was willful, wanton, and malicious, and thus, Avis is entitled to an award 

of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

judgment against Defendants ABG Car and Truck Rentals, LLC, Efrain A. Jaramillo, Jr., and 

Evelyn Pomarico, as follows:

A. That this Court enter a judgment finding that (a) Avis is the sole legal and rightful 

owner of the Overpayment funds as described herein, (b) Defendants have 

wrongfully maintained possession of the Overpayment funds, and (c) Defendants 

have improperly converted the Overpayment funds;

B. That this Court enter a mandatory temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants from moving, disposing of, 

concealing, or otherwise impairing the value of the Overpayment funds until the 

Court determines which party has the right to possession of it;

C. That this Court enter a permanent injunction that enjoins Defendants from the 

continued wrongful possession of the Overpayment funds and which requires 

Defendants to return the Overpayment funds to Avis;

D. That this Court order Defendants to pay to Avis such damages as Avis has 

sustained as a result of Defendants’ conversion of the Overpayment funds;

E. That this Court award to Avis punitive damages for Defendants’ willful and 

wrongful conduct;

F. That this Court order Defendants to pay Avis its costs and expenses incurred in 

and related to this action; and

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 10 of 19 PAGEID #: 10
11

G. That this Court award such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper 

under the circumstances.

COUNT III

(Breach of Contract – As to Defendant Car Rentals)

54. Avis incorporates Paragraphs 1-47 as if fully stated herein.

55. Count III (breach of contract) is pleaded in the alternative to Count II 

(conversion) and Count IV (unjust enrichment).

56. Avis and Defendant Car Rentals entered into a lawful written contract in which 

Avis agreed to pay Car Rentals a commission as set forth in the Contract in consideration for Car 

Rentals’s agreement to rent vehicles for Avis.

57. Avis fulfilled its obligations under the Contract by, inter alia, making all required 

commission payments up to and including the date of breach by Defendant Car Rentals.

58. Car Rentals’s refusal to return the July 2017 Overpayment was a breach of the 

Contract and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

59. As a result of Car Rentals’s refusal to return the Overpayment funds, Avis has 

been damaged in the amount of the Overpayment.

60. Also as a result of Car Rentals’s refusal to return the Overpayment funds, Avis 

has been forced to incur substantial costs and attorneys fees in seeking return of the 

Overpayment from Defendants, including in the prosecution of this lawsuit, which are damages 

recoverable under Paragraph 10 of the Contract. 

WHEREFORE, Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

judgment against Defendant ABG Car and Truck Rentals, LLC as follows:

A. That this Court enter a judgment finding that (a) Avis is the sole legal and rightful 

owner of the Overpayment funds as described herein, (b) Defendant Car Rentals 

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 11 of 19 PAGEID #: 11
12

wrongfully maintained possession of the Overpayment funds, and (c) Defendant 

Car Rentals breached its contract with Avis by retaining and converting to its own 

uses the Overpayment funds;

B. That this Court enter a mandatory temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction restraining and enjoining Defendant Car Rentals from moving, 

disposing of, concealing, or otherwise impairing the value of the Overpayment 

funds until the Court determines which party has the right to possession of it;

C. That this Court enter a permanent injunction that enjoins Defendant Car Rentals

from the continued wrongful possession of the Overpayment funds and which 

requires Defendant Car Rentals to return the Overpayment funds to Avis;

D. That this Court order Defendants to pay to Avis such damages as Avis has 

sustained as a result of Defendant Car Rentals’s breach of contract;

E. That this Court order Defendant Car Rentals to pay Avis’s attorneys’ fees, 

pursuant to the Contract;

F. That this Court order Defendant Car Rentals to pay Avis its costs and expenses 

incurred in and related to this action; and

G. That this Court award such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper 

under the circumstances.

COUNT IV

(Unjust Enrichment – As to All Defendants)

61. Avis incorporates Paragraphs 1-10, 14-15, and 24-53 as if fully stated herein.

62. Count IV (unjust enrichment) is pleaded in the alternative to Count III (breach of 

contract).

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 12 of 19 PAGEID #: 12
13

63. Avis conferred a benefit on Defendants by erroneously depositing the 

Overpayment funds into Car Rentals’s Bank Account.

64. Defendants are aware of the benefit as they have, on information and belief, 

withdrawn and/or otherwise spent or disposed of certain of the Overpayment funds for their own 

benefit and use.

65. Retention of the Overpayment funds by Defendants would be unjust, as the 

deposit of the Overpayment funds into the Car Rentals/SunTrust Account was in error.

WHEREFORE, Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

judgment against Defendants ABG Car and Truck Rentals, LLC, Efrain A. Jaramillo, Jr., and 

Evelyn Pomarico, as follows:

A. That this Court enter a judgment finding that (a) Avis is the sole legal and rightful 

owner of the Overpayment funds as described herein, (b) Defendants have 

wrongfully maintained possession of the Overpayment funds, and (c) Defendants 

have been unjustly enriched in the amount of the Overpayment funds;

B. That this Court enter a mandatory temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants from moving, disposing of, 

concealing, or otherwise impairing the value of the Overpayment funds until the 

Court determines which party has the right to possession of it;

C. That this Court enter a permanent injunction that enjoins Defendants from the 

continued wrongful possession of the Overpayment funds and which requires 

Defendants to return the Overpayment funds to Avis;

D. That this Court impose a constructive trust over the Car Rentals/SunTrust 

Account and other assets within the Defendants’ possession for the benefit of 

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 13 of 19 PAGEID #: 13
14

Avis until such time as Avis has been made whole pursuant to the relief requested 

herein;

E. That this Court order Defendants to pay to Avis such damages as Avis has 

sustained as a result of the unjust enrichment of Defendants by their possession of 

the Overpayment funds; 

F. That this Court order Defendants to pay Avis its costs and expenses incurred in 

and related to this action; and 

G. That this Court award such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper 

under the circumstances. 

COUNT V

(Tortious Interference with Contract –

As to Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico)

66. Avis incorporates Paragraphs 1-47, 54-60 as if fully stated herein.

67. The Contract constituted an enforceable contract between Avis and Car Rentals.

68. Jaramillo and Pomarico had knowledge of the existence of (and the terms of) the 

Contract.

69. Car Rentals breached its contractual obligations to Avis, as alleged in Count III 

above.

70. Jaramillo and Pomarico intentionally and unjustifiably induced or caused Car 

Rentals’s breach of the Contract.

71. Jaramillo and Pomarico acted with malice in inducing Car Rentals’s breach.

72. Car Rentals’s breach of the Contract caused Avis damages in the forms and 

amounts alleged in Count III above.

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 14 of 19 PAGEID #: 14
15

WHEREFORE, Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

judgment against Defendants Efrain A. Jaramillo, Jr. and Evelyn Pomarico, as follows:

A. That this Court enter a judgment finding that Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico 

tortiously interfered with Avis’s contract with Defendant Car Rentals;

B. That this Court order Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico to pay to Avis such 

damages as Avis has sustained as a result of the breach of Avis’s contract with 

Defendant Car Rentals;

C. That this Court order Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico to pay to Avis such 

damages as Avis has sustained as a result of the premature termination of Avis’s 

contract with Defendant Car Rentals;

D. That this Court award to Avis punitive damages for Defendant Jaramillo’s and 

Pomarico’s willful and wrongful conduct;

E. That this Court order Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico to pay Avis its costs and 

expenses incurred in and related to this action; and

F. That this Court award such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper 

under the circumstances.

COUNT VI

(Tortious Interference with Business Relations –

As to Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico)

73. Avis incorporates Paragraphs 1-47, 54-60, 66-72 as if fully stated herein.

74. Avis had an ongoing business relationship with Car Rentals in 2016 and 2017.

75. Avis had a reasonable expectation that such business relationship with Car 

Rentals would continue. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 15 of 19 PAGEID #: 15
16

76. Jaramillo and Pomarico had knowledge of the existence of Avis’s business 

relationship with Car Rentals.

77. Jaramillo and Pomarico intentionally and unjustifiably induced or caused Car 

Rentals to take actions that disrupted and then terminated Avis’s reasonable business 

expectancies with Car Rentals.

78. Jaramillo and Pomarico acted with malice in interfering with Avis’s reasonable 

business expectancies with Car Rentals.

79. Jaramillo’s and Pomarico’s actions caused Avis damages, including financial loss 

in the amount of the Overpayment and in the loss of future revenue from the Car Rentals 

Facility.

WHEREFORE, Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

judgment against Defendants Efrain A. Jaramillo, Jr. and Evelyn Pomarico, as follows:

A. That this Court enter a judgment finding that Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico 

tortiously interfered with Avis’s reasonable business expectancies with Defendant 

Car Rentals;

B. That this Court order Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico to pay to Avis such 

damages as Avis has sustained as a result of Jaramillo’s and Pomarico’s tortious 

interference with Avis’s reasonable business expectancies with Defendant Car 

Rentals;

C. That this Court order Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico to pay to Avis such 

damages as Avis has sustained as a result of the premature termination of Avis’s 

business relationship with Defendant Car Rentals;

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 16 of 19 PAGEID #: 16
17

D. That this Court award to Avis punitive damages for Defendant Jaramillo’s and 

Pomarico’s willful and wrongful conduct;

E. That this Court order Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico to pay Avis its costs and 

expenses incurred in and related to this action; and

F. That this Court award such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper 

under the circumstances.

COUNT VII

(Civil Conspiracy / Collusion –

As to Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico)

80. Avis incorporates Paragraphs 1-79 as if fully stated herein.

81. Upon information and belief, Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico maliciously 

combined to deprive Avis of the Overpayment, to convert the Overpayment funds to their own 

uses, and to tortiously interfere with to Avis’s contract and business relationship with Car 

Rentals, as alleged in the tort counts above, namely Counts II (conversion), V (tortious 

interference with contract), and VI (tortious interference with business relations).

82. Jaramillo’s and Pomarico’s malicious agreement and combination caused injury 

to Avis, as alleged in the tort counts above.

83. Upon information and belief, Jaramillo and Pomarico each took an unlawful act 

independent of the conspiracy itself, including by taking one or more actions that would advance 

their common goal of depriving Avis of the Overpayment funds and using the Overpayment 

funds for their own purposes.

84. By virtue of their conspiracy and collusion with one another, Jaramillo and 

Pomarico are each responsible for and liable for the actions of the other taken to advance the 

goal of their common agreement and conspiracy.

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 17 of 19 PAGEID #: 17
18

WHEREFORE, Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court enter 

judgment against Defendants Efrain A. Jaramillo, Jr. and Evelyn Pomarico, as follows:

A. That this Court enter a judgment finding that Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico 

engaged in a civil conspiracy to harm Avis’s lawful interests;

B. That this Court order Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico to pay to Avis such 

damages as Avis has sustained as a result of Jaramillo’s and Pomarico’s civil 

conspiracy;

C. That this Court award to Avis punitive damages for Defendant Jaramillo’s and 

Pomarico’s willful and wrongful conduct;

D. That this Court order Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico to pay Avis its costs and 

expenses incurred in and related to this action; 

E. That this Court order that Defendants Jaramillo and Pomarico are jointly and 

severally liable for any judgment rendered against either of them; and

F. That this Court award such other further relief as this Court deems just and proper 

under the circumstances.

Dated: August 31, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ Daniel J. Gentry

Daniel J. Gentry (0065283)

COOLIDGE WALL CO., L.P.A.

33 W. First Street, Suite 600

Dayton, OH 45402

Phone: 937-223-8177

Fax: 937-223-6705

E-mail: gentry@coollaw.com

Trial Attorney for Plaintiff

Avis Rent A Car System, LLC

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 18 of 19 PAGEID #: 18
19

OF COUNSEL:

Christian Poland (to be admitted pro hac vice)

Bryan Cave LLP

161 N. Clark St., Suite 4300

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-602-5000

Fax: 312-698-7485

E-mail: christian.poland@bryancave.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 31st day of August 2017, a copy of the 

foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of 

the Court’s E-filing system and copies will be mailed via U.S. Mail to those parties to whom 

electronic notice has not been sent. Parties may access the filing through the Court’s system.

s/ Daniel J. Gentry

Daniel J. Gentry

w:\wdox\client\000178\00100\00898426.docx

Case: 2:17-cv-00776-MHW-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/31/17 Page: 19 of 19 PAGEID #: 19