1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

John W. Storer, III—State Bar I.D. No. 010478

Michael J. Frazelle—State Bar I.D. No. 006076

SWENSON, STORER, ANDREWS

& FRAZELLE, P.C. 

7310 N. 16th Street, Suite 320

Phoenix, Arizona 85020-5276

jstorer@swensonlaw.com

mfrazelle@swensonlaw.com 

Telephone: (602) 274-4778

Facsimile: (602) 274-5911

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fahad Al-Rajhi and Jood, Ltd.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fahad Al-Rajhi and Jood, Ltd., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Mayfair Holdings, LLP; Mayfair 

Administration, LLC; Mayfair Real Estate 

LP; Mayfair Finance Group, LLP; Mayfair 

Finance, LLP; Stuart Horwich; Leon 

Dutkiewicz and Michael D. Evans, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

 

Complaint For Damages

Jury Trial Demanded

COME NOW Plaintiffs, FAHAD AL-RAJHI (“Al-Rajhi”) and JOOD, LTD. (“Jood”) 

(referred to collectively herein as “Plaintiffs”), seeking damages from Defendants MAYFAIR 

HOLDINGS, LLP, MAYFAIR ADMINISTRATION, LLC, MAYFAIR REAL ESTATE LP, 

MAYFAIR FINANCE GROUP, LLP, MAYFAIR FINANCE, LLP, STUART HORWICH 

(“Horwich”), LEON DUTKIEWICZ (“Dutkiewicz”) and MICHAEL D. EVANS (“Evans”) 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 35
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(referred to collectively herein as “Defendants”) resulting from a fraudulent scheme 

orchestrated by Defendants under which Defendants, in addition to other wrongful acts and 

omissions, solicited money investments from Plaintiffs to undertake a real estate investment 

scheme in and around Phoenix, Arizona and promised to repay Plaintiffs the principal invested 

in addition to a specific amount of interest on the amount invested. Defendants have not paid 

Plaintiffs the amounts promised to Plaintiffs and continue to perpetrate other wrongful acts to 

the detriment of Plaintiffs. 

THE PARTIES

1. Defendant Mayfair Holdings, LLP, is a corporation organized under the laws of 

the State of Delaware with its principal offices located in Phoenix, Arizona. Mayfair Holdings 

LLP currently conducts business under other names, including, but not limited to Mayfair 

Administration LLC, Mayfair Real Estate LP, Mayfair Finance Group, LLP and Mayfair 

Finance LLP.

2. Defendant Mayfair Administration, LLC, is a corporation organized under the 

laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal offices located in Pitman, New Jersey, which 

regularly conducts business transactions in Phoenix, Arizona.

3. Defendant Mayfair Real Estate, LP, is a partnership organized under the laws of 

the State of Delaware with its principal offices located in Wilmington, Delaware, which 

regularly conducts business and has an office in Phoenix, Arizona. Defendant Mayfair Finance

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 2 of 35
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Group, LLP, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its 

principal offices located in Phoenix, Arizona. 

4. Defendant Mayfair Finance Group, LLP is a corporation organized under the 

laws of the State of Arizona, with its principal offices located in Phoenix, Arizona.

5. Defendant Mayfair Finance, LLP is a corporation organized under the laws of 

the State of Arizona, with its principal offices located in Phoenix, Arizona.

6. Defendant Michael D. Evans is a citizen of the United Kingdom with a business 

visa to work in the United States who resides in Scottsdale, Arizona. Evans is the founder of 

the Mayfair entities and personally induced investments and loans for the Mayfair entities. 

7. Defendant Stuart Horwich is upon information and belief, a citizen of the United 

States who resides in the United Kingdom. Defendant Horwich is an attorney who advised 

Defendant Evans, and participated individually, in the formation and operation of the Mayfair 

entities. Defendant Horwich is also a partner of Pitman Property Management, which advised 

and assisted Defendants with various issues and activities. 

8. Defendant Leon Dutkiewicz, is upon belief, a citizen of the United States, who 

resides in New Jersey and regularly conducts business throughout the United States, including 

Arizona. Defendant Dutkiewicz is an accountant who advised Defendants Evans and Horwich, 

and participated individually, in the formation and operation of the Mayfair entities. 

Specifically, Defendant Dutkiewicz prepared and filed tax returns on behalf of Defendants. 

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 3 of 35
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9. Defendant Dutkiewicz is also a partner in Pitman Property Management, which 

advised and assisted Defendants with various issues and activities. 

10. Plaintiff Fahad Al-Rajhi is a citizen of Saudi Arabia who resides in Saudi Arabia 

and who regularly conducts business in the United States.

11. Jood, Ltd., is a corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands 

and wholly owned by Plaintiff Al-Rajhi. 

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

12. The Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(1) because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest 

and costs, and is between citizens of different states and citizens of a foreign state. 

13. At all times material herein, Defendant Mayfair Holdings, LLP has been 

authorized to conduct business in the State of Arizona, has regularly solicited business and 

derived substantial revenue from goods used/or services rendered in the State of Arizona, 

committed a tortious act or omission in the State of Arizona, and/or committed a tortious injury 

in the State of Arizona, and/or committed a tortious injury in the State of Arizona caused by an 

act or omission in the State of Arizona. Mayfair Holdings, LLP, can be served with the 

summons and a copy of the complaint in this matter via its registered agent, The Corporation 

Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

14. At all times material herein, Defendant Mayfair Administration, LLC, through 

its associated company, Mayfair Holdings, LLP, has transacted business in the State of 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 4 of 35
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Arizona, has regularly solicited business and derived substantial revenue from goods used 

and/or services rendered in the State of Arizona, committed a tortious act or omission in the 

State of Arizona, and/or committed a tortious injury in the State of Arizona caused by an act or 

omission in the State of Arizona. Mayfair Administration, LLC can be served with a summons 

and a copy of this complaint via its registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company,

Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801.

15. At all times material herein, Mayfair Real Estate LP, through its associated 

company, Mayfair Holdings, LLP, has transacted business in the State of Arizona, has 

regularly solicited business and derived substantial revenue from goods and/or services 

rendered in the State of Arizona, committed a tortious act or omission in the State of Arizona, 

and/or committed a tortious injury in the State of Arizona caused by an act or omission in the 

State of Arizona. Mayfair Real Estate, LP, can be served with a summons and a copy of this 

complaint via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2338 W. Royal Palm Road, 

Suite J, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.

16. At all times material herein, Defendant Mayfair Finance Group, LLP, through its 

associated company, Mayfair Holdings, LLP, has transacted business in the State of Arizona, 

has regularly solicited business and derived substantial revenue from goods and/or services 

rendered in the State of Arizona, committed a tortious act or omission in the State of Arizona, 

and/or committed a tortious injury in the State of Arizona caused by an act or omission in the 

State of Arizona. Mayfair Finance Group, LLP can be served with a summons and a copy of 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 5 of 35
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

this complaint via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2338 W. Royal Palm 

Road, Suite J, Phoenix, Arizona 85021. 

17. At all times material herein, Defendant Mayfair Finance, LLP, through its 

associated company, Mayfair Holdings, LLP, has transacted business in the State of Arizona, 

has regularly solicited business and derived substantial revenue from goods and/or services 

rendered in the State of Arizona, committed a tortious act or omission in the State of Arizona, 

and/or committed a tortious injury in the State of Arizona caused by an act or omission in the 

State of Arizona. Mayfair Finance, LLP can be served with a summons and a copy of this 

complaint via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2338 W. Royal Palm Road, 

Suite J, Phoenix, Arizona 85021.

18. At all times material herein, Defendant Evans has transacted business in the 

State of Arizona, has regularly solicited business and derived substantial revenue from goods 

used and/or services rendered in the State of Arizona, committed a tortious act or omission in 

the State of Arizona, and/or committed a tortious injury in the State of Arizona caused by an 

act or omission in the State of Arizona. Evans can be served at his personal residence in 

Scottsdale, Arizona or in the United Kingdom at Queensbury House, 3 Old Burlington Street, 

Mayfair, London W1S 3AE.

19. At all times material herein, Defendant Horwich has derived revenue from goods 

used and/or services rendered in the State of Arizona, committed a tortious act or omission in 

the State of Arizona, and/or committed a tortious injury in the State of Arizona caused by an 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 6 of 35
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

act or omission in the State of Arizona. Horwich can be served in the United States at 199 

North Woodbury Road, Suite 103, Pitman, New Jersey 08071 or in the United Kingdom at 6-7 

Hatton Gardens, 3rd Floor, London, ECIN 8AD.

20. At all times material herein, Defendant Dutkiewicz has derived revenue from 

goods used and/or services rendered in the State of Arizona, committed a tortious act or 

omission in the State of Arizona, and/or committed a tortious injury in the State of Arizona 

caused by an act or omission in the State of Arizona. Dutkiewicz can be served in the United 

States at 199 North Woodbury Road, Suite 103, Pitman, New Jersey 08071.

21. Plaintiffs invested with and loaned money to Defendants to receive profits based 

on the purchase and sale of real property within the jurisdiction of this Court.

FACTS SUPPORTING PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

22. Based on present information and belief, on or around April 2012, Defendant 

Evans, through and on behalf of his businesses Evans Randall and Mayfair Finance Group,

initially approached Plaintiff Al-Rajhi to solicit an investment of money for a real estate 

scheme involving the purchase and resale of distressed real estate in and around Phoenix, 

Arizona. The real estate scheme (referred to hereinafter as “Mayfair Scheme”) was devised by 

Defendant Evans, implemented with the assistance and counsel of Defendants Horwich and 

Dutkiewicz and consisted of various entities, including but not limited to Mayfair Holdings, 

L.P., Mayfair Administration, LLC, Mayfair Finance, LLP, Mayfair Real Estate, LP, and 

Mayfair Property Management, LLP. 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 7 of 35
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

23. On or around May, 2012, Defendant Evans, in an effort to induce Plaintiff AlRajhi to make an investment, wrote to Plaintiff Al-Rajhi and stated that the Mayfair Scheme 

would involve “no debt” and be “funded by my equity.” Defendant Evans, in the same 

correspondence, stated that Mayfair Scheme would yield “a 12% cash on cash return plus

capital growth” and “up to 15% to 20% (potentially more).” 

24. Upon reliance of the promises made by Defendant Evans, including but not 

limited to the minimum rate of return promised by Defendant Evans, on or about June, 

2012, Plaintiff Al-Rajhi agreed to loan a total of at least $2,500,000.00 into the Mayfair 

Scheme, which was made up of at least two separate loans. Plaintiff Al-Rajhi’s investment 

was sent to and deposited in the account of Mayfair Finance, an entity devised, structured 

and set up by Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz. 

25. On or about June 27, 2012, in an effort to facilitate Plaintiff Al-Rajhi’s 

investment, a Partnership Agreement was entered into by Mayfair Real Estate, LP, an entity 

solely controlled by Defendant Evans through Mayfair Finance, LLP, and Plaintiff Al-Rajhi to 

form Mayfair Holdings, LLP. This agreement was signed by Defendant Evans on behalf of 

Mayfair Real Estate, LP and Defendant Horwich on behalf of Mayfair Administration, LLC, 

which was named the initial manager of Mayfair Holdings, LLP. 

26. Mayfair Administration, LLC shares the same mailing address as the offices of 

Defendants Horwich and Dutkiewicz. 

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 8 of 35
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27. Prior to entering into the partnership, it was represented to Plaintiff Al-Rajhi that 

Mayfair Holdings, LLP, would be the entity that would purchase the real estate in Arizona. 

28. According to the Partnership Agreement, 100% of the preferred, or Class A, 

shares of the partnership would be owned by Mayfair Real Estate, LP, and 50% of the 

ordinary, or Class B, shares would be owned by Plaintiff Al-Rajhi, with the remaining 50% 

of ordinary Class B shares being owned by Mayfair Real Estate, LP. 

29. Under the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff Al-Rajhi has no voting rights in 

the partnership but is entitled to the right to inspect and copy all books and records of the 

partnership. Furthermore, the Partnership Agreement provides that all Partners shall be 

provided an annual financial statement. 

30. Plaintiff Al-Rajhi has never been provided an annual financial statement from 

the partnership and his requests to inspect the books and records of the partnership have 

been ignored and/or refused. 

31. The Partnership Agreement further provides that the partnership shall be 

obligated to redeem all of the Class B Interests no later than the date that is five (5) years 

following the date of the Agreement or June 27, 2017.

32. Contrary to the requirements of the Partnership Agreement, Plaintiff AlRajhi’s Class B Interests have not been redeemed.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 9 of 35
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

33. Based on present information, it is believed that the Partnership Agreement 

was formulated and drafted by the joint efforts of Defendants Evans, Horwich and 

Dutkiewicz. 

34. On or about this same date, Defendant Mayfair Holdings, LLP, and Plaintiff 

Al-Rajhi entered into a Subscription Agreement which reflects an issuance of 250,000 class 

B ordinary shares of Mayfair Holdings, LLP, to Plaintiff Al-Rajhi in exchange for 

$250,000.00. The Subscription Agreement was signed by Stuart Horwich on behalf of 

Mayfair Administration, LLC, as the Manager of Mayfair Holdings, LLP.

35. Based on present information, it is believed that the Subscription Agreement was 

formulated and drafted by the joint efforts of Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz.

36. On or about June, 2012, Mayfair Real Estate, LP, and Mayfair Holdings, LLP, 

entered into a Contribution Agreement whereby Mayfair Real Estate, LP, would transfer 100% 

of the interests in its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Mayfair Finance Group, LLP, and Mayfair 

Finance, LLP, to Mayfair Holdings, LLP, in exchange for all of the Class A Ordinary Interests 

in Mayfair Holdings, LLP. Upon present information, it is believed that Defendant Evans 

wholly owns and controls Mayfair Finance, LLP and Mayfair Finance Group, LLP. Under the 

Contribution Agreement, 250,000 Class A Interests and 3,750,000 of Preferred Interests in 

Mayfair Holdings, LLP, were transferred to Mayfair Real Estate. LP.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 10 of 35
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

37. Again, the addresses for noticing Mayfair Real Estate, LP and Mayfair Holdings, 

LLP, are both 199 N. Woodbury Road, Suite, 103, Pitman, New Jersey 08071. This is the 

address used for offices by Defendant Horwich and Dutkiewicz.

38. Based on present information, it is believed that the Contribution Agreement 

was formulated and drafted by the joint efforts of Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz. 

39. As part of his investment in the Mayfair Scheme, Plaintiff Al-Rajhi has made 

loans, totaling $2.5 million, to Mayfair Holdings, LLP. 

40. The first loan, for $2.25 million, was made by Plaintiff Al-Rajhi individually 

to Mayfair Holdings, LLP, and is memorialized in the Unsecured Subordinated Promissory 

Note dated June 27, 2012 (referred to hereinafter as “June Promissory Note”). The June 

Promissory Note was signed by Defendant Horwich on behalf of Mayfair Administration, 

LLC, who was identified as Manager of Mayfair Holdings, LLP and witnessed by Tareq 

Hawasli. Defendant Mayfair Holdings, LLP is identified as the “Borrower” and Plaintiff 

Al-Rajhi is identified as the “Lender.”

41. The June Promissory Note provides for an Interest Rate of twelve percent 

(12%), to be paid in quarterly payments starting in June, 2012, on “Interest Payment Dates” 

identified as September 30, December 31, March 31 and June 30 of every year. The June 

Promissory Note further provides for a default interest rate of 5% for each day from an 

Event of Default until such Event of Default is cured.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 11 of 35
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

42. The June Promissory Note identifies an Event of Default as “... (i) the failure 

to make any Interest payment within five (5) business days of the applicable Interest 

Payment Date ...” and “the commencement of any proceeding by or against the ... (vi) 

Borrower ... if such proceeding shall remain undismissed for a period of sixty (60) days 

from the date of the commencement of the same;”.

43. The June Promissory Note further provides “... Borrower shall have thirty 

days from the date such Event of Default first occurs to cure such Event of Default.” and a 

failure to cure such Event of Default shall allow “... Lender, at its option, may declare all 

Borrower’s obligations under this Note immediately due and payable...” The June 

Promissory Note further provides “... no failure or delay by Lender in exercising any right, 

option or remedy shall be deemed a waiver thereof...”

44. To date, no interest has been paid on the June Promissory Note. The total 

amount owed for missed interest is in excess of $1.1 million. Missed default interest would 

equal approximately an additional $506,000.00.

45. On or about January 10, 2017, written notice of default and demand for 

repayment under the June Promissory Note was made by Plaintiff Al-Rajhi to Defendants 

Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz. As of the present date, no payments have been received and 

no formal response has been sent by these Defendants. 

46. Based on present information, it is believed that the June Promissory Note was 

formulated and drafted by the joint efforts of Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz.

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 12 of 35
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

47. On or around the time of the initial investment by Plaintiff Al-Rajhi, a 

Subordination Agreement was entered into by and among Aspen Services, LLC, Plaintiff 

Al-Rajhi, and Mayfair Holdings, LLP. The agreement was signed by Defendant Horwich 

on behalf of both Aspen Services, LLC, and Mayfair Holdings, LLP. The Subordination 

Agreement identifies a loan dated May 10, 2012, from Aspen Services, LLC, to Mayfair 

Holdings, LLP and attempts to place this loan in senior, or preferred, status above Plaintiff 

Al-Rajhi’s initial investment. 

48. Upon information and belief, there is no loan from Aspen Services, LLC to 

Mayfair Holdings, nor does Mayfair Holdings owe any debt to Aspen Services, LLC. In 

fact, according to the Mayfair Holdings, LLP, Partnership Agreement, Mayfair Holdings, 

LLP, was not in existence as of May 10, 2012, and therefore no such loan could have been 

made. 

49. The Subordination Agreement provides, in part, “... the Borrower may pay to 

the Subordinated Lender, and the Subordinated Lender may accept from the Borrower, 

regularly scheduled interest payments due under the subordinated loan documents ...”.

50. The Subordination Agreement further provides for the modification of the senior 

debt, allegedly the debt to Aspen Services, LLC, but not for the modification of the 

subordinated debt, allegedly the debt to Plaintiff Al-Rajhi. 

51. As written in the Subordination Agreement, the addresses where notices and 

other communications are to be sent to Aspen Services, LLC, and Mayfair Holdings, LLP, are 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 13 of 35
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

identical, being 199 N. Woodbury Road, Suite 103, Pitman, New Jersey 08071. This is the 

address used for the offices of Defendants Horwich and Dutkiewicz. 

52. Based on present information, it is believed that the Subordination Agreement 

was formulated and drafted by the joint efforts of Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz. 

53. On or about July 5, 2012, at the suggestion and under the direction of 

Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz, Jood, Ltd., was established as an entity through 

which Plaintiff Al-Rajhi could continue investing in the Mayfair Scheme. Jood is a limited 

company established in the British Virgin Islands and solely owned by Al-Rajhi. Jood, Ltd., 

was established and managed by individuals selected and directed by Defendants Evans, 

Horwich and Dutkiewicz. 

54. On or about October 25, 2012, Defendant Evans contacted Plaintiff Al-Rajhi in 

an effort to induce further investment into the Mayfair Scheme. Evans reported to Plaintiff AlRajhi that the Mayfair Scheme had “Average Gross Yield: 12.51%” and “Gross Rental being 

received: $225K.” Evans further stated that “an amount of $2M to $5M might be appropriate” 

to “ensure that we have adequate funds to continue investing.” 

55. On or about November 29, 2012, Defendant Evans again contacted Plaintiff AlRajhi in an effort to induce further investment into the Mayfair Scheme. On this date, Evans 

stated that Mayfair had an “increased value at $7.8M compared to the figure of $6.5M at which 

you came in” and he hoped for “an increase of circa $1.3M.” Evans concluded his 

correspondence by requesting an additional $250,000.00 from Plaintiff Al-Rajhi. 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 14 of 35
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

56. On or about November, 30, 2012, Plaintiff Al-Rajhi, through his newly 

formed entity Jood, Ltd., made a second loan to Mayfair Holdings, LLP. The second loan 

was for a total of $250,000.00 and evidenced by a promissory note dated November 30, 

2012 (referred to hereinafter as “November Promissory Note”). The November Promissory 

Note was signed by Defendant Horwich on behalf of Mayfair Administration, LLC, who 

was identified as Manager of Mayfair Holdings, LLP and witnessed by Tareq Hawasli.

Defendant Mayfair Holdings, LLP is identified as the “Borrower” and Plaintiff Jood, Ltd. is 

identified as the “Lender.”

57. The November Promissory Note provides for an Interest Rate of twelve 

percent (12%), to be paid in quarterly payments starting in November, 2012, on “Interest 

Payment Dates” identified as September 30, December 31, March 31 and June 30 of every 

year. The November Promissory Note further provides for a default interest rate of 5% for 

each day from an Event of Default until such Event of Default is cured.

58. The November Promissory Note identifies an Event of Default as “... (i) the 

failure to make any Interest payment within five (5) business days of the applicable Interest 

Payment Date ...” and “the commencement of any proceeding by or against the Borrower 

... if such proceedings shall remain undismissed for a period of sixty (60) days from the 

date of the commencement of the same;”

59. The November Promissory Note further provides “... Borrower shall have 

thirty (30) days from the date such Event of Default first occurs to cure such Event of 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 15 of 35
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Default.” and a failure to cure such Event of Default shall allow “... Lender, at its option, 

may declare all Borrower’s obligations under this Note immediately due and payable ...” 

The November Promissory Note further provides “... no failure or delay by Lender in 

exercising any right, option or remedy shall be deemed a waiver thereof ...”

60. To date, no interest has been paid on the November Promissory Note. The 

total amount owed for missed interest is in excess of $180,000. Missed default interest 

would equal approximately an additional $65,000.

61. On or about January 10, 2017, written notice of default and demand for 

repayment under the November Promissory Note was made by Plaintiff Al-Rajhi to 

Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz. As of the present date, no payments have been 

received and no formal response has sent by these Defendants. 

62. Based on present information, it is believed that the November Promissory Note 

was formulated and drafted by the joint efforts of Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz.

63. On or about December 28, 2012, a Partnership Agreement entered into 

between Jood, Ltd. and Defendant Evans to form M & F Property Management, LLP 

(“M & F”). The Partnership Agreement provides that Evans and Jood, Ltd. are 50/50 

owners of the partnership. Defendant Evans is named as the initial Manager of the 

partnership. 

64. The M & F Partnership Agreement provides that the Manager, Defendant 

Evans, shall in his own discretion cause the partnership to make distributions. Furthermore, 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 16 of 35
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the Partnership Agreement provides that the books and records of the partnership shall be 

maintained at the principal office and each partner shall have the right to inspect and copy 

all books and records of the partnership. Still further, the Partnership Agreement provides 

that each partner shall be provided with an annual financial report. 

65. Plaintiff Al-Rajhi has never been provided an annual financial statement from 

the partnership and his requests to inspect the books and records of the partnership have 

been ignored and/or refused. 

66. Based on present information, the M & F Partnership Agreement was

formulated and drafted by the joint efforts of Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz.

67. On or about November 30, 2012, M & F and Mayfair Holdings, LLP, entered 

into a Management Agreement, whereby M & F would manage properties owned by 

Mayfair Holdings, LLP. The Management Agreement provides that M & F shall be paid for 

management of the properties an amount equal to 1% of Mayfair Holdings, LLP’s Capital 

Value, with Capital Value equaling Mayfair Holdings, LLP’s fair market value calculated 

on an annual basis. 

68. The Management Agreement specifically provided for M & F to be paid 

quarterly payments of $24,544.00 for the first year of operation, based on an initial Capital 

Value of Mayfair Holdings, LLP, of $9,821,814.00.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 17 of 35
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

69. To date, Plaintiffs have never received any distribution from M & F and have 

been provided with no information regarding the use of the quarterly payment specifically 

provided for in the Management Agreement. 

70. Based on present information, the Management Agreement was formulated 

and drafted by the joint efforts of Defendants Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz.

71. Before loaning any money for the Mayfair Scheme or entering into any 

agreements concerning the Mayfair Scheme, Plaintiffs were repeatedly assured by Defendants 

Evans, Horwich and Dutkiewicz that they would be equal partners in the Mayfair Structure 

with Defendant Evans. 

72. On or around June, 2013, a representative of Defendants assured Plaintiffs that 

Jood, Ltd., “is an equal partner in the Mayfair Structure and has an equity stake of 50 percent 

of the appreciation of the venture.” 

73. On or around June, 2013, Defendant Evans, through his business Evans and 

Randall, communicated with Plaintiffs in an effort to solicit additional funds, in an amount of 

$2,000,000.00, for a different investment scheme, referred to as the Sackville Street Project. 

74. On or about, January 2014, Defendant Evans, by and through his representative 

at Evans Randall, wrote to Plaintiff to confirm the structure of the Mayfair Scheme and 

attached a letter from Defendant Horwich confirming the same. Specifically, Defendant Evans 

stated that Defendant Evans and Plaintiffs “are equal 50% partners.” 

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 18 of 35
19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

75. Defendant Horwich signed a letter dated January 14, 2014, on behalf of UK US 

Tax Services, LLP, a joint partnership between Defendants Horwich and Dutkiewicz, and 

addressed to Defendant Evans and a representative of Plaintiffs. In the letter, Defendant 

Horwich confirmed the details of the Mayfair Scheme, stating: “MRE (Defendant Evans) has 

$2.25m of preferred interests and Fahad has $2.25m of the attached subordinated loan. The 

idea is that both the subordinated loan and the preferred interests are repaid first and that the 

ordinary interests split the remaining profits. It is intended that Fahad and MRE are in 

equivalent positions for all of the investment income here ...”. 

76. On or about September 2014, Defendant Evans sent an email to Plaintiff AlRajhi confirming that Plaintiff was a 50% partner in Mayfair Holdings, LLP, and stating that 

“as an equal partner you are entitled to 50% of the share of the balance of profits...”

77. Defendant Horwich signed a letter dated March 29, 2016, individually and on 

behalf of Pitman Property Management, LLP, a partnership between Defendants Horwich and 

Dutkiewicz, in which the current status of the Mayfair Scheme was described. Specifically, 

Defendant Horwich, by and on behalf of Pitman Property Managements, LLP, stated “the 

Mayfair Scheme consists of over 80 residential properties located in the Phoenix, Arizona area 

valued by Mr. Evans’s staff at approximately $13.3M.” Furthermore, the letter stated “the 

Mayfair Venture has a small amount of cash on hand and has recently made loans to Mr. Evans 

or entities that he controls of approximately $2.9M. Thus, the gross assets held by the Mayfair 

Venture are worth approximately $16.2M.”

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 19 of 35
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

78. Defendant Horwich’s letter, dated March 29, 2016, further stated “the Mayfair 

Venture has begun selling the residential properties, with the intention ... that the majority of 

all properties will be sold within the next 12 months and virtually all will be sold within 18 

months.” 

79. On or about November 2016, Defendant Evans represented in an email that the 

Mayfair portfolio has a value of “circa $11M and we are selling circa $1M of properties every 

month.” Defendant Evans further represented “[w]e expect to have sold all of the remaining 

portfolio (which currently compromises about 60 properties) by the middle of next year.” Still 

further, Defendant Evans represented “IRR’s well in excess of 15% are being achieved. We 

can pay a 15% cash on cash return.” 

80. On or about October 2016, Defendant Horwich and Pitman Property 

Management, LLP, withdrew from their representation of the Mayfair Group and Defendant 

Evans. This withdrawal is a result of conversation between Defendants Horwich and Evans 

concerning Horwich’s concern that Evans was over-borrowing on the Mayfair portfolio and 

withdrawing too much capital. Despite having this concern raised by his close associate, 

Evans did not change his behavior. 

81. In a letter dated on or about October 2016, Defendant Horwich announced his 

withdrawal from the representation of the Mayfair Group, stating “I cannot determine whether 

Mr. Michael Evans is following the agreement you signed a few years ago.” Defendant 

Horwich’s letter went on to explain various instances of Defendant Evans borrowing money on 

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 20 of 35
21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

behalf of the Mayfair Group and individually withdrawing money from the Mayfair Group that 

“significantly exceeds any profit entitlement that he has.” 

82. On or about January 2017, Defendant Evans sent an email to Plaintiff Al-Rajhi, 

in an effort to address concerns that Plaintiff Al-Rajhi might have following the withdrawal of 

Defendant Horwich and in an effort to keep Plaintiff Al-Rajhi invested in the fraudulent 

scheme. In part, the email stated that the Mayfair portfolio “has risen to circa $25M” and the 

lenders have achieved a “cash on cash return of 10%.” Defendant Evans further represented 

“the investors will achieve an annual return of around 20% pa and a Capital growth of 65% 

based upon the original acquisition cost.” Defendant Evans stated that the Mayfair Scheme 

was selling “some 6 properties per month” showing “a cash return per month of about 

$1.05M.” 

83. In his email to Plaintiff Al-Rajhi, dated on or about January 2017, Defendant 

Evans further represented “the total figure remaining of circa $11M will go to repay yourself 

who is partner and Michael Evans himself.” 

84. Each Mayfair entity herein described operated in connection with other 

entities, all of which were devised, set up, maintained and controlled by Defendants Evans, 

Horwich and Dutkiewicz to form the Mayfair Group. The Mayfair Group existed to solicit 

and procure funds from individuals and maintain the appearance of a legitimate real estate 

investment venture. 

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 21 of 35
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

85. Horwich was a partner in Pitman Property Management, and had management 

responsibilities for the Mayfair portfolio. As a partner in Pitman, Horwich had direct and 

regular access to the Mayfair bank accounts and provided legal advice and counsel to 

Defendants Evans and Dutkiewicz. Horwich also played a role in working with accountants 

and outside attorneys to set up the Mayfair entities. Horwich personally signed the June 

Promissory Note and November Promissory Note and Subscription Agreement given to AlRajhi, as a corporate representative of Mayfair. Horwich was also designated the initial 

manager of Mayfair Administration, LLC. Further, Horwich is designated as a 

representative of Aspen Services, LLC in at least one document.

86. Dutkiewicz was a partner in Pitman Property Management with Horwich, and 

upon information and belief is involved with the creation of the agreements at issue and the 

management of the Mayfair properties. Further, upon information and belief, he had the 

same direct and regular access to the Mayfair bank accounts as Horwich, and also, 

individually, played a role as the accountant for the Mayfair Entities generally, and 

Defendant Evans specifically, and, among other acts, drafted and signed tax returns for and

on behalf of the Mayfair entities. 

87. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Individuals have unilaterally 

made decisions to repay various investors in the Mayfair Scheme apart from Plaintiffs.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 22 of 35
23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

88. Upon information and belief, the Defendant individuals have made 

withdrawals from the accounts of the Mayfair entities and used such funds for personal 

expenses. 

89. Upon information and belief, the Defendant individuals have borrowed money 

on behalf of the Mayfair entities and used such funds for personal expense. 

90. Upon information and belief, the Defendant individuals have borrowed money 

on behalf of the Mayfair entities in violation of, and contradictory to, the relevant entity’s 

Partnership Agreement. 

91. To date, Plaintiffs have not received any payments or distributions from 

M & F or Mayfair Holdings, LLP. 

92. To date, Plaintiffs have never been consulted by Defendant individuals on any 

of the financial transactions undertaken by the Mayfair entities. 

93. Upon information and belief, Mayfair’s assets are entirely tied up in real estate 

located in the Phoenix area and said assets are in the process of being liquidated. 

94. To date, Defendants have made no payments on the June and November 

Promissory Notes. 

COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT – PROMISSORY NOTES

95. Plaintiffs incorporate, as if fully set forth herein, the facts and allegations 

contained in Paragraphs 21-94, above.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 23 of 35
24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

96. Defendant Mayfair Holdings, LLP, through Defendants Evans and Horwich 

individually, entered into two Promissory Notes with Al-Rajhi—one individually for 

$2,250,000.00, and one with his solely-owned entity Jood, Ltd., for $250,000.00.

97. Plaintiffs have fulfilled their obligations to Defendants under the Notes. 

98. As set forth in paragraphs 43 and 59, Defendants have defaulted under the 

Notes. 

99. As set forth in paragraphs 44 and 60, Plaintiffs have elected and do now elect 

to accelerate and declare immediately due and owing the entire unpaid principal balance 

together with accrued interest due and owing on the Notes. 

100. There is now due and owing to Plaintiffs from Defendants, the principal 

amount of $2,500,000.00, interest in the amount of approximately $1,635,000.00 through

and including January 2018 at the Note rate, interest in the amount of $624,000.00, from 

September 30, 2012 through and including January 2018 at the default rate of 5% per 

annum, plus costs and attorneys’ fees and any additional amounts to be proven at trial. 

101. Although demands have been made upon Defendants to pay the amounts due 

and owing on the Notes and/or cure the defaults thereunder, Defendants have failed to pay 

and continue to fail to do so. 

COUNT II: BREACH OF CONTRACT – PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS

102. Plaintiffs incorporate, as if fully set forth herein, the facts and allegations 

contained in Paragraphs 21-94, above.

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 24 of 35
25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

103. Plaintiff Al-Rajhi entered into a Partnership Agreement with Defendant 

Mayfair Real Estate, LP, which is wholly-owned and controlled by Defendant Evans, to 

form Mayfair Holdings, LLP. 

104. Plaintiff Jood, Ltd., entered into a Partnership Agreement with Defendant 

Evans, individually, to form M & F Property Management, LLP. 

105. Plaintiffs have performed all obligations under the partnership agreements. 

106. Defendants breached the partnership agreements by refusing to pay Plaintiffs 

the agreed-upon compensation, refusing to provide Plaintiffs information required under the 

agreements and usurping the Partnerships’ assets, operations, and business opportunities. 

107. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have 

suffered economic damages in the form of lost business assets and opportunities, lost 

account receivables, unpaid past and future distributions, lost profits, and lost compensation 

in an amount to be proven at trial. 

COUNT III: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

108. Plaintiffs incorporate, as if fully set forth herein, the facts and allegations 

contained in Paragraphs 1 through 107. 

109. Plaintiff Al-Rajhi is a partner in Mayfair Holdings and, through Jood, Ltd., a 

50% partner in M & F.

110. Plaintiffs do not have a controlling interest nor managerial control of either 

entity.

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 25 of 35
26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

111. As a result of the partnership agreements herein referenced, Defendants owed 

fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, and fair dealing to Plaintiffs. 

112. In addition to the partnership agreements herein referenced, a special 

relationship existed between Plaintiffs and Defendants, such that Plaintiffs placed great trust 

and confidence in the Defendants. As a result of this special relationship, Defendants owed 

fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, and fair dealings to Plaintiffs. 

113. Defendants have breached these fiduciary duties by one or more of the 

following ways: usurping and converting assets of the various partnerships; manipulating 

the partnerships’ finances to Defendants’ benefit and Plaintiffs’ detriment; refusing to 

recognize Plaintiffs’ partnership interest; barring Plaintiffs from operations of the enterprise; 

refusing to share profits with Plaintiffs; refusing to pay Plaintiffs the agreed-upon 

compensation; attempting to subordinate Plaintiffs’ loans to fictional loans made by entities 

owned and controlled by Defendants; refusing to allow Plaintiffs access to accounting and 

financial records of the businesses; and engaging in intentional, reckless, or grossly 

negligent conduct adverse to Plaintiff’s partnership interests. 

114. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have

suffered economic damages in the form of lost business assets and opportunities, lost 

account receivables, unpaid past and future distributions, lost profits, and lost compensation 

in an amount to be proven at trial. 

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 26 of 35
27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COUNT IV: UNJUST ENRICHMENT

115. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 114. 

116. Defendants were unjustly enriched by using false representations and deceit to 

induce Plaintiffs to make loans to Defendants under the auspices of agreeing to form 

Partnerships. 

117. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have

suffered economic damages in the form of lost business assets and opportunities, lost 

account receivables, unpaid past and future distributions, lost profits, and lost compensation 

in an amount to be proven at trial. 

COUNT V: BREACH OF CONTRACT – M & F PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

118. Plaintiffs incorporate, as if fully set forth herein, the facts and allegations 

contained in Paragraphs 21-94, above.

119. Plaintiff Jood is a 50% owner of M & F, which performs property 

management for Mayfair Holdings, LLP, in exchange for 1% of Mayfair Holding, LLP’s 

total annual assets, to be paid quarterly.

120. M & F has performed those duties, and upon information and belief, has been 

paid, but Plaintiff Jood has not received any portion of such payments, nor any other 

payments or distributions from M & F.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 27 of 35
28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

121. Defendant Evans as 50% owner and Manager of M & F, has breached his 

contract with Jood by failing to pay Jood its 50% share of M & F revenues and profits.

122. Jood is therefore entitled to damages as a result of this breach in an amount to 

be proven at trial.

COUNT VI: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR M & F

123. Plaintiffs incorporate, as if fully set forth herein, the facts and allegations 

contained in Paragraphs 21-94, above.

124. Defendant Evans is a 50% owner of M & F and is the manager of 

M & F.

125. Defendant Evans owes a fiduciary duty to Jood.

126. By failing to properly account for the business and pay Jood as required, 

Defendant Evans has breached his fiduciary duty to Jood.

127. Jood is therefore entitled to damages as a result of this breach in an amount to 

be proven at trial.

COUNT VII: THEFT

128. Plaintiffs incorporate, as if fully set forth herein, the facts and allegations 

contained in Paragraphs 21-94, above.

129. Upon information and belief, Evans has personally withdrawn funds from the 

various business entities, or has used corporate funds for personal purposes.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 28 of 35
29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

130. These withdrawals or personal uses were done without corporate authority and 

to the detriment of the other shareholders and members of the businesses, including 

Plaintiffs. 

131. Such personal use and withdrawals constitute theft of corporate funds, which 

has caused special and direct harm to Plaintiffs both in terms of unpaid distributions but also 

in the inability or failure to pay on the loans and promissory notes held by Plaintiffs.

132. Plaintiffs therefore are entitled to the damages resulting from this theft in an 

amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT VIII: ACCOUNTING

133. Plaintiffs incorporate, as if fully set forth herein, the facts and allegations 

contained in Paragraphs 21-94, above.

134. Plaintiffs are part owners of Mayfair Holdings, LLP, and M & F.

135. As owners, and pursuant to various agreements between Plaintiffs and 

Defendants, Plaintiffs are entitled to accountings of these businesses.

136. Mayfair Finance is a wholly-owned asset of Mayfair Holdings, and therefore 

Plaintiffs are entitled to an accounting of Mayfair Finance as well.

137. Plaintiffs hereby request that this Court order that such accountings be made 

and provided to Plaintiffs.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 29 of 35
30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COUNT IX – FRAUD BY DEFENDANT EVANS

138. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 21 through 94. 

139. Defendant Evans knowingly and intentionally, or recklessly, made false 

representations with the intention that Plaintiffs would invest assets and goodwill into the 

Mayfair scheme and that Plaintiffs would remain invested in the Mayfair Scheme, when 

Defendant Evans had no intention of performing under the various agreements or otherwise 

compensating Plaintiffs. 

140. The false representations of Defendant Evans included, but are not limited to, 

promising Plaintiffs a specific minimum rate of return on their investment. 

141. Plaintiffs relied on Defendant Evans’s misrepresentations to their detriment by 

acquiescing to Defendants’ requests for investment and loans into the Mayfair Scheme. 

142. Plaintiffs also relied on Defendant Evans’s misrepresentations to their 

detriment by acquiescing to Defendant Evans’s requests to remain invested in the Mayfair 

Scheme. 

143. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, economic damages 

in the form of lost profits, lost business opportunities, and lost compensation in an amount 

to be proved at trial, plus pre and post judgment interest. 

144. Defendant Evans’s actions alleged herein were performed with malice or with 

a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiffs, 

and with a conscious indifference to the health, safety and welfare of others.

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 30 of 35
31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COUNT X – FRAUD BY DEFENDANT HORWICH

145. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 21 through 94.

146. Defendant Horwich knowingly and intentionally, or recklessly, made false 

representations with the intention that Plaintiffs would invest assets and goodwill into the 

Mayfair scheme and that Plaintiffs would remain invested in the Mayfair Scheme, when 

Defendant Horwich had no intention of performing under the various agreements or 

otherwise compensating Plaintiffs. 

147. The false representations of Defendant Horwich to Plaintiffs included, but are 

not limited to, statements concerning the structure of the Mayfair Scheme and plans for the 

performance of the investment.

148. Plaintiffs relied on Defendant Horwich’s misrepresentations to their detriment 

by acquiescing to Defendants’ requests for investment and loans into the Mayfair Scheme.

149. Plaintiffs also relied on Defendant Horwich’s misrepresentations to their 

detriment by acquiescing to Defendant Horwich’s requests to remain invested in the Mayfair 

Scheme. 

150. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, economic damages 

in the form of lost profits, lost business opportunities, and lost compensation in an amount 

to be proved at trial, plus pre and post judgment interest.

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 31 of 35
32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

151. Defendant Horwich’s actions alleged herein were performed with malice or 

with a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm to 

Plaintiffs, and with a conscious indifference to the health, safety and welfare of others.

COUNT XI – FRAUD BY DEFENDANT DUTKIEWICZ

152. Plaintiffs reallege, and incorporate herein, paragraphs 21 through 94. 

153. Defendant Dutkiewicz knowingly and intentionally, or recklessly, made false 

representations with the intention that Plaintiffs would invest assets and goodwill into the 

Mayfair scheme and that Plaintiffs would remain invested in the Mayfair Scheme, when 

154. Defendant Dutkiewicz had no intention of performing under the various 

agreements or otherwise compensating Plaintiffs. 

155. The false representations of Defendant Dutkiewicz included, but are not 

limited to, valuations of the portfolio of the Mayfair Scheme. 

156. Plaintiffs relied on Defendant Dutkiewicz’s misrepresentations to their 

detriment by acquiescing to Defendant Dutkiewicz’s requests for investment and loans into 

the Mayfair Scheme. 

157. Plaintiffs also relied on Defendant Dutkiewicz’s misrepresentations to their 

detriment by acquiescing to Defendant Dutkiewicz’s requests to remain invested in the 

Mayfair Scheme. 

. . .

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 32 of 35
33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

158. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, economic damages 

in the form of lost profits, lost business opportunities, and lost compensation in an amount 

to be proved at trial, plus pre and post judgment interest. 

159. Defendant Dutkiewicz’s actions alleged herein were performed with malice or 

with a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm to 

Plaintiffs, and with a conscious indifference to the health, safety and welfare of others.

COUNT XII – PUNITIVE DAMAGES

160. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-159, above, as if fully set 

forth herein.

161. Defendants have acted with such bad faith and such wanton disregard for the 

rights of Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of Punitive Damages in an amount 

sufficient to deter Defendants from this kind of outrageous behavior in the future.

162. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award in an amount to be determined in 

the enlightened conscience of a jury.

COUNT XIII – EXPENSES OF LITIGATION

163. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-162, above, as if fully set 

forth herein.

164. Defendants have acted in bad faith, been stubbornly litigious, and/or have 

caused Plaintiffs unnecessary trouble and expense, entitling Plaintiffs to recover their 

expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 33 of 35
34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, 

and the following relief:

(a) That this matter be tried before a jury;

(b) For general and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 

(c) For a court-ordered accounting re Mayfair Holdings, M & F, and Mayfair 

Finance;

(d) For costs incurred herein;

(e) For reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

(f) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2018.

SWENSON, STORER,

ANDREWS & FRAZELLE, P.C.

 By: /s/John W. Storer, III

John W. Storer, III

Michael J. Frazelle

7310 North 16th Street, Suite 320

Phoenix, AZ 85020-5276

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 34 of 35
35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 21, 2018, I electronically filed the Complaint with 

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email 

notification of such filing to any attorneys of record.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2018.

SWENSON, STORER, ANDREWS 

& FRAZELLE, P.C.

By: /s/John W. Storer, III

John W. Storer, III

Michael J. Frazelle 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:18-cv-00581-HRH Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 35 of 35