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

28

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180) 

KENT LAW OFFICES

3219 E. Camelback Rd #588

Phoenix, AZ 85018

Telephone: (480) 247-9644

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781

E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com

Of Counsel to:

Credit Repair Lawyers of America

22142 West Nine Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48033

Telephone: (248) 353-2882

Facsimile: (248) 353-4840

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Online Distribution, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Online Distribution, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Kangaroo Manufacturing, Inc. and

Justin Ligeri, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF, ONLINE DISTRIBUTION, INC., BY AND 

THROUGH COUNSEL, TRINETTE G. KENT, and for its Complaint against 

Defendants pleads as follows:

Case 2:18-cv-00761-SPL Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 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

28

2

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 U.S.C § 1332(a) as the parties are 

citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

2. Plaintiff is incorporated in Michigan and its principal place of business is in 

Michigan.

3. Defendant Kangaroo Manufacturing, Inc. (“Kangaroo”) is incorporated in 

Florida and its principal place of business is in Arizona.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Justin Ligeri maintains residences in 

both Florida and Arizona.

PARTIES

5. The Plaintiff to this lawsuit is Online Distribution, Inc. (“Online”), which is a 

Michigan Corporation with its principal place of business in the City of Wixom, 

Oakland County, Michigan.

6. The Defendants to this lawsuit are:

a. Kangaroo Manufacturing, Inc. (“Kangaroo”), an Arizona corporation that 

conducts business in the State of Michigan; and

b. Justin Ligeri, who resides in New York and conducts business in the 

State of Michigan.

Case 2:18-cv-00761-SPL Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 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

28

3

VENUE

7. Venue is proper before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the 

Defendants conduct business in Michigan and a substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the City of Wixom, 

Oakland County, Michigan.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Defendant Kangaroo is a manufacturer of consumer goods. Kangaroo is 

owned, operated, promoted and managed by co-Defendant Ligeri. 

9. Kangaroo and Ligeri have garnered a large reputation on Amazon.com as 

successful sellers of goods. Indeed, Ligeri holds the record for selling over 

$1,000,000 worth of goods in one day and over $10,000,000 of goods within 

one month.

10.Ligeri holds and, at all times relevant to the complaint, has held himself out as 

an expert in the field of selling consumer type goods online through 

Amazon.com.

11.Online is a reseller of consumer products on Amazon.com.

12.Online is owned and operated by Todd Snively.

13.Prior to May 26, 2017, Snively heard Ligeri speak at a marketing conference for 

high level Amazon sellers (“the conference”).

Case 2:18-cv-00761-SPL Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 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

28

4

14.Ligeri approached Snively during the conference to solicit Snively’s business to 

sell the Kangaroo brand on Amazon.com.

15.At the conference, Ligeri stated to Snively that, if Online purchased goods from 

Kangaroo during the summer season, they would all sell by the end of the July 

4, 2017 weekend based upon historical results and his expert opinion.

16.On or about May 29, 2017, Online, relying upon that statement, ordered 

$201,282.72 worth of goods from Kangaroo.

17.Online purchased these goods from Kangaroo to sell during the summer season 

of 2017, which began on May 29, 2017, and ended on July 4, 2017.

18.On or about May 30, 2017, Online wire transferred $201,282.72 to Kangaroo.

19.Online subsequently purchased other goods from Kangaroo and paid a total of 

$255,908.72 to Kangaroo for all of the purchased goods.

20.Kangaroo, in return, only delivered $170,163.60 worth of goods.

21.To date, Kangaroo never delivered $85,745.12 worth of goods for which Online 

paid Kangaroo.

22.Sales were slow, and Online did not sell all of the goods that it purchased by 

July 4, 2017.

23.On or about June 30, 2017, Online contacted Kangaroo to seek a refund for the 

amount of the unshipped goods.

24.Kangaroo agreed to give credits for the unshipped goods.

Case 2:18-cv-00761-SPL Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 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

28

5

25.On or about July 18, 2017, Online again contacted Kangaroo to seek a refund 

for the unshipped goods.

26.Kangaroo, for the first time, stated that it does not accept returns.

27.To date, Kangaroo has not refunded any money to Online.

COUNT I

BREACH OF CONTRACT BY KANGAROO

28.Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as if recited verbatim.

29.Online and Kangaroo entered into a contract whereby Online purchased goods 

from Kangaroo to be resold to consumers under Kangaroo’s brand.

30.Online purchased $255,908.72 worth of goods from Kangaroo, but Kangaroo 

only shipped $170,163.60 worth of goods to Online.

31.Kangaroo has neither shipped the $85,745.12 worth of goods for which Online 

paid but never received, nor refunded any money to Online for the unshipped 

goods.

32.Kangaroo breached its contract with Online.

33.Online has been damaged by Kangaroo’s breach of contract.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant a judgment against 

Kangaroo for actual damages, costs, interest, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as 

this Court deems appropriate.

Case 2:18-cv-00761-SPL Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 5 of 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

28

6

COUNT II

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY BY KANGAROO

34.Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as if recited verbatim.

35.Kangaroo is a “merchant” as defined by the Arizona Uniform Commercial 

Code (“UCC”), A.R.S. § 47-2104(A).

36.Kangaroo is a “seller” as defined by the UCC, A.R.S. § 47-2103(A)(4).

37.Online is a “buyer” as defined by the UCC, A.R.S. § 47-2103(A)(1).

38.The goods that Online purchased from Kangaroo are “goods” as defined by the 

UCC, A.R.S. § 47-2105(A).

39.Kangaroo expressly warranted to Online that, if Online purchased goods from 

Kangaroo during the summer season, all of the goods would sell by the end of 

the July 4, 2017 weekend.

40.Kangaroo further expressly warranted to Online that it would deliver the goods 

for which Online paid Kangaroo.

41.Kangaroo’s express warranties were part of the basis of the bargain between 

Online and Kangaroo.

42.Online relied upon Kangaroo’s express warranties in deciding to purchase the 

goods from Kangaroo.

43.Kangaroo breached its express warranties to Online.

44.Online has suffered damages as a result of Kangaroo’s breaches of its express 

warranties to Online.

Case 2:18-cv-00761-SPL Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 6 of 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

28

7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant a judgment against 

Defendant for actual damages, costs, interest, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as 

this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT III

UNJUST ENRICHMENT BY ALL DEFENDANTS

45.Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as if recited verbatim.

46.Online paid a total of $255,908.72 to Kangaroo for all of the goods that it 

purchased.

47.Kangaroo only shipped $170,163.60 worth of goods to Online.

48.Kangaroo has neither shipped the $85,745.12 worth of goods for which Online 

paid but never received, nor refunded any money to Online for the unshipped 

goods.

49.Kangaroo and Ligeri have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Online.

50.Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Kangaroo’s and Ligeri’s unjust 

enrichment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant a judgment against 

Defendants for actual damages, costs, interest, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as 

this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT IV

Case 2:18-cv-00761-SPL Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 7 of 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

28

8

FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION BY ALL DEFENDANTS

51.Plaintiff realleges the above paragraphs as if recited verbatim.

52.Defendants represented to Online that, if Online purchased the goods 

immediately after the conference, the goods would be sold by the July 4, 2017 

weekend.

53.Defendants also stated that they would only select a few vendors to sell the 

goods manufactured by them. 

54.The above representations were false.

55.Defendants, contrary to industry standard, competed with its selected vendors, 

including the Plaintiff, in selling its goods online via Amazon.com.

56.Defendants made the above representations with knowledge that they were false 

or made them recklessly, without any knowledge of their truth as positive 

assertions.

57.Defendants made the above representations with the intention to induce Online

to purchase goods from Kangaroo.

58.Online justifiably relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations and acted in 

reliance on the representations to its detriment.

59.Online has suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ misrepresentations.

Case 2:18-cv-00761-SPL Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 8 of 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

28

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant a judgment against 

Defendants for actual damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, attorneys’ fees, 

and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT FOR RELIEF

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant the following relief against 

Defendants:

a. Actual damages;

b. Exemplary damages;

c. Costs, interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

d. Such other and further relief this Court deems appropriate.

DATED: March 8, 2018

KENT LAW OFFICES

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Online Distribution, Inc.

Case 2:18-cv-00761-SPL Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 9 of 9