UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

(SOUTHERN DIVISION) 

______________________________________ 

BRUCE ALLEMAN and PATRICIA ) 

ALLEMAN, Individually and on behalf ) 

of all others similarly situated ) CIV. NO. __________________ 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

PARK WEST GALLERIES, INC., d/b/a ) 

PARK WEST GALLERY, PWG ) 

FLORIDA, INC., FINE ART SALES, ) 

INC., VISTA FINE ART, LLC d/b/a PARK ) 

WEST AT SEA, ALBERT SCAGLIONE, ) 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., ) 

and JOHN DOES 1-100. ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_____________________________________ ) 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Bruce Alleman and Patricia Alleman (together “Plaintiffs”), individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Class”), file this class action against Defendants: 

Park West Galleries, Inc. d/b/a Park West Gallery, PWG Florida, Inc., Fine Art Sales, Inc., Vista 

Fine Art, LLC d/b/a Park West at Sea (together “Park West”), Albert Scaglione (“Scaglione”), 

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (“Royal Caribbean”), and John Does 1-100 (together 

“Defendants”). Plaintiffs’ allegations are based upon personal knowledge when pertaining to 

themselves and upon information and belief, based on the investigation and research of counsel 

and publicly available materials, as to all other facts alleged in the Complaint. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 1 of 55
2

NATURE OF THE ACTION

 1. This is an action for damages brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of a nationwide class 

of purchasers of artwork at shipboard art auctions conducted by Park West during leisure cruises 

on ships owned or operated by Royal Caribbean. Art auctions at sea are a featured recreational 

event on cruises departing from the United States, ostensibly offered by cruise lines as an 

exciting and fun activity. Because of the illegal actions of Defendants as described in this 

Complaint, Plaintiffs and the Class suffered losses and injury through the operation of the Art 

Auction Enterprise (defined below) when they purchased works of “art” at these auctions. The 

“art” purchased was not as it was represented to be by Defendants. 

 2. For at least the past ten (10) years, and continuing into the present, Park West 

planned, operated and continues to operate a fraudulent scheme to sell artwork at shipboard 

auctions on Royal Caribbean cruises, representing at each of the auctions on all of the cruises 

that the artwork is a “good investment,” and will, immediately upon disembarking, appraise for 

“many times” the purchase price. In fact, the artwork sold at the shipboard auctions is low-value 

or worthless, often mechanical reproductions or otherwise misrepresented in kind or quality by 

Park West, and is sold at inflated prices. 

 3. Park West and Scaglione were assisted and facilitated by Royal Caribbean in 

accomplishing the goal of the Art Auction Enterprise to sell millions of dollars worth of artwork 

misrepresented to be a “good investment” and to sell phony Appraisals supporting the value of 

the artwork for the profit of Defendants. Park West, Royal Caribbean and Scaglione earned 

millions of dollars from the operation of this illegal scheme. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 2 of 55
3

4. Royal Caribbean voluntarily and knowingly joined and conspired with Park West 

to feature the Park West art auctions on its cruises. 

5. Defendants’ scheme as alleged in this Complaint violates the Racketeer 

Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and the state 

common and statutory laws entitling Plaintiffs and the Class to damages. 

THE PARTIES

Plaintiffs: 

 6. Plaintiffs Bruce Alleman and Patricia Alleman (the “Allemans”), husband and 

wife, are citizens and residents of Waukegan, Illinois. The Allemans purchased artwork in 2005 

at a Park West shipboard auction on a Royal Caribbean cruise to the Caribbean aboard The

Enchantment of the Seas. 

 7. The Allemans are not sophisticated purchasers of art and attended the Park West 

auction as a recreational activity while cruising. They purchased the artwork because it was 

represented by the auctioneer to be a “good investment” that would appraise for “many times” 

the hammer price (last bid price) immediately upon disembarking from the ship. 

 8. The Allemans also purchased Appraisals for the artwork while on board the ship, 

which arrived in the mail and were signed by Scaglione. 

 9. The artwork purchased by the Allemans is not what Park West represented it to 

be. It is not a good investment, not worth what Plaintiffs paid for it, and the Appraisals from 

Park West/Scaglione are phony. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 3 of 55
4

Defendants: 

A. Park West

 10. Defendant Park West Galleries, Inc. d/b/a Park West Gallery (“PWG”) is a 

corporation organized under the laws of Michigan with its principal place of business and 

headquarters at 29469 Northwestern, Southfield, Michigan 49034. PWG designed, operated and 

conspired with Scaglione and Royal Caribbean to operate the fraudulent scheme described in this 

Complaint. 

 11. PWG, on the Park West Gallery website, bills itself as the largest single operator 

of art auctions in the United States. PWG sells approximately 300,000 pieces annually with 

$300 million in annual sales. One-half of PWG’s auction sales occur at shipboard auctions 

conducted during leisure cruises on the most famous cruise lines departing from the United 

States, including Royal Caribbean. PWG has an exclusive contract to conduct art auctions on 

Royal Caribbean cruises. 

a. PWG has approximately 180 employees in Southfield, Michigan and 

operates its exhibition galleries, executive offices, staff functions, art storage facilities, research, 

framing department and customer service departments from that location. 

b. Upon information and belief, PWG maintains its business records in 

Southfield, Michigan. These business records include an “End of Cruise Report,” created and 

maintained by Park West, for each cruise on which an auction was conducted detailing: the 

ship’s itinerary, the date and venue of the auction, start and stop time, attendance, revenue from 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 4 of 55
5

sales, including buyer’s premium, appraisals sold, and the customer’s method of payment, 

including payment on the ship’s bill.1 

c. PWG has sold artwork, either itself or through affiliates it owns and 

controls, at shipboard auctions on the Royal Caribbean ships for at least the past ten (10) years. 

Park West pays Royal Caribbean a fee for renting the venues used to display the artwork and to 

hold the auctions on board the ship. It also pays Royal Caribbean all fees associated with 

conducting the auction, a fixed fee as a concessionaire and a percentage of the auction sales 

revenue for each voyage. 

d. PWG prepares and distributes the phony Appraisals that are sold to 

successful bidders like Plaintiffs and the Class at the shipboard auctions. These Appraisals are 

paid for separately from the price of the artwork and, like the artwork, can be paid for by a 

purchaser by adding the price of the artwork or Appraisal to the ship’s bill or separately by credit 

card. 

e. PWG is not a publicly held corporation. Complete information about the 

corporate structure of PWG, including the nature of its affiliations with other Park West related 

or non-related entities, is not available to Plaintiffs and is under the exclusive control of 

Scaglione and Park West. 

f. PWG controls Defendants PWG Florida, Inc., Fine Art Sales, Inc., Vista 

Fine Art LLC and John Does 1-50. 

 

1

 The ship’s bill will include any items purchased by the cruiser that were not included in 

the price of the ticket.

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 5 of 55
6

g. PWG designed and operated the Art Auction Enterprise and conspired 

with Royal Caribbean and Scaglione to operate the Art Auction Enterprise through a pattern of 

racketeering activity in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), as described in this Complaint. 

 12. Defendant PWG Florida, Inc. (“PWG FL”), an affiliate of PWG, is incorporated 

in Delaware with its principal place of business in Miami Lakes, Florida. PWG FL is controlled 

by Scaglione and PWG and participated with PWG in the operation of the fraudulent scheme and 

conspiracy alleged in this Complaint. 

a. PWG FL has approximately 207 employees in Florida. PWG FL 

distributes artwork sold at the Park West shipboard auctions from its Florida location. PWG 

employees travel frequently to PWG FL to conduct Park West’s business. 

 b. PWG FL is not a publicly held corporation. Information about PWG FL, 

its corporate structure and affiliations with related Park-West entities, the John Does and Royal 

Caribbean is under the exclusive control of Scaglione, PWG or PWG FL. 

c. PWG FL participated with PWG and Scaglione in the fraudulent scheme 

to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), described in this Complaint and conspired with PWG, 

Scaglione and Royal Caribbean to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). 

 13. Defendant Vista Art, LLC (“Vista”) is a Delaware limited liability company with 

its principal place of business located in Southfield, Michigan. 

a. Vista, doing business as Park West at Sea (“PWS”), is an affiliate of PWG 

and participated in the operation of the fraudulent scheme and conspiracy described in this 

Complaint. PWS conspired with Park West, Scaglione and Royal Caribbean to violate RICO, 18 

U.S.C. § 1962(c). 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 6 of 55
7

c. PWS sells artwork at shipboard auctions on ships operated by Royal 

Caribbean always while the cruise ships are in international waters and has done so for the past 

ten (10) years. 

d. PWS is controlled by Defendant Albert Scaglione, who is its sole member 

and a principal of PWG. Vista/PWS is not a public company. Information about the corporate 

structure of PWS and its affiliations with other Park West and non-Park West persons or entities 

is not publicly available and is under the exclusive control of PWG, PWS and Scaglione. 

14. Defendant Fine Art Sales, Inc. (“FASI”) is a Delaware corporation with offices in 

the same facility as PWG in Southfield, Michigan. FASI sells artwork aboard cruise ships, 

including the ships of Royal Caribbean. 

 a. FASI is owned or controlled by PWG and Albert Scaglione. FASI is not a 

publicly held corporation. Information about FASI, its corporate structure and affiliations with 

related and non-related Park West persons or entities is under the exclusive control of FASI, 

Scaglione or Park West. 

 b. FASI participated with PWG and Scaglione in the fraudulent scheme

described in this Complaint and conspired with PWG, Scaglione and Royal Caribbean to violate 

RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). 

 15. Defendant Albert Scaglione (“Scaglione”) is a citizen and resident of Michigan. 

Scaglione is the prime architect of the fraud and conspiracy to operate the Art Auction Enterprise 

described in this Complaint. Scaglione is the founder, president and chief executive officer of 

PWG, having held the position of CEO for forty (40) years. Scaglione is in charge of the day-toCase 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 7 of 55
8

day operations of PWG and Park West and personally earned millions of dollars from the sale of 

artwork and Appraisals on Royal Caribbean cruise ships. 

16. Scaglione signed the Appraisals at issue in this Complaint. 

17. Scaglione, as an individual, is the managing member of the single member entity 

Vista, the Park West affiliate that does business as PWS. 

18. Scaglione controls PWG, PWG FL, Vista and PWS. 

19. Defendants John Does 1-50 are the affiliated or non-affiliated persons or entities 

of Park West that directly or indirectly employ the auctioneers (or who are the auctioneers) that 

conducted the shipboard art auctions on the Royal Caribbean cruises and sold artwork to 

Plaintiffs and the Class. John Does 1-50 are under the control of Park West and Scaglione. Park 

West furnishes each auctioneer with a “Policy and Procedure Manual” prescribing techniques 

and policies to employ while conducting the shipboard auctions and conducts a training program 

for auctioneer “trainees.” In litigation throughout the United States, Park West has maintained 

the legal position that the auctioneers are “independent contractors.” 

20. Park West and John Does 1-50 are referred to together in this Complaint as “Park 

West.” 

B. Royal Caribbean

 21. Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (“Royal Caribbean”) is a Liberian 

corporation with its principal place of business at 1050 Caribbean Way, Miami, Florida 33132.

 a. Royal Caribbean directly or indirectly owns and operates cruise ships that 

depart regularly from all major port cities in the United States. Royal Caribbean is the world’s 

second largest cruise ship company, operating 37 ships and calling on 425 destinations. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 8 of 55
9

b. In 2008, Royal Caribbean had revenues of approximately $1.4 billion, 

with 27% of that revenue coming from on board “revenue accounts” or concessionaires like Park 

West. 

 c. Royal Caribbean conspired with Park West, Scaglione and John Does 51-

100 to operate the fraudulent scheme to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), as described in this 

Complaint. 

 22. Defendants John Does 51-100 are affiliated or non-affiliated persons or entities 

that participated with Royal Caribbean in the illegal acts described in the Complaint. 

 23. Royal Caribbean and John Does 51-100 are referred to in this Complaint as 

“Royal Caribbean.”

JURISDICTION

 24. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 and § 1332, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The amount in controversy exceeds 

five million dollars ($5,000,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and members of the putative 

class number in excess of one hundred (100) and reside in states different from the Defendants. 

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ common law claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367. 

 25. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). Park West and 

Scaglione reside in this district and Royal Caribbean does business and is present in this district 

through its on-going business relationships with Park West and with the citizens of this State. A 

substantial part of the events alleged in this Complaint giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred 

in and were directed from this district. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 9 of 55
10

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Park West: 

 26. Park West styles itself as the world’s largest art dealer, selling over 300,000 

pieces of artwork a year, garnering revenues in 2007 in excess of $300 million. Half of this 

revenue was generated by Park West shipboard auctions conducted on the world’s most famous 

and popular cruise ships, including the ships of Royal Caribbean. The art auctions are always

conducted while the ships are cruising in international waters. 

 27. Park West has been in business for forty (40) years, and for the last ten (10) years, 

it has associated with nine (9) cruise lines to provide art auctions as a recreational event for 

“cruisers,” as leisure passengers are frequently called. The cruise lines Park West operates on 

are: Regent Seven Seas, Royal Caribbean, Celebrity, Carnival, Norwegian Cruise Lines, 

Oceania, Disney and Holland America (the “Cruise Lines”). Park West controls a majority of 

the shipboard art auction business on Cruise Lines departing from the United States, operating on 

over eighty (80) ships. The launch of Park West’s ocean-going venture overlaps with the 

explosion in popularity of leisure cruises as a vacation choice for Americans. Over seventeen 

million (17,000,000) passengers cruise annually. 

28. In the ten (10) year time period since Park West began conducting shipboard art 

auctions, the leisure cruise industry has become the fastest growing segment of the American 

travel and leisure industry, raking in revenues of thirty billion dollars ($30 billion) in 2008. The 

demographics of cruise ship passengers who attend Park West’s art auctions consist of welleducated, affluent, middle-to-older aged vacationers with time to spare and money to spend. The 

Caribbean is the number one destination from the U.S. for leisure cruises. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 10 of 55
11

29. By the time Part West launched its shipboard art auction venture, Park West had 

already established itself as a leader in “popular art” auctions. Thus, Park West was able to 

propose to Royal Caribbean that shipboard art auctions were money-making “events,” with Park 

West serving as the concessionaire or vendor. The shipboard auctions provided a new and 

significant source of revenue for Park West and Royal Caribbean, but neither Park West nor 

Royal Caribbean ever disclosed to Plaintiffs and the Class that Royal Caribbean had a financial 

interest in the auctions. 

30. On its website, Park West states that its mission is to bring the experience of 

researching, collecting and living with fine art to people who do not have access to outstanding 

galleries and auction houses. Park West purposefully pitches its fraudulent and deceptive 

scheme to the naïve art purchaser at shipboard auctions, selling low value, worthless or fake 

artwork, while misrepresenting to Plaintiffs and the Class that the artwork is valuable, a “good 

investment” and that the artwork will “appraise immediately after purchase for many times the 

sale price.” These uniform misrepresentations were made by Park West to Plaintiffs and the 

Class on all Royal Caribbean shipboard art auctions during the Class Period. 

 31. The artwork Park West sells is not what it represents to its customers. Park West 

knew but did not disclose to Plaintiffs and the Class that, to the extent the artwork is “original,” it 

is one of a series so large that it ultimately becomes depressed in value, is one of a series of 

multiple series, was run after the artist’s death, was done by another artist ostensibly with the 

permission of the featured artist or, worse still, was simply a poster. The artwork purchased by 

Plaintiffs and the Class is not a “good investment” because it will not appreciate in value. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 11 of 55
12

 32. The only reason that the artwork Park West sells appraises for above the dollar 

amount paid for it by Plaintiffs and the Class at the shipboard auction is that Park West itself

does the appraisal, thus guaranteeing that the number will be where Park West wants it to be – 

above the hammer price. 

Royal Caribbean: 

33. The Park West proposal was a win-win situation for Royal Caribbean. The costs 

associated with the auctions were incurred by Park West, thereby making Royal Caribbean’s 

investment minimal. Royal Caribbean provided Park West with a venue to display the art and 

another to conduct the auction. Royal Caribbean also dedicated a block of time, always when 

the ship was in international waters, for Park West to conduct the auction. Royal Caribbean was 

careful to limit other recreational activities from competing with the same time period of the 

auction. Royal Caribbean crews served the provided venues. 

34. For Royal Caribbean, the art auctions, like casino-style gambling, became a major 

form of entertainment that it provided to cruisers, as well as a major source of revenue. Royal 

Caribbean received a guaranteed revenue stream from Park West via the auction sales and 

concessionaire fees; however, neither Park West nor Royal Caribbean ever disclosed to Plaintiffs 

and the Class that the auctions were a revenue center for Royal Caribbean. 

35. Royal Caribbean’s portion of art auction revenue is computed as a percentage of 

the auction proceeds (up to 20%) against an agreed (but secret) minimum per voyage. Plaintiffs 

and the Class spent millions of dollars on purchases of artwork from Park West shipboard 

auctions on Royal Caribbean Cruises. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 12 of 55
13

36. The artwork that Park West will auction on any particular cruise is handsomely 

framed and remains on display throughout duration of the cruise. Royal Caribbean never 

discloses its financial interest in the art auctions. Royal Caribbean does not stand behind its 

concessionaires or offer any relief to Plaintiffs and the Class who complain about Park West, but 

it continues to allow Park West to conduct its auctions on Royal Caribbean cruises. 

37. Royal Caribbean selects the location and timing of the auction and encourages 

passengers to attend and mingle at the venue before the auction in the party-like shipboard 

atmosphere. Passengers are treated to a free champagne cocktail-hour before the bidding begins, 

providing time to relax, socialize and preview the artwork that will be offered for sale. The 

champagne is provided by Royal Caribbean at Park West’s expense and is served by members of 

the Royal Caribbean crew. 

 38. Shipboard art auctions are enormously successful for Park West and Royal 

Caribbean, earning significant revenue for both. The financial success of the shipboard auctions 

depends on the trust placed in Royal Caribbean by Plaintiffs and the Class. Park West trades on 

cruisers’ trust and faith in Royal Caribbean to sell the artwork at sea and makes the same 

misrepresentations to auction attendees on cruise after cruise. Repeat business by cruisers is 

critical to the success of all cruise lines. In 2008, one-half (1/2) of all passengers on cruise ships 

were repeat cruisers. Repeat Royal Caribbean cruisers would be familiar with Park West, having 

seen them while on board a previous cruise. 

 39. With Royal Caribbean’s knowledge, cooperation and agreement, Park West used 

the reputation of Royal Caribbean to lure Plaintiffs and the Class to the auctions and to close 

sales. Plaintiffs and the Class were unaware of the implications of Royal Caribbean’s foreign 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 13 of 55
14

registry and that it was not an American entity, even if departing from the United States. 

Passengers were generally unaware that, in the event of a dispute, Royal Caribbean and Park 

West would claim to be insulated by international or admiralty law from consumer claims. 

40. Royal Caribbean facilitated Park West’s fraud by allowing Park West, an 

American entity, to piggy-back on Royal Caribbean’s legal insulation under admiralty law by 

deliberately scheduling the Park West art auctions only when the ship was in international waters 

and by never disclosing its financial interest in the auctions. Royal Caribbean “closes down” 

Park West’s auctions while the ship is in port or in the territorial waters of any port of call, 

creating the illusion for Plaintiffs and the Class that there is a legal impediment to Park West’s 

operating in port, similar to the legal impediments for operating casino gambling while in port. 

41. Royal Caribbean allows cruisers to pay for their Park West purchases and the 

Park West phony Appraisals on the ship’s bill that Royal Caribbean renders to passengers 

immediately prior to disembarking. 

 42. Royal Caribbean never disclosed to Plaintiffs and the Class that it receives a 

percentage of the auction sale proceeds or that its profitability depends on the success of 

shipboard venders, including Park West. 

43. Royal Caribbean actively assisted and conspired with Park West and Scaglione in 

the fraud. The pattern described in the Complaint is without substantial variation for all Royal 

Caribbean cruises: prominent display of auction venue on board the ship, champagne preview, 

auctions scheduled only in international waters, sales made by means of fraudulent 

misrepresentations that the art is a “good investment” and will “immediately appraise” for more 

than the price paid, and payment permitted on the ship’s bill. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 14 of 55
15

44. Sponsorship by Royal Caribbean provides Park West with respectability and 

access to a large, affluent captive audience. 

45. Over half of the 200,000 American passengers who cruised annually during the 

Class Period (defined below) reside in Florida, California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and 

Massachusetts. 

The Shipboard Auctions: 

 46. The Park West shipboard auctions are carefully orchestrated by Defendants to 

generate maximum interest among the passengers. The auctions are conducted by auctioneers 

who are either employed (directly or indirectly) by Park West or Scaglione or are under Park 

West’s control. The “private sales” described herein are part of Park West’s shipboard auction 

scheme and Defendants’ conspiracy. 

 47. Prior to the opening auction on any Royal Caribbean cruise, the artwork to be 

auctioned is displayed by Park West at a prominent shipboard location, including such “works” 

as Dali, Picasso and Rembrandt to serve as a draw. The start of the auction is prominently 

featured on the Royal Caribbean ship’s daily calendar, on-board website and is announced over 

the loud speaker system immediately before beginning. 

48. The auctioneers and other Park West employees (together “auctioneer(s)”) 

circulate among the passengers who come to preview the artwork in order to encourage 

participation in the bidding and to misrepresent to Plaintiffs and the Class, in a uniform sales 

pitch used at all Park West shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean, that: (1) the auctioneers 

have expertise in art, which they do not; (2) the artwork to be offered at auction is a “good 

investments,” which it is not; (3) the artwork is “original,” which it is not, (4) the artwork 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 15 of 55
16

actually received will be a “unique variation” (not a copy) of artwork displayed, a meaningless 

term, and (5) any artwork purchased at auction “will appraise immediately on shore for many 

times the auction purchase price,” which is blatantly untrue. 

49. Employees of Royal Caribbean circulate during the preview, serving champagne 

and tidying up the venue post-cocktail hour. Also during the preview, the auctioneers promise a 

surprise giveaway at the first auction as yet another hook to attract bidders to the auction, all 

occurring within earshot of the Royal Caribbean crew. 

 50. When bidding begins, it is conducted under the direction of auctioneers who are 

trained by Park West. Park West employs a “Principal Auctioneer” in Michigan who instructs 

and trains auctioneers. The sales pitch employed by the auctioneers touts the investment value of 

the artwork and includes a sales patter fixing the value of each piece at a dollar amount 

developed by Park West prior to the auction. This value is then used by Park West as the 

Appraisal value, which is supplied to the customer after the sale. 

51. At each auction, the auctioneers represent the artwork to be a “good investment” 

and state that any purchase “will immediately appraise for many times” the purchase price. 

52. At the first auction on each voyage, auctioneers pretend to “sacrifice” an 

“important” artwork for a seemingly ridiculously low price, sometimes as low as fifty dollars 

($50.00), in order to stimulate bidding. Bidding is fast paced and reflects the general party 

atmosphere on a Royal Caribbean ship, where passenger spending is not only encouraged but 

crucial to the financial success of Royal Caribbean. The auctioneers engage in high pressure 

tactics, belittling bidders who hesitate to bid higher and always speaking with the pistol shot 

speed that is the auctioneer’s stock in trade. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 16 of 55
17

53. Plaintiffs and the Class are not told by Park West before or during the auction 

whether a sellers’ reserve will be applied, or whether shilling (bidders who are put-ups by Park 

West and have no intention to purchase) or phantom bidding (bids called with no bidder) are 

permitted at the auction. While some of these practices are legal under the laws of some states or 

may be otherwise regulated by state law, Park West times its auctions to operate out of the reach 

of state laws regulating auctions. All Park West ever discloses to Plaintiffs and the Class is the 

minimum bid. 

54. Auctioneers encourage cruisers to purchase at the auctions (and the previews and 

the “private sales”) by emphasizing that the auction is taking place on board a famous, wellrespected cruise line, Royal Caribbean, by stating, “Do you think Royal Caribbean would allow 

us to have a shop here if we were fraudulent? If we were not reputable?” At least half of the 

passengers will recognize Park West’s auctions from other cruises, reinforcing Park West’s 

credibility. Park West omits to disclose Royal Caribbean’s financial interest in the auction 

proceeds. All of these misrepresentations are made at all auctions and are made openly and are 

well-known to Royal Caribbean, whose officers and employees can hear them being made and 

have heard them before. The auctions are conducted in a public space on the Royal Caribbean 

ship where Royal Caribbean employees have full and easy access to the proceedings. 

55. Different works or “lots” of artwork are made available for sale by Park West 

each day at the auction as the cruise progresses. This procedure assures that Park West has new 

works to auction each night, replenishing the supply of artwork and encouraging repeat business 

from passengers who might otherwise not attend more than one auction per cruise. 

 56. Successful bidders pay a “hammer price” (highest bid) plus a buyer’s premium. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 17 of 55
18

 57. At the auctions, as bidding is closing down (because Royal Caribbean has a 

competing recreational activity scheduled or another activity booked for the venue), the 

auctioneer encourages the cruisers at the auctions to attend a “private sale” where the unsold 

paintings will be displayed and are available for purchase. As part of the fraudulent scheme, the 

auctioneers tell Plaintiffs and the Class that the artwork available at the private sale is an even 

better value than the artwork being auctioned because there are no other bidders at the private 

sale to drive up the price. Purchasers at the private sale still pay the buyer’s premium as if the 

artwork had been purchased at the auction. 

 58. The Park West practices described above were followed on every Royal 

Caribbean cruise where Park West conducted an auction. 

Park West Contracts for Sale: 

 59. Until September 2008, Park West had a strict NO REFUND policy. But the 

existence of this policy was never disclosed to Plaintiffs and the Class until after purchase when 

Plaintiffs and the Class were able to see the “all sales are final” language on the invoice that Park 

West gave as proof of purchase to all successful bidders. 

60. A materially identical invoice was given to Plaintiffs and the Class by Park West 

for each shipboard art purchase. The invoice is a two sided pre-printed form document generated 

by Park West. It affords no opportunity for the Plaintiffs and the Class to negotiate or change 

any of its terms. See Exhibit A for sample invoice. 

 (a) The front of the invoice records the purchaser’s name and address with a 

list and description of the items purchased. At the bottom of the first page is a pre-printed 

paragraph (the language of which has not changed substantially over the 10-year period of the 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 18 of 55
19

scheme’s operation) acknowledging purchase and receipt of the invoice and “agreeing” that no 

verbal agreements or representations remain in effect except as written on the invoice. 

 (b) The back of the invoice records “additional terms and conditions,” 

including: 

• “All sales are final...” 

• “Appraisals represent our opinion of the price a client would have to 

pay to replace the work through a reputable retail art gallery. We do 

not rely on third party auction prices or internet prices to arrive at the 

appraised value. We do not issue refunds if another appraiser has a 

different opinion than ours.” 

See Exhibit A (emphasis supplied). 

 61. Plaintiffs and members of the Class pay for the art purchased by check or credit 

card while on board the ship. Passengers carrying “insufficient funds” with them to pay for 

costly artwork can immediately apply for a Park West Gallery credit card called a “Park West 

Collectors Card.” Application and approval for the Park West Collectors Card are accomplished 

for the purchaser while on board the ship through the use of the telephone or wires. 

 62. Another method of payment commonly used by Park West, with Royal 

Caribbean’s knowledge and agreement, is to add the purchase price for the artwork directly to 

the ship’s bill that is presented to Plaintiffs and the Class members before disembarking. These 

bills too were paid by Plaintiffs and the Class using credit cards that transfer funds electronically. 

Ship bill costs are placed on the credit card accounts of Plaintiffs and the Class, which are in turn 

paid by Plaintiffs and the Class through the mail or by wire transfer. 

 63. Park West now offers a limited refund or return policy which requires that the 

buyer forfeit the buyer’s premium and pay all costs of returning the artwork. The exchange 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 19 of 55
20

privilege is only for selected artwork chosen by Park West, and the buyer must sign a 

confidentiality agreement and release with Park West and the cruise line before getting a refund 

or exchange. 

 64. The artwork sold by Park West (that cannot be carried off the boat) is delivered to 

the buyer at his/her home address six (6) weeks after purchase via Federal Express. 

65. A Certificate of Authenticity is placed inside the box at delivery. The promise of 

the Certificate of Authenticity is touted at the auctions and is another hook for Park West. 

66. The Appraisals for the artwork purchased on Royal Caribbean cruises are 

delivered to Plaintiffs and the Class via the U. S. Mails. 

Park West’s Appraisals (the “Appraisals”): 

67. Park West offers successful bidders the opportunity to purchase an Appraisal for 

an additional fee of thirty-five dollars ($35) for the first Appraisal and fifteen dollars ($15) for 

each additional Appraisal. Sometimes the Appraisal is automatically tacked on the purchase 

price for the artwork. 

68. The Appraisals are mailed separately from the artwork via U.S. Mail to Plaintiffs 

and the Class after or about the time the artwork is delivered. 

69. Scaglione signs the Appraisals. In those instances where Scaglione did not sign 

the Appraisal, the Appraisal was signed at Park West’s and Scaglione’s direction. 

70. The appraised value in the Appraisal is always greater than the purchase price. 

71. The Appraisals are fraudulent and deceptive with the purpose and intent to 

mislead Plaintiffs and the Class about the meaning and content of the Appraisal and the value of 

the artwork purchased. The Appraisals also serve to lull Plaintiffs and the Class into a false 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 20 of 55
21

belief concerning the value of their shipboard art purchases. The Appraisal’s function is to 

validate the purchase price paid by Plaintiffs and the Class and to conceal Park West’s 

misrepresentations by falsely appraising the artwork for many times the purchase price. 

Plaintiffs and the Class relied on the representations concerning the Appraisals they received as 

proof that the purchase made was a “good investment.” 

 72. Park West used the same or substantially identical Appraisal form for each Class 

member’s purchase. The Appraisal is a form letter that states: 

“The following work of art has been examined by Park West Gallery. In our

opinion the current gallery retail replacement price for this work, including its 

frame is [$$$]...”

See Exhibit B. 

73. Park West never disclosed to Plaintiffs and the Class that the Appraisal would be 

performed by Park West, alone, and entirely without objectivity or generally accepted 

methodology. The language of the invoice referring to the Appraisal deliberately misstates and 

implies that Park West or its designate will employ an objective methodology to arrive at its 

valuation for the Appraisal. 

74. There is no statement from Park West that the Appraisal is being prepared for any 

specific limited purpose other than what is represented at the auction, which is to provide an 

objective valuation of the artwork purchased by Plaintiffs and the Class. 

 75. The Park West Appraisal is not an independent, objective valuation of the 

artwork, but rather a phony, self-interested, fraudulent and biased misrepresentation designed to 

forestall lawsuits and to deceive Plaintiffs and the Class into believing that the purchase price

paid for the artwork is a “good investment.” Park West employs no generally accepted 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 21 of 55
22

methodology to appraise the artwork other than Park West’s “because I say so” or ipse dixit

valuation of the artwork. 

76. According to the American Society of Appraisers (“A.S.A.”), when an appraiser 

has an interest in the property appraised (as Park West does here as the seller), it is unethical for 

an appraiser to accept an assignment to appraise a property (here, appraise the value of the 

artwork) unless there is full disclosure to the client. Park West does not make full disclosure. 

77. Park West misrepresented to Plaintiffs and the Class the methodology employed 

by Park West for the Appraisal and the value of the artwork purchased. Park West 

misrepresented to Plaintiffs and the Class that the Appraisal is the result of its research of a price 

that would be paid by “a reputable retail art gallery,” omitting to state that the “reputable retail 

art gallery” was Park West and that Park West is the only art gallery consulted on the Appraisal 

value. Park West has admitted in other legal proceeding filings that it has no appraisal 

methodology other than the methodology described herein.2 

 78. By stating or implying that Park West accessed information from objective, nonrelated parties and reputable art galleries to arrive at the valuation of the artwork in the Appraisal 

and by omitting to disclose that the only valuation the Appraisal would supply would be Park 

West’s own interested opinion, Park West intentionally deceived Plaintiffs and the Class. 

 79. Plaintiffs and the Class did not learn of or know about the deficiencies in the 

Appraisal at the time of purchase. 

 

2

 See Plaintiff David Bouverat’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Park West’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment, Bouverat v. Park West Gallery, Inc., Case No. 08-31331 (S.D. 

Fla. March 27, 2009).

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 22 of 55
23

The Fraudulent Scheme: 

 80. The artwork auctioned off by Park West on its Royal Caribbean shipboard

auctions were not what Park West represented them to be. Namely, the artwork was not 

valuable, not a good investment, not museum quality, not original and oftentimes fake. Park 

West deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented to Plaintiffs and the Class, in its uniform sales 

pitch used on all Royal Caribbean cruises within the hearing and knowledge of Royal Caribbean 

personnel, that the artwork sold at shipboard auctions was a “good investment,” something to 

“leave to the grandkids” and would, once on shore, “immediately appraise for many times more” 

than what Plaintiffs and the Class had paid for the artwork because the artwork was “original” 

and “touched by the artist’s hand.” 

81. Park West knew, but never disclosed to Plaintiffs and the Class at the shipboard 

auctions, that: 

 (a) Dali forgeries abound in the Park West shipboard auctions (and other 

galleries). Dali is a prominent “hook” artist for Park West. 

 (b) The Rembrandts offered for sale, Rembrandt Wood Cuts, sold sometimes 

for as much as $10,000 each, are in fact modern prints (perhaps made from the original woodcut) 

that are neither rare nor valuable. Thousands of these “original” Rembrandts are available, and 

the prints have little chance of appreciation in value and are not a “good investment.” Park West 

never discloses that the Rembrandt prints were not made during the artist’s lifetime. 

 (c) Some Park West artwork for sale (all artwork is framed when displayed 

shipboard) is merely an ink-jet print, little better than a poster. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 23 of 55
24

(d) The signed and numbered artwork from a series that Park West sells is 

from a very large series or from one of several series and have little, if any, appreciation value, 

although Park West represents them to be a “good investment.” Park West only discloses the 

number in the series when the number is low, but not how many iterations were in the series or if 

there is more than one series on the market. 

 (e) Park West does not disclose when Park West is the only dealer for a 

particular artist or the work that is offered for sale. 

 (f) Park West artists often negotiate bulk sales of their work with Park West, 

diminishing the value and making Park West the sole or primary dealer for that artist or 

particular work. 

 (g) Artwork sold as “signed by the artist” may have suspect signatures or 

reproduced pencil signatures. 

 (h) Artists’ “proofs” of limited editions are editions in addition to the limited 

edition of the work or that more than one “limited edition” of the same work has been produced. 

 (i) Park West always describes the pieces it offers for sale at shipboard 

auctions as “artwork” or “paintings,” even when the work is a print. 

82. Reputable art galleries disclose the date of a work that is one in a series for which 

multiple series may exist, as well as the number in the series and the number of series in 

existence. Reputable galleries also disclose the methodology for the preparation of a print or 

lithograph offered for sale and whether the print was created by the artist or by another person at 

the artist’s direction, as well as the date of the print preparation and total number in circulation. 

Reputable galleries always disclose the provenance of “original” works of art. Park West never 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 24 of 55
25

disclosed to Plaintiffs and the Class the details and provenance (as described in this paragraph) 

for the artwork sold at its shipboard auctions and, in fact, sold the artwork with deliberate 

misrepresentations. 

 83. Plaintiffs and the Class are not sophisticated purchasers of art. Plaintiffs and the 

Class relied on the representations of Park West and the reputation and sponsorship of Royal 

Caribbean in making their purchases. 

84. Royal Caribbean knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that its participation was 

essential to operation of the Art Auction Enterprise and Park West’s scheme. Upon information 

and belief, Royal Caribbean has received complaints from dissatisfied Park West customers 

throughout the Class Period. 

 85. At every shipboard auction on every Royal Caribbean cruise, Park West sells or 

offers to sell an Appraisal for each piece of artwork purchased at the auction. The Appraisals are 

worthless, deceptively designed to reinforce Park West’s deceit and the inflated value of the 

purchase made by Plaintiffs and the Class and to conceal the Defendants’ illegal scheme. 

 86. Royal Caribbean knowingly permits Park West to collect its ill-gotten gains by 

placing the charges for artwork and Appraisals on the ship’s bill. 

87. On September 1, 2008, Park West launched its “40-40 program.” The program 

promises that all purchasers may return artwork purchased from Park West for a full refund or 

exchange within forty (40) days of receipt for the full purchase price, less the buyer’s premium 

(up to $1000) plus shipping and handling. For forty (40) months after the date of the invoice, 

purchasers can exchange their purchase for another work of art from Park West of equal or 

greater value, but the work is selected by Park West. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 25 of 55
26

88. When Park West settles claims with disgruntled customers, the settlements are 

always subject to a mutual confidentiality agreement, mutual releases and release of the Cruise 

Lines, including Royal Caribbean. 

Park West’s Legal Maneuvering: 

 89. Park West, with the facilitation and cooperation of Royal Caribbean, hides in 

international waters. Royal Caribbean carefully schedules the auctions to never take place while 

docked in any port and never within the territorial waters of any port-of-call. Royal Caribbean 

schedules the art auctions in the late afternoon (around cocktail hour and, in fact, serves the 

cocktails) and always after the ship has left port and is cruising international waters. 

90. Conducting business in international waters is important to Park West’s deceptive 

scheme because it provides a legal cloak in Park West’s ongoing attempt to limit the legal 

protection of the states’ consumer protection laws to Plaintiffs and the Class, even if the ship 

departs from the United States. Park West also argues in legal actions to limit the reach of 

federal laws to its activities. 

91. Business conducted on the “high seas” that “bears a significant relationship to 

maritime activity”3 is governed by admiralty law. 18 U.S.C. § 1333, the “saving to suitors” 

clause in admiralty jurisdiction law, refers a forum court to the law of the home state of the 

plaintiff for remedy in the event of litigation. Royal Caribbean, more often than not, departs 

from ports that are not in the home state of most, if not all, of its passengers (Plaintiffs’ home 

state is Illinois). Park West also does not usually have any “presence” in any of the passengers’ 

home states. As a result, in a lawsuit brought in a Plaintiff’s home state, Park West will be able 

 

3

 See Beegal v. Park West, 925 A.2d 684, 696 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007). 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 26 of 55
27

to argue that each is not amenable to process or that they are not within the personal jurisdiction 

of the home state court (even under long-arm statutes). 

92. For example, a lawsuit by a California resident alleging violations of the 

California consumer protection laws by Park West was dismissed for lack of personal 

jurisdiction over Park West. At issue in the complaint were Plaintiff’s shipboard purchases of 

artwork at auction and the purchase of phony Appraisals. Plaintiff sued on behalf of a putative 

class of California residents, but Park West argued lack of personal jurisdiction, successfully 

demonstrating to the court that Park West conducted no business in California (even though the 

Cruise Line did). See Order, Bautista v. Park West Gallery, Case No. 2:08-cv-03717-PSG-r2 

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2008).4

93. Exterritorial application of the consumer protection laws of the Plaintiffs’ home 

states provides still another legal hurdle for disgruntled purchasers. A lawsuit by a Florida 

resident filed in Florida (where Park West can be found), alleging consumer fraud on behalf of a 

class of Florida purchasers in violation of the Florida consumer protection laws, is still pending. 

Park West has moved for summary judgment arguing: (1) that Florida law cannot apply to art 

purchases made by Plaintiffs in international waters, here the Baltic Sea, (2) Florida law cannot 

have exterritorial application, and (3) that admiralty law preempts Florida consumer law. See

Def. Park West’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Bouverat v. Park West Gallery, Inc., Case No. 

08-31331 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2008). 

 

4

 A subsequent refiling of this complaint was dismissed on the grounds of collateral

estoppel. Order, Bautista v. Park West Gallery, Case No. CV08-6262-PSG (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 

Dec. 11, 2008).

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 27 of 55
28

 94. In another lawsuit pending in Michigan state court, Park West took a different and 

more aggressive approach. In Best v. Park West Galleries, Inc., Case No. 0896952-C2 (State of 

Michigan, Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, filed Dec. 23, 2008), Plaintiffs are seven 

individuals, one of whom is a Michigan resident. Plaintiffs, who did not file a class action, 

alleged violations of the Michigan Warranty in Fine Arts Act for Park West’s fraud related to the 

sale of artwork. Park West fired back with a counterclaim for damages against Plaintiffs, alleging 

defamation, tortious interference with business relationships and civil conspiracy. 

 95. In yet another lawsuit, Blackman v. Park West Galleries Inc., Case No. 2:08-1310 

(W.D. Wash. Sept. 2, 2008), Park West has also argued that federal law cannot apply to its 

auctions in international waters. 

 96. Park West’s goal in conducting its auctions only in international waters is 

to escape the reach of the state courts and avoid the application of state consumer protection laws 

to its illegal activities. Thus far, with the facilitation of Royal Caribbean, Park West has been 

successful. 

PLAINTIFFS’ TRANSACTIONS WITH DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs’ Purchases at Park West Shipboard Auctions on Royal Caribbean: 

97. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege all preceding paragraphs as if fully set 

forth herein. 

a. Plaintiffs Bruce and Patricia Alleman are not sophisticated 

purchasers of art. The Allemans’ transactions with Park West and the John Does are 

typical of Park West’s transactions with the Class. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 28 of 55
29

b. Plaintiffs purchased two pieces of art while cruising on the Royal 

Caribbean ship, The Enchantment of the Seas, for a Caribbean vacation in December 

2005. 

 c. B. Alleman purchased the tickets for the cruise through the internet 

site, Expedia.com, using a MasterCard to pay Expedia.com and by paying MasterCard 

through an electronic funds transfer. 

 d. The Allemans attended three shipboard art auctions while cruising 

on The Enchantment of the Seas. At each auction, Park West attempted to loosen up 

passengers by serving champagne, which the Allemans declined. 

e. Plaintiffs bid on and purchased the following pieces of art: 

Ken Shotwell “London 

Fog” 

2005, seriolithograph in color on paper 

signed and numbered in pencil 

Ken Shotwell “Eiffel 

Way” 

2004, seriolithograph in color on paper 

signed and numbered in pencil 

These purchases were made while the Royal Caribbean ship cruised in international 

waters. 

 f. The auctioneer represented to the Allemans that the painting was a 

“good investment” and that it would appraise for “many times” the price paid at the 

auction. 

g. The lithographs purchased by Plaintiffs are not a good investment 

and have little (if any) likelihood of appreciating in value. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 29 of 55
30

h. Plaintiff purchased an Appraisal from Park West in which the 

artwork “appraised” for a price over the hammer price but only because Park West did 

the appraisal. 

i. Plaintiffs paid for each of their purchases with a Park West Gallery 

Collectors Card that B. Alleman applied for while on board The Enchantment of the Seas. 

The purchase price for both pieces totaled approximately $500. Plaintiffs paid the 

hammer price plus a buyer’s premium, as well as costs for shipping and handling.

 j. The Allemans received an invoice (now lost or destroyed) at the 

auction that was identical in all material respects to the invoices described in this 

Complaint. 

 k. Plaintiffs also purchased Appraisals for the works purchased. The

Certificates of Authenticity for the artwork and the Appraisals were sent to the Allemans 

at their residence in Illinois via U.S. Mail. The Appraisal was deceptive and designed to 

validate the auctioneers’ misrepresentations at the auctions – that the artwork was a good 

investment – by “appraising” the works for amounts in excess of the purchase price. The

Appraisals were in all material respects identical to the Appraisals described above in this 

Complaint. 

 98. Each Appraisal Plaintiffs purchased states on its face, “The current Park West 

Gallery retail replacement price for this work is: [$$$]....” On the reverse side of each, the 

“Terms of Appraisal” states: 

 Method of Appraisal

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 30 of 55
31

The appraisal represents our opinion of the price a willing buyer would pay a willing 

seller to acquire the artwork, with neither being under a compulsion to sell or buy. In 

making this determination we rely on gallery prices of reputable art galleries and other 

reliable price data and lists. We do not rely on third party auction prices or internet prices 

to arrive at appraised value. 

 a. The Allemans received an Appraisal from Park West for their purchase of 

Ken Chatwell’s “London Fog,” valuing the piece at $360.00. See Exhibit C. 

 b. The Allemans received an Appraisal from Park West for their 

purchase of Ken Chatwell’s “Eiffel Way,” valuing the piece at $460.00. See Exhibit D. 

98. Park West’s and Royal Caribbean’s financial success depends on the trust 

and faith placed in Royal Caribbean by Plaintiffs and the Class. 

99. But for Park West’s misrepresentations and Royal Caribbean’s complicity 

and facilitation, Plaintiffs would not have bid on or purchased the artwork. 

Plaintiffs’ Discovery of the Fraud: 

100. Plaintiffs continued to believe in the validity of the Appraisals and that the value 

of their Park West purchases were as appraised by Park West until 2008. 

 101. On July 16, 2008, an article appeared in the New York Times entitled “Art 

Auctions on Cruise Ships Lead to Anger Accusations and Lawsuits,” by Jori Finkel. The article 

detailed sales of low value or worthless “artwork” by Park West at shipboard auctions conducted 

in international waters, employing representations that the artwork offered by Park West was 

“museum quality” or “good investments.” The article further detailed the difficulty purchasers 

encountered in obtaining any satisfaction from Park West on their complaints. The article stated 

that whenever there was a settlement with a disgruntled customer, Park West required 

confidentiality. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 31 of 55
32

 102. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs conducted some independent research on the internet 

and came to the conclusion that they had been defrauded and contacted counsel. 

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

 103. The truth of Park West’s deceptive operations and the fraud alleged in this 

Complaint was wrongfully concealed by Defendants from Plaintiffs and the Class. 

 104. Park West had a duty to disclose the true value and provenance of the artwork 

sold at shipboard auctions and to furnish non-deceptive Appraisals when selling appraisals. 

Notwithstanding this duty, Park West never disclosed the provenance of the artwork, that the 

artwork was not a good investment and that the Appraisals were phony, self-serving biased 

statements, utterly worthless for valuing the artwork. Park West and Royal Caribbean never 

disclosed their revenue sharing arrangement. 

 105. As demonstrated by the allegations in the Complaint, Park West employed and 

continues to employ the same fraudulent practices to sell artwork at shipboard auctions. Royal 

Caribbean continues to offer Park West auctions as recreation for cruisers and to schedule Park 

West auctions on its cruises while the ship is in international waters. 

 106. Park West employs tactics of intimidation and secrecy to avoid detection, which 

is evidenced by its litigation maneuvers, such as counterclaiming against Plaintiffs. These 

strategies are used by Park West to fraudulently conceal its illegal conduct, and all settlements 

with complaining customers are subject to strict confidentiality agreements and waivers. 

 107. Through the current public statements made by Park West on its website, Park 

West continues to deceive, trumpeting that it has never sold phony artwork. Royal Caribbean 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 32 of 55
33

continues to conspire with Park West by scheduling shipboard auctions on cruises in 

international waters where Park West continues to misrepresent the value of the artwork.

 108. Park West and Royal Caribbean successfully concealed from Plaintiffs and the 

Class facts that would be sufficient to excite suspicion regarding the claims against them due to 

Park West’s deception, conspiracy and continued operations. 

109. The information that Plaintiffs and the Class required to discover their claims and 

to prosecute this Complaint is under Defendants’ exclusive control. Park West is not a publicly 

held corporation and Royal Caribbean is not a domestic corporation, limiting the information 

available to Plaintiffs and the Class. 

110. Plaintiffs and the Class could not have acquired knowledge sufficient to initiate 

this action through their exercise of reasonable diligence. Defendants are estopped from 

asserting any statute of limitations as a defense to the claims in this Complaint by virtue of 

Defendants’ acts of fraudulent concealment. 

 111. Plaintiffs and the Class were not effectively alerted to the existence and scope of 

this fraud and were not on notice of their potential claims until shortly prior to the filing of this 

Complaint. 

 112. The applicable statutes of limitations for Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s claims against 

Park West and Royal Caribbean are tolled by Defendants’ fraudulent concealment of their 

actions as alleged in this Complaint. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 33 of 55
34

ENTERPRISE

The Park West-Royal Caribbean “Art Auction Enterprise”: 

113. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

 114. The Park West-Royal Caribbean Art Auction Enterprise (the “Art Auction 

Enterprise” or “Enterprise”) is an association-in-fact within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), 

comprised of Park West, Scaglione and Royal Caribbean as the Enterprise’s members. The Art 

Auction Enterprise is an organization, functioning as an ongoing and continuing unit that was 

created or used as a tool by Park West with the facilitation of Royal Caribbean in order to 

effectuate through the pattern of racketeering activity as alleged in this Complaint and achieve 

the common goals of financial remuneration. 

115. PWG, PWG FL, Vista, FASI, Scaglione and Royal Caribbean are each a “person” 

distinct from the Royal Caribbean Enterprise. 

116. Defendants’ racketeering activities as described in this Complaint amounted to a 

common course of conduct, which the Art Auction Enterprise intended to deceive and harm 

Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Each racketeering activity alleged was related, had similar 

purposes, involved the same or similar participants and methods of commission, and had similar 

results affecting similar victims, including Plaintiffs and the Class. Park West’s racketeering 

activities were part of its ongoing business and constitute a continuing threat to the property of 

Plaintiffs and the Class. 

 117. Park West and Scaglione designed the Art Auction Enterprise to accomplish the 

common goals shared by each of its members as detailed above in this Complaint. Royal 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 34 of 55
35

Caribbean conspired with Park West and Scaglione to accomplish the goals of the Art Auction 

Enterprise. 

118. The Art Auction Enterprise functions as a continuing unit with each member of 

the Enterprise knowing its (or their) role and performing its part or role to assure the Enterprise’s 

continued success. Members of the Art Auction Enterprise participated together in the 

fraudulent scheme as described above in this Complaint. 

119. The Art Auction Enterprise has been in existence for ten (10) years and continues 

in existence to the present. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

120. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of: 

All persons residing in the United States or Puerto Rico, who purchased artwork 

and Appraisals at shipboard auctions conducted by Park West Gallery, Inc., PWG 

Florida, Inc., Vista Fine Art LLC d/b/a Park West at Sea, Fine Art Sales, Inc. or 

John Does 1-100 (together “Park West”) on a ship owned or operated by Royal

Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (the “Class”) during the applicable statute of limitations 

period (the “Class Period”). Excluded from the Class are Park West, Royal 

Caribbean and Park West’s or Royal Caribbean’s affiliates and each of their 

officers, directors or employees. 

121. The Class is sufficiently numerous to satisfy numerosity, with thousands of Class 

members having purchased artwork from Park West at shipboard auctions while on a Royal 

Caribbean cruise. The Class members are dispersed throughout the United States such that 

joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. The Class members can be identified by 

records maintained by Defendants Park West and Royal Caribbean. Park West’s Director of 

Shipboard Operations from its Southfield, Michigan headquarters has declared under penalty of 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 35 of 55
36

perjury in the Bouverat litigation (cited above) that Park West prepares an “End of Cruise 

Report” for each cruise on which it conducts auctions, which records the trip history for each art 

auction held on board any Royal Caribbean cruise, as well as sales to Class Members during the 

cruise. 

122. Park West also maintains copies of all invoices and Appraisals for purchases at 

shipboard auctions that will identify members of the Class. 

123. Royal Caribbean maintains ship manifests of all passengers that would identify 

members of the Class. 

 124. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and 

predominate over any questions affecting solely individual members of the Class. Among the 

questions of law and fact common to the Class members are: 

 a. whether Park West fraudulently misrepresented the value of the artwork it 

sold to Plaintiffs and the Class at shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean cruises as a “good 

investment”; 

b. whether Park West fraudulently misrepresented the Appraisals sold to 

Plaintiffs and the Class at shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean cruises; 

 c. whether Park West concealed or omitted material information from 

Plaintiffs and the Class regarding the artwork sold to Plaintiffs and the Class or Appraisals sold 

at shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean cruises; 

 d. whether Park West engaged in a systematic, deceptive, uniform and 

continuing scheme to sell low value or forged artwork as valuable and a “good investment” at 

shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean cruises; 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 36 of 55
37

 e. whether Park West employed a uniform pattern of misrepresentation and 

omission in the sale of artwork on shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean cruises; 

 f. whether Royal Caribbean voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally 

conspired with Park West and Scaglione to facilitate Park West’s fraud; 

 g. whether Royal Caribbean voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally 

conspired with Park West and Scaglione to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); 

 h. whether Royal Caribbean participated in the alleged conspiracy with Park 

West up to and including the present; 

 i. whether the acts and omissions of Defendants as described in this 

Complaint violate RICO; 

 j. whether Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for damages for 

conduct actionable under RICO; 

 k. whether Defendants are “persons” as defined in RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 

1961(3); 

 l. whether the Art Auction Enterprise is an association-in-fact enterprise 

pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4); 

 m. whether Park West engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined 

in RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5); 

 n. whether Park West, Scaglione and Royal Caribbean conspired to engage 

in the pattern of racketeering activity as defined in RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), and alleged 

above in this Complaint; 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 37 of 55
38

 o. whether Defendants used the mails and wires to further their fraudulent 

scheme and conspiracy as alleged in this Complaint; 

 p. whether Defendants and Royal Caribbean engaged in a conspiracy in 

violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); 

 q. whether Defendants unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of the 

Plaintiffs and the Class; 

 r. whether the acts and omissions of Park West and Scaglione violated the 

various state laws as alleged below; 

 s. whether Scaglione controls Park West; 

 t. whether Scaglione and each of the Park West entities are alter egos; 

 u. whether Plaintiffs and the Class were injured and sustained damages and 

loss as a result of Defendants’ illegal acts and omissions as alleged in this Complaint; 

 v. the scope, extent and measure of damages and equitable relief that should 

be awarded to Plaintiffs and the Class; 

 w. the amount of attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, and costs of suit to 

which Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled; and 

 x. whether the Defendants’ acts and omissions were sufficiently wrongful to 

entitle Plaintiffs and Class members to punitive damages. 

 125. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class because 

Plaintiffs and the Class sustained damages arising out of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct as 

detailed in this Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ claims and the Class’ claims arise from 

Defendants’ illegal scheme and pattern of racketeering activity as alleged in this Complaint. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 38 of 55
39

 126. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and have 

retained counsel competent and experienced in class action lawsuits. Plaintiffs have no interests 

antagonistic to or in conflict with those of the Class and therefore should be adequate as 

representatives for the Class. 

 127. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. 

Furthermore, because the damages suffered by individual members of the Class may in some 

instances be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it 

impossible for such Class members to individually redress the wrongs done to them. Also, the 

adjudication of this controversy through a class action will avoid the possibility of inconsistent 

and potentially conflicting adjudications of the claims asserted herein. There will be no 

difficulty in the management of this action as a class action. 

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

 128. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

 129. This Count I is brought against Park West and Scaglione. 

 130. PWG, PWG FL, Vista and FASI and Scaglione are each a “person” within the 

meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), who conducted the affairs of the Art Auction Enterprise 

through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in that Park 

West and Scaglione intentionally employed a scheme or artifice to defraud Plaintiffs and the 

Class using the mails or wires in furtherance of that scheme. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 39 of 55
40

 131. The Art Auction Enterprise, in the manner described in this Complaint, engaged 

in and affected interstate commerce. 

 132. Park West or Scaglione exerted sufficient control over the Art Auction Enterprise 

so that they were able to direct and conduct the affairs of the Enterprise. 

 133. Park West and Scaglione conducted and participated in the affairs of the Art 

Auction Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity that includes acts indictable under 

18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) and § 1343 (wire fraud) as described in this Complaint. 

 134. Park West’s and Scaglione’s use of the U.S. Mail and wires in furtherance of the 

fraud described in this Complaint involved thousands of communications, including, but not 

limited to: 

 a. communications between Park West or Scaglione and each of the 

members of the Art Auction Enterprise to establish and maintain the Enterprise; 

 b. communications including financial payments by Park West or Scaglione 

to Royal Caribbean in furtherance of the activities of the Art Auction Enterprise, planning or 

discussing or relating to the scheduling and conducting of shipboard auctions on Royal 

Caribbean cruises; 

 c. communications between Park West and Plaintiffs and the Class including 

mailing Appraisals, receiving payments from Plaintiffs and the Class in the mail or through the 

wires, establishing credit card accounts via the mails and wires encompassing thousands of 

substantially identical communications in furtherance of the fraud as detailed above in this 

Complaint; 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 40 of 55
41

 d. communications directly or indirectly via mail and wire, between Royal 

Caribbean and Plaintiffs and the Class to reserve passage on Royal Caribbean cruises, to pay for 

and receive tickets for the cruise and to pay the ship’s bill before disembarking from the cruise. 

 e. communications between the Park West entities or Park West and 

Scaglione in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged in this Complaint; 

 135. In addition, Park West and Scaglione have communicated by U.S. Mail, telephone 

and facsimile or wire with various artists and the artists’ sales representatives and others around 

the country in furtherance of their scheme alleged in this Complaint. 

 136. Defendant Park West Gallery maintains a website through which it communicates 

and continues to communicate with Plaintiffs and members of the Class, also using the website 

to fraudulently conceal its illegal behavior. See www.parkwestgallery.com. 

 137. Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured in their property by reason of the 

violations alleged in this Complaint in that Plaintiffs and the Class paid millions of dollars in 

payments for artwork purchased from Park West and Appraisals signed by Scaglione at 

shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean ships that they would not have paid had Defendants not 

engaged in their pattern of racketeering activity. 

 138. The injuries to Plaintiff and the Class were directly and proximately caused by 

Park West and Scaglione’s racketeering activity as described above. 

 139. By virtue of these violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), Park West and Scaglione are 

liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for three times the damages Plaintiffs and the Class have 

sustained, plus the cost of this suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 41 of 55
42

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)

 140. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

 141. This Count II is alleged against all Defendants. 

 142. Section 1962(d) of RICO provides that it “shall be unlawful for any person to 

conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” 

 143. Defendants have violated § 1962(d) by conspiring to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 

1962(c), as alleged in this Complaint. The object of this conspiracy has been and is to conduct or 

participate in, directly or indirectly, the conduct of affairs of the Art Auction Enterprise through 

a pattern of racketeering activity. 

 144. Defendants, as co-conspirators, have engaged in numerous overt acts in 

furtherance of the conspiracy as described in this Complaint, including multiple instances of mail 

and wire fraud violations, including but not limited to: 

 a. knowingly agreeing to and scheduling the shipboard art auctions to take place in 

international waters; 

 b. knowingly agreeing to and establishing a display area for the artwork for sale at a 

prominent venue of the ship; 

 c. knowingly agreeing to schedule Park West to conduct art auctions on Royal 

Caribbean cruises for over ten (10) years; 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 42 of 55
43

 d. Royal Caribbean’s communicating by mail and wire with Plaintiffs and the Class 

to book tickets, establish travel itineraries and collect payments for tickets and for ship’s bills; 

and 

 e. collecting shared revenues. 

 145. The nature of the above-described co-conspirators’ acts in furtherance of the 

conspiracy gave rise to a plausible inference that each of the Defendants agreed to the objective 

of violating RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and that by conspiring to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 

1962(c), they were aware that their ongoing fraudulent acts were and are part of an overall 

pattern of racketeering activity. 

 146. Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured in their property by reason of the 

conspiracy alleged herein in that Plaintiffs and the Class have paid Park West millions of dollars 

for artwork purchased at shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean ships in the operation of the Art

Auction Enterprise that Plaintiffs and the Class would not have paid had Defendants not 

conspired to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). 

 147. The injuries of Plaintiffs and the Class were directly and proximately caused by 

the conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), as described above. 

 148. By virtue of these violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962(d), Defendants are liable 

to Plaintiffs and the Class for three times the damages Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained, 

plus the cost of this suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 43 of 55
44

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)

 149. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

 150. This Count III is alleged against Albert Scaglione. 

 151. Park West Galleries, Inc. is a private corporation with Albert Scaglione as its 

principal shareholder and manager of its day-to-day operations. Scaglione controls PWG. 

 152. Scaglione is the sole member of Vista Art LLC d/b/a Park West at Sea, through 

which Park West sells artwork on Royal Caribbean cruises. 

 153. Scaglione receives income from the pattern of racketeering described in this 

Complaint. 

 154. Scaglione used and invested the income from the pattern of racketeering activity 

alleged in this Complaint to invest in the operation of the Art Auction Enterprise. 

 155. Scaglione invested the income to build, launch and maintain a Salvatore Dali 

website launched in 2009, in conjunction with Park West’s website, to promote Park West’s sale 

of Dali’s works at shipboard auctions in and to further the goals of the Art Auction Enterprise. 

 156. The Art Auction Enterprise affects interstate commerce. 

 157. By virtue of these violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), Plaintiffs and the 

Class were injured in their property by Scaglione’s use and investment of racketeering income, 

and Scaglione is liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for three times the damages Plaintiffs and the 

Class have sustained, plus costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 44 of 55
45

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b)

 158. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

 159. This Count IV is alleged against Albert Scaglione. 

 160. Scaglione is the principal and largest shareholder of PWG and sole member of 

Vista Art LLC d/b/a Park West at Sea, which sells artwork on Royal Caribbean cruises. 

 161. Scaglione receives income from the pattern of racketeering described in this 

Complaint. 

 162. Scaglione used or invested the income from the pattern of racketeering activity to 

invest in and maintain the Art Auction Enterprise. 

 163. Scaglione invested the income to maintain the Art Auction Enterprise and to 

build, launch and maintain a Salvatore Dali website in 2009 to promote Park West’s prominence 

in the sale of Dali’s works at auctions on Royal Caribbean cruises in furtherance of the goals of 

the Art Auction Enterprise. 

 164. The Art Auction Enterprise affects interstate commerce. 

 165. By virtue of these violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), Plaintiffs and the 

Class were injured in their property, and Scaglione is liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for three 

times the damages that Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained, plus costs of this suit and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 45 of 55
46

COUNT V

VIOLATIONS OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES

 166. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

 167. This Count V is alleged against Park West. 

 168. For purposes of this Count V only, the Class is limited to citizens of California, 

Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. 

 169. Park West engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive 

acts or practices in violation of the state consumer protection statutes listed below when they 

employed the deceptive sales tactics described herein. As a direct result of Park West’s 

deceptive, unfair and unconscionable conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class were injured in that they 

paid millions of dollars for artwork purchased at shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean cruise 

ships that they would not have paid had Defendants not engaged in unfair and deceptive conduct. 

 170. Park West has engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. 

171. Park West has engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.201, et seq. 

172. Park West has engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Bus. Prac. Act, § 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.

 173. Park West has engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A, et seq. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 46 of 55
47

174. Park West has engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901, et seq. 

 175. Park West has engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, et seq. 

 176. Park West has engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-1, et seq. 

 177. The unfair and deceptive acts and practices of Park West have directly, 

foreseeably and proximately caused damages and injury to Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Class. 

 178. The actions and failure to act by Park West, including the false and misleading 

representations and omissions of material facts regarding the value of the artwork and Appraisals 

purchased at shipboard art auctions on Royal Caribbean cruises and the above described course 

of deceptive conduct and fraudulent concealment, constitute acts, uses, or employment by Park 

West of unconscionable commercial practices, deception, fraud, false pretenses, 

misrepresentations, and the knowing concealment, suppression or omission of material facts with 

the intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts in 

connection with the sale of artwork at shipboard auctions on the Royal Caribbean cruises. 

 179. Plaintiffs and the Class are not sophisticated purchasers of art and relied upon the 

Count V Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions in purchasing artwork and Appraisals at 

shipboard auctions on the Royal Caribbean cruises. Plaintiffs and the Class relied upon Park 

West’s misrepresentations and omissions in paying for the artwork and Appraisals. By reason of 

the unlawful acts engaged in by Park West, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered ascertainable 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 47 of 55
48

loss and damages. As a direct and proximate result of this wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and the 

Class were damaged by paying for the artwork. 

 180. As a direct and proximate result of Park West’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Class were injured and are entitled to compensatory damages, treble damages, 

attorneys’ fees and costs of suit. 

COUNT VI

VIOLATIONS OF STATE FINE ART STATUTES

 181. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

 182. This Count VI is alleged against Park West and John Does 1-50 (together “Park 

West”). 

 183. For the purposes of this Count VI only, the Class is limited to citizens of 

Michigan, Florida, and New York. 

 184. Plaintiffs and the Class bid on and purchased artwork at shipboard art auctions 

held on Royal Caribbean cruises based on the descriptions and representations made by Park 

West as to the authorship, authenticity, genuineness and value of the artwork. Park West made 

statements with respect to the authorship, authenticity, genuineness and value of the artwork both 

verbally and in writing, and Plaintiffs received an Invoice, Certificate of Authorization and/or an 

Appraisal setting forth Park West’s representations. 

185. Park West’s statements regarding the authorship, authenticity, genuineness and/or 

value of the artwork purchased by Plaintiffs and the Class created an express warranty as to the 

accuracy of those statements by virtue of the statutes listed below. Park West intentionally and 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 48 of 55
49

deliberately made misleading statements to Plaintiffs and the Class that the artwork they 

purchased was of a particular authorship, authenticity, genuineness and/or value, when Park 

West knew or should have known that the descriptions of the artwork provided to Plaintiffs and 

the Class were not accurate and/or were misleading. 

 186. Park West made intentionally misleading and/or false statements to Plaintiffs and 

the Class in their description of the artwork Plaintiffs and the Class purchased in violation of Fla. 

Stat. § 686.501, et seq.

187. Park West made intentionally misleading and/or false statements to Plaintiffs and 

the Class in their description of the artwork Plaintiffs and the Class purchased in violation of 

Mich. Comp. Laws § 442.321, et seq.

 188. Park West made intentionally misleading and/or false statements to Plaintiffs and 

the Class in their description of the artwork Plaintiffs and the Class purchased in violation of 

Mich. Comp. Laws § 442.351, et seq.

 189. Park West made intentionally misleading and/or false statements to Plaintiffs and 

the Class in their description of the artwork Plaintiffs and the Class purchased in violation of 

N.Y. C.L.S. Art & Cult. Affr. § 13.01, et seq.

 190. The authorship, authenticity, genuineness and value of the artwork purchased by 

Plaintiffs and the Class are characteristics that are essential to the identity of the goods sold. 

 191. Park West intentionally and in bad faith misrepresented the authorship, 

authenticity, genuineness and/or value of the artwork purchased by Plaintiffs and the Class. 

 192. Plaintiffs and the Class are not sophisticated purchasers of art and relied upon 

Park West’s misrepresentations and omissions in purchasing artwork and Appraisals at shipboard 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 49 of 55
50

auctions on the Royal Caribbean cruises. Plaintiffs and the Class relied upon Park West’s 

misrepresentations and omissions in paying for the artwork and Appraisals. 

 193. Park West failed to deliver artwork to Plaintiffs and the Class that conformed to 

its own description of such goods. 

 194. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and the Class were 

damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT VII

BREACH OF CONTRACT

 195. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out 

herein, except Counts V (state consumer protection laws) and VI (state fine art statutes). 

 196. Plaintiff brings this Count in the alternative to Counts V and VI. 

 197. This Count VII is brought against Park West. 

 198. The Certificate of Authenticity issued to Plaintiffs and the Class and furnished by 

Park West with the artwork purchased at shipboard art auctions constitutes a valid and 

enforceable contract with Park West. See Exhibit E, Sample Certificate of Authenticity. 

 199. A material term of the contract between Park West and Plaintiffs and the Class 

was the guarantee of authenticity of the artwork sold at shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean 

cruises. 

 200. Plaintiffs and the Class performed all of their duties and responsibilities under the 

contract. 

 201. Notwithstanding the covenants and promises contained in that contract,

specifically, the guarantee of authorship described in the Certificate of Authenticity furnished by 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 50 of 55
51

Park West, Park West failed to deliver the genuine works as described therein to Plaintiffs and 

the Class. 

 202. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and other members of 

the Class have been injured and damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT VIII

BREACH OF WARRANTY

 203. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set out 

herein, except Counts V (state consumer protection statute) and VI (state fine art statutes). 

 204. This Count VIII is brought against Park West as an alternative to Counts V and 

VI. 

 205. The statements of Park West regarding the authenticity, genuineness and value of 

the artwork in the Appraisals purchased by Plaintiffs and the Class constitute an express 

warranty. 

 206. The authorship, authenticity, genuineness and value of the artwork purchased by 

Plaintiffs and the Class are characteristics that are essential to the identity of the goods sold. 

 207. Park West failed to deliver artwork to Plaintiffs and the Class that conformed to 

its own description of such goods. 

 208. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and the Class were 

damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 51 of 55
52

COUNT IX

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

 209. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein, except Counts VII (breach of contract) and VIII (breach of warranty). 

 210. This Count IX is brought against all Defendants as an alternative to Counts VII 

and VIII. 

 211. As the intended and expected result of Defendants’ conscious wrongdoing, set 

forth in this Complaint, Defendants profited and benefitted from payments Plaintiffs and the 

Class made to them for artwork and Appraisals purchased at shipboard auctions on Royal 

Caribbean cruises. 

 212. Defendants voluntarily accepted and shared these payments with full knowledge 

and awareness that, as a result of their wrongdoing, Plaintiffs and the Class paid for artwork 

when they otherwise would not have done so. 

 213. An inequity resulted to Plaintiffs and the Class because Defendants kept the 

benefit and were unjustly enriched. 

 214. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled in equity to seek restitution of Defendants’ 

wrongful profits, revenues and benefits to the extent, and in the amount, deemed appropriate by 

the Court and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper 

COUNT X

CIVIL CONSPIRACY

 215. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 52 of 55
53

 216. This Count X is alleged against all Defendants. 

 217. Defendants engaged in concerted action to accomplish the fraud described in this 

Complaint. 

 218. Defendants’ overt acts, as detailed in the Complaint, result in the plausible 

inference that Defendants intentionally agreed to defraud Plaintiffs and the Class. 

 219. As a direct and proximate result of this wrongful conspiracy, Plaintiffs and the 

Class suffered ascertainable injury and were damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class demand judgment against Defendants in each 

claim for relief, jointly and severally, as follows: 

 a. declaring that this action is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, establishing an appropriate class, appointing Plaintiffs as the 

Class Representative, and appointing the undersigned counsel of record as Class Counsel;

 b. requiring Defendants to refund and make restitution of all monies acquired from 

the sale of artwork at shipboard auctions on Royal Caribbean to Plaintiffs and the Class;

 c. awarding damages on the RICO claims; 

 d. awarding damages from Park West on the claims under the consumer protection 

statutes of the various states, as enumerated above, respecting the compensatory damages 

Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained as a result of Park West’s conduct, and punitive damages, 

such amounts to be determined at trial, plus Plaintiffs’ costs in this suit, including reasonable 

attorneys’ fees; 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 53 of 55
54

 e. awarding damages on the claims for breach of contract and breach of warranty as 

enumerated above against Park West; 

 f. awarding recovery on Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s claim for unjust enrichment 

against all Defendants, in the amount of payments for artwork purchased at shipboard auctions 

on Royal Caribbean cruises in such amount to be determined at trial, plus Plaintiffs’ costs in this 

suit, including all reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

 g. awarding Plaintiffs and the Class statutory damages as permitted, including any 

applicable exemplary damages; 

 h. awarding Plaintiffs and the Class prejudgment interest; 

 i. awarding Plaintiffs and the Class restitution and/or disgorgement and other 

equitable or injunctive relief as the Court deems appropriate; 

 j. awarding Plaintiffs and the Class costs and expenses in this litigation, including, 

but not limited to, expert fees and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and 

 k. awarding Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further relief as may be just and 

proper. 

JURY DEMAND

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable. 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 54 of 55
55

 /s/ E. Powell Miller_______________________ 

 E. Powell Miller (P39487) 

 Marc L. Newman (P51393) 

 THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

 950 West University Drive 

 Suite 300 

 Rochester, Michigan 48307 

 (248) 841-2200 

 epm@millerlawfirmpc.com 

Steven A. Schwartz (Pa. I.D. 50579) 

 CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 

 361 West Lancaster Avenue 

 Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041 

 (610) 642-8500 

 steveschwartz@chimicles.com

Of Counsel: 

Denise Davis Schwartzman (Pa. I.D. 40659) 

Kimberly A. Sanders (PA. I.D. 206431) 

Chimicles & Tikellis LLP 

361 W. Lancaster Avenue 

Haverford, PA 19041 

(610) 642-8500 

Dated: July 22, 2009 

Case 2:09-cv-12896-AJT-MKM Document 1 Filed 07/22/09 Page 55 of 55