1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kim R. Maerowitz, Esq. #023566

THE MAEROWITZ LAW FIRM 

2415 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 700

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Phone: 602-277-0633

kmaerowitz@maerowitzlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff David V. Cavan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DAVID V. CAVAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT MARON, an individual; ROBERT 

MARON, INC., a California corporation; and 

DOES I-X

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.: 

CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF 

CONTRACT, FRAUD, NEGLIGENT 

MISREPRESENTATION, BREACH OF 

FIDICIARY DUTY, BREACH OF 

COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR 

DEALING, AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Plaintiff David V. Cavan (“Plaintiff Cavan”) alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Cavan is an individual residing in Maricopa County, Arizona.

2. Defendant Robert Maron is an individual residing in Ventura County, California, 

and doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona. At all relevant times Defendant Robert Maron 

was President of Robert Maron, Inc.

3. Defendant Robert Maron, Inc. (“Defendant Maron Inc.”) is a California corporation 

with its principal place of business in Ventura County, California that does business in Maricopa 

County, Arizona. At all times alleged herein Defendant Robert Maron acted individually and on 

behalf of Defendant Maron Inc.

Case 2:15-cv-02586-PGR Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 9
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Does I-X are individuals, businesses, or other entities whose identities are not 

presently known to Plaintiff Cavan but who participated in the acts alleged herein. Plaintiff Cavan 

will amend his complaint to include these persons when their identities become known and it 

appears that they may be liable to Plaintiff Cavan for damages.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 United States Code § 1332, because there is 

complete diversity between Plaintiff Cavan and Defendants, and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000.

6. Venue is proper under 28 United States Code § 1391, because a substantial part of 

the events or omissions giving rise to the claims stated below occurred in Maricopa County, 

Arizona.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On or around July 6, 2007, at a face to face meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, Plaintiff 

Cavan purchased two rare watches from Defendants.

8. One of the two watches purchased by Plaintiff Cavan was a Patek Philippe Ref 

3449, Movement No. 799002, case No. 311263 produced in 1961, sold on May 31, 1965, made in 

three examples only, with an Extract from the Archives (the “Patek Ref 3449”). The purchase 

price for this watch was $1,800,000.

9. The other of the two watches purchased by Plaintiff Cavan was a Patek Philippe 

Ref 2523 HU World Time, Two Crown Wristwatch, Movement No. 722708, case No 306210, 

Made in 1953, sold on January 24, 1956, polychrome cloisonné enamel dial of the map of North 

America with an Extract from the Archives (the “Patek Ref 2523”). The purchase price for this 

watch was $2,100,000.

10. On or around July 6, 2007, at a face to face meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, 

Defendants agreed to accept as trade eighteen watches from Plaintiff Cavan.

Case 2:15-cv-02586-PGR Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 9
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. On or around July 7, 2007, in Phoenix, Arizona, Defendants received the following 

eighteen watches from Plaintiff Cavan: (1) Patek 5960P #3500283/4354405, (2) Patek 5960P 

#3500402/4325004, (3) Patek 5070R-001 #3363957/4359174, (4) Patek 5110P-001 

#3212772/4248517, (5) Patek 5146J-001 #3420565/4352310, (6) Vacheron Tourbillon Tonneau 

Ref. 30066/000P-8817 #914843/739657, (7) Vacheron Royal Eagle Grand Prix Istanbul #17/50 

Ref. 49145/001R #988251/816368, (8) Vacheron Ref. 47120/000R, (9) Vacheron Ref.

47120/000G, (10) LANG & SOHNE Ref. 404.035 Datograph Split-Seconds #52965/162946, (11) 

LANGE & SOHNE Datograph Perpetual Case # 158041, (12) LANGE & SOHNE Luna Mundi 

Set, (13) Vacheron Open Face Tourbillon PT, (14) Patek 5074J Blk Dial, (15) Vacheron 30040R, 

(16) Vacheron 30040R, (17) Vacheron Jubile Set, and (18) Vacheron Jubile Set (collectively the 

“Eighteen Watches”).

12. Defendants accepted the Eighteen Watches for a value of $2,295,000.00 towards 

the purchase price of the Patek Ref 3449 and the Patek Ref 2523.

13. Defendants provided an additional discount of $150,000 towards the purchase price 

of the Patek Ref 3449 and the Patek Ref 2523. The remaining balance due was $1,455,000.00.

14. On September 13, 2010, Plaintiff Cavan made payment of $150,000 to Defendants 

leaving a balance of $1,304,000.00.

15. Defendants did not provide either the Patek Ref 3449 or the Patek Ref 2523 to 

Plaintiff Cavan.

16. Upon information and belief of Plaintiff Cavan, Defendants sold one or both of the 

Patek Ref 3449 and the Patek Ref 2523 to other purchasers.

17. In or around October 2011, Plaintiff Cavan requested the return of the Eighteen 

Watches and his $150,000 payment.

18. In December of 2011, Defendant Robert Maron stated he had a rare Patek Philippe 

Ref 2499J 18K 1st Series watch worth over two million dollars.

Case 2:15-cv-02586-PGR Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 9
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff Cavan and Defendants agreed that Plaintiff Cavan 

would receive the Patek Philippe Ref 2499J 18K 1st series watch No. 868244/665011, Extract 

from the Patek Philippe Archives and Patek Philippe box (the “Patek Ref 2499J”), instead of the 

Patek Ref 3449 and the Patek Ref 2523 watches, in consideration for the Eighteen Watches and 

$150,000 cash previously given to Defendants, with no further money due from Plaintiff Cavan. 

The agreement was evidenced by a writing signed by Plaintiff Cavan and Defendant Maron on or 

about January 20, 2012.

20. Defendants subsequently delivered to Plaintiff Cavan a watch (the “Inferior 

Substituted Watch”), but it was not the Patek Ref 2499J as described in that the original dial had 

been replaced with an inferior dial.

21. In or around April 2015, Plaintiff Cavan first became aware that the Inferior 

Substituted Watch may not have the original dial, so Plaintiff Cavan, at substantial expense, had 

the watch examined and evaluated by watch expert, Eric Tortella.

22. In his written report, dated June 26, 2015, Eric Tortella confirmed that the original 

dial on the Patek Ref 2499J had been replaced with an inferior dial.

23. The Inferior Substituted Watch with the replaced dial is worth significantly less 

than the promised Patek Ref 2499J with the original dial.

24. Shortly after receiving the Eric Tortella report, Plaintiff Cavan caused John Young, 

a watch broker speaking on Plaintiff Cavan’s behalf, to communicate to Defendants that the 

Inferior Substituted Watch did not have the original Patek Ref 2499J dial.

25. In or around September 2015, Defendant Robert Maron told John Young that he 

was not sure what happened and that he would “take care of it” and replace the dial on the Inferior 

Substituted Watch with the original Patek Ref 2499J dial.

26. In or around November 2015, Defendant Maron admitted that he had switched the 

dial and, again, acknowledged that Defendants were responsible for delivering the original Patek 

Ref 2499J dial to Plaintiff Cavan, and promised to do so.

Case 2:15-cv-02586-PGR Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 9
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27. Defendants have not delivered the original Patek Ref 2499J dial to Plaintiff Cavan.

28. Defendants have neither returned to Plaintiff Cavan the Eighteen Watches nor 

returned any money to Plaintiff Cavan.

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

29. Plaintiff Cavan realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth above.

30. Defendants materially breached the agreement to provide the Patek Ref 2499J by 

not providing the original dial and, instead, delivering the Inferior Substituted Watch to Plaintiff 

Cavan.

31. Defendants acknowledged that it was their responsibility to provide the watch with 

the correct dial but has been unable or unwilling to provide the original Patek Ref 2499J dial.

32. Plaintiff Cavan suffered substantial damage as a result of that breach in an amount 

of approximately $2,000,000, according to proof at trial.

COUNT II – BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

33. Plaintiff Cavan realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth above.

34. Plaintiff Cavan and Defendants had an implied-in-law covenant of good faith and 

fair dealing as parties to the contract for the Patek Ref 2499J. See Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151Ariz. 

149, 153-54, 726 P.2d 565, 569-70 (1986) (The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in 

every contract prohibits “a party from doing anything to prevent other parties to the contract from 

receiving the benefits and entitlements of the agreement.”).

35. Defendants breached that covenant of good faith and fair dealing by delivering the 

Inferior Substituted Watch that did not have the original Patek Ref 2499J dial.

36. On information and belief, Defendants knew that the Inferior Substituted Watch

had the wrong dial, and furnished the watch with the intent to injure Plaintiff Cavan, or with a 

reckless disregard for such injury.

37. As a direct and proximate cause of these breaches, Plaintiff Cavan sustained 

substantial damage of approximately $2,000,000, according to proof at trial.

Case 2:15-cv-02586-PGR Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 5 of 9
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT III – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

38. Plaintiff Cavan realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth above.

39. Defendants represented themselves to Plaintiff Cavan as watch dealers with 

significant rare watch expertise, who acknowledged and accepted receipt of watches valued at 

$2,295,000.00 and $150,000 cash from Plaintiff Cavan, and, therefore, Defendants owed Plaintiff 

Cavan a fiduciary duty regarding the purchase of the Patek Ref 2499J.

40. Defendants breached that fiduciary duty by failing to honor the promise to provide 

the Patek Ref 2499J with the original dial, and instead delivered the Inferior Substituted Watch.

41. As a direct and proximate cause of these breaches, Plaintiff Cavan sustained 

substantial damage of approximately $2,000,000, according to proof at trial.

COUNT IV – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

42. Plaintiff Cavan realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth above.

43. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff Cavan, as a trusted rare watch dealers and 

experts.

44. Defendants represented to Plaintiff Cavan that Defendants would deliver to 

Plaintiff Cavan a watch valued at substantially over $2,000,000, instead of the Patek Ref 3449 and 

the Patek Ref 2523 watches, in exchange for the Eighteen Watches valued at $2,295,000 and 

additional $150,000 in cash that Plaintiff Cavan provided to Defendants.

45. This representation was false as Defendants did not deliver the Patek Ref 2499J as 

described with the original dial. Instead Defendants delivered the Inferior Substituted Watch that 

was worth significantly less than described.

46. Defendants as experienced rare watch dealers were particularly familiar with luxury 

watches, and knew or should have known that the watch he delivered to Plaintiff Cavan had the 

wrong dial.

47. Plaintiff Cavan materially relied on this misrepresentation. Plaintiff Cavan would 

not have agreed to accept the watch in consideration for the Eighteen Watches and cash provided 

Case 2:15-cv-02586-PGR Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 6 of 9
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to Defendants had he known that he was not receiving the Patek Ref 2499J valued at substantially 

over $2,000,000. 

48. Plaintiff Cavan reasonably relied on each of these misrepresentations of 

experienced rare watch dealers in the business of buying and selling luxury watches valued at 

millions of dollars. 

49. As a direct and proximate cause of the misrepresentations, Plaintiff Cavan sustained 

substantial damage of approximately $2,000,000, according to proof at trial.

COUNT V – FRAUD

50. Plaintiff Cavan realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth above.

51. On information and belief, Defendant Robert Maron made several 

misrepresentations, including that Plaintiff Cavan would receive an original Patek Ref 2499J worth

substantially over $2,000,000, knowing that such representations were false and/or with reckless 

disregard of the facts that made the representations false. Defendant Robert Maron further 

represented that he would fix the situation and provide the correct dial despite having no intention 

of replacing the dial.

52. Defendant Robert Maron made these false representations with the purpose of 

inducing Plaintiff Cavan to agree to the exchange and not pursue his right to receive the promised 

original Patek Ref 2499J.

53. Upon information and belief, Defendants also knew that the Inferior Substituted 

Watch delivered did not have the original dial for the Patek Ref 2499J.

54. Upon information and belief, Defendants had replaced the original dial of the Patek 

Ref 2499J with an inferior dial to receive a substantial profit from the sale of the original dial in 

hopes that Plaintiff Cavan would never discover that the Inferior Substituted Watch had the wrong 

dial.

Case 2:15-cv-02586-PGR Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 7 of 9
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

55. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Robert Maron’s fraudulent 

misrepresentations, Plaintiff Cavan sustained substantial damage of approximately $2,000,000, 

according to proof at trial.

56. On information and belief, Defendants made the misrepresentations and switched 

the dials with malicious intent toward Plaintiff Cavan and/or in conscious disregard of the 

economic rights and well-being of Plaintiff Cavan. As a result, Plaintiff Cavan is entitled to an 

award of punitive damages according to proof at trial.

COUNT VI – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

57. Plaintiff Cavan realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth above.

58. As a result of the misconduct of Defendants, including the failure to honor the

promise to replace the dial with the original dial to the Patek Ref 2499J and the misrepresentations 

alleged above, Defendants made a substantial profit at Plaintiff Cavan’s expense.

59. If Defendants are permitted to retain the Eighteen Watches, payment, and economic 

benefit received from removing the original dial as a result of their misconduct that resulted in 

Plaintiff Cavan accepting the Inferior Substituted Watch, Defendants will be unjustly enriched. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff Cavan prays for the following relief:

1. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

2. Consequential damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

3. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

4. Attorneys’ fees and costs; and,

5. All such further relief that the court deems just.

Plaintiff Cavan demands a jury trial.

Case 2:15-cv-02586-PGR Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 8 of 9
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 21st day of December, 2015

THE MAEROWITZ LAW FIRM

/s/ Kim R. Maerowitz

Kim R. Maerowitz

2415 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 700

Phoenix, AZ 85016

kmaerowitz@maerowitzlaw.com

602-277-0633

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02586-PGR Document 1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 9 of 9