Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35081088/253/Defendants-state-that-they-investigate-the-truth-to-posts-about-CAP
Timestamp: 2015-03-04 09:15:40
Document Index: 51186205

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13915', 'art:169', '§ 1709', '§ 1710', '§ 1709', '§ 1709', '§ 1572', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 17200', '§ 1331', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1367', '§ 1965', '§ 1391']

266. Defendants state that they investigate the truth to posts about CAP for AEI v Xcentric First Amended Complaint
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks7Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of Contents2. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action under3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants pursuant to4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13915. Defendants have previously consented to and waived objections to6. Plaintiff Asia Economic Institute is a limited liability company and, at9. Defendant Xcentric is a limited liability company organized and10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Xcentric11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant12. Defendant Edward Magedson, also known as Ed Magedson, also13. Xcentric and its associates in the Ripoff Report enterprise use14. The Ripoff Report enterprise until approximately May or June 201016. The Ripoff Report enterprise takes advantage of the average person’s17. The Ripoff Report enterprise is the ultimate Internet “troll.”218. The Ripoff Report enterprise solicits purely negative, often hateful19. Cloaked in the false disguise of a consumer advocate, the Ripoff20. The Ripoff Report enterprise even incorporates the Content Trolling21. By the time the victims realize that the best way of dealing with a22. The Ripoff Report enterprise profusely claims that “Reports” never23. There are at least two ways to get into CAP. One is to follow the24. The Ripoff Report enterprise deceives consumers and violates Section25. Defendants Xcentric, Bad Business Bureau and Magedson, doing26. Defendants control other domain names that redirect visitors to the27. The Ripoff Report enterprise must be viewed for what it is – a self-28. The Ripoff Report enterprise uses instrumentalities of interstate29. The Ripoff Report enterprise conducts its “trolling” on two levels30. However, the true, three-dimensional space in which the Ripoff31. The Ripoff Report enterprise determines not only what goes into web32. The Ripoff Report enterprise has designed its systems to generate web33. The HTML for such web pages is written in dynamic, semantic34. The Ripoff Report enterprise knowingly, deliberately and with intent35. However, for money, the Ripoff Report Enterprise will allow a subject36. An advertising-supported Internet business model such as the Ripoff37. The ROR Website comprises over 500,000 unique web pages38. The ROR Website gains so-called “authority,” or favorable page39. In addition to selling two-dimensional advertisements on its static web40. Ripoff Reports offers programs such as the “Verified Safe” program,41. While the goals of consumer self-help, providing a place to report42. As part of the Content Trolling Scheme, the Ripoff Report enterprise43. Ripoff Report purports to serve the public as “by consumers, for44. The ROR Website will not publish positive reviews. The only positive45. Not all Rip-off Reports are about companies with shady business46. The ROR Website differs from other community websites or public47. This is because, unlike community websites such as Facebook,48. A true and correct copy of the ROR Website’s Terms of Service, as51. Websites Facebook,452. Moreover, unlike community forums such as Facebook or Craigslist,53. Ripoff Report does not allow users to post positive Reports about a54. Instead, Ripoff Reports restricts subjects wishing to defend55. Rebuttals and comments are placed in a less prominent position than56. Ripoff Report also has designed the ROR Website with various57. Attempts to print a Rip-off Report directly from a standard web58. The Rip-off Report section of a ROR Website web page containing a59. Ripoff Report is a business. In addition to being in the business of60. Among the goods Ripoff Report sells is a book, pamphlet or guide61. Purchasing this book is actually “Step Two” in following the ROR62. At all times relevant herein, and since at least 2005, Ripoff Report has63. Defendants describe CAP as “where a business may publicize its64. In or around April 2010, Defendants also introduced the “Ripoff65. The ROR Website depicts a logo for the Ripoff Report Verified Safe66. Defendants advertise that this Verified Safe Program “also includes a67. The web page on the ROR Website dedicated to the “Ripoff Report68. On the “About Us: Advertising Standards” web page of the ROR69. In order to truly understand the nature of the harm and destruction70. Search is currently the most powerful, vibrant determinant in the way71. Courts have long recognized the importance of search as a means for72. Many members of the public influenced by a Rip-off Report do not73. Instead, many -- if not most -- discover Rip-off Reports by searching74. The public often does not type in unique web addresses or "URLs”75. Defendants’ conduct herein encompasses their affirmative activity76. HTML is the language of expression for individual web pages that are77. HTML determines not only how a web page is formatted to a viewer,78. It is well-recognized that a party can be held liable for damages79. Courts have long held parties accountable for their deliberate conduct80. Courts regularly enjoin parties to refrain from infringing trademarks81. Courts have also recognized that computer code can qualify as82. Thus, Courts have long recognized the power and impression of83. The business model of commercial search engine companies such as84. The underlying business model of such search engine companies is85. A typical search engine user begins by entering a query, or86. Google operates an Internet search engine, which allows Internet users87. A person searches for a business or person by typing the business or88. What she sees is a powerful first impression of the subject of her89. An entire business of "search engine optimization" or “SEO” has90. Search engine optimization has been described as the business of91. The size of the market for SEO services provided to companies92. Courts have long recognized the importance of this first impression in93. In this case, the Defendants improperly assassinate the goodwill of the94. Thus, Defendants’ conduct herein must be viewed not only in terms of95. By the time any content is published to the Web through the ROR96. Defendants are the owners of all Reports, rebuttals and comments by97. The HTML influences such things as the URL for the web page, how98. Defendants have taken many affirmative, deliberate actions in99. In particular, Defendants have been successful in maintaining100. The ROR Website has been on the Internet since 1998101. Google is by far the most popular search engine for Web searches. In102. Some professional SEO consultants have openly speculated that103. However, Google’s search algorithms continue to give high104. Search queries conducted through Google for a company or individual105. For a small business or individual that has not deliberately engaged in106. One of the factors that influence a particular web page’s ranking in107. Defendants are responsible for the operating system, website design,108. A ROR Website user cannot actually choose a URL to assign to the109. Ripoff Report designs and operates its user interface and website110. This inclusion of the subject’s personal or business name in the111. For example, in Rip-off Report number 621543, a Report about a112. The Ripoff Report enterprise designs and operate their website113. Another place the Ripoff Report enterprise optimizes the Reports for114. For example, Defendants published to the Web on or about January115. At all times relevant herein, Report number 417493 included text near116. The URL for the web page on the ROR Website that displays Report117. The Ripoff Report enterprise changed the URL for Report 417493 at118. Defendants updated Report number 417493 on or about May 21, 2010119. At some time between January 28, 2009 and the present, Defendants120. Many businesses and individuals of ordinary sophistication have not121. Ripoff Report actively and deliberately encourages users to prefer122. Ripoff Report also strongly protests on the ROR Website that it does123. As early as June 26, 2009, Defendants stated on their website: “Why124. Despite this protest, Defendants changed significantly the content of125. Report number 607436 is a complaint about the Google Adwords126. On or about May 31, 2010 at 9:31 a.m. Pacific Standard Time127. The “Notice” on Report number 607436 transmitted by Defendants is128. A true and correct copy of relevant sections of Rip-off Report Number129. Defendants also placed a false “*Notice” in between the title and130. Report number 51706 is a complaint about the Google Adwords132. The “Notice” added by Defendants on Report number 517206 is false133. The true facts are that Google does offer a keyword-triggered134. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants135. Defendant Magedson admitted that he suppressed or changed the136. Defendant Magedson admits that Sergey Brin is not a member of the137. The true facts are that Ripoff Report does many things in creating,138. Defendants misrepresent their SEO efforts in part to appear authentic139. There are at least two ways to become a member of Defendants’140. Following the “official” method of enrolling for CAP, the potential141. The first step is to complete an intake questionnaire included on the142. The First Questionnaire informs applicants that the program “requires143. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that a CAP applicant must144. After receiving responses to the First Questionnaire, Defendants send145. On May 20, 2010 at 7:55 a.m., Norris cut and pasted the requested146. Thereafter, Defendants send prospective CAP applicants an email147. A true and correct copy of an actual “Corporate Advocacy Program148. A true and correct copy of the attachment to the May 20, 2010 10:31149. The cost of joining CAP is revealed in the Rate Sheet, entitled “Costs150. The cost of joining the CAP program has two components, (1) an151. To join CAP, an applicant with 1 to 350 Reports must pay the initial152. To join CAP, an applicants with 351 to 500 Reports must pay the153. To join CAP, an applicant with 501 to 1000 Reports must pay the154. To join CAP, an applicant with 1001 to 1500 Reports must pay the155. If the applicant is more than 10 days late in paying a monthly156. Thereafter, another step that an applicant to CAP must take is to157. The Second Questionnaire purports to be “Questions for the158. The email accompanying the Second Questionnaire explains that a159. Defendants represent that upon return of a signed CAP Agreement160. Defendants also promise that upon joining the CAP program (by161. This Google search query for “Blue Coast Financial” yielded, as of162. As promised, joining CAP has turned the “negative” into a positive in163. The reason this happens is that after a subject joins the CAP program,164. An example is shown below, for Ripoff Report’s advertiser,165. In the above example, the new, custom “content” is shown after the166. The actual Rip-off Report used as an example in the Second167. Report Number 412338 provides in part:169. A second, “unofficial” way to get into CAP is to file a lawsuit against170. The Ripoff Report enterprise makes many representations of fact to171. Among Defendants’ most striking false representations, both on the172. ROR falsely claims that it never takes down reports, whether for173. This is absolutely false. Ripoff Report has taken down at least two174. The true facts are that Ripoff Report has removed Rip-off Reports,175. A settlement agreement dated May 15, 2009 entered into and signed176. Defendants induce subjects of negative reports, including Plaintiffs,177. ROR tells the subjects of its reports that they can tell their side of the178. However, not all rebuttals are posted. Moreover, what ROR does not179. ROR also does not tell subjects that filing a rebuttal is financially180. ROR also does not tell those to whom it advocates filing a rebuttal181. Furthermore, ROR claims that you can always file a free rebuttal. This182. ROR also makes a number of exaggerated claims concerning its own183. Ripoff Report presents CAP and its Verified Safe program as184. Defendants’ conduct violates the FTC Guides because ROR does not185. Finally, ROR claims that it has not done anything to get more186. Together, these false statements and misrepresentations constitute a187. This pattern of wire fraud proximately caused the injuries to Plaintiffs188. Desperate, the subjects of Reports are overwhelmed in the aftermath189. The distress of a subject is well known among a business sector of190. Victims are deluged with calls, e-mails and faxes from services191. Defendants intentionally used their Web site as a scheme to attempt to192. Promising media attention and monetary compensation via class193. Defendants then label these businesses or individuals a “Ripoff” and194. This biased presentation of these targets appears in Google search195. Using the pseudonym “Corporate Advocacy Program” (“CAP”),196. Defendants make several, false and fraudulent statements of fact on its197. These misrepresentations were made with the specific intent of: (1)198. Defendants mislead those victimized on their website when they state199. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants state on the ROR Website200. Defendants state on the ROR Website, including on April 3, 2009 and201. Currently, and at all relevant times hereto including specifically on202. A true and correct screen shot of the ROR Website containing these203. On May 12, 2009, Defendant Edward Magedson sent Plaintiff204. On July 24, 2009, Defendant Edward Magedson sent Plaintiff206. On January 15, 2010 at 2:02 (EST), Defense Counsel for ROR, David207. Likewise, Gingras stated that he may be able to remove Ms. Smith’s208. On information and belief, reports previously categorized under209. In a telephone conversation that took place on April 12, 2010, counsel212. The false statements lead those victimized to believe they have very213. Plaintiffs did take such steps. On October 24, 2009, Plaintiffs posted a214. On March 6, 2009, Plaintiffs paid a Search Engine Optimization215. Again on March 27, 2009, Plaintiffs paid a Search Engine216. On May 14, 2009, Plaintiffs paid a Search Engine Optimization217. Thereafter, Plaintiffs paid a Search Engine Optimization consultant218. Others have expended monies in order to mitigate and/or take down219. In or around February 2010, Tina Norris, another victim of the220. Another victim, Kathy Spano and her teenage daughter, residents of221. Another victim, attorney Laura Snoke, a resident of the State of222. The Ripoff Report Enterprise also makes these false representations223. On April 22, 2010, Ms. Spano’s teenage daughter currently has a224. Likewise, Tina Norris incurred one hundred and thirty-four thousand225. Another victim of false reports, attorney Peter Mallon, a resident of226. Mallon was advised by the representative of Quick Rep Repair that227. Defendants also grossly overstate the ability of those targeted to file a228. Currently, Defendants made and make the following false statements229. On May 5, 2009 at 11:48 a.m., Defendant Edward Magedson sent230. The true facts are that the Ripoff Report enterprise makes it easy to231. A number of people have unsuccessfully attempted to post rebuttals in232. Between July and November 2008, Tina Norris and a team of233. On January 19, 2010 and January 19, 2010 Jan Smith sent emails to234. This misrepresentation that subjects can always file rebuttals creates235. The illusion created by Defendants’ misrepresentations legitimizes the236. On May 5, 2009 at 11:48 a.m., Defendant Edward Magedson sent237. In the May 5, 2009 email, Magedson adverts to his knowledge that the238. Defendants do not disclose their ulterior motivation for advocating239. Filing a rebuttal actually hurts those victimized on the ROR website240. Rebuttals act as fresh content, refreshing the Reports with search242. Filing a rebuttal also requires registration and acceptance of ROR’s243. The aggravating effect of submitting a rebuttal is well observed. In or244. Plaintiffs did rely on the false statements on the ROR Website on246. Whereas on March 4, 2009, the Google search result for “Raymond247. Defendants falsely misrepresent to the public that “Ripoff Report has248. ROR makes the following allegations on their webpage: In response249. Ripoff Report has, in fact, done many things to support itself as a250. Both Bing and Yahoo have discredited and penalized Defendants’251. However, Ripoff Report has actively written and published titles,252. The public relies on the false statement as true, and gives greater253. Plaintiffs and others were damaged viewed these false statements and254. Defendants mislead the public when they state that they are “immune”255. ROR makes the following claims on their webpage. Plaintiffs viewed256. On May 5, 2009 at 11:48 a.m., Defendant Edward Magedson sent257. Many of these contentions appearing on the “Want to Sue Ripoff258. These misrepresentations result in members of the public failing to259. Plaintiffs were injured both by the public’s perception and in the form260. If Plaintiffs had known the true facts they would have sued ROR261. Plaintiffs viewed the following statements on the Ripoff Report262. Plaintiffs viewed the following statements on the Ripoff Report263. As mentioned above, Ripoff report does not post negative reports264. Moreover, Defendants will not post positive reports265. As set forth above, plaintiffs were injured by fees paid to IT266. Defendants state that they investigate the truth to posts about CAP267. For example, ROR states:268. John Beck is currently being investigated by the Federal Trade269. In fact, Defendants conduct CAP investigations strictly through the270. In fact, anyone can pay to have favorable commentary featured on271. As set forth above, Plaintiffs were injured by fees paid to IT272. If Plaintiffs had known the true facts they would have sued ROR273. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all preceding paragraphs as274. Xcentric and Magedson, both in his individual capacity and as275. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Xcentric and Magedson were276. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the ROR277. Defendant Magedson was and is associated with Defendant Xcentric279. Defendants use this Web site as a vehicle to defraud the public. The280. Each communication and representation made by the Defendant via281. Defendants knew or had reason to know that these transmissions were282. As previously described, the communication and representations made283. Each of these transmissions furthered the aforementioned scheme and284. Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of285. Defendant Xcentric engaged in a pattern of racketeering, with the use286. Defendant Magedson engaged in a pattern of racketeering by in287. This pattern of wire fraud entailed at least two acts of racketeering288. Plaintiffs were the direct and intended victims of the Content Trolling289. Asia Economic Institute re-alleges and incorporates by reference all290. Magedson and other unnamed individuals associated with Xcentric291. Plaintiffs have been injured in their business and property by reason292. Asia Economic Institute re-alleges and incorporates by reference all293. Plaintiffs have standing pursuant to California Business and294. Plaintiffs allege violations of California Business & Professions Code295. Defendants’ acts and practices as alleged herein constitute unlawful,296. Defendants have repeatedly and intentionally used their Websites as a298. Defendants are engaged in unfair business acts or practices by, among299. Defendants have engaged in conduct the utility of which is300. Defendants have engaged in conduct that is immoral, unethical,301. Defendants have engaged in conduct that undermines and violates the302. Defendants are engaged in fraudulent business acts or practices by,303. Defendants’ statements about products and services offered for sale304. Defendants fail to disclose material information that would be likely305. Defendants have failed, and continue to fail, to disclose to consumers306. Defendants are subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated307. Without injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated308. Asia Economic Institute re-alleges and incorporates by reference all309. Defendants published defamatory materials on Defendants’ websites310. The publications contain false and misleading information and have311. Defendants knew or should have known that the defamatory posts312. Defendants knew that the publications included false information or313. Defendants’ publications damaged Plaintiffs’ business reputation and314. Plaintiffs have been injured in its reputation, business, and property by315. Asia Economic Institute re-alleges and incorporates by reference all316. Defendants published the statements attached hereto at “Exhibit 22.”317. The Reports published by Defendants regarding Plaintiff are false and318. Defendants do not verify the truth or accuracy of the stories contained319. The stories published and written by the Defendants contain false320. The false statements of fact published on the Defendants’ website are321. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs have been damaged in its322. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding323. Defendants’ statements have placed Plaintiffs in a false light by324. The false light in which Plaintiffs have been placed as a result of the325. Defendants knew that the statements were false, or Defendants acted326. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful statements,327. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding328. AEI had valid contractual relationships with current and prospective329. Defendants knew, when falsely and publicly making these defamatory330. Defendants intentionally and wrongfully interfered with these331. As a result of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct, the relationship332. As a direct and proximate results of the foregoing wrongful acts,333. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding334. AEI had valid contractual relationships with current and prospective335. Defendants knew, when falsely and publicly making these defamatory336. Defendants negligently interfered with these relationships by337. The relationships between the Plaintiffs and its employees were338. As a direct and proximate results of the foregoing wrongful acts,339. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding340. AEI had a valid contractual relationships with current and prospective341. Defendants knew, when falsely and publicly making these defamatory342. Defendants intentionally and wrongfully interfered with these343. As a result of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct, the relationship344. Defendant’s wrongful conduct is, therefore, a substantial factor in345. As a direct and proximate results of the foregoing wrongful acts,346. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding347. Defendants have wrongfully and unlawfully solicited, developed, and348. On or about May 5, 2009, Plaintiff Mobrez requested that defendants349. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to suffer immediate and350. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries being suffered351. There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will prevail on the352. Any harm associated with the entry of a preliminary injunction is353. Further, the public interest will be served by preventing the354. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding355. Plaintiffs further ask the Court to set its application for injunctive356. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding357. Cal. Civ. Code § 1709 prohibits willful deception of another with358. Cal. Civ. Code § 1710 provides in relevant part that “deceit…is either:359. Defendants have and continue to violate Cal. Civ. Code § 1709 by360. As described above, Defendants have violated and continue to violate361. As described above, Defendants have violated and continue to violate362. As described above, Defendants have violated and continue to violate363. Plaintiffs were harmed by these allegations. Had they known the true364. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1709, Defendants are liable for any365. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding366. Cal. Civ. Code § 1572 provides that “[a]ctual fraud…consists of any367. As described above, Defendants have violated and continue to violate368. As described above, Defendants have violated and continue to violate369. As described above, Defendants have violated and continue to violate370. As described above, Defendants have violated and continue to violate371. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs will0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1AEI v Xcentric First Amended ComplaintAEI v Xcentric First Amended ComplaintRatings: (0)|Views: 305|Likes: 9Published by Eric GoldmanMore info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Eric Goldman on Jul 30, 2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/35081088/AEI-v-Xcentric-First-Amended-Complaint10/25/2012pdftextoriginal First Amended Complaint - 1
Daniel F. Blackert, (SBN 255021)blackertesq@yahoo.comLisa J. Borodkin, (SBN 196412)lisa_borodkin@post.harvard.eduASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260Los Angeles, CA 90025Telephone (310) 806-3000Facsimile (310) 826-4448Attorneys for PlaintiffsAsia Economic Institute, LLC,Raymond Mobrez, andIliana LlanerasUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAASIA ECONOMICINSTITUTE, LLC, a CaliforniaLLC; RAYMOND MOBREZ anindividual; and ILIANALLANERAS, an individual,Plaintiffs,vs.XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC,an Arizona LLC, doing businessas BADBUSINESS BUREAU,RIPOFF REPORT, andRIPOFFREPORT.COM,BAD BUSINESS BUREAU,LLC, organized and existingunder the laws of St. Kitts andNevis, West Indies; EDWARDMAGEDSON an individual, alsoknown as EDWARDMAGIDSON also known as the“Editor,” and DOES 1 through100, inclusive,Defendants.)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Case No.: 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:(1)
VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) --CIVIL RICO(2)
VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) --RICO CONSPIRACY(3)
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES --CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200
DEFAMATION PER SE(6)
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCEWITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMICRELATIONS(7)
NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCEWITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMICRELATIONS(8)
NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCEWITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS(9)
DECEIT(10)
INJUNCTIONJURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Document 96 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 84 Page ID #:2322
First Amended Complaint - 2
Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, LLC (“Asia Economic Institute” or“AEI”), Raymond Mobrez (“Mobrez”) and Iliana Llaneras (“Llaneras”)(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) complain of defendants Xcentric Ventures, LLC doingbusiness as Ripoff Report, Bad Business Bureau, RipoffReport.com andBadbusinessBureau.com (“Xcentric”), Bad Business Bureau LLC (“Bad BusinessBureau”) and Edward Magedson, also known as Ed Magedson, also known asEdward Magidson, also known as “the EDitor” (“Magedson”) (collectively,“Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
I.JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action underfederal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d) (the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)(“RICO”), in that federal questions are alleged under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d).Thus far, this Court has exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ statelaw claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.3.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants pursuant tothe RICO statute. Specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and (d), which confersnationwide service of process authority upon this Court. In addition, this Court haspersonal jurisdiction over all Defendants because they have sufficient contacts withthis judicial district and California to satisfy the “minimum contacts” doctrinearticulated in
, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).Defendants (a) direct conduct at Plaintiffs, who maintain principal places of business in, and are domiciled in, this judicial district; and (b) operate acommercial, interactive website in this judicial district.4.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391because a substantial part of the events, acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’claims occurred within this judicial district, and is also proper under 18 U.S.C. §
Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Document 96 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 84 Page ID #:2323
First Amended Complaint - 3
1965(a) and (d) because all Defendants have transacted and presently transact theiraffairs in this judicial district.5.
Defendants have previously consented to and waived objections tothis Court’s jurisdiction and to venue within this judicial district.
II.THE PARTIES
Plaintiff Asia Economic Institute is a limited liability company and, atall times relevant hereto, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California, and is authorized to do business in the State of California. Plaintiff AsiaEconomic Institute has its principal place of business at 11766 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 260, Los Angeles, California 90025.7.
Plaintiff Mobrez is an individual and, at all times relevant hereto, aresident of Los Angeles, California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Mobrez is aprincipal and manager of Asia Economic Institute, LLC. In addition, as aCalifornia-licensed broker, Mr. Mobrez derives a significant amount of revenuefrom brokering commercial real estate transactions.8.
Plaintiff Llaneras is an individual and, at all times relevant hereto, aresident of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Llaneras is a principal andmanager of Asia Economic Institute, LLC. In addition, as a California-licensedbroker, Ms. Llaneras derives a significant amount of revenue from brokeringcommercial real estate transactions.9.
Defendant Xcentric is a limited liability company organized andexisting pursuant to the laws of the State of Arizona with its purported domesticaddress as P.O. Box 470, Phoenix, Arizona 85280. Plaintiffs are informed andbelieve and thereon allege that Xcentric is owned by a single member, CreativeBusiness Investment Concepts, Inc., a Nevada corporation located at 2533 NorthCarson Street, Carson City, Nevada 89706. Defendant Xcentric transacts businessin interstate commerce as, inter alia, “Ripoff Report,” an enterprise, located in this
Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Document 96 Filed 07/27/10 Page 3 of 84 Page ID #:2324
Activity (7)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 thousand reads1 hundred readsamireslami liked thisamireslami liked thisshahwanma liked thisbrwilliams3 liked thisNick Braak / Highwick Associates liked thisLoad more