Court Opinion

ID: 4069561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 00:40:31.499444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:27:38.907710
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                    14-15-00568-CV
                                                                    FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                 HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                                                                7/6/2015 4:58:50 PM
                                                                              CHRISTOPHER PRINE
                                                                                             CLERK

                                 NO. ______

                           In the Court of Appeals                 FILED IN
                                                            14th COURT OF APPEALS
                         for the ___ District of Texas         HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                Houston, Texas               7/6/2015 4:58:50 PM
                                                            CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
                                JINSUN LLC                           Clerk

                                   Relator

                   ORIGINAL MANDAMUS PROCEEDING
     FROM THE 113TH JUDICIAL TRIAL COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                      TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

            PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS - RECORD

                                          Respectfully submitted,

                                          /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                          Mary-Olga Lovett
                                            State Bar No: 00789289
                                            lovettm@gtlaw.com
                                          Jason S. Lewis
                                            State Bar No: 24007551
                                            lewisjs@gtlaw.com
                                          Jason M. Hopkins
                                            State Bar No: 24059969
                                            hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
                                          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
                                          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700
                                          Houston, Texas 77002
                                          Telephone: (713) 374-3555
                                          Facsimile: (713) 374-3505

Dated: July 6, 2015                       ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

                                      1
                           MANDAMUS RECORD

TAB DOCUMENT                                                     DATE

A.   Plaintiff’s Original Petition                               09/18/2012

B.   Plaintiff’s Nineteenth Amended Petition                     05/22/2015

C.   Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition of Wayne Dolcefino   06/19/2015
     and Motion for Protective Order

D.   Jinsun’s Response to Motion to Quash Dolcefino Deposition   06/24/2015

E.   Jinsun’s Supplemental Response to Motion to Quash           06/27/2015
     Dolcefino Deposition

F.   June 16, 2015 email serving Jinsun’s First Amended          06/16/2015
     Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum

G.   Order quashing Dolcefino deposition                         06/30/2015

                                     2
TAB A
                                                                                          Filed 12 September 18 P3:26
                                                                                          Chris Daniel- District Clerk
                                                                                          Hanis County
                                 2012-54501 / Court: 113                                  ED101J017084361
                                                                                          By: Charleta Johnson
                                      CAUSE NO._

        KHALEÐ AI-ATTAR,                                    s           IN THE DISTRTCT COURI'OF
                                                            s
                Plaintiff,                                  s
                                                            $
        v.                                                  s
                                                            $                HARRTS COUNTY, TEXAS
        KEVAN CASEY, FREDERICK                              s
        HUTTNER, ANSLOW & JACLIN,                           s
        LLP, AMIR MIR.ESKANDARI,                            $
        TOP GEAR., INC. n/k/a                               $
        LTIXBYARD, INC., JONATHAN                           s
        FRIBDLANDER, and SCOTT GANN,                        s
                                                            s
                Defendants.                                 s                     JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                                 P   LAI NTI F F'S   O"   BI-G-JI.IAL   P   ETITI ON

                Plaintiff, I(haled Alattar, files this Original Petition against Defendants, Kevan

        Casey, Frederick Huttner, Anslow & Jaclin, LLP, Amir Mireskandari, Top Gear, Inc.

        nlkla   Luxeyard, Inc., Jonailran Friedlander, and Scott Gann, and would show                   as

        follows:

                                      p rs covERY         coNTRoL_PtAN
                1.     Plaintiff intends for discovery to be conducted under Level z of Rule      1Ço   of

        the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                                 PARTIE,S
(\

 q)
                2.     Plaintiff Khaied Alattar ("Alatlar") is an individual lesiding in Sugar Land,
 ôo
 cd
tr
  I
        Fort Bend County, Texas.
cô
\o
æ
Ir-
æ               3.     Defendant Kevan Casey ("Casey")             is an individual residing in Harlis
 iiC)   County, Texas and may be served with process at B W. Broad Oaks Ðlive, Houston,
-o
 E
z       Texas 7T056.
 c)
 E
 o
Ê
 o
q:
 L
 o
                 4.      Defendant Frederick Huttner ("Huttner")               is an individual residing in
         Harris County, Texas and may be served with process at 675 Bering Dlive, Suite zSoA,

         Houston, Texas TT056.

                 5.      Defendant Anslow & Jaclin, LLP ("4&J") is a New Jersey limitecl liability

         partnership and may be served with process                   at r95 US Highway 9, Suite             ao4,

         Englishtovrn, New Jersey oZZz6 by serving the Texas Secretary of State.

                 6.      Defendant Amir Mireskandari ("Mileskandari") is an individual residing

         in Harris County, Texas and may be served with process at 455o Post Oal< Place, Suite

         21o, Horiston, Texas TToz7.

                 Z.     Defendant Top Gear', Inc.        n/k/a Luxeyard, Inc. ("Top Gear") is a Ðelaware
         corporation doing business in the State of Texas and rnay be served with process at

         Delar,r'are Business Incorporators,       Inc., g4zz Old Capitol Trail, Suite 7oo, Wilmington,

         Delaware rg8o8 by serving the Texas Secretary of State. Top Gear is now knorvn as

         Luxeyard, Inc. and its stock trades under the syrnbol LUXR.I

                 B.     Defendant Jonathan Friedlander ("Friedlander") is an individual residing

         in   Las Vegas, Nevada and may be served              with plocess at S4gB Vegas Drive, *76t, Las
         Vegas, Nevada Bgro8 by serving the Texas Secletary of State.

                 g.     Defendant Scott Gann ("Gann") is an individual residing in Dallas, Texas
c.ì
 o       and may be served with process at 5zzo Spring Valley, Suite r95, Dallas, Texas TSzS4.
 o
 9p
Ê-
     I
                                          JUTUSpTCTION AND VBNUB
\o
cê
Þ-
oo
                 10.    Julisdiction and venue are proper               in Harris    Coun$, Texas because

 o
         Defendants Kevan Casey, Frederick l{uttner, and               Amil Mireskandari are resiclents of
.!
 E
z
 o
         'Top Gear changecl its ¡lame   to Lrrxeyard, fnc. orr January g, 2cl-2. 'lhe company narìe is bra¡rded   as
 E
 o
         "Lr¡xeYarcl."
 o
o
 o                                                         2
Eo
U
          I{arris County, Texas, and a substantial palt of the events or omissions giving rise to
          Plaintiffs claims occuned in Harris County, Texas. Fulther, Plaintiff seeks recovery in

          excess of the minimum jurisdictional          limits of this Court. Additionalìy, Top Gear has
          had sufficient contacts with the State of Texas and has purposefullS' ¿uui1.U itself of the

          larn¿s   of this State. To subject Top Geal to jurisdiction in Texas would not offend
          traditional notions of fair piay and justice. The causes of action against Top Geal arìse

          out of Top Gear's contacts with this State. A&J has had suffïcient contacts with the State

          of Texas and has purposefully availed itself of the larvs of this State. To sr"rbject A&J to

      jurisdiction in Texas wodd not offend tlaclitional notions of fair play and justice. The

          causes of action against   A&J arise out of A&J's contacts witir this   State   . Fl'iedlandel   has

      had sufficient contacts with the State of Texas and has purposefully availed himself of

      the laws of this State. To subject Friedlander to jurisdiction in Texas would not offend

      traditional notions of fair play and justice. The causes of action against Friedlander

      arise out of Friedlander's contacts with this State

                                                   SUMMARY
                   11.   This is a suit for fi'aud and related claims alising out of an illegal "puìtìp

      and duntp" stock schenre.' Defendants' carefulþ-6rchestrated plan involved                             a

      conspiracy to fraudulently acquire the stock of a small publicly traded cornpany, then
c.l

o
      artificially inflate    - or' "purnp" - the price of its shares through aggressive aclvertising,
Þo

                                     - or "duìrp" * tlre stock at the inflated plice. While such crimes
53
Ê-    only to then rapidly sell
aô
æ
t--
æ     are unforlunately quite prevalent, what makes this particular scheme unusual is that the

i.i
C)
      underlying cornpany was a legitimate business. The fraucl in this instance was not so
'o
E
z
c.)
E
      ?   http: //www.sec.gory'answers/pu mpdump.htrn
o
o
o
-o
()                                                        .)
Ë
C)
O
          much on an unsuspecting public as on the company's co-founders                                         *   Alattal and
          Mileskandari              -   whose business was essentially hijaclied by Defendants,

                          12.      The success of Defendants' pump and durnp scheme is illustrated by the

          chart below, sÌrowing the track record of this "penny stock" duling the lelevant time

          period:

           :            LUXR (Luxey6rd, lnt,)   PlNt(                                                            o 5.ir:¿kCh¿r1s.co*r
                                                                     6
                                         ,tê
                                                                                                                                          D

                                                                             tl                                                          ,tr
                                                                             'l¡                                                         ,t
                                                                                                          iì
                                                                                                                                         .6

                                                                                  I                                                     1.4

                                                                                                                                        1.1
                                                                                                                          .i             .0

               5r,ri'
               c¡¡i
                                                                                                                                         ,6
               3kr j
               2lvl i                                                                                                                    .4

                          I             1? 18    ?6     s1ô23            714          20Jul¡   1   Jul         16 23     AugE

                         13.      The dlamatic rise       *   and later fall  - of the stock price as shov¿n in the above
      chait resuited in an approximately                                 $3o,ooo,ooo.oo windfall in just 6o clays.
      Defenclants, and other unnamed co-conspiratoLs, r'eaped a huge benefit at Alattar's

      expense, whose own stock was restricted and thus could not be                                      sold. Alattar          seeì352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Loe, 248 F.3d

449 (5th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Girard, 744 F.2d 1170, 1171 (5th Cir. 1984). They also

knowingly refused to provide documents and knowingly took positions in open court on

the record that were the exact opposite of what their lawyer was told from the California

bankruptcy lawyer hired to represent Casey and Gann. Finally, it was unlawful to trade

stock on material nonpublic information and, a conspiracy may be based on lawful

conduct through unlawful means. Their overt acts need not “be” the unlawful act or

controlling fact.   Conspiracy involves participation in a tort and does not require

independent liability.

       59.   The above conduct was performed by assisting or encouraging; assisting or

participating; or concert of action under Restatement (Second) of Torts §876, and each

aider and abettor had actual knowledge of the conduct of the primary actor and its

effects. Each aider and abettor substantially assisted the primary actor(s) by concealing

material facts, artificially inflating trading volume through fake accounts, shorting the

                                         21
very stock they promoted, by trading on material nonpublic information, distributing

secret free trading shares, and knowing cashing and retaining the ill gotten profits

(which alone is a sufficient overt act to compose liability). U.S. v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d

608 (2d Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Girard, 744 F.2d

1170, 1171 (5th Cir. 1984). Each aider and abettor also substantially assisted the primary

actor(s) by attempting to avoid “affiliate” status, concealing the background of the

officers they hand picked, conspiring with A&J, engaging in a secret and self funded

media blitz that contained misrepresentations, and selling all of their shares at a pre-

determined time.

             Fraud by Nondisclosure against Casey, Jinsun,
   Top Gear, Friedlander, Gann and each of the companies they control

      60.     Plaintiff   incorporates   all    allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

      61.     A&J, Casey, Friedlander, and Gann, individually and on behalf of Top

Gear, committed fraud by nondisclosure in connection with the reverse merger

transaction by failing to disclose new material information when that material

information made earlier representations misleading or untrue. In this case, Casey,

Friedlander, and Gann made material representations to Alattar as described above.

Those representations became misleading and untrue before the reverse merger took

place because Casey knew that he would not be involved in LuxeYard for more than a

few months, much less many years, they knew they would not be subjecting themselves

to any lock-up agreements as they had previously agreed, and they knew that the stated

purpose of the reverse merger was actually to perpetrate a rapid pump and dump

scheme. Casey knew that Alattar was ignorant of the facts concerning the lock-up

                                           22
agreements and the quick pump and dump scheme and did not have an equal

opportunity to discover the truth. Moreover, Defendants were deliberately silent and

failed to disclose these facts with the intent to induce Alattar to enter into the reverse

merger transaction and continually build a viable company for years to come. In this

regard, Alattar acted in reliance on the omission or concealment and suffered injury as a

result of acting without knowledge of the undisclosed facts. Alattar seeks disgorgement

of all ill-gotten profits resulting from the fraud by nondisclosure as well as actual

damages.

       62.    A&J failed to correct all of the statements it made in the transaction

documents, which documents were based on A&J legal judgment and discretion.

Defendants committed fraud by nondisclosure in connection with the reverse merger

transaction by failing to disclose new material information when that material

information made earlier representations misleading or untrue.                 In this case,

Defendants made material representations to Alattar as described above. Defendants

knew that Alattar was ignorant of the facts concerning the lock-up agreements and did

not have an equal opportunity to discover the truth. Moreover, they were deliberately

silent and failed to disclose these facts with the intent to induce Alattar to enter into the

reverse merger transaction. In this regard, Alattar acted in reliance on the omission or

concealment and suffered injury as a result of acting without knowledge of the

undisclosed facts. Alattar seeks disgorgement of profits and his actual damages.

              Statutory Fraud against Gann, Casey, Jinsun,
     Top Gear and Friedlander and each of the companies they control

       63.    Plaintiff   incorporates   all    allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

                                           23
       64.    Casey, Gann, and Friedlander, individually and on behalf of Top Gear,

committed statutory fraud in violation of Texas Business & Commerce Code Section

27.01 in connection with the reverse merger transaction and supposed plans to build a

premier web-based seller of a broad scope of luxury items.                Casey, Gann, and

Friedlander knew all along that LuxeYard would never reach the “broad scope” phase.

They made false representations of fact as well as false promises to Alattar as described

above. These false representations and promises were made for the purpose of inducing

Alattar into entering into the reverse merger transaction. Alattar relied on these false

representations and promises when he entered into the transaction, and this reliance

caused him injury. Alattar seeks disgorgement of all ill-gotten profits received by Casey

as a result of this fraud, as well as actual damages.

       65.    In addition, the actions of Casey, Gann and Friedlander in connection with

the stock purchase agreements described above constitute statutory fraud in violation of

Texas Business & Commerce Code Section 27.01.                     These defendants made

misrepresentations of fact and false promises, outlined above, to Alattar for the purpose

of inducing Alattar into transferring large blocks of LUXR shares for nominal

consideration. Alattar relied on these false representations and promises.

              Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Gann, Friedlander,
                 Casey and each of the companies they control

       66.    Plaintiff   incorporates   all    allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

       67.    A&J had an attorney-client relationship with Alattar and LY. A&J solicited

LY as a client. Alattar was a member of LY. A&J exercised legal judgment discretion in

drafting dozens of documents for Alattar. As Alattar’s attorneys, A&J owed a fiduciary

                                           24
duty to Alattar. A&J breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, (1) assisting

Casey’s inducement of Alattar into not only the reverse merger transaction, but the

agreement to work together to build a venture that would last for years to come for

purposes of engineering the quick pump and dump scheme, (2) failing to disclose

Casey’s scheme, (3) failing to disclose A&J’s own role in the scam, (4) failing to take

steps to prevent the fraud, (5) failing to disclose the fraud after it occurred, and (6)

failing to disclose A&J’s conflict of interest. A&J assisted Casey in connection with his

acquisition of the controlling interest of Top Gear, and A&J prepared the contracts and

other documents for the reverse merger transaction at Casey’s direction. These actions

constitute a breach of their fiduciary duty to Alattar, and Alattar has suffered injury as a

result. Alattar seeks forfeiture of all fees paid to A&J in connection with its

representation of Alattar and LY, as well as actual damages. The Defendants conspired

with A&J.

       68.    Casey and Friedlander owed a fiduciary duty to Alattar because of their

dominance and control over the decision making and daily business affairs of Luxeyard,

a closely-held public company. Under the law, Casey, Gann, and Friedlander also owed

a fiduciary duty to Alattar because they were in possession of material nonpublic

information that they concealed from Alattar. They also owed a fiduciary duty under the

law as both an officer and insider of the company. They also owed a fiduciary duty

because they were an affiliate of the company. They also owed a fiduciary duty because

they acted as the agent for the principal, Alattar, by perpetrating the fraud in connection

with taking Luxeyard public. They also owed a fiduciary duty because they placed

themself in the position of a moral and special relationship of trust and confidence

where they promised to guide Alattar through the reverse merger process as well as the

                                          25
“market awareness” process.      Unfortunately, they exercised dominance and undue

influence over Alattar. Casey and his team knew that Alattar relied on Casey for moral

and professional guidance, and that reliance was justifiable.         Additionally, Casey

controlled Top Gear, and he acted as the securities broker for Top Gear by giving Top

Gear stock to his insiders and Alattar. A broker owes a fiduciary duty to its customers.

Finally, Casey and Alattar formed a joint venture relationship and binding contract in

the Term Sheet. At that time, he then owed a fiduciary duty to his co-venture. He

knowingly ignored the representations in the Term Sheet, and he failed to disclose in the

Term Sheet the dozens of pump and dumps that he and his gang had previously

perpetrated. He even failed to disclose the pump and dumps he was perpetrating on the

very day he bound Alattar in the Term Sheet to a “no shop” provision. Casey breached

his fiduciary duties to Alattar by making false representations of fact to Alattar, making

false promises to Alattar, and engaging in the illicit conduct described above. Casey,

Gann, Friedlander and each of their companies owed a fiduciary duty because they

possessed and traded on material nonpublic information, and because Casey and

Friedlander were officers and insiders. Each of these constituents and the companies

they control breached that duty by never disclosing the truth that their past, the truth

about their future services and that they were going to trade on material nonpublic

information. These breaches have caused injury to Alattar and substantial benefit to

Casey. Thus, Casey is liable to Alattar for actual damages and for disgorgement of all ill-

gotten benefits.

                                          26
  Violation of the Texas Securities Act against Casey, Jinsun, Friedlander
             and Gann, and each of the companies they control

       69.    Plaintiff incorporates all allegations contained in the foregoing

paragraphs.

       70.    As outlined above, Casey offered or sold securities to Alattar by means of

an untrue statement of material fact or an omission to state a material fact necessary in

order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they are

made, not misleading. TEX. VERNON’S ANN. CIV. ST. ARTS. 581-1 et seq. Casey violated

the Texas Securities Act by misrepresenting and/or omitting the disclosure of material

facts. Casey is liable under the civil penalty provisions of the Texas Securities Act. TEX.

REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. ART. 581-33.       Casey bought, sold, and issued securities using

fraudulent means and communications in direct violation of the civil penalty

provisions of the act. A&J, Freidlander and Gann are liable under the Act as far as

aiders and abettors.

       71.    Friedlander misrepresented and actively concealed his purported

experience, his advertised skill set, the nature of the individuals with whom he would be

working, that they were known criminals, his previous involvement with A&J, his

opinions regarding Luxeyard’s expected revenue, that he was involved in prior pump

and dumps, that he participated in hand-picking employees who were advertised as

strangers (when they were not) and more. Gann actively concealed the prior pump and

dumps, that he was fined and penalized by the Fifth Circuit as follows:

   •   “The district court found Gann not credible and determined that he had violated
       Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5;”

   •   “Gann and Fasciano opened 21 accounts for nine HCM affiliates, albeit the
       investors in each were the same;”

                                          27
   •   “After receiving a block notice, Gann and Fasciano would switch the identifier
       number they were using, enabling them to continue trading, at least
       temporarily;”

   •   “The material misstatements at issue are Gann’s use of different and varying
       client account numbers to disguise the frequency and magnitude of HCM’s
       trading in the various funds;”

   •   “The district court held that Gann’s practice of switching identifying broker and
       client account numbers constituted materially misleading statements in violation
       of the securities laws;”

   •   “The SEC’s proof that Gann’s use of different numbers to conduct his trades
       demonstrated that he did not want the fund companies catching on this his
       trading practices;”

   •   “In one instance, Fasciano traded a Goldman Sachs fund three times and received
       a block notice, yet he and Gann placed five more trades under a difference
       number, received two more block notices, and still continued placing trades;”

   •   “We view the SEC’s characterization of the use of multiple registration and
       account numbers as ample evidence of an intent to mislead;”

   •   “The SEC’s chief evidence of Gann’s intent to deceive was his use of numerous
       account and registration numbers that actually represented his (and Fasciano’s)
       work for HCM. The SEC contended that Gann’s efforts were meant to circumvent
       the funds’ regulations for his own gain and that of his customer;” and

   •   “For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

Gann also concealed his plan to trade on material nonpublic information.

       72.   Alattar also contends Friedlander (and Equity Highrise) and Gann (and

his companies) aided and abetted by overtly assisting Casey in obtaining shares beneath

the 10% restriction while in fact controlling much more. Friedlander also assisted Casey

by, as shares were sold throughout 2012, misrepresenting the value of the shares by

concealing what was known only to Friedlander and Casey, but not Alattar. Friedlander

and Gann also concealed the fact that they were uniquely aware of inside information

about the status of the issues (Top Gear and Luxeyard) each time Alattar was asked to

                                        28
invest more in the company. Friedlander and Gann had actual and general awareness of

their role in tricking Alattar into the SEA as well as the series A-D financing because

they participated in many prior pump and dumps with Casey and other known

criminals. When they acted, wrote, communicated and concealed material facts from

Alattar, they did so with intent to deceive Alattar. All of these communications were to

Alattar and/or they had a reason to expect the communications would be presented to

Alattar.   The above conduct substantially assisted Casey and the other insiders in

facilitating the illegal pump and dump and in helping Casey avoid the restrictions placed

on beneficial owners of greater than 10% on a company’s outstanding shares. See 15

U.S.C. § 78p; 17 C.F.R. § 240.16a-1; 15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(3); Anslow Deposition at pp. 134,

226. They also assisted Casey in tricking Alattar (and others) into making subsequent

investments. They also made misrepresentations in the representations and warranties

they signed in the Subscription Agreement, including:

   •   “There is no Action pending against, or to the Knowledge of such Investor,
       threatened against or affecting, such Investor by any Governmental Authority or
       other Person with respect to such Investor that challenges, or may have the effect
       of preventing, delaying, making illegal, or otherwise interfering with, any of the
       transactions contemplated by this Agreement.”

   •   “Such Investor is acquiring such the Securities proposed to be acquired
       hereunder for investment for its own account and not with a view to the resale or
       distribution of any part thereof, and such Investor has no present intention of
       selling or otherwise distributing such Securities, except in compliance with
       applicable securities Laws.”

   •   “Such Investor further acknowledges that if the Securities are issued to such
       Investor in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, such Securities
       may not be resold without registration under the Securities Act or the existence of
       an exemption therefrom.”

   •   “Such Person will not sell or otherwise transfer the Securities, unless either (A)
       the transfer of such securities is registered under the Securities Act or (B) an
       exemption from registration of such securities is available.”

                                         29
   •   “Such Investor has not directly or indirectly, nor has any person acting on behalf
       of or pursuant to any understanding with such Investor, engaged in any
       transaction in the securities of the Company (including, without limitation, Short
       Sales involving the Company’s securities) since the time that such Investor was
       first contacted by the Company regarding the investment in the Company
       contemplated herein.”

       73.   In addition, Friedlander and Gann knowingly cashed the proceeds of the

illegal enterprise. U.S. v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Loe, 248 F.3d

449 (5th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Girard, 744 F.2d 1170, 1171 (5th Cir. 1984). They also

knowingly refused to provide documents and knowingly took positions in open court on

the record that were the exact opposite of what their lawyer was told from the California

bankruptcy lawyer hired to represent Casey and Gann. Finally, it was unlawful to trade

stock on material nonpublic information and, a conspiracy may be based on lawful

conduct through unlawful means. Their overt acts need not “be” the unlawful act or

controlling fact.   Conspiracy involves participation in a tort and does not require

independent liability.

       74.   The above conduct was performed by assisting or encouraging; assisting or

participating; or concert of action under Restatement (Second) of Torts §876, and each

aider and abettor had actual knowledge of the conduct of the primary actor and its

effects. Each aider and abettor substantially assisted the primary actor(s) by concealing

material facts, artificially inflating trading volume through fake accounts, shorting the

very stock they promoted, by trading on material nonpublic information, distributing

secret free trading shares, and knowing cashing and retaining the ill gotten profits

(which alone is a sufficient overt act to compose liability). U.S. v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d

608 (2d Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Girard, 744 F.2d

1170, 1171 (5th Cir. 1984). Each aider and abettor also substantially assisted the primary

                                         30
actor(s) by attempting to avoid “affiliate” status, concealing the background of the

officers they hand picked, conspiring with A&J, engaging in a secret and self funded

media blitz that contained misrepresentations, and selling all of their shares at a pre-

determined time.

      75.    Hudson, Brompton and Allen had a meeting of the minds with the insiders

including Casey, Friedlander, Trotter and Gann. Allen had a pre-existing relationship

with those insiders and failed to disclose that relationship when he was introduced to

LuxeYard. He pretended to be an objective and independent consultant to the company

and entered into a consulting agreement. He did not disclose his prior relationship with

the Defendants and he did not disclose that the consideration he received pursuant to

his consulting agreement was actually immediately turned over to the Defendants. He

therefore assisted them in accumulating more stock in LuxeYard. Further, Allen failed

to disclose the imminent pump and dump of which he was aware given his prior

relationship with the Defendants.     He assisted the insiders in trading on inside

information, allowing them to have increased beneficial ownership, and in advising the

company pursuant to their instructions. Brompton (which included Hudson) acquired

free trading shares without telling LuxeYard or Alattar. See 15 U.S.C. §78p; 17 C.F.R. §

240.16a-1; 15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(3); Anslow Deposition at pp. 134, 226. Brompton had a

prior relationship with the Defendants and acquired free trading shares in previous

pump and dumps. Brompton never disclosed this in any of the documents Brompton

signed including the subscription agreement. Brompton had a meeting of the minds to

sell its free trading shares on inside information it acquired from Casey, Friedlander,

and Trotter. Brompton never disclosed this previous relationship to Alattar or LuxeYard

and Brompton misrepresented its relationship to the company in the subscription

                                        31
agreement. Brompton assisted Casey and his gang in that they “controlled” the shares

held by Brompton for purposes of the definition of beneficial ownership. The unlawful

acts that Brompton assisted in include insider trading, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,

and violation of the Texas Securities Act. This conduct also allowed Defendants to

transfer stock under conditions that would have precluded them from disposing of their

stock if Defendants had disclosed that they actually had beneficial ownership of the

stock held by Brompton.

                                         Conspiracy

      76.     Plaintiff   incorporates    all    allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

      77.     Based on the authority contained within the opinion letters, the

“unrestricted” shares were then divided among the Defendants and their co-

conspirators. Some of these shares were hidden in nominee accounts or hidden under

the names of different corporations in the Unites States and in offshore accounts in

places such as Bermuda. These “Hiding” Companies included Lee Bear, Lazy Bear,

Jinsun, Acadia Holdings, The Fishman Family Trust, Equity Highrise, Qvarex

Commerce, Sano Holdings and Core Energy Resources among others.

      78.     All Defendants (each and every Defendant including Sater and Acadia) had

a meeting of the minds to defraud Alattar and breach fiduciary duties owed to Alattar by

using his legitimate business as a front to perpetrate an overnight pump and dump

scheme. One or more unlawful overt acts were committed by each of these Defendants,

such as A&J’s drafting of the fraudulent documents connected to the reverse merger

transaction and A&J’s assisting Casey in acquiring the controlling interest of Top Gear

prior to the reverse merger. These Defendants conspired further to defraud Alattar into

                                            32
believing that the nature of the transaction at issue was to assist LY in achieving

continued growth by going public through a reverse merger and then go on to become a

premier web-based company without disclosing that Defendants’ actual intent was to

use the shell company to perpetrate a pump and dump scheme. These Defendants,

acting jointly and in concert, each engaged in unlawful acts in furtherance of their

conspiracy, all as outlined above. Alattar has been injured as a result of defendant’s

conspiracy and seeks his actual damages.6 By engaging in a conspiracy to commit fraud,

Defendants are liable for exemplary damages.

                 79.              Friedlander misrepresented and actively concealed his purported

experience, his advertised skill set, the nature of the individuals with whom he would be

working, that they were known criminals, his previous involvement with A&J, his

opinions regarding Luxeyard’s expected revenue, that he was involved in prior pump

and dumps, that he participated in hand-picking employees who were advertised as

strangers (when they were not) and more. Gann actively concealed the prior pump and

dumps, that he was fined and penalized by the Fifth Circuit as follows:

        •        “The district court found Gann not credible and determined that he had violated
                 Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5;”

        •        “Gann and Fasciano opened 21 accounts for nine HCM affiliates, albeit the
                 investors in each were the same;”

        •                                             “After receiving a block notice, Gann and Fasciano would switch the identifier
                                                      number they were using, enabling them to continue trading, at least
                                                      temporarily;”
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
6	
  Gann and Friedlander and Casey controlled the day-to-day operations of the entities through which they
perpetrated their fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and stock fraud. Although they acted individually, they
set up separate alter ego companies for purposes of hiding their trading activity. They are alter egos of the
companies that acted as a mere conduit for purposes of individual participation in numerous torts-which
torts damaged Plaintiff. The documents for these companies were sent directly to these Defendants and
signed by them. For purposes of this allegation, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates Plaintiff’s Motions to
Compel as to those Defendants-which Motions attach ample evidence of control, alter ago, and sham to
perpetuate a fraud.

                                                                                                       33
   •   “The material misstatements at issue are Gann’s use of different and varying
       client account numbers to disguise the frequency and magnitude of HCM’s
       trading in the various funds;”

   •   “The district court held that Gann’s practice of switching identifying broker and
       client account numbers constituted materially misleading statements in violation
       of the securities laws;”

   •   “The SEC’s proof that Gann’s use of different numbers to conduct his trades
       demonstrated that he did not want the fund companies catching on this his
       trading practices;”

   •   “In one instance, Fasciano traded a Goldman Sachs fund three times and received
       a block notice, yet he and Gann placed five more trades under a difference
       number, received two more block notices, and still continued placing trades;”

   •   “We view the SEC’s characterization of the use of multiple registration and
       account numbers as ample evidence of an intent to mislead;”

   •   “The SEC’s chief evidence of Gann’s intent to deceive was his use of numerous
       account and registration numbers that actually represented his (and Fasciano’s)
       work for HCM. The SEC contended that Gann’s efforts were meant to circumvent
       the funds’ regulations for his own gain and that of his customer;” and

   •   “For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

Gann also concealed his plan to trade on material nonpublic information.

       80.   Alattar also contends Friedlander (and Equity Highrise) and Gann (and

his companies) aided and abetted by overtly assisting Casey in obtaining shares beneath

the 10% restriction while in fact controlling much more. Friedlander also assisted Casey

by, as shares were sold throughout 2012, misrepresenting the value of the shares by

concealing what was known only to Friedlander and Casey, but not Alattar. Friedlander

and Gann also concealed the fact that they were uniquely aware of inside information

about the status of the issues (Top Gear and Luxeyard) each time Alattar was asked to

invest more in the company. Friedlander and Gann had actual and general awareness of

their role in tricking Alattar into the SEA as well as the series A-D financing because

                                        34
they participated in many prior pump and dumps with Casey and other known

criminals. When they acted, wrote, communicated and concealed material facts from

Alattar, they did so with intent to deceive Alattar. All of these communications were to

Alattar and/or they had a reason to expect the communications would be presented to

Alattar.   The above conduct substantially assisted Casey and the other insiders in

facilitating the illegal pump and dump and in helping Casey avoid the restrictions placed

on beneficial owners of greater than 10% on a company’s outstanding shares. See 15

U.S.C. § 78p; 17 C.F.R. § 240.16a-1; 15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(3); Anslow Deposition at pp. 134,

226. They also assisted Casey in tricking Alattar (and others) into making subsequent

investments. They also made misrepresentations in the representations and warranties

they signed in the Subscription Agreement, including:

   •   “There is no Action pending against, or to the Knowledge of such Investor,
       threatened against or affecting, such Investor by any Governmental Authority or
       other Person with respect to such Investor that challenges, or may have the effect
       of preventing, delaying, making illegal, or otherwise interfering with, any of the
       transactions contemplated by this Agreement.”

   •   “Such Investor is acquiring such the Securities proposed to be acquired
       hereunder for investment for its own account and not with a view to the resale or
       distribution of any part thereof, and such Investor has no present intention of
       selling or otherwise distributing such Securities, except in compliance with
       applicable securities Laws.”

   •   “Such Investor further acknowledges that if the Securities are issued to such
       Investor in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, such Securities
       may not be resold without registration under the Securities Act or the existence of
       an exemption therefrom.”

   •   “Such Person will not sell or otherwise transfer the Securities, unless either (A)
       the transfer of such securities is registered under the Securities Act or (B) an
       exemption from registration of such securities is available.”

   •   “Such Investor has not directly or indirectly, nor has any person acting on behalf
       of or pursuant to any understanding with such Investor, engaged in any
       transaction in the securities of the Company (including, without limitation, Short

                                         35
      Sales involving the Company’s securities) since the time that such Investor was
      first contacted by the Company regarding the investment in the Company
      contemplated herein.”

      81.    In addition, Friedlander and Gann knowingly cashed the proceeds of the

illegal enterprise. U.S. v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Loe, 248 F.3d

449 (5th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Girard, 744 F.2d 1170, 1171 (5th Cir. 1984). They also

knowingly refused to provide documents and knowingly took positions in open court on

the record that were the exact opposite of what their lawyer was told from the California

bankruptcy lawyer hired to represent Casey and Gann. Finally, it was unlawful to trade

stock on material nonpublic information and, a conspiracy may be based on lawful

conduct through unlawful means. Their overt acts need not “be” the unlawful act or

controlling fact.   Conspiracy involves participation in a tort and does not require

independent liability.

      82.    The above conduct was performed by assisting or encouraging; assisting or

participating; or concert of action under Restatement (Second) of Torts §876, and each

aider and abettor had actual knowledge of the conduct of the primary actor and its

effects. Each aider and abettor (each Defendant) substantially assisted the primary

actor(s) by concealing material facts, providing brokerage and underwriting services in

connection with the purchase of the shell company with knowledge of the intent to use

the shell company in the pump and dump scheme, providing the majority of capital

needed to purchase the shell company, artificially inflating trading volume through fake

accounts, shorting the very stock they promoted, trading on material nonpublic

information, distributing secret free trading shares, coordinating the timing of their

trades to maximize their profits when they dumped their shares, and knowingly cashing

and retaining the ill gotten profits (which alone is a sufficient overt act to compose

                                         36
liability). U.S. v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th

Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Girard, 744 F.2d 1170, 1171 (5th Cir. 1984). The Defendants acted in

concert, both amongst themselves and with others, to control and dominate the market

in LuxeYard stock, engage in coordinated trading activity (including the use of matched

orders, wash trades, and “gypsy swaps”), and funded and arranged for the creation and

distribution of false promotional materials to the public to generate a false appearance

of liquidity and investor interest in LuxeYard stock, thereby artificially inflating the

trading volume and share price.       The Defendants also conspired to use nominee

brokerage and bank accounts in the names of corporate entities, trusts, relatives, and

acquaintances to conceal their fraudulent activity. So, each Defendant has illegally

retained the proceeds despite knowledge of the fraudulent scheme. Each aider and

abettor (each Defendant) also substantially assisted the primary actor(s) by attempting

to avoid “affiliate” status, concealing the background of the officers they hand picked,

conspiring with A&J, engaging in a secret and self funded media blitz that contained

misrepresentations, and selling all of their shares at a pre-determined time.          All

Defendants had, by definition, and by admission, a meeting of the minds with the

companies they control.

      83.    Hudson, Brompton and Allen had a meeting of the minds with the insiders

including Casey, Friedlander, Trotter and Gann. Allen had a pre-existing relationship

with those insiders and failed to disclose that relationship when he was introduced to

LuxeYard. He pretended to be an objective and independent consultant to the company

and entered into a consulting agreement. He did not disclose his prior relationship with

the Defendants and he did not disclose that the consideration he received pursuant to

his consulting agreement was actually immediately turned over to the Defendants. He

                                         37
therefore assisted them in accumulating more stock in LuxeYard. Further, Allen failed

to disclose the imminent pump and dump of which he was aware given his prior

relationship with the Defendants.     He assisted the insiders in trading on inside

information, allowing them to have increased beneficial ownership, and in advising the

company pursuant to their instructions. Brompton (which included Hudson) acquired

free trading shares in return for its involvement in the pump and dump scheme without

telling LuxeYard or Alattar.   See 15 U.S.C. §78p; 17 C.F.R. § 240.16a-1; 15 U.S.C.

§78m(d)(3); Anslow Deposition at pp. 134, 226. Brompton had a prior relationship with

the Defendants and acquired free trading shares in previous pump and dumps.

Brompton never disclosed this in any of the documents Brompton signed including the

subscription agreement. Brompton had a meeting of the minds to sell its free trading

shares on inside information it acquired from Casey, Friedlander, and Trotter.

Brompton never disclosed this previous relationship to Alattar or LuxeYard and

Brompton misrepresented its relationship to the company in the subscription

agreement. Brompton assisted Casey and his gang in that they “controlled” the shares

held by Brompton for purposes of the definition of beneficial ownership. The unlawful

acts that Brompton assisted in include insider trading, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,

and violation of the Texas Securities Act. This conduct also allowed Defendants to

transfer stock under conditions that would have precluded them from disposing of their

stock if Defendants had disclosed that they actually had beneficial ownership of the

stock held by Brompton. Doug Shaw and Trevor Ling also conspired with the other

Defendants, and acted as agents of Brompton in this conspiracy.

      84.    Additionally, Jeff Lamont, Jeffrey Sater, Joseph Lee, Kay Holdings, Lance

Baral, Thomas Hudson, and William Bartlett also made nominal interim investments in

                                        38
the company to help fund operations so that the rest of the pump and dump scheme

could be executed.

       85.    Additionally, the Defendants concealed their funding of unauthorized

marketing and promotion of LuxeYard stock by selling blocks of stock amongst

themselves through matched orders in the open market. The Defendants used proceeds

from these block trades to fund sham marketing of LuxeYard, by Next Media and

disgraced television and radio personality Tobin Smith, with money laundered through

their illegal coordinated trading activities.

                                   Aiding and Abetting

       86.    Plaintiff     incorporates   all    allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

       87.    Defendants, individually and as a group (each and every Defendant

including Sater and Acadia), assisted or encouraged each other, assisted and

participated with each other, and also acted in concert of action. Under Texas law, such

group participation constitutes aiding and abetting and warrants the imposition of joint

liability even if the Plaintiff dealt primarily with a single defendant. Stated another way,

when a defendant provides assistance or encouragement to another person who

commits a tort, and the aiding or encouragement is a substantial factor in causing the

tort, then the defendant is considered a tortfeasor, and consequently, is liable for the

consequences of the tort. In this case, Defendants aided and abetted each other and

others unnamed in committing the torts enumerated above. Hence, joint and several

liability is appropriate.

       88.    Friedlander misrepresented and actively concealed his purported

experience, his advertised skill set, the nature of the individuals with whom he would be

                                             39
working, that they were known criminals, his previous involvement with A&J, his

opinions regarding Luxeyard’s expected revenue, that he was involved in prior pump

and dumps, that he participated in hand-picking employees who were advertised as

strangers (when they were not) and more. Gann actively concealed the prior pump and

dumps, that he was fined and penalized by the Fifth Circuit as follows:

   •   “The district court found Gann not credible and determined that he had violated
       Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5;”

   •   “Gann and Fasciano opened 21 accounts for nine HCM affiliates, albeit the
       investors in each were the same;”

   •   “After receiving a block notice, Gann and Fasciano would switch the identifier
       number they were using, enabling them to continue trading, at least
       temporarily;”

   •   “The material misstatements at issue are Gann’s use of different and varying
       client account numbers to disguise the frequency and magnitude of HCM’s
       trading in the various funds;”

   •   “The district court held that Gann’s practice of switching identifying broker and
       client account numbers constituted materially misleading statements in violation
       of the securities laws;”

   •   “The SEC’s proof that Gann’s use of different numbers to conduct his trades
       demonstrated that he did not want the fund companies catching on this his
       trading practices;”

   •   “In one instance, Fasciano traded a Goldman Sachs fund three times and received
       a block notice, yet he and Gann placed five more trades under a difference
       number, received two more block notices, and still continued placing trades;”

   •   “We view the SEC’s characterization of the use of multiple registration and
       account numbers as ample evidence of an intent to mislead;”

   •   “The SEC’s chief evidence of Gann’s intent to deceive was his use of numerous
       account and registration numbers that actually represented his (and Fasciano’s)
       work for HCM. The SEC contended that Gann’s efforts were meant to circumvent
       the funds’ regulations for his own gain and that of his customer;” and

   •   “For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”

                                         40
Gann also concealed his plan to trade on material nonpublic information.

       89.    Alattar also contends Friedlander (and Equity Highrise) and Gann (and

his companies) aided and abetted by overtly assisting Casey in obtaining shares beneath

the 10% restriction while in fact controlling much more. Friedlander also assisted Casey

by, as shares were sold throughout 2012, misrepresenting the value of the shares by

concealing what was known only to Friedlander and Casey, but not Alattar. Friedlander

and Gann also concealed the fact that they were uniquely aware of inside information

about the status of the issues (Top Gear and Luxeyard) each time Alattar was asked to

invest more in the company. Friedlander and Gann had actual and general awareness of

their role in tricking Alattar into the SEA as well as the series A-D financing because

they participated in many prior pump and dumps with Casey and other known

criminals. When they acted, wrote, communicated and concealed material facts from

Alattar, they did so with intent to deceive Alattar. All of these communications were to

Alattar and/or they had a reason to expect the communications would be presented to

Alattar.   The above conduct substantially assisted Casey and the other insiders in

facilitating the illegal pump and dump and in helping Casey avoid the restrictions placed

on beneficial owners of greater than 10% on a company’s outstanding shares. See 15

U.S.C. § 78p; 17 C.F.R. § 240.16a-1; 15 U.S.C. §78m(d)(3); Anslow Deposition at pp. 134,

226. They also assisted Casey in tricking Alattar (and others) into making subsequent

investments. They also made misrepresentations in the representations and warranties

they signed in the Subscription Agreement, including:

   •   “There is no Action pending against, or to the Knowledge of such Investor,
       threatened against or affecting, such Investor by any Governmental Authority or
       other Person with respect to such Investor that challenges, or may have the effect
       of preventing, delaying, making illegal, or otherwise interfering with, any of the
       transactions contemplated by this Agreement.”

                                         41
   •   “Such Investor is acquiring such the Securities proposed to be acquired
       hereunder for investment for its own account and not with a view to the resale or
       distribution of any part thereof, and such Investor has no present intention of
       selling or otherwise distributing such Securities, except in compliance with
       applicable securities Laws.”

   •   “Such Investor further acknowledges that if the Securities are issued to such
       Investor in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, such Securities
       may not be resold without registration under the Securities Act or the existence of
       an exemption therefrom.”

   •   “Such Person will not sell or otherwise transfer the Securities, unless either (A)
       the transfer of such securities is registered under the Securities Act or (B) an
       exemption from registration of such securities is available.”

   •   “Such Investor has not directly or indirectly, nor has any person acting on behalf
       of or pursuant to any understanding with such Investor, engaged in any
       transaction in the securities of the Company (including, without limitation, Short
       Sales involving the Company’s securities) since the time that such Investor was
       first contacted by the Company regarding the investment in the Company
       contemplated herein.”

       90.   In addition, Friedlander and Gann knowingly cashed the proceeds of the

illegal enterprise. U.S. v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Loe, 248 F.3d

449 (5th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Girard, 744 F.2d 1170, 1171 (5th Cir. 1984). They also

knowingly refused to provide documents and knowingly took positions in open court on

the record that were the exact opposite of what their lawyer was told from the California

bankruptcy lawyer hired to represent Casey and Gann. Finally, it was unlawful to trade

stock on material nonpublic information and, a conspiracy may be based on lawful

conduct through unlawful means. Each Defendant, including Sater, traded on inside

information and based on instruction from the insiders. Their overt acts need not “be”

the unlawful act or controlling fact. Conspiracy involves participation in a tort and does

not require independent liability.

                                         42
      91.    The above conduct was performed by assisting or encouraging; assisting or

participating; or concert of action under Restatement (Second) of Torts §876, and each

aider and abettor had actual knowledge of the conduct of the primary actor and its

effects. Each aider and abettor (each Defendant) substantially assisted the primary

actor(s) by concealing material facts, providing brokerage and underwriting services in

connection with the purchase of the shell company with knowledge of the intent to use

the shell company in the pump and dump scheme, providing the majority of capital

needed to purchase the shell company, artificially inflating trading volume through fake

accounts, shorting the very stock they promoted, trading on material nonpublic

information, distributing secret free trading shares, coordinating the timing of their

trades to maximize their profits when they dumped their shares, and knowingly cashing

and retaining the ill gotten profits (which alone is a sufficient overt act to compose

liability). U.S. v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th

Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Girard, 744 F.2d 1170, 1171 (5th Cir. 1984). The Defendants acted in

concert, both amongst themselves and with others, to control and dominate the market

in LuxeYard stock, engage in coordinated trading activity (including the use of matched

orders, wash trades, and “gypsy swaps”), funded and arranged for the creation and

distribution of false promotional materials to the public to generate a false appearance

of liquidity and investor interest in LuxeYard stock, thereby artificially inflating the

trading volume and share price.       The Defendants also conspired to use nominee

brokerage and bank accounts in the names of corporate entities, trusts, relatives, and

acquaintances to conceal their fraudulent activity.       Each aider and abettor also

substantially assisted the primary actor(s) by attempting to avoid “affiliate” status,

concealing the background of the officers they hand picked, conspiring with A&J,

                                         43
engaging in a secret and self funded media blitz that contained misrepresentations, and

selling all of their shares at a pre-determined time. All Defendants, by definition aided

and abetted the companies they control. Accordingly, Defendant Jeff Sater also traded

on material non-public information by selling based on instructions from the insiders.

      92.    Hudson, Brompton and Allen had a meeting of the minds with the insiders

including Casey, Friedlander, Trotter and Gann. Allen had a pre-existing relationship

with those insiders and failed to disclose that relationship when he was introduced to

LuxeYard. He pretended to be an objective and independent consultant to the company

and entered into a consulting agreement. He did not disclose his prior relationship with

the Defendants and he did not disclose that the consideration he received pursuant to

his consulting agreement was actually immediately turned over to the Defendants. He

therefore assisted them in accumulating more stock in LuxeYard. Further, Allen failed

to disclose the imminent pump and dump of which he was aware given his prior

relationship with the Defendants.      He assisted the insiders in trading on inside

information, allowing them to have increased beneficial ownership, and in advising the

company pursuant to their instructions. Brompton (which included Hudson) acquired

free trading shares in return for its involvement in the pump and dump scheme without

telling LuxeYard or Alattar.   See 15 U.S.C. §78p; 17 C.F.R. § 240.16a-1; 15 U.S.C.

§78m(d)(3); Anslow Deposition at pp. 134, 226. Brompton had a prior relationship with

the Defendants and acquired free trading shares in previous pump and dumps.

Brompton never disclosed this in any of the documents Brompton signed including the

subscription agreement. Brompton had a meeting of the minds to sell its free trading

shares on inside information it acquired from Casey, Friedlander, and Trotter.

Brompton never disclosed this previous relationship to Alattar or LuxeYard and

                                         44
Brompton misrepresented its relationship to the company in the subscription

agreement. Brompton assisted Casey and his gang in that they “controlled” the shares

held by Brompton for purposes of the definition of beneficial ownership. The unlawful

acts that Brompton assisted in include insider trading, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,

and violation of the Texas Securities Act. This conduct also allowed Defendants to

transfer stock under conditions that would have precluded them from disposing of their

stock if Defendants had disclosed that they actually had beneficial ownership of the

stock held by Brompton.         Doug Shaw and Trevor Ling also assisted the other

Defendants, and acted as agents of Brompton in assisting the primary actor(s) in the

scheme described herein.

       93.    Additionally, Jeff Lamont, Jeffrey Sater, Joseph Lee, Kay Holdings, Lance

Baral, Thomas Hudson, and William Bartlett also made nominal interim investments in

the company to help fund operations so that the rest of the pump and dump scheme

could be executed.

       94.    Additionally, the Defendants concealed their funding of unauthorized

marketing and promotion of LuxeYard stock by selling blocks of stock amongst

themselves through matched orders in the open market. The Defendants used proceeds

from these block trades to fund sham marketing of LuxeYard, by Next Media and

disgraced television and radio personality Tobin Smith, with money laundered through

their illegal coordinated trading activities.

 Unjust Enrichment against Casey, Jinsun, Friedlander, Gann, Camarillo
and The Jonathan Camarillo Trust and each of the companies they control

       95.    Plaintiff   incorporates   all     allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

                                            45
      96.     Alattar seeks the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment against A&J,

Casey, Friedlander, Gann, Camarillo and The Jonathan Camarillo Trust because they all

obtained a benefit from Plaintiff directly and/or indirectly. See City of Corpus v. S.S.

Smith & Sons Masonry, Inc., 736 S.W.2d 247, 250 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, writ

denied) (holding a defendant is liable for unjust enrichment if it secured a benefit, or

passively received one, which would be unconscionable to retain). When a person

obtains a benefit from another by fraud, duress, or the taking of undue advantage, the

aggrieved party may sue to prevent unjust enrichment. To prevent unjust enrichment

and to deter others from violating securities laws and fiduciary duties, a court has broad

powers to order a defendant to disgorge all illicit gains and impose a judgment in trust

on those gains.    Further, where two or more individuals or entities have a close

relationship and engage in conduct giving rise to unjust enrichment, the perpetrators

may be held jointly and severally liable for the disgorgement of illegally obtained

proceeds. Casey, for himself and through affiliates, obtained a benefit from Plaintiff

who hired him, trusted him, and sold his company to him, which totaled approximately

$30,000,000 in profits as a direct result of fraud and taking undue advantage of Alattar

by using his legitimate business as a front for a pump and dump scheme. Accordingly,

Alattar seeks disgorgement of all ill-gotten profits under the doctrine of unjust

enrichment.

      97.     As outlined above, A&J, Casey, Friedlander, Gann, Camarillo and The

Jonathan Camarillo Trust obtained shares of Top Gear stock from Alattar by taking

undue advantage of Alattar and placing Alattar under duress as explained above. They

specifically obtained money from Alattar. They specifically obtained his interest in LY.

These Defendants are liable for rescission of all ill-gotten LUXR shares under the

                                         46
doctrine of unjust enrichment. Alattar has an independent claim for unjust enrichment

because he was lied to as an individual, for months. He was, alone, a party to the

Security Exchange Agreement.       Disgorgement is appropriate where there is unjust

enrichment. Moreover had Casey told the truth, then Alattar would have sold his stock

when Casey did and Alattar would have made millions as well. The $30,000,000 is the

amount to which Casey and the other insiders were unjustly enriched.                 They also

obtained a company that they could then take public.

 Money Had and Received against Casey, Jinsun, Top Gear, Friedlander,
       Gann, Camarillo and The Jonathan Camarillo Trust and
                 each of the companies they control

       98.    Plaintiff   incorporates   all    allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

       99.    Alattar seeks the equitable remedy of money had and received against

Casey, Gann, Friedlander and the above named Defendants. Casey and his unnamed co-

conspirators, earned approximately $30,000,000 in profits resulting from their pump

and dump scheme that in equity and good conscience belongs in part to Alattar.

Therefore, Alattar seeks forfeiture of all ill-gotten profits received by them in connection

with the pump and dump scheme.

       100.   Alattar seeks the equitable remedy of money had and received against Top

Gear, Friedlander and Gann. Top Gear, Friedlander and Gann received substantial

consideration for assisting Casey in avoiding liability for the pump and dump scheme by

signing a release and waiver of claims against Casey. In equity and good conscience, the

consideration received belongs to Alattar. Therefore, Alattar seeks forfeiture of all

consideration received by Top Gear, Friedlander, Gann, Camarillo and The Jonathan

Camarillo Trust in exchange for their execution of the release and waiver.

                                           47
     Constructive Trust against Casey, Jinsun, Top Gear, Friedlander,
           Gann, Camarillo and The Jonathan Camarillo Trust

       101.   Plaintiff   incorporates   all    allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

       102.   Alattar is entitled to the equitable remedy of constructive trust with

respect to Casey, Friedlander, and Gann (and their companies) because of their

perpetration of the pump and dump scheme as outlined above. Casey, Friedlander, and

Gann committed actual fraud as described above in connection with the reverse merger

transaction and promises to build a viable business venture. This actual fraud has

resulted in unjust enrichment to Casey and his affiliates in the form of approximately

$30,000,000 in ill-gotten profits. Alattar seeks the remedy of constructive trust in the

amount of all ill-gotten profits resulting from the pump and dump scheme.

       103.   Finally, Alattar seeks the equitable remedy of constructive trust against

Friedlander, Gann, Camarillo and The Jonathan Camarillo Trust as a result of their

concerted efforts to assist Casey.

                                         Negligence

       104.   Plaintiff   incorporates   all    allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

       105.   Defendants conspired with A&J who owed a duty of care to Alattar, but

breached that duty by representing the shell company in the primary transaction,

affirmatively assisting Casey and his team in what A&J admits was pump and dump,

submitting fraudulent letters to the transfer agent to facilitate the transfer of free

                                           48
trading stock, making affirmative misrepresentations of material fact regarding Casey’s

affiliate status, failing to tell Alattar that A&J was revising documents after their

effective date, failing to honor the terms in the Term Sheet provided to A&J, assisting

Casey and his team in obtaining secret control of the shell prior to the reverse merger,

failing to disclose its relationship with Casey, and in refusing to disclose that articles on

the internet allege A&J is connected to a long list of shell pump and dumps. Casey and

Friedlander also made negligent misrepresentations.

                                 Exemplary Damages

       106.   Plaintiff   incorporates   all    allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

       107.   The actions of Casey, Top Gear, Friedlander, Gann, Camarillo and The

Jonathan Camarillo Trust and all of the companies they control surrounding the reverse

merger transaction constitute fraud, malice and/or gross negligence. The actions of

Casey and A&J in inducing Alattar to transfer large blocks of LUXR shares constitute

fraud, malice and/or gross negligence. The actions of Casey and A&J surrounding the

offer and acceptance of the release and waiver similarly constitute fraud, malice, and/or

gross negligence. All Defendants (each and every Defendant including Sater) engaged in

a conspiracy to commit fraud and all acted with malice and gross negligence. Each

Defendant, including Sater, traded on material inside information. Alattar therefore

seeks exemplary damages against all Defendants pursuant to Chapter 41 of the Texas

Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

       108.   In addition to exemplary damages, Alattar seeks to remove the cap on

exemplary damages pursuant to Section 41.008(c) of the Texas Civil Practice and

Remedies Code. Casey, Friedlander, and each of their companies engaged in conduct

                                           49
that was knowing and intentional, as well as a felony, surrounding the signing of the

release and waiver agreement constitute commercial bribery in violation of Section

32.43 of the Texas Penal Code. A&J and Casey’s actions surrounding the reverse merger

transaction constitute the securing of a document by deception in violation of Section

32.46 of the Texas Penal Code.      These actions were knowing and intentional and

constituted a felony. They also knowing and intentionally secured the execution of the

Term Sheet through fraud and deception.        They also intentionally and knowingly

secured the execution of the shareholder signature indemnity through fraud and

deception. They also knowingly and intentionally forged that document. They also

knowingly and intentionally forged the names of the 42 Israeli shareholders who

provided Top Gear to them.     Therefore, there is no cap on exemplary damages under

the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 41.008(c).

      109.   Casey bribed Luxeyard and LY to settle LY’s claims against Casey and the

gang by Luxeyard to. Casey bribed Mireskandari in the same manner and so as to obtain

a release from Luxeyard. Casey bribed Braden Richter and Tommy Allen by giving them,

the company business consultants, substantial stock in Luxeyard so that Casey could

control Luxeyard through them. In these instances, Casey acted without the consent of

Plaintiff or Luxeyard. Casey was a fiduciary to LY, to Plaintiff and to Luxeyard, and so

was Mr. Richter and Mr. Allen. Tex. Penal Code §32.43(a). In these instances, Casey

offered, conferred, or agreed to confer a benefit upon a fiduciary without the consent of

fiduciary’s beneficiary, Plaintiff, Luxeyard and LY. Tex. Penal Code §32.43(c). The

offers and agreements to confer by Casey to Mireskandari, Mr. Richter and Mr. Allen

were designed to influence their conduct. Tex. Penal Code §32.43(b).

                                         50
    Fraudulent Transfer under Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
    against Casey, Friedlander, Gann and the companies they control

       110.    Plaintiff incorporates all allegations contained in the foregoing

paragraphs.

       111.   These       Defendants,     and    their     unnamed      co-conspirators,    earned

approximately $30,000,000 in profits resulting from their pump and dump scheme that

in equity and good conscience belongs in part to Alattar. Alattar does not seek these as

damages to LuxeYard but pursuant to equitable disgorgement. Alattar is a creditor who

has a claim against these Defendants for purposes of Texas Business and Commerce

Code, Section 24.002, et seq. As stated in the above paragraphs, Defendants have

engaged in a series and scheme of fraudulent transfers in violation of Texas Business

and Commerce Code, Section 24.005, et seq. Plaintiff seeks all remedies and damages

as otherwise stated in this petition, as well as those afforded to Plaintiff under the

provisions of this statute, including injunctive relief.

                                          DAMAGES

       112.   Plaintiff    incorporates    all       allegations   contained   in   the   foregoing

paragraphs.

       113.   Alattar seeks actual damages, exemplary damages, exemplary damages in

excess of the statutory limitation, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, attorney’s

fees, expert witness fees, costs for copies and depositions, court costs, pre-judgment

interest, and post-judgment interest. Plaintiff’s references to the decline in the stock

price are not to establish direct damages. They are relevant to demonstrate a lost

business opportunity, which opportunity was lost long after the decline. They are one of

many variables in an indirect measure of a business valuation for LY Retail, and what

                                                51
Plaintiff could have achieved had he never done business with Casey. They also reveal a

“routine practice” and fraudulent intent. Plaintiff does not invoke the internal affairs

doctrine.      Plaintiff sues under Section 101.463(c).   Plaintiff separately sues in his

individual capacity in connection to the lies made to him individually. Plaintiff’s right to

sue was recognized by Casey in writing. Plaintiff withdraws his request for a trial by

jury.

        114.     Alattar is suing Defendants for claims that accrued to him individually

prior to or on November 8, 2011. Alattar does not ask this Court to construe the internal

affairs of LuxeYard. That Alattar has damages that relate to how L.Y. Retail, a Texas

company, would have performed, long after any decline in stock price, but for the fraud,

is not a request by Alattar to construe the internal rights and powers of LuxeYard’s

shareholders. Nor is it a direct measure of damages.

        115.     So that there is no confusion, Defendants knowingly conspired to defraud

Plaintiff at the time of the reverse merger and to induce him into the reverse merger,

denying him of the lost business opportunity which continued long after the decline in

the stock price, he would have enjoyed had Defendants either fulfilled their promises or

allowed Plaintiff to do business with someone else. Alattar does not seek damages

as a shareholder of LuxeYard.

                                 REQUEST FOR RELIEF

        116.     Alattar requests that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein,

and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for Alattar against

Defendants for an amount to be determined at trial, plus attorneys’ fees, court costs, and

pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law, and such other

and further relief to which Alattar may be entitled. The maximum amount of damages

                                           52
sought against Defendants is still being determined.       Plaintiff has yet to receive

documents and discovery sufficient to calculate profits.      Currently, the maximum

amount of damages is that set forth in the testimony of Kevan Casey and Jonathan

Friedlander in the amount of $150 million, which testimony is an indirect measure of

damages to Plaintiff had Plaintiff never done business with Casey.

                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                        FAUBUS KELLER & BURFORD LLP

                                        By: /s/ Brian M. Keller
                                             Brian M. Keller
                                             State Bar No. 00784376
                                             Mark Ritchie
                                             State Bar No. 24002845

                                        1001 Texas Avenue, 11th Floor
                                        Houston, Texas 77002
                                        (713) 222-6400
                                        (713) 222-7240 – Fax
                                        brian@fkblawfirm.com
                                        mark@fkblawfirm.com

                                        Attorneys for Plaintiff Khaled Alattar

                                         53
                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     A copy of this document was served electronically on all counsel of record on
May 22, 2015, as follows:

      David R. Clouston
      Leslye Moseley
      Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel LLC
      900 Jackson Street, Suite 440
      Dallas, Texas 75202
      (214) 741-3024 – office
      (214) 741-3055 – facsimile
      dclouston@sessions-law.biz
      lmoseley@sessions-law.biz
      Attorneys for Jonathan Friedlander, Equity Highrise, Inc., Scott Gann, Lazy
      Bear LLC, Lee Bear LLC, Sun Bear LLC, OSO Capital LLC and Joseph Lee

      Jason Hopkins
      Jason Lewis
      Adam S. Tyler
      Greenberg Traurig, LLP
      2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
      Dallas, Texas 75201
      (214) 665-3660 - office
      (214) 665-5960 - facsimile
      hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
      lewisjs@gtlaw.com
      tylera@gtlaw.com
      Attorneys for Kevan Casey, Jinsun LLC and Far East Strategies LLC

      Danny Sheena
      The Sheena Law Firm
      2500 West Loop South, Suite 518
      Houston, Texas 77027
      (713) 224-6508 – office
      (713) 225-1560 – facsimile
      danny@sheenalawfirm.com
      jason@sheenalawfirm.com
      cristina@sheenalawfirm.com
      Attorney for TOP GEAR, INC. n/k/a LUXEYARD, INC.

                                      54
Mark S. Hellinger
The Hellinger Law Firm
12 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100
Houston, Texas 77046
(713) 623-1153 – office
(713) 623-1221 – facsimile
mhellinger@hellingerlawfirm.com
Attorney for Jonathan Camarillo and The Jonathan Camarillo Trust

J. Randle Henderson
16506 FM 529, Suite 115-107
Houston, Texas 77095
(713) 870-8358 – office
(281) 758-0545 – facsimile
jrh@hendersonrandy.com
Attorney for Sano Holdings, Inc., Kay Holdings, Inc., William W. Bartlett, Jr.,
Kevin Lisman, Thomas Hudson, The Brompton Group NA, LLC, Jeff Lamont
Robert Klinek, Susan Pack, Lance Baral, Lawrence Isen and the Isen Trust

Kevin T. Kennedy
4550 Post Oak Place, Suite 210
Houston, Texas 77027
(713) 862-3000 – office
(713) 979-2003 - facsimile
k.t.p.kennedy@gmail.com
Attorney for Babak Daghighi

Charley Davidson
Anthony L. Laporte
Hanszen Laporte, LLP
11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 850
Houston, Texas 77079
(713) 522-9444 – office
(713) 524-2580 – facsimile
cdavidson@hanszenlaporte.com
alaporte@hanszenlaporte.com
Attorneys for Mark Trotter

Jonathan D. Neerman
Seth Johnson
Jackson Walker L.L.P.
901 Main Street, Suite 6000
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 661-6899
jneerman@jw.com
jsjohnson@jw.com
Attorneys for Apex Clearing Corporation

                                 55
Arthur Gollwitzer, III
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
12600 Hill Country Blvd., R-275
Austin, Texas 78738
(512) 329-2676 – office
(512) 222-0818 – facsimile
agollwitzer@michaelbest.com
Attorney for Wilson-Davis & Co.

Blaire Bruns Johnson
James Chambers
Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP
3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2100
Houston, Texas 77027
(713) 337-5580 – office
(713) 337-8850 – facsimile
blaire.johnson@emhllp.com
james.chambers@emhllp.com
Attorneys for Acadia Holding Corporation

U.S. Certified Mail, Return
       Receipt Requested No. 70111570000101620905
Regular U.S. First Class Mail
Tommy Allen
631 Cypresswood Ln.
Spring, Texas 77373
tallen2112@yahoo.com
Defendant, Pro se

                                       /s/ Brian M. Keller
                                       Brian M. Keller

                                  56
TAB C
                                                                                                 6/19/2015 4:40:20 PM
                                                                            Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
                                                                                               Envelope No. 5756018
                                                                                                  By: DELTON ARNIC
                                                                                         Filed: 6/19/2015 4:40:20 PM

                                 CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALED ALATTAR,                               §         IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
                                              §
       Plaintiff,                             §
                                              §
v.                                            §              HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                              §
KEVAN CASEY, ET AL.,                          §
                                              §
       Defendants.                            §              113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION OF WAYNE DOLCEFINO
                 AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

       Plaintiff Khaled Alattar files this Motion to Quash Deposition of Wayne Dolcefino

and Motion for Protective Order, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

                                    INTRODUCTION

       On June 17, 2015, Defendant Jinsun LLC (“Jinsun”) filed and served Jinsun

LLC’s First Amended Notice of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum of Wayne

Dolcefino, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.1 Based on

the documents listed in the subpoena duces tecum, it is readily apparent that Jinsun (and

thus, in reality, Kevan Casey) is attempting to force Mr. Dolcefino to reveal information

he has compiled as a journalist. Mr. Dolcefino has been working on an investigative

piece on Defendants’ participation in the LuxeYard pump and dump and similar schemes,

as established by his affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B.

1
  The certificate of service erroneously states that the deposition notice and subpoena duces
tecum was served on all counsel of record on June 16, 2015. As evidenced by the file stamped
copy, the notice and subpoena was actually served through the e-filing system on June 17, 2015.
                                  MOTION TO QUASH

       Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 199.4, Plaintiff hereby objects to the

time and place designated for Mr. Dolcefino’s deposition, on grounds that counsel for

Plaintiff has a hearing scheduled in another proceeding on the date designated in the

deposition and will be unavailable to attend. As this objection is made within three days

after service of the notice, this deposition is stayed until Plaintiff’s motion can be

determined.

                        MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

       “[A]ny … person affected by [a] discovery request” may seek a protective order

regarding the discovery sought. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(a). In ruling on the party’s motion

for protective order, the court “may make any order in the interest of justice” to protect

the moving party “from undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment, annoyance, or

invasion of personal, constitutional, or property rights.” Id. 192.6(b).

       Jinsun’s notice of deposition and subpoena duces tecum directed to Mr. Dolcefino

does not constitute discovery of a matter that is “relevant to the subject matter of the

pending action,” nor is it “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence,” as required under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 192.3. Indeed, several

categories of documents listed in the subpoena are on their face unrelated to discovering

facts relevant to the contested issues in this lawsuit, that is, facts pertinent to the conduct

and communications of the parties in 2011 and 2012, and facts tending to establish the

Defendants’ intent in inducing Plaintiff to agree to the reverse merger that made the

LuxeYard pump and dump possible.

                                              2
       Additionally, and as stated previously, Mr. Dolcefino has compiled the documents

and information sought by Defendants in his role as an investigative journalist.2 Under

Section 22.023 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Mr. Dolcefino has a

journalistic privilege to refuse to testify regarding, produce, or disclose “any confidential

or nonconfidential information, document, or item obtained or prepared while acting as a

journalist,” as well as refusing to identify the source of any such information, document

or item.    Fundamentally, Jinsun’s attempt to depose Mr. Dolcefino and subpoena

documents from him is a complete waste of time, as Mr. Dolcefino is entitled to and will

assert his journalistic privilege in response to each and every question and request.

       In light of the foregoing, a protective order is necessary to prevent the completely

unnecessary expense and utter waste of time associated with preparing for and attending

the contemplated deposition of Mr. Dolcefino. Mr. Dolcefino has established his status

as a journalist and his intent to assert his journalist’s privilege, refusing to testify or

produce any documents in response to Jinsun’s request. Ex. B. Requiring Plaintiff, and

for that matter Mr. Dolcefino and every other party to this lawsuit, to engage in this

exercise in futility serves no purpose other than to squander the time and resources of all

2
 For purposes of the privilege, a journalist is broadly defined as “a person … who for a
substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain, gathers, compiles,
prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates, processes, or
publishes news or information that is disseminated by a news medium or communication service
provider.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 22.021(2). “News medium” is likewise broadly
defined to include any entity “that disseminates news or information to the public by any
means,” including print, television, radio, photographic, mechanical, electronic, and other means
known or unknown that are accessible to the public. Id. § 22.021(3).

                                                 3
involved. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requested that the Court sign a protective

order to preempt this wasteful exercise.

                                           PRAYER

       WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Khaled Alattar respectfully

requests that this Court quash the deposition of Wayne Dolcefino, issue a protective order

against future attempts to depose Mr. Dolcefino, and such other and further relief as to

which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                            KELLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

                                            By:    /s/ Brian M. Keller
                                                   Brian M. Keller
                                                   State Bar No. 00784376
                                                   2500 West Loop South, Suite 300
                                                   Houston, TX 77027
                                                   281-853-9456
                                                   713-600-5804 (fax)
                                                   bkeller@kellerattorneys.com

                                                   Of Counsel:
                                                   Mark Ritchie
                                                   State Bar No. 24002845
                                                   mritchie@kellerattorneys.com

                                            Attorneys for Plaintiff Khaled Alattar

                                              4
                         CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

       I certify that on June 19, 2015, I attempted to confer via email with Jason Hopkins,
counsel for Jinsun LLC, regarding this motion to quash and motion for protective order,
indicating that if I did not hear from him by 4:00 p.m. I would presume his opposition.
Mr. Hopkins did not respond before the 4:00 p.m. deadline.

                                                              /s/ Mark Ritchie
                                                              Mark Ritchie

                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      A copy of this document was served electronically on all counsel of record on
June 19, 2015, as follows:

      David R. Clouston
      Leslye Moseley
      Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel LLC
      900 Jackson Street, Suite 440
      Dallas, Texas 75202
      (214) 741-3024 – office
      (214) 741-3055 – facsimile
      dclouston@sessions-law.biz
      lmoseley@sessions-law.biz
      Attorneys for Jonathan Friedlander, Equity Highrise, Inc., Scott Gann,
      Lazy Bear LLC, Lee Bear LLC, Sun Bear LLC, OSO Capital LLC and Joseph Lee

      Jason Hopkins
      Jason Lewis
      Adam S. Tyler
      Greenberg Traurig, LLP
      2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
      Dallas, Texas 75201
      (214) 665-3660 - office
      (214) 665-5960 - facsimile
      hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
      lewisjs@gtlaw.com
      tylera@gtlaw.com
      Attorneys for Kevan Casey, Jinsun LLC and Far East Strategies LLC

                                            5
Mark S. Hellinger
The Hellinger Law Firm
12 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100
Houston, Texas 77046
(713) 623-1153 – office
(713) 623-1221 – facsimile
mhellinger@hellingerlawfirm.com
Attorney for Jonathan Camarillo and The Jonathan Camarillo Trust

J. Randle Henderson
16506 FM 529, Suite 115-107
Houston, Texas 77095
(713) 870-8358 – office
(281) 758-0545 – facsimile
jrh@hendersonrandy.com
Attorney for Sano Holdings, Inc., Kay Holdings, Inc., William W. Bartlett, Jr.,
Kevin Lisman, Thomas Hudson, The Brompton Group NA, LLC, Jeff Lamont,
Robert Klinek, Susan Pack, Lance Baral, Lawrence Isen and the Isen Trust

Charley Davidson
Anthony L. Laporte
Hanszen Laporte, LLP
11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 850
Houston, Texas 77079
(713) 522-9444 – office
(713) 524-2580 – facsimile
cdavidson@hanszenlaporte.com
alaporte@hanszenlaporte.com
Attorneys for Mark Trotter

Jonathan D. Neerman
Brian H. Oates
Jackson Walker L.L.P.
901 Main Street, Suite 6000
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 661-6899 – facsimile
(214) 952-5822 - facsimile
jneerman@jw.com
boates@jw.com
Attorneys for Apex Clearing Corporation

                                   6
Arthur Gollwitzer, III
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
12600 Hill Country Blvd., R-275
Austin, Texas 78738
(512) 329-2676 – office
(312) 222-0818 – facsimile
agollwitzer@michaelbest.com
Attorney for Wilson-Davis & Co.

Blaire Bruns Johnson
James Chambers
Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP
3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2100
Houston, Texas 77027
(713) 337-5580 – office
(713) 337-8850 – facsimile
blaire.johnson@emhllp.com
james.chambers@emhllp.com
Attorneys for Acadia Holding Corporation

Kevin T. Kennedy
2500 West Loop South, Suite 315
Houston, Texas 77027
(713) 979-2003 – facsimile
k.t.p.kennedy@gmail.com
Attorney for Intervenors

Tommy Allen
631 Cypresswood Ln.
Spring, Texas 77373
tallen2112@yahoo.com
Defendant, Pro se

                                        /s/ Brian M. Keller
                                  Brian M. Keller

                                    7
                                                                                                    6/17/2015 11:16:30 AM
                                                                                 Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
                                                                                                    Envelope No. 5708919
                                                                                                     By: SHELLEY BOONE
                                                                                            Filed: 6/17/2015 11:16:30 AM

                                      CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALED ALATTAR,                       §     IN THE DISTRICT COURT
                                      §
      Plaintiff,                      §
                                      §
v.                                    §
                                      §     113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JINSUN, LLC,                          §
FAR EAST STRATEGIES, LLC, and         §
KEVAN CASEY, et al.,                  §
                                      §
      Defendants.                     §     HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
______________________________________________________________________________

           JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
              SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF WAYNE DOLCEFINO
______________________________________________________________________________

TO:       Wayne Dolcefino, 3701 Kirby, Suite 560, Houston, Texas 77098.

          Pursuant to Rule 205.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, please take notice that

Defendant Jinsun LLC (“Jinsun”) will take the oral deposition of Wayne Dolcefino before a

certified court reporter on June 26, 2015, beginning at 10:00 a.m., and continuing thereafter until

complete. The deposition will take place at the law offices of Greenberg Traurig LLP, 1000

Louisiana Street, Suite 1700, Houston, Texas 77002, or such other place as may be mutually

agreed.

          All parties are invited to attend and examine the witness as prescribed by the Texas Rules

of Civil Procedure. The deposition will be recorded stenographically and may be videotaped.

Any party wishing to have this deposition recorded by another method may serve written notice

designating the desired method on all other parties and must make arrangements for the

additional method at its own expense.

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 1
DAL 79492903v2
         Pursuant to Rule 199.2(b)(5) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, you are directed to

produce, at or before the time of the deposition, the documents described in Exhibit “A” hereto.

Dated: June 16, 2015.

                                                   Respectfully submitted,

                                                     /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                                   Mary-Olga Lovett
                                                      Texas Bar No. 00789289
                                                      lovettm@gtlaw.com
                                                   Jason S. Lewis
                                                      Texas Bar No. 24007551
                                                      lewisjs@gtlaw.com
                                                   Jason M. Hopkins
                                                      Texas Bar No. 24059969
                                                      hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
                                                   GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
                                                   2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
                                                   Dallas, Texas 75201
                                                   (214) 665-3660 - office
                                                   (214) 665-5960 - facsimile

                                                   ATTORNEYS FOR KEVAN CASEY,
                                                   JINSUN, LLC, AND FAR EAST
                                                   STRATEGIES, LLC

                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

          I certify that I served the foregoing notice on all counsel of record via email on June 16,

 2015.
                                                   /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                                   Jason M. Hopkins

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 2
DAL 79492903v2
                                            Exhibit “A”

                                           INSTRUCTIONS

       1.       Singular and masculine forms of any nouns or pronouns shall embrace and be
applied as the plural, feminine, or neuter, as the context requires, and vice versa.

       2.      The past tense of any verb shall embrace and be applied as the present tense, as
the context requires or as applicable, and vice versa.

        3.       The plural includes the singular and vice versa.

       4.     Each request is to be construed and answered or responded to separately and
independently, and is not to be referenced to any other request for purposes of limitation.

        5.      These requests are continuing in nature and require supplementation as soon as
practical if you or your attorney obtain information which reveals that your answers were
incorrect or incomplete when made or that your answers are no longer correct or complete.

        6.     Documents produced pursuant to these requests should be tendered either in the
precise form or manner as they are kept in the usual course of business, or organized and labeled
to correspond with the categories that follow in this request.

        7.      If any document has been destroyed, describe in detail the circumstances of and
reasons for such destruction and produce all documents that relate to either the circumstances of
or reasons for such destruction.

        8.      You are to produce all documents, as defined below, that are in your actual or
constructive possession, custody, or control or in the possession, custody, or control of your
respective counsel, agents, or representatives, or which can be obtained through reasonably
diligent efforts. Without limiting the term “control,” a document is deemed to be within one’s
control if you have ownership, possession or custody of the document, or the rights to secure the
document or copy thereof from any person or public or private entity having physical possession
thereof. The terms “possession, custody, or control” are to be construed in the broadest manner
consistent with Texas law.

       9.     All duplicates or copies of documents are to be provided to the extent they have
handwriting, additions, or deletions of any kind different from the original document being
produced, and vice versa.

       10.    The requests and interrogatories herein seek documents and information from
January 1, 2012 to present, unless otherwise stated.

                                            DEFINITIONS

        The following terms have the following meanings, unless other required by context:

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 3
DAL 79492903v2
      1.       The terms “and” as well as “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively to bring within the scope of these Requests any information which might otherwise
be construed to be outside their scope.

        2.      “You” or “your” or “Dolcefino” means Wayne Dolcefino, and includes any
person or entity (including Dolcefino Consulting) acting for or on behalf of Dolcefino, including,
but not limited to all present and former directors, officers, agents, managers, servants,
employees (including direct, borrowed, special or statutory employees), and/or representatives,
affiliates, successors, predecessors, subsidiaries, parents, divisions, partners, attorneys, or other
persons or entities acting or purporting to act on his behalf, whether individually or collectively.

       3.       “Luxeyard” means Luxeyard Inc., LY Retail LLC, and any person or entity acting
on their behalf, including, but not limited to all present and former directors, officers, agents,
managers, servants, employees (including direct, borrowed, special or statutory employees),
and/or representatives, affiliates, successors, predecessors, subsidiaries, parents, divisions,
partners, attorneys, or other persons or entities acting or purporting to act on Luxeyard’s behalf,
whether individually or collectively.

        4.      The term “Document” is used in the broadest sense and shall mean all things
described in Rule 192.3(b) of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and includes, but is not
limited to, any and all papers, files, reports, correspondence, summaries, stenographic or
handwritten notes, announcements, drafts, and preliminary copies of documents, transcripts,
minutes, studies, memoranda, notes or memoranda of conversations, telephone messages,
transmittal slips, printed literature, brochures, catalogues, advertising of all types, test reports,
articles, publications, books, pamphlets, pictures, diaries, appointment books, calendars, minute
books, by-laws, stock certificates, statistical compilations, telegrams, telexes, cables, teletypes,
mailgrams, facsimiles, graphs, charts, surveys, analyses, compilations, movie films, audiotapes,
videotapes, microfilms, slides or still films, statistics, data processing cards, computer records, e-
mails, computerized instant messages, .txt messages, SMS files, MMS files, computer tapes,
printouts, books of account, ledgers, journals, spreadsheets, control sheets, working papers,
audits, or any writing or documentation or data of any kind or description, whether handwritten,
typewritten, printed, copied, microfilmed, printed on computer cards or tapes or data in existence
or available or otherwise retrievable, in your custody, possession, or control of every type and
description, regardless of form or nature, pertaining in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, to
the matters referred to in the foregoing Requests. Please note that such definition includes
electronic or videotape recordings, electronic data and data compilations. As it relates to
information that is stored as electronic or magnetic data on a computer, or any other information
storage devise, the terms “document,” “documents,” or “documentation” includes the raw
electronic data and software applications necessary to translate the information into useable form
as well as any tangible copies or printouts of such information.

       5.      The term “Communications” shall mean any oral or written utterance, transfer or
exchange of information, notation or statement of any nature whatsoever, by or to whomever
made, including, but not limited to correspondence, conversations, dialogues, discussions,
interviews, consultations, telephone calls, meetings, telexes, cables, agreements, electronic mail,

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 4
DAL 79492903v2
text messages transmitted by cellular telephone, instant messaging, and/or any other
understandings.

                                  REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

       Please produce any document that contains, concerns, embodies, refers to, relates to,
analyzes, summarizes, evaluates, discusses, reports, explains, supports, corroborates,
substantiates, confirms, disputes, refutes, contradicts, forms a basis of or otherwise contains
information about the following:

    1. Communications with any party (or former party) to this lawsuit;

    2. Communications with counsel for any party (or former party) to this lawsuit;

    3. Communications with Amir Mireskandari, Alidad Mireskandari, or Yuval Ran;

    4. Communications with any other person, entity, or government agency relating to
       Luxeyard, this lawsuit, or any defendant in this lawsuit;

    5. Your retention or engagement by any party (or former party) to this lawsuit; counsel for
       any party (or former party) to this lawsuit; Amir Mireskandari, Alidad Mireskandari, or
       Yuval Ran;

    6. Payments made, or due to be made, to you by any party (or former party) to this lawsuit,
       counsel for any party (or former party) to this lawsuit, Amir Mireskandari, Alidad
       Mireskandari, or Yuval Ran;

    7. Your review of documents involving litigation relating to Luxeyard;

    8. Your research into financial transactions known or suspected to be “pump and dump”
       schemes;

    9. Documents or other work product generated by you that relate to Luxeyard, this lawsuit,
       or any defendant in this lawsuit; and

    10. Telephone records reflecting all calls you made relating to Luxeyard, this lawsuit, or any
        defendant in this lawsuit.

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 5
DAL 79492903v2
                                   THE STATE OF TEXAS

                                   CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALED ALATTAR,                       §     IN THE DISTRICT COURT
                                      §
      Plaintiff,                      §
                                      §
v.                                    §
                                      §     113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JINSUN, LLC,                          §
FAR EAST STRATEGIES, LLC, and         §
KEVAN CASEY, et al.,                  §
                                      §
      Defendants.                     §     HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
______________________________________________________________________________

           FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
______________________________________________________________________________

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HARRIS

TO ANY SHERIFF, CONSTABLE, OR OFFICER FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS OR ANY
OTHER AUTHORIZED PERSON TO SERVE AND EXECUTE SUBPEONAS AS
PROVIDED IN THE TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 176.

Greetings:

     YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUBPOENA AND SUMMON THE
FOLLOWING DEPONENT:

        Wayne Dolcefino
        3701 Kirby, Suite 560
        Houston, Texas 77098

to appear before a certified court reporter for the State of Texas at the law offices of Greenberg
Traurig LLP, 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700, Houston, Texas 77002, or such other place as
may be mutually agreed, on June 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., to attend and give testimony and
produce documents in the above case at a deposition taken on behalf of Defendant Jinsun LLC,
and to remain in attendance from day to day until lawfully discharged. The deposition may also
be videotaped.

Contempt: Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon
that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is issued or a

FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM – PAGE 1
DAL 79492903v2
district court in the county in which the subpoena is served, and may be punishable by fine
or confinement, or both. Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.8(a).

WITNESS MY HAND this the 16th day of June, 2015.

                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                               /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                             Mary-Olga Lovett
                                                Texas Bar No. 00789289
                                                lovettm@gtlaw.com
                                             Jason S. Lewis
                                                Texas Bar No. 24007551
                                                lewisjs@gtlaw.com
                                             Jason M. Hopkins
                                                Texas Bar No. 24059969
                                                hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
                                             GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
                                             2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
                                             Dallas, Texas 75201
                                             (214) 665-3660 - office
                                             (214) 665-5960 - facsimile

                                             ATTORNEYS FOR KEVAN CASEY,
                                             JINSUN, LLC, AND FAR EAST
                                             STRATEGIES, LLC

FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM – PAGE 2
DAL 79492903v2
                                         CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALEO ALATTAR,                                         §          lN THE DISTRICT COURT
                                                        §
                                                        §
                                                        §
v.                                                      §
                                                        ss         113" JUOICIAL OISTRICT
JfNSUN, LLC,                                            §
FAR EAST STRATEG 1•:s, LLC, and                         §
KEVAN CASEY, ct al.,                                    §
                                                        §
       J)efcnd•nts.                                     §         HARRfS COUNTY, TEXAS

                                           PROO~· OF S•:RVlCE

Came to hand on       .Junt /6tb 1 ;} 0/~
Executed at:_.31.Q.Lkitby-Cryi_ie3\'~Q); /.lr:~1Jet~/'770'J'
Witl1inthe countyof HMtisat Z·.18 fl.a. , on 06//£/Jnf.J
by deli"ering 10 lbe \\ti.thin named:           I
                                                 Wayne l)olcefino

In person a true copy hereof and tendering S 11 .00 in cash.

                                                             By:~~
                                                               5,;CH'lf'7l3Q':lft/?o~IZ
                                                             Server IP #

Subscribed and S\Vorn to by( .. ~               tp.i.2,e\f. Before me, the undetsig.ned authority, on this
the 111\'\    day ofJune, 2015.

                       YAOUEt l'* G CUESTA.
                      Plrf Commisuon Expirt;S
                          January t7, 2018

PR()()f OF SF.RVJC[ ()f SlJBPOF.NA - PA<;E I
DAL 79492903Y2
                           AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE DOLCEFINO

STATE OF TEXAS                 §
                               §
COUNTY OF HARRIS               §

       On this day, Wayne Dolcefino appeared before me, the undersigned notary public, and

after I administered an oath to him, upon his oath, he said:

1.     My name is Wayne Dolcefino. I am over the age of twenty-one (21) years, of sound mind,
       and competent to make this affidavit. The facts stated within this affidavit are within my
       personal knowledge and are true and correct.

2.     For nearly 27 years, I headed up the 13 Undercover Unit at KTRK TV. As an investigative
       journalist, I specialized in reporting on public corruption, wasteful government spending,
       and fraud. Since leaving KTRK TV, I have continued to devote substantial amounts of my
       time as a consultant to investigating and preparing news and information to be distributed
       through written and broadcast news media.

3.     Recently, I started developing a story on a group of individuals who have participated in a
       number of "pump and dump" schemes, including the one that targeted LuxeYard. All
       information I have regarding LuxeYard and the related "pump and dumps" was obtained by
       me to put together this story.

4.     I have contacted some of the individuals who participated in the LuxeYard "pump and
       dump" to offer them an opportunity to comment. I believe that the deposition notice and
       subpoena served on me earlier this week is an effort to intimidate me into abandoning this
       story.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.

        SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, on this the                              I q day of
                               CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALED ALATTAR,                             §        IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
                                            §
        Plaintiff,                          §
                                            §
v.                                          §             HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                            §
KEVAN CASEY, ET AL.,                        §
                                            §
        Defendants.                         §             113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

     PROPOSED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION
       OF WAYNE DOLCEFINO AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

        ON THIS DAY came to be heard Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition of

Wayne Dolcefino and Motion for Protective Order.           After considering Plaintiff’s

Motions, any responses on file, and the arguments of counsel, the Court is of the opinion

that Plaintiff’s Motions are meritorious and are in all things GRANTED. It is therefore,

        ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash the

Deposition of Wayne Dolcefino and Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED. The

Amended Notice of Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum is quashed. Additionally, a

protective order is hereby issued prohibiting further attempts to take the deposition of

Wayne Dolcefino or otherwise obtain discovery from him in this proceeding.

        SIGNED this         day of                            , 2015.

                                                              JUDGE PRESIDING
TAB D
                                                                                                    6/24/2015 6:35:03 PM
                                                                               Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
                                                                                                  Envelope No. 5814777
                                                                                                     By: DELTON ARNIC
                                                                                            Filed: 6/24/2015 6:35:03 PM

                                    CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALED ALATTAR,                                §       IN THE DISTRICT COURT
                                               §
       Plaintiff,                              §
                                               §
v.                                             §
                                               §       113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JINSUN, LLC,                                   §
FAR EAST STRATEGIES, LLC, and                  §
KEVAN CASEY, et al.,                           §
                                               §
       Defendants.                             §       HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

                          JINSUN LLC’S RESPONSE TO MOTION
                          TO QUASH DOLCEFINO DEPOSITION

       Defendant Jinsun LLC (“Jinsun”) files this Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash

Deposition of Wayne Dolcefino and Motion for Protective Order and states:

                                          Introduction

       Wayne Dolcefino, who runs a Houston-area consulting business, has repeatedly contacted

defendants in this case and claimed that he has substantial information relating to “pump and

dumps” of both Luxeyard and other companies into which Alattar has sought (and the Court has

allowed) discovery. Jinsun properly subpoenaed Dolcefino’s deposition so that it could obtain

that information, but Plaintiff moved to quash the deposition on the basis that Dolcefino is

exempt from discovery under the Texas reporter shield law. That argument is baseless because

Dolcefino—who describes himself as a consultant hired by a law firm—is not a reporter to whom

the shield law applies.

                                   Argument and Authorities

       Dolcefino is not a journalist entitled to protections under the Texas reporter’s shield law.

That law, enacted in 2009, has as its stated purpose the preservation of “a free and active press.”

JINSUN LLC’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH DOLCEFINO DEPOSITION – PAGE 1
DAL 79506313v1
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 22.022. The problem for Dolcefino is that he is not a member of

the press.

       In the affidavit Dolcefino provided to Plaintiff’s counsel, Dolcefino testifies that he was

formerly employed as a reporter for KRTK TV. 1 But no provision of law creates any privilege

for a former reporter. And a cursory examination of Dolcefino’s own website demonstrates that

he is no longer a newsman. On his website, Dolcefino states that he is president of an outfit

called Dolcefino Consulting, which provides “credibility when you need it most.”2 Dolcefino

advertises his services in “litigation support,” as a testifying expert witness, 3 a political

consultant, 4 and a private investigator who “knows how to dig ... and what to dig for.”5

Dolcefino summarizes the list of “services” he provides:

       This firm consults on crisis management, ethics reviews, informational marketing
       and media relations and provides production, investigative services and expert
       testimony in litigation. Dolcefino has significant experience in courtroom
       litigation relating to first amendment issues. 6

Nowhere in the list of “Services” he provides is there a single mention of journalism.

       Dolcefino’s description of his work confirms that he deals in advocacy, not reporting. He

writes on his website that “[t]he opposition must understand the power of your client’s argument

and what that will look like if your case goes to a jury. They must also understand the power of

that suffering if their anguish ever appears on the internet, not for one night on local news, but for

years to come.” 7 Apparently, Dolcefino intends to help “the opposition” [i.e., Jinsun] understand

1
  Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash at Exhibit “B,” ¶ 2.
2
  www.dolcefinoconsulting.com
3
  Id.
4
  www.dolcefinoconsulting.com/politicalconsulting
5
  www.dolcefinoconsulting.com/investigations
6
  www.dolcefinoconsulting.com/about
7
  www.dolcefinoconsulting.com/litigationsupport

JINSUN LLC’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH DOLCEFINO DEPOSITION – PAGE 2
DAL 79506313v1
Alattar’s “suffering” by posting it on the internet. That is patently not journalism, much less

journalism protected from the discovery process.

        The fact that Dolcefino is not acting as a journalist is confirmed by statements he has

made to parties to this case. Specifically, in January of 2015, Dolcefino called Kevan Casey and

told Mr. Casey that he had been hired by an unnamed law firm to write a “pump and dump piece”

on Mr. Casey. 8 Importantly, the “pump and dump piece” Dolcefino intended to write—but

apparently hasn’t gotten around to writing yet—would involve not only on Luxeyard, but also the

other companies Alattar has repeatedly presented to the Court as “other pump and dumps.” 9

        Separately, on June 5, 2015, Dolcefino sent a letter to Mr. Camarillo’s lawyer, a true and

correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit “B.” In that letter, Dolcefino describes his firm as an

“investigative communications firm,” says that he is “intrigued” with Mr. Camarillo’s service in

the United States Marine Corps, and threatens to contact “the Pentagon media office in

Washington in the coming days to test their awareness of these civil issues.” 10 He suggests that

all Mr. Camarillo need do to avoid this obvious harassment is to set up an interview, and to

assure “the plaintiffs”—a reference to Amir Mireskandari—that Mr. Camarillo is “OK with

public discussion of this issue.” 11 These efforts at harassment are wholly improper, especially

when they are undertaken by a consultant employed by a lawyer, presumably a lawyer

representing a party to this case.

        Notably, actions of third parties acting under an attorney’s direction, such as

investigators, can be imputed to the law firm in the context of attorney ethics. See ABA

8
  Casey Affidavit, Exhibit “A,” at ¶ 2.
9
  Id. at ¶ 3.
10
   Exhibit “B” at 1.
11
   Id. at 1-2.

JINSUN LLC’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH DOLCEFINO DEPOSITION – PAGE 3
DAL 79506313v1
Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 95-396 (investigator acting as

lawyer’s alter ego; lawyer ethically responsible for investigator’s conduct).          Certainly, if

Dolcefino is directly contacting parties to this case as an undisclosed representative of a law firm

involved in this case, then he and the firm he is allegedly working for are violating Texas

Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 4.02, which provides that “a lawyer shall not

communicate or cause or encourage another to communicate about the subject of the

representation with a person, organization or entity of government the lawyer knows to be

represented by another lawyer regarding that subject, unless the lawyer has the consent of the

other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.”

        Jinsun is entitled to take the deposition of any nonparty witness who has relevant

information, and Dolcefino unquestionably falls within that category. The information he claims

to possess relating to Luxeyard, as well as Alattar’s “other pump and dumps” into which the

Court has allowed discovery, is patently discoverable, especially if he obtained that information

from the parties to this case or their counsel.         His admitted communications with Amir

Mireskandari are discoverable, as are his communications with lawyers and parties in this case.

His intent in sending the extortion letter to Mr. Camarillo’s counsel is also discoverable, as is the

question of whether he was instructed to send that letter by his employer. In short, Dolcefino has

discoverable information, and Jinsun is entitled to take his deposition to get it.

                                               Prayer

        WHEREFORE, Jinsun respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion, order

the deposition of Dolcefino, and grant Jinsun such other and further relief to which it may be

entitled.

JINSUN LLC’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH DOLCEFINO DEPOSITION – PAGE 4
DAL 79506313v1
                                                 Respectfully submitted,

                                                 /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                                Mary-Olga Lovett
                                                  Texas Bar No. 00789289
                                                  lovettm@gtlaw.com
                                                Jason S. Lewis
                                                  Texas Bar No. 24007551
                                                   lewisjs@gtlaw.com
                                                 Jason M. Hopkins
                                                  Texas Bar No. 24059969
                                                  hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
                                                GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
                                                2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
                                                Dallas, Texas 75201
                                                (214) 665-3660 - office
                                                (214) 665-5960 - facsimile

                                                ATTORNEYS FOR KEVAN CASEY, JINSUN,
                                                LLC, AND FAR EAST STRATEGIES, LLC

                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I certify that I served the foregoing response on all counsel of record via email on June

 24, 2015.
                                                /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                                Jason M. Hopkins

JINSUN LLC’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH DOLCEFINO DEPOSITION – PAGE 5
DAL 79506313v1
                             DOLCEFINO CONSULTING
June 5, 2015

Mark S. Hellinger
The Hellinger Law Firm
12 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100
Houston, Texas 77046

Mr. Hollinger,

I have already left messages with your office, so this will serve as an additional attempt to establish
communications with your firm and your client Jonathan Camarillo.

Dolcefino Consulting is an investigative communications firm in Houston. For several months I have been
researching financial transactions known or suspected in the law enforcement community as “pump and dump”
schemes. Of course, that definition is obviously in the eye of the beholder.

As part of my review I have been examining public records involving ongoing litigation surrounding the rise
and fall of LuxeYard, and in my research your client’s name has surfaced. I am especially intrigued that Mr.
Camarillo appears to have been implicated in litigation in these significant financial transactions, while being
employed as a recruiter for the U.S. Marine Corp.

I understand Mr. Camarillo is out of the country in Japan, which may have shielded him from discovery, but of
course not media scrutiny. I was planning on contacting the Pentagon media office in Washington in the coming
days to test their awareness of these civil issues and whether this assignment was related to litigation, but
thought you might be helpful in convincing your client to discuss this case, as well as his knowledge of Kevan
Casey, Frederick Hutttner, Scott Gann and others. I am most intrigued about his decision to remain a recruiter
despite his obvious knowledge of complicated financial transactions.

I have also reached out to Amir Mireskandari, who has complained vociferously in court documents about the
Luxeyard circumstances. Mr. Mireskandari has advised he cannot discuss Mr. Camarillo on camera with any
media partners while the litigation is proceeding. I am providing him with a copy of this correspondence.

                                            3701 Kirby, Suite 560
                                            Houston, Texas 77098
                                               713-360-6911
Mobile: 713-389-0810                                                               wayne@dolcefinoconsulting.com
                                                www.dolcefino.com
                             DOLCEFINO CONSULTING

I have been routinely providing updates to Scott Zamost of CNN Investigations and Ira Rosen, a senior
investigative producer of 60 Minutes regarding a number of companies that appear to have had wild fluctuations
in stock prices.

Would appreciate a phone call to set up an interview, and perhaps even your assistance in assuring the plaintiffs
that you are OK with public discussion of this issue, since so many Americans invested in these companies.

Wayne Dolcefino
Dolcefino

Respectfully,

Wayne Dolcefino
Dolcefino Consulting

                                           3701 Kirby, Suite 560
                                           Houston, Texas 77098
                                              713-360-6911
Mobile: 713-389-0810                                                             wayne@dolcefinoconsulting.com
                                               www.dolcefino.com
TAB E
                                                                                                   6/27/2015 4:37:11 PM
                                                                              Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
                                                                                                 Envelope No. 5851690
                                                                                                  By: SHELLEY BOONE
                                                                                         Filed: 6/29/2015 12:00:00 AM

                                   CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALED ALATTAR,                                §       IN THE DISTRICT COURT
                                               §
        Plaintiff,                             §
                                               §
v.                                             §
                                               §       113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JINSUN, LLC,                                   §
FAR EAST STRATEGIES, LLC, and                  §
KEVAN CASEY, et al.,                           §
                                               §
        Defendants.                            §       HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

             JINSUN LLC’S SUPPLEMENT TO ITS RESPONSE TO MOTION
                      TO QUASH DOLCEFINO DEPOSITION

        Defendant Jinsun LLC (“Jinsun”) files this Supplement to its Response to Plaintiff’s

Motion to Quash Deposition of Wayne Dolcefino and Motion for Protective Order and states:

        1.     On May 16, 2013, KPRC-TV aired an interview with Dolcefino. That interview is

available at http://www.click2houston.com/news/former-ktrk-reporter-wayne-dolcefino-talks-to-

local-2/20179506.

        2.     In the interview, Dolcefino stated: “I run a communications company now, I

am not an investigative reporter.” Id. (emphasis added).

        3.     Dolcefino’s admission is conclusive proof that he is not a reporter entitled to the

protections of the Texas reporter’s shield law. Alattar’s motion to quash Dolcefino’s deposition

on that basis must be denied.

                                             Prayer

        WHEREFORE, Jinsun respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion, order

the deposition of Dolcefino, and grant Jinsun such other and further relief to which it may be

entitled.

JINSUN LLC’S SUPPLEMENT TO ITS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH DOLCEFINO DEPOSITION – PAGE 1
DAL 79512885v1
                                                 Respectfully submitted,

                                                 /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                                Mary-Olga Lovett
                                                  Texas Bar No. 00789289
                                                  lovettm@gtlaw.com
                                                Jason S. Lewis
                                                  Texas Bar No. 24007551
                                                   lewisjs@gtlaw.com
                                                 Jason M. Hopkins
                                                  Texas Bar No. 24059969
                                                  hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
                                                GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
                                                2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
                                                Dallas, Texas 75201
                                                (214) 665-3660 - office
                                                (214) 665-5960 - facsimile

                                                ATTORNEYS FOR KEVAN CASEY, JINSUN,
                                                LLC, AND FAR EAST STRATEGIES, LLC

                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I certify that I served the foregoing supplement on all counsel of record via the Court’s

 e-filing system on June 27, 2015.
                                                /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                                Jason M. Hopkins

JINSUN LLC’S SUPPLEMENT TO ITS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH DOLCEFINO DEPOSITION – PAGE 2
DAL 79512885v1
TAB F
From:               Westin, Jennifer (Secy-Dal-LT)
To:                 "lmoseley@sessions-law.biz"; "jrh@hendersonrandy.com"; "danny@sheenalawfirm.com"; "jneerman@jw.com";
                    "jeff@karchmerlaw.com"; "mhellinger@hellingerlawfirm.com"; "steven@engelhardtlaw.com";
                    "alaporte@hanszenlaporte.com"; "agollwitzer@michaelbest.com"; "brian@fkblawfirm.com";
                    "k.t.p.kennedy@gmail.com"
Cc:                 Jason Hopkins
Subject:            Cause No. 2012-54501; Alattar
Date:               Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:49:45 PM
Attachments:        2015.06.16 [Alattar] First Amended Depo Subpoena - Dolcefino.pdf

See attached.
 
Jennifer Westin
Secretary
Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200 | Dallas, TX 75201
Tel 214.665.3656 | Fax 214.665.3601
westinj@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com
 
                                      CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALED ALATTAR,                       §     IN THE DISTRICT COURT
                                      §
      Plaintiff,                      §
                                      §
v.                                    §
                                      §     113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JINSUN, LLC,                          §
FAR EAST STRATEGIES, LLC, and         §
KEVAN CASEY, et al.,                  §
                                      §
      Defendants.                     §     HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
______________________________________________________________________________

           JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
              SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF WAYNE DOLCEFINO
______________________________________________________________________________

TO:       Wayne Dolcefino, 3701 Kirby, Suite 560, Houston, Texas 77098.

          Pursuant to Rule 205.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, please take notice that

Defendant Jinsun LLC (“Jinsun”) will take the oral deposition of Wayne Dolcefino before a

certified court reporter on June 26, 2015, beginning at 10:00 a.m., and continuing thereafter until

complete. The deposition will take place at the law offices of Greenberg Traurig LLP, 1000

Louisiana Street, Suite 1700, Houston, Texas 77002, or such other place as may be mutually

agreed.

          All parties are invited to attend and examine the witness as prescribed by the Texas Rules

of Civil Procedure. The deposition will be recorded stenographically and may be videotaped.

Any party wishing to have this deposition recorded by another method may serve written notice

designating the desired method on all other parties and must make arrangements for the

additional method at its own expense.

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 1
DAL 79492903v2
         Pursuant to Rule 199.2(b)(5) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, you are directed to

produce, at or before the time of the deposition, the documents described in Exhibit “A” hereto.

Dated: June 16, 2015.

                                                   Respectfully submitted,

                                                     /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                                   Mary-Olga Lovett
                                                      Texas Bar No. 00789289
                                                      lovettm@gtlaw.com
                                                   Jason S. Lewis
                                                      Texas Bar No. 24007551
                                                      lewisjs@gtlaw.com
                                                   Jason M. Hopkins
                                                      Texas Bar No. 24059969
                                                      hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
                                                   GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
                                                   2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
                                                   Dallas, Texas 75201
                                                   (214) 665-3660 - office
                                                   (214) 665-5960 - facsimile

                                                   ATTORNEYS FOR KEVAN CASEY,
                                                   JINSUN, LLC, AND FAR EAST
                                                   STRATEGIES, LLC

                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

          I certify that I served the foregoing notice on all counsel of record via email on June 16,

 2015.
                                                   /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                                   Jason M. Hopkins

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 2
DAL 79492903v2
                                            Exhibit “A”

                                           INSTRUCTIONS

       1.       Singular and masculine forms of any nouns or pronouns shall embrace and be
applied as the plural, feminine, or neuter, as the context requires, and vice versa.

       2.      The past tense of any verb shall embrace and be applied as the present tense, as
the context requires or as applicable, and vice versa.

        3.       The plural includes the singular and vice versa.

       4.     Each request is to be construed and answered or responded to separately and
independently, and is not to be referenced to any other request for purposes of limitation.

        5.      These requests are continuing in nature and require supplementation as soon as
practical if you or your attorney obtain information which reveals that your answers were
incorrect or incomplete when made or that your answers are no longer correct or complete.

        6.     Documents produced pursuant to these requests should be tendered either in the
precise form or manner as they are kept in the usual course of business, or organized and labeled
to correspond with the categories that follow in this request.

        7.      If any document has been destroyed, describe in detail the circumstances of and
reasons for such destruction and produce all documents that relate to either the circumstances of
or reasons for such destruction.

        8.      You are to produce all documents, as defined below, that are in your actual or
constructive possession, custody, or control or in the possession, custody, or control of your
respective counsel, agents, or representatives, or which can be obtained through reasonably
diligent efforts. Without limiting the term “control,” a document is deemed to be within one’s
control if you have ownership, possession or custody of the document, or the rights to secure the
document or copy thereof from any person or public or private entity having physical possession
thereof. The terms “possession, custody, or control” are to be construed in the broadest manner
consistent with Texas law.

       9.     All duplicates or copies of documents are to be provided to the extent they have
handwriting, additions, or deletions of any kind different from the original document being
produced, and vice versa.

       10.    The requests and interrogatories herein seek documents and information from
January 1, 2012 to present, unless otherwise stated.

                                            DEFINITIONS

        The following terms have the following meanings, unless other required by context:

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 3
DAL 79492903v2
      1.       The terms “and” as well as “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively to bring within the scope of these Requests any information which might otherwise
be construed to be outside their scope.

        2.      “You” or “your” or “Dolcefino” means Wayne Dolcefino, and includes any
person or entity (including Dolcefino Consulting) acting for or on behalf of Dolcefino, including,
but not limited to all present and former directors, officers, agents, managers, servants,
employees (including direct, borrowed, special or statutory employees), and/or representatives,
affiliates, successors, predecessors, subsidiaries, parents, divisions, partners, attorneys, or other
persons or entities acting or purporting to act on his behalf, whether individually or collectively.

       3.       “Luxeyard” means Luxeyard Inc., LY Retail LLC, and any person or entity acting
on their behalf, including, but not limited to all present and former directors, officers, agents,
managers, servants, employees (including direct, borrowed, special or statutory employees),
and/or representatives, affiliates, successors, predecessors, subsidiaries, parents, divisions,
partners, attorneys, or other persons or entities acting or purporting to act on Luxeyard’s behalf,
whether individually or collectively.

        4.      The term “Document” is used in the broadest sense and shall mean all things
described in Rule 192.3(b) of the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and includes, but is not
limited to, any and all papers, files, reports, correspondence, summaries, stenographic or
handwritten notes, announcements, drafts, and preliminary copies of documents, transcripts,
minutes, studies, memoranda, notes or memoranda of conversations, telephone messages,
transmittal slips, printed literature, brochures, catalogues, advertising of all types, test reports,
articles, publications, books, pamphlets, pictures, diaries, appointment books, calendars, minute
books, by-laws, stock certificates, statistical compilations, telegrams, telexes, cables, teletypes,
mailgrams, facsimiles, graphs, charts, surveys, analyses, compilations, movie films, audiotapes,
videotapes, microfilms, slides or still films, statistics, data processing cards, computer records, e-
mails, computerized instant messages, .txt messages, SMS files, MMS files, computer tapes,
printouts, books of account, ledgers, journals, spreadsheets, control sheets, working papers,
audits, or any writing or documentation or data of any kind or description, whether handwritten,
typewritten, printed, copied, microfilmed, printed on computer cards or tapes or data in existence
or available or otherwise retrievable, in your custody, possession, or control of every type and
description, regardless of form or nature, pertaining in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, to
the matters referred to in the foregoing Requests. Please note that such definition includes
electronic or videotape recordings, electronic data and data compilations. As it relates to
information that is stored as electronic or magnetic data on a computer, or any other information
storage devise, the terms “document,” “documents,” or “documentation” includes the raw
electronic data and software applications necessary to translate the information into useable form
as well as any tangible copies or printouts of such information.

       5.      The term “Communications” shall mean any oral or written utterance, transfer or
exchange of information, notation or statement of any nature whatsoever, by or to whomever
made, including, but not limited to correspondence, conversations, dialogues, discussions,
interviews, consultations, telephone calls, meetings, telexes, cables, agreements, electronic mail,

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 4
DAL 79492903v2
text messages transmitted by cellular telephone, instant messaging, and/or any other
understandings.

                                  REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

       Please produce any document that contains, concerns, embodies, refers to, relates to,
analyzes, summarizes, evaluates, discusses, reports, explains, supports, corroborates,
substantiates, confirms, disputes, refutes, contradicts, forms a basis of or otherwise contains
information about the following:

    1. Communications with any party (or former party) to this lawsuit;

    2. Communications with counsel for any party (or former party) to this lawsuit;

    3. Communications with Amir Mireskandari, Alidad Mireskandari, or Yuval Ran;

    4. Communications with any other person, entity, or government agency relating to
       Luxeyard, this lawsuit, or any defendant in this lawsuit;

    5. Your retention or engagement by any party (or former party) to this lawsuit; counsel for
       any party (or former party) to this lawsuit; Amir Mireskandari, Alidad Mireskandari, or
       Yuval Ran;

    6. Payments made, or due to be made, to you by any party (or former party) to this lawsuit,
       counsel for any party (or former party) to this lawsuit, Amir Mireskandari, Alidad
       Mireskandari, or Yuval Ran;

    7. Your review of documents involving litigation relating to Luxeyard;

    8. Your research into financial transactions known or suspected to be “pump and dump”
       schemes;

    9. Documents or other work product generated by you that relate to Luxeyard, this lawsuit,
       or any defendant in this lawsuit; and

    10. Telephone records reflecting all calls you made relating to Luxeyard, this lawsuit, or any
        defendant in this lawsuit.

JINSUN LLC’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF
WAYNE DOLCEFINO – PAGE 5
DAL 79492903v2
                                   THE STATE OF TEXAS

                                   CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALED ALATTAR,                       §     IN THE DISTRICT COURT
                                      §
      Plaintiff,                      §
                                      §
v.                                    §
                                      §     113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JINSUN, LLC,                          §
FAR EAST STRATEGIES, LLC, and         §
KEVAN CASEY, et al.,                  §
                                      §
      Defendants.                     §     HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
______________________________________________________________________________

           FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
______________________________________________________________________________

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HARRIS

TO ANY SHERIFF, CONSTABLE, OR OFFICER FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS OR ANY
OTHER AUTHORIZED PERSON TO SERVE AND EXECUTE SUBPEONAS AS
PROVIDED IN THE TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 176.

Greetings:

     YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUBPOENA AND SUMMON THE
FOLLOWING DEPONENT:

        Wayne Dolcefino
        3701 Kirby, Suite 560
        Houston, Texas 77098

to appear before a certified court reporter for the State of Texas at the law offices of Greenberg
Traurig LLP, 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 1700, Houston, Texas 77002, or such other place as
may be mutually agreed, on June 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., to attend and give testimony and
produce documents in the above case at a deposition taken on behalf of Defendant Jinsun LLC,
and to remain in attendance from day to day until lawfully discharged. The deposition may also
be videotaped.

Contempt: Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon
that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is issued or a

FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM – PAGE 1
DAL 79492903v2
district court in the county in which the subpoena is served, and may be punishable by fine
or confinement, or both. Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.8(a).

WITNESS MY HAND this the 16th day of June, 2015.

                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                               /s/ Jason M. Hopkins
                                             Mary-Olga Lovett
                                                Texas Bar No. 00789289
                                                lovettm@gtlaw.com
                                             Jason S. Lewis
                                                Texas Bar No. 24007551
                                                lewisjs@gtlaw.com
                                             Jason M. Hopkins
                                                Texas Bar No. 24059969
                                                hopkinsjm@gtlaw.com
                                             GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
                                             2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
                                             Dallas, Texas 75201
                                             (214) 665-3660 - office
                                             (214) 665-5960 - facsimile

                                             ATTORNEYS FOR KEVAN CASEY,
                                             JINSUN, LLC, AND FAR EAST
                                             STRATEGIES, LLC

FIRST AMENDED DEPOSITION SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM – PAGE 2
DAL 79492903v2
                                     CAUSE NO. 2012-54501

KHALED ALATTAR,                       §     IN THE DISTRICT COURT
                                      §
      Plaintiff,                      §
                                      §
v.                                    §
                                      §     113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JINSUN, LLC,                          §
FAR EAST STRATEGIES, LLC, and         §
KEVAN CASEY, et al.,                  §
                                      §
      Defendants.                     §     HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
______________________________________________________________________________

                             PROOF OF SERVICE
______________________________________________________________________________

Came to hand on _________________________________________.

Executed at:_____________________________________________.

Within the county of Dallas at                  , on                 .
by delivering to the within named:

                                        Wayne Dolcefino

In person a true copy hereof and tendering $11.00 in cash.

                                                By:
                                                Server ID #

Subscribed and sworn to by                      , Before me, the undersigned authority, on this
the           day of June, 2015.

                                                       Notary Public in and For the State of Texas

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA – PAGE 1
DAL 79492903v2
TAB G
                                                                                          Filed 15 July 01 P5:07
                                                                                          Chris Daniel - District Clerk
                                                                                          Harris Gounty

                                                                                                                     Pgs-3
                                            CAUSE NO. 201254501
                                                                                                                     QUDEX
                                                                                                                     JNPAX
                                                                                                                     REPAX
      ALATTAR, KHALED,                                   $               IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
                                                                                                                     MODIX
                                                         $
                            Plaintffis),                 $
                                                         $
      VS                                                 $                   HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                         s
                                                         $
      CASEY, KEVAN,                                      $                   1   13th   JUDICIAL DISTRICT
                             Defendant(s)                $

                                                   ORDER

               Pursuant to notice dated June 23,2015, a conference was held by telephone on June 29,
      2015 concerning a dispute among the pzuties concerning Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Deposition
      of Wayne Dolcefino and Motion for Protective Order, filed June 19,2015. The Court considered
      the said Motion, the response thereto filed by Jinsun, LLP on June24,2015 and its supplement
      filed on lune29,2015, as well as the argument of counsel and relevant authority. Inasmuch                as

      no party asserts that Mr. Dolcefino has personal knowledge of any facts relevant to the disputed
      issues   in this case; that it appeals whatever relevant information Dolcefino may              possess is

      available to the parties fi'om other sources through discovery; and, that there is no cornpelling
      need l'or Dolcefino's research or conclusions, the Motion to Quaslr is granted.

               On June 8, 2015, a hearing was held on Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Leave to Add
      Donald Cameron, Acadia Life Limited and Acadia Life International Limited as Defendants,
      filed June 3,2015. Several counsel voiced opposition to the said Motion at the hearing, yet no
 o    written responses to the Motion were filed before the hearing, and none have been fìled since,
 o
Òo
(É    though time was allowed for same. The said Motion for leave to add Donald Cameron, Acadia
À
      Life Limited and Acadia Life International Limited     as parties is granted.     Plaintiff is perrnitted to
(--
      file an amended pleading to add such parties afterthe June22,2015 pleading cut-off. plovided
\o
\o
      any such amended pleading shall not amend any claims made against existing Defendants.
c)
'o

z
c)
E
o

c)
E
i-'
o
U
               The Defendants' Motion to Rcalign thc Parties is grantcd. Hcnceforth, the Plaintiffs in
       the case shall be Khaled Alattar, Babak Daghighi and Luxeyard, Inc.

               Plaintiff's Motion to Compcl thc Dcposition of Jonathan Frjedlander, previously set for
       hearing on June 8, 2015, is rescheduled for hearing on July 24,2015 at 1:30 PM.

               In light of the June 8, 2015 Order withdrawing the jury             assignment   for the case, the
       Coutt's Pre-Trial Scheduling Order signed February 5,2015 is amended only in the following
       respects:

               The pre-trial hearing scheduled for October 15,2Al5 is cancelled.

               The requirement that the parties exchange certain pre-trial materials is amended to read
               as   follows:

                        The parties are directed to exchange the following on ol before September 30,
               20r5:
                        ¡      Each party's esûmate of the time needed for presentation of its case, in days
                               or portions thereof;
                        o      Each party's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law;
                        r      Trial Exhibit lists;
                        o      Copies of demonstrative exhibits;
                        ¡      Trial witness lists, which shall identify which witnesses,         if   any, will be
                               presented via deposition;
                        ¡      Excerpt designations   fol any testimony to be offered by deposition at trial;
                               and,
                        o      Proposecl stipulations of facts.

                        Each party may        file with the Court a pre-trial brief on or before September       30,
a-l
 o
 èo
 CÛ
               2015; all other materials may be brought to         trial. Pre-trial briefs shall acldress   issues   of
A.
 I
              law only and shall not exceed 20 pages in length. Any rebuttal bdef shall not exceed ten
ca
Þr
              pages.
O
\o
\o
ii0)
-o
E
z
o
E
o
â
o
E{)
U
                Except as modified herein, the Pre-Tlial Scheduling Ordcr signed February 5, 2015
         remains in effect.

                                                               June 30,2015

                                                               Hon.             LANDRUM
                                                               Judge, 113th District Court

ca
    o
cô
    t)
    Þo
    rú

    I

cf)
t--
\o
\o
    L:
    C)

    E
z
    0)
    E
    o
    o
!
    ()

Ec)
O
               üÉ

                     ct

     I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris
     County, Texas certi$i that this is a true and
     correct copy ofthe original record filed and or
     recorded in my offltce, electronically or hard
     copy, as it appears on this date.
     Witness my official hand and seal of office
     this July 6.2015

     Certifìed Document   Number:      6605731   I Total Pages:   3

     t,Lør¿
     Cliris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
     HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal
please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com