Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Marc J Randazza, CA Bar No. 269535 D. Gill Sperlein, CA Bar No. 172887 Alex J. Shepard, CA Bar No. 295058 RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 4035 S. El Capitan Way Las Vegas, NV 89147 Telephone: 702-420-2001 Facsimile: 305-437-7662 ecf@randazza.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Consumer Opinion Corp, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION CONSUMER OPINION LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. ZCS, Inc., a California corporation; HAIR SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; ATLANTIC COAST MEDIA, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; ADN, LLC, an entity of unknown origin; DAN NEWLIN, an individual; REPDEFENSE SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; REPUTATIONDEFENDER, a Delaware corporation; MAJESTIC VACATIONS, LLC, an entity of unknown origin; BLUEGREEN CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; A&D INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a California limited liability company; AGORA FINANCIAL, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company; COLLINS MATTOS, an individual; JOHN RADONICH, an individual; NICHOLAS MOREAN, an individual; DEMOIN STROMAN III, an individual; ANGELICA LEBRON, an individual; TARRA MARTIN, an individual; MARK W. LAPHAM, ESQ., an individual; OWEN T. MASCOTT, ESQ., an individual; and DOE CORPORATIONS, Case No. COMPLAINT FOR: 1) UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICE UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200; 2) CIVIL CONSPIRACY; and 3) ABUSE OF PROCESS. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. -1COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 27 INTRODUCTION 1 1. 2 This case involves a creative solution to a common frustration for 3 many businesses, who do not like negative reviews that are published about them 4 on the Internet. However, removing consumer reviews from the Internet is a 5 difficult process given that they are protected by the First Amendment. 2. 6 Nevada Corporate Headquarters, has gone to great lengths to 7 attempt to suppress consumer reviews in the past. It has filed at least one SLAPP1 8 suit in Nevada seeking injunctive relief to censor those negative reviews. In that 9 case, Nevada Corporate Headquarters suffered a resounding loss when they 10 were hit with an anti-SLAPP order. 11 Corporate Headquarters, Inc. v. Opinion Corp., Justice Court, Las Vegas 12 Township, Case No. 13-A-003332 (Jan. 22, 2014), attached hereto as Exhibit 1.) 13 They also lost at summary judgment in a SLAPP-back suit. That action resulted in 14 a significant judgment for attorney fees and costs. (See Order, Opinion Corp. v. 15 Nevada Corporate Headquarters, Inc., Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark 16 County, Nevada, Case No. A-14-698267-C (December 11, 2014), attached hereto 17 as Exhibit 2.) 3. 18 (See Referee’s Findings of Fact, Nevada Undaunted by these set-backs, Nevada Corporate Headquarters 19 has now conspired with other companies and individuals to create a scam 20 whereby they suppress negative reviews from the Internet, while evading any First 21 Amendment or due process considerations. This scam also allows them to avoid 22 the risk of another anti-SLAPP attorney fee award. 23 ... 24 ... 25 ... 26 27 SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation and refers to lawsuits designed specifically to quell speech. 1 -2COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 3 of 27 4. 1 Several other businesses and professionals who have been the 2 subject of negative reviews online have also employed the same fraudulent 3 machinery as Nevada Corporate Headquarters, as a means of removing this 4 content while evading detection and liability. 5. 5 The scam is not all that complicated. Google will remove search 6 engine results from its well-known search engine if it is provided with a court order 7 determining that the information is indeed defamatory. 6. 8 However, when Nevada Corporate Headquarters sued consumer 9 review websites in the past, it was severely disappointed. (See Exhibits 1 & 2.) 10 Therefore, they needed to concoct a new censorship scam. So they used a 11 stooge plaintiff, ZCS Inc. ("ZCS"), to sue a stooge defendant, Collins Mattos 12 ("Mattos"). 7. 13 Defendant Doe Corporations, so called “reputation management 14 companies,” conceived and organized the scam as an alternative way to 15 remove negative posts in lieu of undergoing an adversarial proceeding. Several 16 other 17 management companies,” which have used similar schemes to remove negative 18 consumer reviews about them. 19 businesses 8. and professionals have contacted these “reputation The other conspirators engaged attorneys Mark W. Lapham 20 ("Lapham") and Owen T. Mascott (“Mascott”) to file sham lawsuits either by the 21 subjects of the negative reviews or by corporations that had no interest in the 22 allegedly defamatory statements, against a defendant who most certainly was 23 not the party that published the allegedly defamatory statements, and the parties 24 immediately stipulated to a judgment of injunctive relief, so the conspirators could 25 provide the order to Google and other search engines, thus achieving the goal 26 of deindexing all pages containing negative reviews. 27 -3COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 4 of 27 1 9. At first blush, Defendants’ scam appears rather brilliant but incredibly 2 unethical. Now that Plaintiff has uncovered and exposed Defendants’ unlawful 3 deeds, Consumer Opinion LLC respectfully requests that this Court discipline them 4 for those misdeeds. PARTIES 5 6 7 8 10. Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of business in Nevada. 11. There are four categories of Defendants in this scheme: 9 (1) the entities that file and/or benefit from the suit (the “Filing Defendants”); 10 (2) the attorneys who knowingly and unethically file and prosecute these 11 fraudulent lawsuits (the “Attorney Defendants”); (3) the “defendants” in these 12 fake lawsuits who falsely claim to be the authors of allegedly defamatory 13 statements (the “Stooge Defendants”); and (4) the “reputation management 14 companies” that devised and carried out these schemes (the “RMC 15 Defendants”). The Filing Defendants 16 17 12. Defendant ZCS, Inc. is a California business organized under the laws 18 of the State of California. In its complaint against Collins Mattos, ZCS, Inc. claimed 19 to be a California company. Records obtained from the California Secretary of 20 State website indicate that ZCS, Inc.’s business registration has been suspended 21 for failure to meet filing requirements of the California Franchise Tax Board. 22 ZCS, Inc. stood in place of Nevada Corporate Headquarters in the fake lawsuit 23 against Collins Mattos, most likely to avoid detection of the scheme. 24 13. Defendant Hair Solutions is a California business organized under the 25 laws of California, and is the plaintiff in the fraudulent lawsuit against Defendant 26 John Radonich. Hair Solutions stood in place of Defendant Atlantic Coast 27 -4COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 5 of 27 1 Media, LLC in the fake lawsuit against Defendant John Radonich, most likely to 2 avoid detection of the scheme. 3 14. Defendant Atlantic Coast Media, LLC is a New Jersey business and is 4 the owner of the registered trademark KERANIQUE and, on information and belief, 5 is the operator of the web site , the actual subject of the review 6 at issue in the fake lawsuit against Defendant John Radonich. 7 15. Defendant ADN, LLC is an entity of unknown origin that claims to be 8 located in California. In its complaint against Nicholas Morean, ADN asserts that 9 it is a California business, but the California Secretary of State web site does not 10 contain any record of ADN. ADN stood in place of Defendant Dan Newlin, most 11 likely to avoid detection of the scheme. 12 16. Defendant Dan Newlin is an attorney residing and doing business in 13 Orlando, Florida, and is the beneficiary of the fake lawsuit against Defendant 14 Nicholas Morean. 15 17. Defendant RepDefense Solutions, Inc. is a California business and the 16 plaintiff in the fake lawsuit against Defendant Demoin Stroman III. RepDefense 17 stood in place of Defendant ReputationDefender, LLC, the actual subject of the 18 review at issue in that case, most likely to avoid detection of the scheme. 19 18. Defendant ReputationDefender is a Delaware business operating in 20 California, and is the entity benefited by the fake lawsuit against Demoin 21 Stroman III. 22 19. Defendant Majestic Vacations, LLC is an entity of unknown origin and 23 is the plaintiff in the fake lawsuit against Defendant Angelica Lebron. In the 24 complaint against Angelica Lebron, Majestic Vacations claims to be a California 25 entity, but the California Secretary of State web site does not display any record 26 27 -5COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 6 of 27 1 of such entity.2 2 Corporation, the actual subject of the review at issue in that case, most likely to 3 avoid detection of the scheme. 20. 4 Majestic Vacations stood in place of Defendant Bluegreen Defendant Bluegreen Corporation is a Florida business and the owner 5 of Bluegreen Resorts, the subject of the review in question in the fake lawsuit 6 against Angelica Lebron. 21. 7 Defendant A&D International, LLC is a defunct California business 8 and is the plaintiff in the fake lawsuit against Defendant Tarra Martin. A&D stood 9 in the place of Defendant Agora Financial, LLC, the actual subject of the review 10 at issue in that case, most likely to avoid detection of the scheme. 22. 11 Defendant Agora Financial, LLC is a Maryland business and is the 12 actual subject of the review in question in the fake lawsuit against Defendant 13 Tarra Martin. The Stooge Defendants 14 23. 15 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 16 Defendant Collins Mattos is an individual who resides in Contra Costa County, 17 California. 24. 18 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 19 Defendant John Radonich is an individual who resides in Contra Costa County, 20 California. 25. 21 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 22 Defendant Nicholas Morean is an individual who resides in Contra Costa County, 23 California. 24 25 26 27 There is a record for a company called Majestic Vacations, Inc., but that is not the subject of the review in the lawsuit and Plaintiff will not assume that Defendant Majestic Vacations misspelled its own name. 2 -6COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 7 of 27 1 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 2 Defendant Demoin Stroman III is an individual who resides in Sacramento County, 3 California. 4 5 6 27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant Angelica Lebron is an individual who resides in California. 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 7 Defendant Tarra Martin is an individual who resides in Alameda County, 8 California. The Attorney Defendants 9 10 29. Defendant Mark W. Lapham is an attorney licensed to practice in 11 California with the state bar number 146352. 12 practice in Danville, California. 13 30. Defendant Owen T. Mascott, is an attorney licensed to practice in 14 California with the state bar number 134243. 15 practice in Palm Desert, California. Mr. Mascott maintains a law The RMC Defendants 16 17 Mr. Lapham maintains a law 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 18 RMC Defendants are “reputation management companies” that orchestrated 19 these schemes of fake litigation to remove consumer reviews. Plaintiff is unaware 20 of the true identity of RMC Defendants and therefore currently identifies these 21 defendant using the fictitious name Doe Corporations until such time as Plaintiff 22 may discover the true names of the Defendants. Upon learning the identity of 23 Doe Corporations, Plaintiff shall seek leave to amend the Complaint in order to 24 name the Defendants using their true names. JURISDICTION 25 26 27 32. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action based on diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as Plaintiff is a resident of Las Vegas Nevada, and -7COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 8 of 27 1 Defendants, on information and belief, are citizens and residents of the States of 2 California, Florida, Delaware, Maryland, and/or New Jersey, and the amount in 3 controversy exceeds $75,000. VENUE 4 5 33. Defendants ZCS, Inc., Hair Solutions, ADN LLC, Repdefense 6 Solutions, Inc., Majestic Vacations, LLC, A&D International, LLC, Collins Mattos, 7 John Radonich, Nicholas Morean, Demoin Stroman III, Angelica Lebron, Tarra 8 Martin, Mark W. Lapham, Esq., and Owen T. Mascott, Esq. are residents of the state 9 of California and Collins Mattos, John Radonich, Nicholas Morean, Angelica 10 Lebron, Tarra Martin, and Mark W. Lapham are residents of this jurisdiction. 11 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant Doe 12 Corporations are residents of the State of California. Defendants Atlantic Coast 13 Media LLC, Dan Newlin, Reputationdefender, Bluegreen Corporation, and Agora 14 Financial, LLC committed the acts complained of in this Complaint directed to 15 the State of California, specifically Contra Costa County. Accordingly, venue is 16 proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 17 18 34. This action arose in Contra Costa County in that the Defendants filed 19 the abusive complaints in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Accordingly, 20 pursuant to Local Rules of Court 3-2(c) and (d), the Clerk shall assign the action 21 to the San Francisco or Oakland division. FACTS SUPPORTING CLAIMS 22 23 24 25 35. Consumer Opinion LLC operates a website residing at the uniform resource locator (“URL”) . 36. is a consumer review website where 26 individuals can share information about their experiences with businesses 27 providing goods and services, thereby allowing consumers to make better -8COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 9 of 27 1 choices between competing products and giving consumers an empowering 2 and unbiased view of companies and products. 3 37. The First Amendment and various state anti-SLAPP statutes protect 4 the right to publish opinions and true statements of fact. Therefore, aside from 5 improving their business standards, there is little a company can do to prevent 6 individuals from publishing negative opinions or true facts about them. 7 38. Moreover, under 47 U.S.C. § 230, providers of interactive computer 8 services like cannot be held liable for defamatory 9 statements individuals post by and through their interactive services. 10 39. Understanding the difficulties of removing reviews consisting of 11 negative opinions or statements of true fact, Defendants conspired to misuse 12 California’s legal system to hide the unflattering statements from the consuming 13 public by having popular search engines such as Google to deindex the 14 webpages containing the comments. 15 40. RMC Defendants are “reputation management companies” that 16 offer services to help individuals rehabilitate their on-line image. The Filing 17 Defendants engaged RMC Defendants to achieve their goal of minimizing the 18 impact of negative reviews on pissedconsumer.com. 19 41. RMC Defendants first identified individuals or entities willing to stand 20 in the place of the professionals or businesses that were the actual subject of 21 negative reviews on . At this time Plaintiffs do not know if 22 the nominal plaintiffs in the fake lawsuits had pre-existing relationships with the 23 benefited parties of these lawsuits, or if they were simply engaged for the limited 24 purpose of serving as the sham plaintiffs in the fake lawsuits. The conspirators likely 25 understood that if the benefited parties brought the action in their own name, the 26 scam was more likely to be discovered. 27 -9COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 10 of 27 1 42. Next, RMC Defendants and Filing Defendants sought out someone 2 willing to take responsibility for posting one or more of the allegedly defamatory 3 comments. They found these individuals in the Stooge Defendants. 4 43. It is unclear whether Stooge Defendants were actually responsible for 5 posting any of the allegedly defamatory statements at issue in any given fake 6 lawsuit. However, it is clear that they were not responsible for posting all of the 7 reviews on and comments posted in response to the 8 reviews. Nonetheless, in each case the conspirators successfully used the scheme 9 to obtain an injunction ordering all of those reviews deindexed, which was 10 11 precisely their goal. 44. It is also not clear what RMC Defendants and Filing Defendants 12 offered the Stooge Defendants to secure their cooperation in their scheme to 13 remove First Amendment protected reviews from pissedconsumer.com. 14 45. Of course, the conspirators required a cooperating attorney willing 15 to file a bogus lawsuit on their behalf. Accordingly, they invited attorneys 16 Mark W. Lapham, Esq. and Owen T. Mascott, Esq. to join the conspiracy. 17 They accepted. 18 46. Like most review websites, the profitability of pissedconsumer.com is 19 directly tied to the amount of traffic the website receives. Also, like most websites, 20 individuals usually locate the website through the use of search engines such as 21 Google, Yahoo!, and Bing. 22 47. Many consumers considering the purchase of goods or services will 23 search for information about a company prior to purchasing good or services by 24 entering the name of the provider into a search engine. By causing the pages to 25 be deindex, Defendants deprived consumers of information posted about the 26 businesses and professionals benefited by these fake lawsuits, and thereby 27 - 10 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 11 of 27 1 undermined the value of the website to the consuming 2 public. 48. 3 Defendants’ actions caused further long term damage to 4 pissedconsumer.com by limiting the usefulness of the website to obtain 5 information about individuals and companies providing goods and services to the 6 consuming public. The Mattos Case 7 49. 8 ZCS, Inc. filed a bogus complaint against Collins Mattos in California 9 Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Mattos had posted 10 defamatory statements about ZCS, Inc./Nevada Corporate Headquarters on a 11 consumer gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC. 12 (See Complaint in ZCS, Inc. v. Mattos, Case No. C16-00425 (hereinafter referred to 13 as the “Mattos Case”), attached hereto as Exhibit 3.) 14 50. In reality, the statements at issue concerned only Nevada Corporate 15 Headquarters. 16 51. Based on Nevada Corporate Headquarters’ unsuccessful attempts 17 to remove reviews from Plaintiff’s website in the past, Defendants understood that 18 Plaintiff would resist requests to have the statements removed, especially 19 statements that had not been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead 20 of seeking removal of the statements, Nevada Corporate Headquarters 21 conspired with ZCS and Collins Mattos to file a sham lawsuit for the sole purpose 22 of entering a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction. According to the 23 scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of the stipulated judgment to 24 Google and other search engines demanding that they deindex all negative 25 reviews about Nevada Corporate Headquarters. 26 ... 27 ... - 11 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 12 of 27 1 52. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 2 Defendant Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management company, 3 conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of ZCS, Collins Mattos, and 4 Mark W. Lapham to bring the plan to fruition. 5 53. Defendant ZCS, Inc. is an inactive California Corporation. Plaintiffs 6 are aware of no business operations of the company, other than standing in the 7 place of Nevada Corporate Headquarters in the underlying litigation. Nevada 8 Corporate Headquarters provides consulting services to businesses, including 9 providing information and offering assistance with incorporating businesses. 10 54. Since September 2010, four individuals have posted complaints 11 about Nevada Corporate Headquarters on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, 12 twenty-nine comments have been posted in response to those four complaints. 13 The vast majority of the comments have been negative. 14 55. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at 15 the bequest of Defendant Doe Corporation and with the full cooperation of 16 Defendant Mattos, Mr. Lapham filed a complaint on behalf of ZCS, Inc. against 17 Collins Mattos for defamation. (See Exhibit 3.) 18 56. In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive relief. 19 Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Collins be “prohibited 20 from creating statements about Plaintiff or its officers, managers, employees, 21 business partners, agents, servants, attorneys, representatives, products, goods or 22 services, which defame, disparage, or contain libelous statements about 23 Plaintiff,” and that Mr. Collins be “ordered to take all action, including but not 24 limited to, requesting removal from the internet search engines including Google, 25 Yahoo!, and Bing, of all defamatory, disparaging, libelous, and false statements 26 about Plaintiff that Defendant has posted on the Internet.” 27 - 12 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 13 of 27 1 57. Curiously, the prayer for relief did not request an order directing 2 Mr. Collins, to take all action to remove or request removal of the statements from 3 . The conspirators did not want to bring the scheme to 4 the attention of anyone who would shine light on their unlawful actions. 5 58. Mr. Lapham filed the Complaint on March 2, 2016. 6 59. The next day, March 3, 2016, Mr. Lapham filed a Stipulation for Final 7 Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court. 8 complete copy of that Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 9 60. A true and Having obtained a stipulated injunction from the Court, the 10 conspirators then approached various search engines including, on information 11 and belief, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing and requested that those search engines 12 deindex the pages of . Instead of limiting the deindexing 13 to the pages that contained statements Mr. Collins claimed to have posted, the 14 request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Nevada Corporate 15 Headquarters. 16 61. By engaging in this scheme, Defendant Conspirators obtained a 17 court order under false pretenses and used the court order to persuade popular 18 search engines to deindex every statement about Nevada Corporate 19 Headquarters, including the First Amendment protected statements of opinion 20 and true fact posted by other individuals who were not a party to the underlying 21 action. The Radonich Case 22 23 62. Hair Solutions filed a bogus complaint against John Radonich in 24 California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Radonich had 25 posted defamatory statements about Hair Solutions/Atlantic Coast Media LLC on 26 a consumer gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC. 27 - 13 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 14 of 27 1 (See case file in Hair Solutions, Inc. v. Radonich, Case No. C16-00011 (hereinafter 2 referred to as the “Radonich Case”), attached hereto as Exhibit 5.) 3 4 5 63. In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Keranique, a web site and trademark owned and operated by Atlantic Coast Media. 64. Hair Solutions and Atlantic Coast Media understood that Plaintiff 6 would resist requests to have the statements removed, especially statements that 7 had not been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking 8 removal of the statements, Atlantic Coast Media conspired with Hair Solutions 9 and Radonich to file a sham lawsuit for the sole purpose of entering a stipulated 10 judgment and permanent injunction. According to the scheme, the conspirators 11 then delivered a copy of the stipulated judgment to Google and other search 12 engines demanding that they deindex all negative reviews about Atlantic Coast 13 Media. 14 65. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 15 Defendant Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management company, 16 conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of Hair Solutions, 17 Radonich, and Owen T. Mascott to bring the plan to fruition. 18 66. Since September 2010, 865 individuals have posted complaints 19 about Keranique on . Additionally, numerous comments 20 have been posted by third parties in response to those complaints. The majority 21 of the comments have been negative. 22 67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at 23 the bequest of Defendant Doe Corporation and with the full cooperation of 24 Defendant Radonich, Mr. Mascott filed a complaint on behalf of Hair Solutions 25 against Radonich for defamation. (See Exhibit 5.) 26 27 68. In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive relief. Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Radonich be “ordered to - 14 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 15 of 27 1 take all action, including but not limited to, requesting removal from the Internet 2 search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing of all defamatory, 3 disparaging, libelous, and false statements about Plaintiff that Defendant has 4 posted on the Internet.” (Exhibit 5.) 5 69. Mr. Mascott filed the Complaint on January 7, 2016. 6 70. Shortly thereafter, on January 13, 2016, Mr. Mascott filed a Stipulation 7 for Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court, containing 8 a jurat from Radonich dated January 9, 2016. (See Exhibit 5.) 71. 9 Having obtained a stipulated injunction from the Court, the 10 conspirators then approached various search engines including, on information 11 and belief, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing and requested that those search engines 12 deindex the pages of Instead of limiting the deindexing 13 to the pages that contained statements Radonich claimed to have posted, the 14 request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Keranique. 72. 15 By engaging in this scheme, Defendant Conspirators obtained a 16 court order under false pretenses and used the court order to persuade popular 17 search engines to deindex every statement about Keranique, including the First 18 Amendment protected statements of opinion and true fact posted by other 19 individuals who were not a party to the underlying action. The Morean Case 20 73. 21 ADN, LLC filed a bogus complaint against Nicholas Morean in 22 California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Morean had 23 posted defamatory statements about ADN/Attorney Dan Newlin3 on a consumer 24 gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC. (See case file in 25 26 27 ADN appears to be a non-existent entity used solely for the purpose of initiating the Morean Case. In fact, “ADN” appears to an initialism for “Attorney Dan Newlin,” making the fraudulent purpose of Defendant ADN even more apparent. 3 - 15 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 16 of 27 1 ADN, LLC v. Morean, Case No. C16-00119 (hereinafter referred to as the “Morean 2 Case”), attached hereto as Exhibit 6.) 3 4 5 74. In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Dan Newlin, an attorney located in Orlando, Florida. 75. ADN and Newlin understood that Plaintiff would resist requests to 6 have the statements removed, especially statements that had not been 7 adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking removal of the 8 statements, Newlin conspired with ADN and Morean to file a sham lawsuit for the 9 sole purpose of entering a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction. 10 According to the scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of the 11 stipulated judgment to Google and other search engines demanding that they 12 deindex all negative reviews about Newlin. 13 76. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 14 Defendant Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management company, 15 conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of ADN, Morean, and 16 Owen T. Mascott to bring the plan to fruition. 17 77. Since November 2014, 59 individuals have posted complaints about 18 Newlin on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, numerous comments have been 19 posted in response to those complaints. 20 78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at 21 the bequest of Defendant Doe Corporation and with the full cooperation of 22 Defendant Morean, Mr. Mascott filed a complaint on behalf of ADN against 23 Morean for defamation. (See Exhibit 6.) 24 79. In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive relief. 25 Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Morean be “ordered to 26 take all action, including but not limited to, requesting removal from the Internet 27 search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing of all defamatory, - 16 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 17 of 27 1 disparaging, libelous, and false statements about Plaintiff that Defendant has 2 posted on the Internet.” (Exhibit 6.) 3 80. Mr. Mascott filed the Complaint on February 2, 2016. 4 81. Two days later, on February 4, 2016, Mr. Mascott filed a Stipulation for 5 6 Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court. (See Exhibit 6.) 82. Having obtained a stipulated injunction from the Court, the 7 conspirators then approached various search engines including, on information 8 and belief, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing and requested that those search engines 9 deindex the pages of pissedconsumer.com. Instead of limiting the deindexing to 10 the pages that contained statements Morean claimed to have posted, the 11 request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Newlin. 12 83. By engaging in this scheme, Defendant Conspirators obtained a 13 court order under false pretenses and used the court order to persuade popular 14 search engines to deindex every statement about Newlin, including the First 15 Amendment protected statements of opinion and true fact posted by other 16 individuals who were not a party to the underlying action The Stroman Case 17 18 84. RepDefense Solutions, Inc. filed a bogus complaint against Demoin 19 Stroman III in California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that 20 Stroman 21 ReputationDefender on a consumer gripe website operated by Plaintiff 22 Consumer Opinion LLC. (See case file in RepDefense Solutions, Inc. v. Stroman, 23 Case No. C16-00205 (hereinafter referred to as the “Stroman Case”), attached 24 hereto as Exhibit 7.) 25 85. had posted defamatory statements about RepDefense/ In reality, the statements at issue regarded only ReputationDefender, 26 a Delaware business operating in California that offers “reputation management” 27 services. - 17 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 18 of 27 1 86. RepDefense and Stroman understood that Plaintiff would resist 2 requests to have the statements removed, especially statements that had not 3 been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking removal of 4 the statements, ReputationDefender conspired with RepDefense and Stroman to 5 file a sham lawsuit for the sole purpose of entering a stipulated judgment and 6 permanent injunction. According to the scheme, the conspirators then delivered 7 a copy of the stipulated judgment to Google and other search engines 8 demanding that they deindex all negative reviews about ReputationDefender. 9 87. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 10 Defendant Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management company, 11 conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of RepDefense, Stroman, 12 and Owen T. Mascott to bring the plan to fruition. 13 88. Since March 2010, seven individuals have posted complaints about 14 ReputationDefender on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, 13 comments have 15 been posted in response to those complaints. The vast majority of these reviews 16 are negative. 17 89. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at 18 the bequest of Defendant Doe Corporation and with the full cooperation of 19 Defendant Stroman, Mr. Mascott filed a complaint on behalf of RepDefense 20 against Stroman for defamation. (See Exhibit 7.) 21 90. In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive relief. 22 Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Morean be “ordered to 23 take all action, including but not limited to, requesting removal from the Internet 24 search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing of all defamatory, 25 disparaging, libelous, and false statements about Plaintiff that Defendant has 26 posted on the Internet.” (Exhibit 7.) 27 91. Mr. Mascott filed the Complaint on February 2, 2016. - 18 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 19 of 27 1 92. Two days later, on February 4, 2016, Mr. Mascott acquired a jurat from 2 Stroman admitting to all the allegations in the complaint, and received a Final 3 Judgment and Permanent Injunction on February 10, 2016. (See Exhibit 7.) 4 93. Having obtained a stipulated injunction from the Court, the 5 conspirators then approached various search engines including, on information 6 and belief, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing and requested that those search engines 7 deindex the pages of pissedconsumer.com. Instead of limiting the deindexing to 8 the pages that contained statements Stroman claimed to have posted, the 9 request 10 11 to deindex included all web pages with entries about ReputationDefender. 94. By engaging in this scheme, Defendant Conspirators obtained a 12 court order under false pretenses and used the court order to persuade popular 13 search engines to deindex every statement about ReputationDefender, including 14 the First Amendment protected statements of opinion and true fact posted by 15 other individuals who were not a party to the underlying action The Lebron Case 16 17 95. Majestic Vacations, LLC filed a bogus complaint against Angelica 18 Lebron in California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Lebron 19 had posted defamatory statements about Majestic Vacations/Bluegreen 20 Corporation on a consumer gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer 21 Opinion LLC. (See case file in Majestic Vacations, LLC v. Angelica Lebron, Case 22 No. C16-00319 (hereinafter referred to as the “Lebron Case”), attached hereto as 23 Exhibit 8.) 24 96. In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Bluegreen Resorts, a 25 name under which Defendant Bluegreen Corporation provides hospitality 26 services. 27 - 19 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 20 of 27 1 97. Majestic Vacations and Bluegreen understood that Plaintiff would 2 resist requests to have the statements removed, especially statements that had 3 not been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking removal 4 of the statements, Bluegreen conspired with Majestic Vacations to file a sham 5 lawsuit for the sole purpose of entering a stipulated judgment and permanent 6 injunction. According to the scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of 7 the stipulated judgment to Google and other search engines demanding that 8 they deindex all negative reviews about Bluegreen. 9 98. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 10 Defendant Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management company, 11 conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of Majestic Vacations, 12 Lebron, and Mark W. Lapham to bring the plan to fruition. 13 99. 707 individuals have posted complaints about Bluegreen on 14 pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, numerous comments have been posted in 15 response to those complaints. The majority of these reviews are negative. 16 100. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at 17 the bequest of Defendant Doe Corporation and with the full cooperation of 18 Defendant Lebron, Mr. Lapham filed a complaint on behalf of Majestic Vacations 19 against Lebron for defamation. (See Exhibit 8.) 20 101. In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive relief. 21 Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Lebron be “ordered to 22 take all action, including but not limited to, requesting removal from the Internet 23 search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing of all defamatory, 24 disparaging, libelous, and false statements about Plaintiff that Defendant has 25 posted on the Internet.” (Exhibit 8.) 26 102. Mr. Lapham filed the Complaint on February 22, 2016. 27 - 20 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 21 of 27 1 2 3 103. On March 2, 2016, Mr. Lapham filed a Stipulation for Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court. 104. Having obtained a stipulated injunction from the Court, the 4 conspirators then approached various search engines including, on information 5 and belief, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing and requested that those search engines 6 deindex the pages of pissedconsumer.com. Instead of limiting the deindexing to 7 the pages that contained statements Lebron claimed to have posted, the 8 request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Bluegreen. 9 105. By engaging in this scheme, Defendant Conspirators obtained a 10 court order under false pretenses and used the court order to persuade popular 11 search engines to deindex every statement about Bluegreen, including the First 12 Amendment protected statements of opinion and true fact posted by other 13 individuals who were not a party to the underlying action The Martin Case 14 15 106. A&D International filed a bogus complaint against Tarra Martin in 16 California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Martin had 17 posted defamatory statements about A&D/Agora Financial, LLC on a consumer 18 gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC. (See case file in A&D 19 International v. Martin, Case No. C16-00353 (hereinafter referred to as the “Martin 20 Case”), attached hereto as Exhibit 9.) 21 22 23 107. In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Agora Financial, a financial services company in Maryland. 108. A&D and Agora understood that Plaintiff would resist requests to 24 have the statements removed, especially statements that had not been 25 adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking removal of the 26 statements, Agora conspired with A&D and Martin to file a sham lawsuit for the 27 sole purpose of entering a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction. - 21 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 22 of 27 1 According to the scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of the 2 stipulated judgment to Google and other search engines demanding that they 3 deindex all negative reviews about Agora. 4 109. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 5 Defendant Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management company, 6 conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of A&D, Martin, and Mark 7 W. Lapham to bring the plan to fruition. 8 110. Since October 2010, 68 individuals have posted complaints about 9 Agora on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, numerous comments have been 10 posted in response to those complaints. The vast majority of these reviews are 11 negative. 12 111. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at 13 the bequest of Defendant Doe Corporation and with the full cooperation of 14 Defendant Martin, Mr. Lapham filed a complaint on behalf of A&D against Martin 15 for defamation. (See Exhibit 9.) 16 112. In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive relief. 17 Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Morean be “ordered to 18 take all action, including but not limited to, requesting removal from the Internet 19 search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, of all defamatory, 20 disparaging, libelous, and false statements about Plaintiff that Defendant has 21 posted on the Internet.” (Exhibit 9.) 22 113. Lapham filed the Complaint on February 22, 2016. 23 114. Three days later, on February 26, 2016, Mr. Mascott filed a Stipulation 24 for Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court. 25 Exhibit 9.) 26 27 115. (See Having obtained a stipulated injunction from the Court, the conspirators then approached various search engines including, on information - 22 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 23 of 27 1 and belief, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing and requested that those search engines 2 deindex the pages of pissedconsumer.com. Instead of limiting the deindexing to 3 the pages that contained statements Martin claimed to have posted, the request 4 to deindex included all web pages with entries about Agora. 116. 5 By engaging in this scheme, Defendant Conspirators obtained a 6 court order under false pretenses and used the court order to persuade popular 7 search engines to deindex every statement about Agora, including the First 8 Amendment protected statements of opinion and true fact posted by other 9 individuals who were not a party to the underlying action 10 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practice under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 (Against All Defendants) 11 12 13 117. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding 14 paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein, in support of this 15 claim. 16 118. The acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them as alleged 17 above in this Complaint constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business 18 acts or practices as defined by California Business and Professions Code § 17200 19 et seq. 20 119. Defendants’ acts of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent competition 21 have caused harm to competition, to consumers, to the competitors of the 22 business defendants, and to Plaintiff. 23 120. Defendants’ acts of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent competition 24 have proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer injury in fact and loss of money and/or 25 property (including as a result of expenses that Plaintiff has and will incur in its 26 27 - 23 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 24 of 27 1 efforts to prevent and deter Defendants from engaging in unlawful conduct) in 2 an amount to be proven at trial. 121. 3 Defendants’ acts of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent competition 4 have also caused irreparable and incalculable injury to Plaintiff, its business, and 5 its good will, and unless enjoined, could cause further irreparable and 6 incalculable injury, whereby Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 7 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Abuse of Process (Against All Defendants) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 122. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein, in support of this claim. 123. Acting in concert, Defendants, and each of them, filed the Mattos Case, the Radonich Case, the Morean Case, the Stroman Case, the Lebron Case, and the Martin Case in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa. 124. Defendants did not file the above described actions for the purpose of determining the liability of the Stooge Defendnats or assessing an amount of damages. Rather, the Defendants filed the complaints for the purpose of obtaining a court order to serve on third party search engines such as Google in order to persuade those search engines to deindex portions of Plaintiff’s website. Defendants filed the actions to avoid the adversarial process ordinarily involved in litigation. 125. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC was damaged. Specifically, for a time when individuals searched for information about the beneficiaries of the fake lawsuits, search engines no longer produced any results indicating that consumers had posted information about 27 - 24 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 25 of 27 1 the beneficiaries on the pissedconsumer.com website. Those consumers did not 2 proceed to pissedconsumer.com and did not learn of the negative reviews. 126. 3 4 Defendants’ conduct as described herein was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. 5 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF CIVIL CONSPIRACY (Against All Defendants) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 127. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein, in support of this claim. 128. Defendants, and each of them, conspired, confederated, and colluded with the other defendants to engage in the above described scheme which constitutes a fraudulent and unfair business practice and an abuse of legal process to Defendants’ economic benefit and Plaintiff’s economic harm. 129. Defendants, and each of them took affirmative steps to advance the conspiracy by taking part in the fraudulent litigation designed to have complaints deindexed. 130. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendants Doe Corporations conceived and organized the scheme to file bogus legal actions in order to obtain an injunction designed to deceive search engines and trick them into deindexing pages of pissedconsumer.com webpages containing legitimate consumer reviews. Defendants Doe Corporations engaged in these actions with full knowledge that those actions and the actions of its fellow conspirators would cause harm to Plaintiff. 131. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based there on alleges that Defendants ZCS, Inc.; Hair Solutions, Inc.; ADN, LLC; Repdefense Solutions, Inc.; Majestive Vacations, LLC; and A&D International, LLC, stood in the place of the 27 - 25 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 26 of 27 1 actual targets of the reviews in question in the fake lawsuits and the actual 2 beneficiaries of them. They did so for financial gain, knowing that they were 3 abusing the legal process. Filing Defendants engaged in these actions with full 4 knowledge that their actions and the actions of their fellow conspirators would 5 cause harm to Plaintiff. 6 132. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based there on alleges that 7 Stooge Defendants stood in the place of one or more individuals who actually 8 posted comments claimed to be defamatory in the underlying litigation. Stooge 9 Defendants participated in the plan and allowed the underlying action to be filed 10 even though they had already agreed to settle any claims against them. They 11 did so to advance their own pecuniary interests and with the full knowledge that 12 their actions and the actions of their fellow conspirators would cause harm to 13 Plaintiff. 14 133. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 15 Defendant Mark W. Lapham filed the Mattos Case, the Lebron Case, and the 16 Martin Case, while Defendant Owen T. Mascott filed the Radonich Case, the 17 Morean Case, and the Stroman Case, knowing that these actions were shams, 18 that the real parties had already resolved any actual disputes, and that the 19 lawsuits were being filed solely for the purpose of obtaining court orders to deliver 20 to search engines in order to deceive them into deindexing legitimate consumer 21 reviews residing on pissedconsumer.com. They did so to advance their own 22 pecuniary interests and with the full knowledge that their actions and the actions 23 of their fellow conspirators would cause harm to Plaintiff. 134. Accordingly, all Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the 24 25 actions of their co-conspirators. 26 ... 27 ... - 26 COMPLAINT Case 3:16-cv-06105 Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 27 of 27 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff 2 3 demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 4 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief: 1) 6 7 herein in an amount to be determined at trial; 2) 8 9 General damages based on Defendants’ conduct as alleged Punitive damages based on Defendants’ willful, malicious, intentional, and deliberate acts in an amount to be determined at trial; 3) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the rate allowed by 12 4) Reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; 13 5) Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing to 10 11 law; 14 engage in unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices and 15 abuse of process as described above in this Complaint; and 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 6) All other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled. Dated: October 21, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Marc J. Randazza Marc J. Randazza D. Gill Sperlein Alex J. Shepard RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC 24 25 26 27 - 27 COMPLAINT