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 Marc J Randazza, CA Bar No. 269535 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 D. Gill Sperlein, CA Bar No. 172887 RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 345 Grove Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: 415-404-6615 Facsimile: 305-437-7662 ecf@randazza.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Consumer Opinion, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CIVIL- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION CONSUMER OPINION LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. ZCS, Inc., a California corporation; NEVADA CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, INC., a Nevada corporation; HAIR SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; ATLANTIC COAST MEDIA, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; 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; TARRA MARTIN, an individual; MARK W. LAPHAM, ESQ., an individual; OWEN T. MASCOTT, ESQ., an individual; SOLVERA GROUP, INC., a California corporation; and DOE CORPORATIONS, Case No. ___________________ COMPLAINT FOR: 1)   UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICE UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200; 2)   ABUSE OF PROCESS; and 3)   CIVIL CONSPIRACY DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. 26 27 -1COMPLAINT 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 4 them on the Internet. However, removing consumer reviews from the Internet is 5 a 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. (See Referee’s Findings of Fact, Nevada 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 17 hereto as Exhibit 2.) 3.   18 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 21 First Amendment or due process considerations. This scam also allows them to 22 avoid the risk of another anti-SLAPP attorney fee award. 4.   23 Several other businesses and professionals who have been the 24 subject of negative reviews online have also employed the same fraudulent 25 machinery as Nevada Corporate Headquarters, as a means of removing this 26 27 “SLAPP” is an acronym for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation and refers to lawsuits designed specifically to quell speech. 1 -2COMPLAINT 1 content while evading detection and liability. A California corporation is at the 2 center of this scheme and coordinated its moving parts. 3 5.   The scam is not all that complicated. Google will remove search 4 engine results from its well-known search engine if it is provided with a court order 5 determining that the information is indeed defamatory. 6 6.   However, when Nevada Corporate Headquarters sued consumer 7 review websites in the past, it was severely disappointed. (See Exhibits 1 & 2.) 8 Therefore, they needed to concoct a new censorship scam. So, they used a 9 stooge plaintiff, ZCS Inc., to sue a stooge defendant, Collins Mattos. 10 7.   Defendant Solvera Group, Inc. and Doe Defendants, so called 11 “reputation management” companies, conceived and organized the scam as 12 an alternative way to remove negative posts in lieu of undergoing an adversarial 13 proceeding. Several other businesses and professionals have contacted these 14 companies, which have used similar schemes to remove negative consumer 15 reviews about them. 16 8.   The other conspirators engaged attorneys Mark W. Lapham and 17 Owen T. Mascott to file sham lawsuits either by the subjects of the negative 18 reviews or by corporations that had no interest in the allegedly defamatory 19 statements, against a defendant who most certainly was not the party that 20 published the allegedly defamatory statements, and the parties immediately 21 stipulated to a judgment of injunctive relief, so the conspirators could provide the 22 order to Google and other search engines, thus achieving the goal of 23 deindexing all pages containing negative reviews. 24 9.   At first blush, Defendants’ scam appears rather brilliant but 25 incredibly unethical. Now that Plaintiff has uncovered and exposed Defendants’ 26 unlawful deeds, Consumer Opinion LLC respectfully requests that this Court 27 discipline them for those misdeeds. -3COMPLAINT PARTIES 1 2 3 4 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: 5 (1) the entities that file and/or benefit from the suit (the “Filing Defendants”); 6 (2) the attorneys who knowingly and unethically file and prosecute these 7 fraudulent lawsuits (the “Attorney Defendants”); (3) the “defendants” in these 8 fake lawsuits who falsely claim to be the authors of allegedly defamatory 9 statements (the “Stooge Defendants”); and (4) the “reputation management 10 companies” that devised and carried out these schemes (the “RMC 11 Defendants”). The Filing Defendants 12 13 12.   Defendant ZCS, Inc. (“ZCS”) is a California business organized under 14 the laws of the State of California. In its complaint against Collins Mattos, ZCS 15 claimed to be a California company. Records obtained from the California 16 Secretary of State website indicate that ZCS’s business registration has been 17 suspended for failure to meet filing requirements of the California Franchise Tax 18 Board. ZCS stood in place of Nevada Corporate Headquarters in the fake lawsuit 19 against Collins Mattos, most likely to avoid detection of the scheme. 20 13.   Defendant Nevada Corporate Headquarters, Inc. (“NVCHQ”) is a 21 Nevada corporation incorporated under the laws of Nevada. It is the actual 22 subject of the consumer reviews in the Collins Mattos case, and it conspired with 23 Defendants ZCS, Collins Mattos, and Mark Lapham to file a fake lawsuit to 24 suppress consumer reviews. 25 14.   Defendant Hair Solutions is a California business organized under the 26 laws of California, and is the plaintiff in the fraudulent lawsuit against Defendant 27 John Radonich. Hair Solutions stood in place of Defendant Atlantic Coast -4COMPLAINT 1 Media, LLC in the fake lawsuit against Defendant John Radonich, most likely to 2 avoid detection of the scheme. 3 15.   Defendant Atlantic Coast Media, LLC (“Atlantic Coast Media”) is a 4 New Jersey business and is the owner of the registered trademark KERANIQUE 5 and, on information and belief, is the operator of the web site , 6 the actual subject of the review at issue in the fake lawsuit against Defendant 7 John Radonich. 8 16.   Defendant A&D International, LLC (“A&D”) is a defunct California 9 business and is the plaintiff in the fake lawsuit against Defendant Tarra Martin. 10 A&D stood in the place of Defendant Agora Financial, LLC, the actual subject of 11 the review at issue in that case, most likely to avoid detection of the scheme. 12 17.   Defendant Agora Financial, LLC (“Agora”) is a Maryland business 13 and is the actual subject of the review in question in the fake lawsuit against 14 Defendant Tarra Martin. The Stooge Defendants 15 16 18.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 17 Defendant Collins Mattos (“Mattos”) is an individual who resides in Contra Costa 18 County, California. 19 19.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 20 Defendant John Radonich (“Radonich”) is an individual who resides in Contra 21 Costa County, California. 22 20.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 23 Defendant Tarra Martin (“Martin”) is an individual who resides in Alameda 24 County, California. The Attorney Defendants 25 26 27 21.   Defendant Mark W. Lapham (“Lapham”) is an attorney licensed to practice in California with the state bar number 146352. Lapham maintains a -5COMPLAINT 1 law practice in Danville, California. On information and belief, he conspired with 2 Defendants Solvera, ZCS, NVCHQ, and Mattos to file and prosecute the Mattos 3 Case for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining a court order; and conspired with 4 Defendants Solvera, A&D, Agora, and Martin to file and prosecute the Martin 5 Case for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining a court order. 6 22.   Defendant Owen T. Mascott (“Mascott”) is an attorney licensed to 7 practice in California with the state bar number 134243. Mascott maintains a law 8 practice in Palm Desert, California. On information and belief, he conspired with 9 Defendants Solvera, Hair Solutions, Atlantic Coast Media, and Radonich to file 10 and prosecute the Radonich Case for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining a 11 court order. The RMC Defendants 12 13 23.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 14 Defendant Solvera Group, Inc. (“Solvera”) is a California corporation 15 incorporated under the laws of California, and orchestrated some or all of these 16 schemes of fake litigation to remove consumer reviews. 17 24.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 18 Doe RMC Defendants are “reputation management companies” that 19 orchestrated these schemes of fake litigation to remove consumer reviews. 20 Plaintiff is unaware of the true identity of Doe RMC Defendants and therefore 21 currently identifies these defendant using the fictitious name Doe Corporations 22 until such time as Plaintiff may discover the true names of the Defendants. Upon 23 learning the identity of Doe Corporations, Plaintiff shall seek leave to amend the 24 Complaint in order to name the Defendants using their true names. JURISDICTION 25 26 27 25.   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 -6COMPLAINT 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 26.   Defendants ZCS, Inc., Hair Solutions, A&D International, LLC, Collins 6 Mattos, John Radonich, Tarra Martin, Mark W. Lapham, Esq., and Owen T. 7 Mascott, Esq. are residents of the state of California and Collins Mattos, John 8 Radonich, Tarra Martin, and Mark W. Lapham are residents of this jurisdiction. 9 27.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 10 Defendant Doe Corporations are residents of the State of California. Defendants 11 Atlantic Coast Media LLC, and Agora Financial, LLC committed the acts 12 complained of in this Complaint directed to the State of California, specifically 13 Contra Costa County. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 14 15 28.   This action arose in Contra Costa County in that the Defendants filed 16 the abusive complaints in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Accordingly, 17 pursuant to Local Rules of Court 3-2(c) and (d), the Clerk shall assign the action 18 to the San Francisco or Oakland division. FACTS SUPPORTING CLAIMS 19 20 21 22 29.   Consumer Opinion LLC operates a website residing at the uniform resource locator (“URL”) . 30.   is a consumer review website where 23 individuals can share information about their experiences with businesses 24 providing goods and services, thereby allowing consumers to make better 25 choices between competing products and giving consumers an empowering 26 and unbiased view of companies and products. 27 -7COMPLAINT 1 31.   The First Amendment and various state anti-SLAPP statutes protect 2 the right to publish opinions and true statements of fact. Therefore, aside from 3 improving their business standards, there is little a company can do to prevent 4 individuals from publishing negative opinions or true facts about them. 5 32.   Moreover, under 47 U.S.C. § 230, providers of interactive computer 6 services like cannot be held liable for defamatory 7 statements individuals post by and through their interactive services. 8 33.   Understanding the difficulties of removing reviews consisting of 9 negative opinions or statements of true fact, Defendants conspired to misuse 10 California’s legal system to hide the unflattering statements from the consuming 11 public by having popular search engines such as Google to deindex the 12 webpages containing the comments. 13 34.   RMC Defendants are “reputation management companies” that 14 offer services to help individuals rehabilitate their on-line image. The Filing 15 Defendants engaged RMC Defendants to achieve their goal of minimizing the 16 impact of negative reviews on pissedconsumer.com. 17 35.   RMC Defendants first identified individuals or entities willing to stand 18 in the place of the professionals or businesses that were the actual subject of 19 negative reviews on . At this time Plaintiffs do not know 20 if the nominal plaintiffs in the fake lawsuits had pre-existing relationships with the 21 benefited parties of these lawsuits, or if they were simply engaged for the limited 22 purpose of serving as the sham plaintiffs in the fake lawsuits. The conspirators 23 likely understood that if the benefited parties brought the action in their own 24 name, the scam was more likely to be discovered. 25 36.   Next, RMC Defendants and Filing Defendants sought out someone 26 willing to take responsibility for posting one or more of the allegedly defamatory 27 comments. They found these individuals in the Stooge Defendants. -8COMPLAINT 1 37.   It is unclear whether Stooge Defendants were actually responsible 2 for posting any of the allegedly defamatory statements at issue in any given fake 3 lawsuit. However, it is clear that they were not responsible for posting all of the 4 reviews on and comments posted in response to the 5 reviews. 6 scheme to obtain an injunction ordering all of those reviews deindexed, which 7 was precisely their goal. 8 9 10 11 38.   Nonetheless, in each case the conspirators successfully used the It is also not clear what RMC Defendants and Filing Defendants offered the Stooge Defendants to secure their cooperation in their scheme to remove First Amendment protected reviews from pissedconsumer.com. 39.   Of course, the conspirators required a cooperating attorney willing 12 to file a bogus lawsuit on their behalf. Accordingly, they invited attorneys 13 Mark W. Lapham, Esq. and Owen T. Mascott, Esq. to join the conspiracy. 14 They accepted. 15 40.   Like most review websites, the profitability of pissedconsumer.com is 16 directly tied to the amount of traffic the website receives. 17 websites, individuals usually locate the website through the use of search engines 18 such as Google, Yahoo!, and Bing. 19 41.   Also, like most Many consumers considering the purchase of goods or services will 20 search for information about a company prior to purchasing good or services by 21 entering the name of the provider into a search engine. By causing the pages 22 to be deindexed, Defendants deprived consumers of information posted about 23 the businesses and professionals benefited by these fake lawsuits, and thereby 24 undermined the value of the website to the consuming 25 public. 26 27 42.   Defendants’ actions caused further long-term damage to pissedconsumer.com by limiting the usefulness of the website to obtain -9COMPLAINT 1 information about individuals and companies providing goods and services to 2 the consuming public. The Mattos Case 3 43.   4 ZCS filed a bogus complaint against Mattos in California Superior 5 Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Mattos had posted defamatory 6 statements about ZCS, Inc./Nevada Corporate Headquarters on a consumer 7 gripe 8 (See Complaint in ZCS, Inc. v. Mattos, Case No. C16-00425 (hereinafter referred 9 to as the “Mattos Case”), attached hereto as Exhibit 3.) 10 11 12 website 44.   operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC. In reality, the statements at issue concerned only Nevada Corporate Headquarters. 45.   Based on Nevada Corporate Headquarters’ unsuccessful attempts 13 to remove reviews from Plaintiff’s website in the past, Defendants understood 14 that Plaintiff would resist requests to have the statements removed, especially 15 statements that had not been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead 16 of seeking removal of the statements, Nevada Corporate Headquarters 17 conspired with ZCS and Mattos to file a sham lawsuit for the sole purpose of 18 entering a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction. According to the 19 scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of the stipulated judgment to 20 Google and other search engines demanding that they deindex all negative 21 reviews about Nevada Corporate Headquarters. 22 46.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 23 Defendant Solvera or Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management 24 company, conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of ZCS, 25 NVCHQ, Mattos, and Lapham to bring the plan to fruition. 26 27 47.   Defendant ZCS is an inactive California Corporation. Plaintiffs are aware of no business operations of the company, other than standing in the - 10 COMPLAINT 1 place of Nevada Corporate Headquarters in the underlying litigation. NVCHQ 2 provides consulting services to businesses, including providing information and 3 offering assistance with incorporating businesses. 48.   4 Since September 2010, four individuals have posted complaints 5 about Nevada Corporate Headquarters on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, 6 31 comments have been posted in response to those four complaints. The vast 7 majority of the comments have been negative. 49.   8 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at 9 the bequest of Defendant Solvera or Doe Corporation and with the full 10 cooperation of Defendant Mattos, Lapham filed a complaint on behalf of ZCS 11 against Mattos for defamation. (See Exhibit 3.) 50.   12 In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive 13 relief. 14 “prohibited from creating statements about Plaintiff or its officers, managers, 15 employees, business partners, agents, servants, attorneys, representatives, 16 products, goods or services, which defame, disparage, or contain libelous 17 statements about Plaintiff,” and that Mattos be “ordered to take all action, 18 including but not limited to, requesting removal from the internet search engines 19 including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, of all defamatory, disparaging, libelous, and 20 false statements about Plaintiff that Defendant has posted on the Internet.” 21 Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Mattos be 51.   Curiously, the prayer for relief did not request an order directing 22 Mattos to take all action to remove or request removal of the statements from 23 . The conspirators did not want to bring the scheme to 24 the attention of anyone who would shine light on their unlawful actions. 25 26 52.   Lapham filed the Complaint on March 2, 2016. On information and belief, at all relevant times Lapham knew that Mattos was not the author of the 27 - 11 COMPLAINT 1 statements at issue in the Mattos Case, and thus was not a proper defendant in 2 that case. 3 53.   The next day, March 3, 2016, Lapham filed a Stipulation for Final 4 Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court. 5 complete copy of that Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. On information 6 and belief, Lapham coordinated with Mattos as Mattos’s attorney in acquiring 7 this stipulation, such that he simultaneously represented both parties in the 8 Mattos Case. 9 54.   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 Mattos claimed to have posted, the 14 request to deindex included all web pages with entries about NVCHQ. 15 55.   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 NVCHQ, 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 Radonich Case 20 21 56.   Hair Solutions filed a bogus complaint against Radonich in California 22 Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Radonich had posted 23 defamatory statements about Hair Solutions/Atlantic Coast Media LLC on a 24 consumer gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC. 25 (See case file in Hair Solutions, Inc. v. Radonich, Case No. C16-00011 (hereinafter 26 referred to as the “Radonich Case”), attached hereto as Exhibit 5.) 27 - 12 COMPLAINT 1 2 3 57.   In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Keranique, a web site and trademark owned and operated by Atlantic Coast Media. 58.   Hair Solutions and Atlantic Coast Media understood that Plaintiff 4 would resist requests to have the statements removed, especially statements that 5 had not been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking 6 removal of the statements, Atlantic Coast Media conspired with Hair Solutions 7 and Radonich to file a sham lawsuit for the sole purpose of entering a stipulated 8 judgment and permanent injunction. According to the scheme, the conspirators 9 then delivered a copy of the stipulated judgment to Google and other search 10 engines demanding that they deindex all negative reviews about Atlantic Coast 11 Media. 12 59.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 13 Defendant Solvera or Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management 14 company, conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of Hair 15 Solutions, Radonich, and Owen T. Mascott to bring the plan to fruition. 16 60.   Since September 2010, at least 949 individuals have posted 17 complaints about Keranique on . Additionally, numerous 18 comments have been posted by third parties in response to those complaints. 19 The majority of the comments have been negative. 20 61.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at 21 the bequest of Defendant Solvera or Doe Corporation and with the full 22 cooperation of Defendant Radonich, Mr. Mascott filed a complaint on behalf of 23 Hair Solutions against Radonich for defamation. (See Exhibit 5.) 24 62.   In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive 25 relief. Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Radonich be 26 “ordered to take all action, including but not limited to, requesting removal from 27 the Internet search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing of all - 13 COMPLAINT 1 defamatory, disparaging, libelous, and false statements about Plaintiff that 2 Defendant has posted on the Internet.” (Exhibit 5.) 3 63.   Mr. Mascott filed the Complaint on January 7, 2016. On information 4 and belief, at all relevant times Mascott knew that Radonich was not the author 5 of the statements at issue in the Radonich Case, and thus was not a proper 6 defendant in that case. 7 64.   Shortly thereafter, on January 13, 2016, Mascott filed a Stipulation for 8 Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court, containing a 9 jurat from Radonich dated January 9, 2016. (See Exhibit 5.) On information and 10 belief, Mascott coordinated with Radonich as Radonich’s attorney in acquiring 11 this stipulation, such that he simultaneously represented both parties in the 12 Radonich Case. 13 65.   Having obtained a stipulated injunction from the Court, the 14 conspirators then approached various search engines including, on information 15 and belief, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing and requested that those search engines 16 deindex the pages of . Instead of limiting the deindexing 17 to the pages that contained statements Radonich claimed to have posted, the 18 request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Keranique. 19 66.   By engaging in this scheme, Defendant Conspirators obtained a 20 court order under false pretenses and used the court order to persuade popular 21 search engines to deindex every statement about Keranique, including the First 22 Amendment protected statements of opinion and true fact posted by other 23 individuals who were not a party to the underlying action. The Martin Case 24 25 67.   A&D International filed a bogus complaint against Martin in 26 California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Martin had 27 posted defamatory statements about A&D/Agora Financial, LLC on a consumer - 14 COMPLAINT 1 gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC. (See case file in A&D 2 International v. Martin, Case No. C16-00353 (hereinafter referred to as the “Martin 3 Case”), attached hereto as Exhibit 6.) 68.   4 5 In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Agora Financial, a financial services company in Maryland. 69.   6 A&D and Agora understood that Plaintiff would resist requests to 7 have the statements removed, especially statements that had not been 8 adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking removal of the 9 statements, Agora conspired with A&D and Martin to file a sham lawsuit for the 10 sole purpose of entering a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction. 11 According to the scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of the 12 stipulated judgment to Google and other search engines demanding that they 13 deindex all negative reviews about Agora. 70.   14 Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 15 Defendant Solvera or Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management 16 company, conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of A&D, 17 Martin, and Mark W. Lapham to bring the plan to fruition. 71.   18 Since October 2010, at least 97 individuals have posted complaints 19 about Agora on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, numerous comments have 20 been posted in response to those complaints. The vast majority of these reviews 21 are negative. 72.   22 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 Martin, Lapham filed a complaint on behalf of A&D against Martin 25 for defamation. (See Exhibit 6.) 73.   26 27 relief. In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Martin be - 15 COMPLAINT 1 “ordered to take all action, including but not limited to, requesting removal from 2 the Internet search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, of all 3 defamatory, disparaging, libelous, and false statements about Plaintiff that 4 Defendant has posted on the Internet.” (Exhibit 6.) 5 74.   Lapham filed the Complaint on February 22, 2016. On information 6 and belief, at all relevant times Lapham knew that Martin was not the author of 7 the statements at issue in the Martin Case, and thus was not a proper defendant 8 in that case. 9 75.   Three days later, on February 26, 2016, Lapham filed a Stipulation for 10 Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court. 11 Exhibit 6.) 12 Martin’s attorney in acquiring this stipulation, such that he simultaneously 13 represented both parties in the Martin Case. 14 76.   (See On information and belief, Lapham coordinated with Martin as Having obtained a stipulated injunction from the Court, the 15 conspirators then approached various search engines including, on information 16 and belief, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing and requested that those search engines 17 deindex the pages of pissedconsumer.com. Instead of limiting the deindexing 18 to the pages that contained statements Martin claimed to have posted, the 19 request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Agora. 20 77.   By engaging in this scheme, Defendant Conspirators obtained a 21 court order under false pretenses and used the court order to persuade popular 22 search engines to deindex every statement about Agora, including the First 23 Amendment protected statements of opinion and true fact posted by other 24 individuals who were not a party to the underlying action. 25 26 27 - 16 COMPLAINT FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practice under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 (Against All Defendants) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 78.   Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein, in support of this claim. 79.   The acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them as alleged above in this Complaint constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices as defined by California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. 80.   Defendants’ acts of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent competition have caused harm to competition, to consumers, to the competitors of the business defendants, and to Plaintiff. 81.   Defendants’ acts of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent competition have proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer injury in fact and loss of money and/or property (including as a result of expenses that Plaintiff has and will incur in its efforts to prevent and deter Defendants from engaging in unlawful conduct) in an amount to be proven at trial. 82.   Defendants’ acts of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent competition have also caused irreparable and incalculable injury to Plaintiff, its business, and its good will, and unless enjoined, could cause further irreparable and incalculable injury, whereby Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Abuse of Process (Against All Defendants) 23 24 83.   25 Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding 26 paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein, in support of this 27 claim. - 17 COMPLAINT 84.   1 Acting in concert, Defendants, and each of them, filed the Mattos 2 Case, the Radonich Case, and the Martin Case in the Superior Court of the State 3 of California for the County of Contra Costa. 85.   4 Defendants did not file the above described actions for the purpose 5 of determining the liability of the Stooge Defendants or assessing an amount of 6 damages. 7 obtaining a court order to serve on third party search engines such as Google in 8 order to persuade those search engines to deindex portions of Plaintiff’s website. 9 Defendants filed the actions to avoid the adversarial process ordinarily involved 10 Rather, the Defendants filed the complaints for the purpose of in litigation. 86.   11 As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Plaintiff Consumer 12 Opinion LLC was damaged. Specifically, for a time when individuals searched 13 for information about the beneficiaries of the fake lawsuits, search engines no 14 longer produced any results indicating that consumers had posted information 15 about the beneficiaries on the pissedconsumer.com website. Those consumers 16 did not proceed to pissedconsumer.com and did not learn of the negative 17 reviews. 87.   18 19 in causing harm to Plaintiff. 20 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF CIVIL CONSPIRACY (Against All Defendants) 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendants’ conduct as described herein was a substantial factor 88.   Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein, in support of this claim. 89.   Defendants, and each of them, conspired, confederated, and colluded with the other defendants to engage in the above described scheme 27 - 18 COMPLAINT 1 which constitutes a fraudulent and unfair business practice and an abuse of 2 legal process to Defendants’ economic benefit and Plaintiff’s economic harm. 3 90.   Defendants, and each of them took affirmative steps to advance 4 the conspiracy by taking part in the fraudulent litigation designed to have 5 complaints deindexed. 6 91.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 7 Defendants Solvera and/or Doe Corporations conceived and organized the 8 scheme to file bogus legal actions in order to obtain an injunction designed to 9 deceive search engines and trick them into deindexing pages of 10 pissedconsumer.com webpages containing legitimate consumer reviews. 11 Defendants Solvera and/or Doe Corporations engaged in these actions with full 12 knowledge that those actions and the actions of its fellow conspirators would 13 cause harm to Plaintiff. 14 92.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based there on alleges that 15 Defendants ZCS, Inc.; Hair Solutions, Inc.; and A&D International, LLC, stood in the 16 place of the actual targets of the reviews in question in the fake lawsuits and the 17 actual beneficiaries of them. They did so for financial gain, knowing that they 18 were abusing the legal process. Filing Defendants engaged in these actions with 19 full knowledge that their actions and the actions of their fellow conspirators 20 would cause harm to Plaintiff. 21 93.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based there on alleges that 22 Stooge Defendants stood in the place of one or more individuals who actually 23 posted comments claimed to be defamatory in the underlying litigation. Stooge 24 Defendants participated in the plan and allowed the underlying action to be 25 filed even though they had already agreed to settle any claims against them. 26 They did so to advance their own pecuniary interests and with the full knowledge 27 - 19 COMPLAINT 1 that their actions and the actions of their fellow conspirators would cause harm 2 to Plaintiff. 3 94.   Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 4 Defendant Lapham filed the Mattos Case and the Martin Case, while Defendant 5 Mascott filed the Radonich Case, knowing that these actions were shams, that 6 the real parties had already resolved any actual disputes, and that the lawsuits 7 were being filed solely for the purpose of obtaining court orders to deliver to 8 search engines in order to deceive them into deindexing legitimate consumer 9 reviews residing on pissedconsumer.com. They also acted in the capacity of 10 counsel for both parties in each of these actions. They did so to advance their 11 own pecuniary interests and with the full knowledge that their actions and the 12 actions of their fellow conspirators would cause harm to Plaintiff. 13 95.   Defendants Lapham and Mascott’s actions in filing and prosecuting 14 these fake lawsuits went beyond the performance of a professional duty to serve 15 their “clients.” Rather, they participated in a conspiracy to defraud this Court, 16 violating their legal duties to the Court and the California Bar, in furtherance of 17 their own financial gain. 18 19 96.   Accordingly, all Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their co-conspirators. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 21 Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 22 23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief: 24 a.   25 26 27 General damages based on Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein in an amount to be determined at trial; b.   Punitive damages based on Defendants’ willful, malicious, intentional, and deliberate acts in an amount to be determined at trial; - 20 COMPLAINT 1 c.   Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the rate allowed by law; 2 d.   Reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; 3 e.   Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing to engage 4 in unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices and abuse of 5 process as described above in this Complaint; and 6 f.   All other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Dated: September 7, 2017. 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 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 - 21 COMPLAINT