PDFFraud lawsuit against Stickler by zhouwenjuan

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 11

									                                                                                               Filed
                                                                                               11 April 14 P3:17
                                                                                               Patricia W. Crigger
                                                                                               District Clerk
                                                                                               Collin District
                                   IN THE DISTRICT COURT
                                   COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS

RED DOT BUILDING SYTEMS, INC.,                     §
AND HOPE FELLOWSHIP OF THE                         §
ASSEMBLIES OF GOD,                                 §
                                                   §
                Plaintiffs,                        §
        v.                                         §       Case No. _________
                                                   §       JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
COMMUNITY RENEWAL, INC., D/B/A                     §
HELP BUILD HOPE HAITI,                             §
THE VISION GROUP, LTD., AND                        §
MICHAEL L. STICKLER,                               §
                                                   §
                Defendants.                        §
                                                   §
                                                   §


                                  PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

        In its Petition against Community Renewal, Inc., The Vision Group, Ltd., and Michael L.

Sticker (collectively referred to, at times, herein as “Defendants”), Red Dot Building Systems,

Inc., and Hope Fellowship of the Assemblies of God (“Hope Fellowship”) (collectively referred

to, at times, herein as “Plaintiffs”) states as follows:

                                      I.      DISCOVERY PLAN

        1.      Discovery is to be conducted under “Level 2”, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

190.

                                            II.     PARTIES
        2.      Plaintiff Red Dot Building Systems, Inc. (“Red Dot”) is a Texas corporation with

its principal place of business is located at 1209 W. Corsicana Street, Athens, Texas 75751.

        3.      Plaintiff Hope Fellowship of the Assemblies of God is a Texas non-profit entity

located at 9950 Rolater Road, Frisco, Texas 75035.



PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 1
       4.      Community Renewal, Inc. (“CRI”), d/b/a Help Build Hope Haiti, is a Nevada

non-profit corporation located at 4690 Longly Lane, Suite 1, Reno, Nevada 89502, and may be

served with process by serving its chief officer, Michael L. Stickler, 160 Hubbard Way, Suite E,

Reno, Nevada 89502, and its attorneys of record: Sharon Parker, 6100 Neil Road, Suite 500,

Reno, Nevada 89511, and John T. Palter, 5949 Sherry Lane, Suite 1616, Dallas, Texas 75225.

       5.      The Vision Group, Ltd. (“TVG”) is a for-profit Nevada limited liability company

located at 4690 Longly Lane, Suite 1, Reno, Nevada 89502, and may be served with process by

serving its chief officer, Michael L. Stickler, 160 Hubbard Way, Suite E, Reno, Nevada 89502,

and its attorneys of record: Sharon Parker, 6100 Neil Road, Suite 500, Reno, Nevada 89511,

Reno, NV 89505 and John T. Palter, 5949 Sherry Lane, Suite 1616, Dallas, Texas 75225.

       6.      Michael L. Stickler (“Mr. Stickler”) is an individual residing at 160 Hubbard

Way, Suite E, Reno, Nevada 89502, and may be served with process by serving him at his

address and his attorneys of record: Sharon Parker, 6100 Neil Road, Suite 500, Reno, Nevada

89511, Reno, NV 89505 and John T. Palter, 5949 Sherry Lane, Suite 1616, Dallas, Texas 75225.


                             II.    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

       7.      This case arises under the statutes and common law of Texas. Jurisdiction is

proper over these Defendants because the Defendants entered into contracts discussed infra by

mail or otherwise with Plaintiffs, both Texas residents, and either party was to perform the

contract in whole or in part in this state. Moreover, Defendants committed a tort in whole or in

part in this state. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit and

the parties hereto.

       8.      Because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

referenced infra occurred in Collin County, Texas, venue is proper in this court.


PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 2
                     III.    FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

       9.      At all times relevant to this complaint, Mr. Stickler was an officer of both TVG

and CRI; he serves as the Managing Officer of TVG and President of CRI.

       10.     Upon information and belief, TVG and CRI are wholly controlled and operated

by Mr. Stickler. Moreover, TVG, despite being a for-profit company, is hardly distinguishable

from CRI, a non-profit corporation. Mr. Stickler possesses such unilateral control of CRI and

TVG that his actions are indistinguishable from the entities.

       11.     In 2010, Mr. Stickler started Help Build Hope Haiti (“HBHH”), which has a

website located at www.helpbuildhopehaiti.org. The website concedes that HBHH is a

“collaborative project between Community Renewal, Inc., Vision Development, and various

recipient ministries in Haiti.”

       12.     HBHH purported to provide housing for homeless Haitians by constructing

houses on American church and business entity parking lots; the finished structures were then to

be shipped to partners in Haiti that would place families into said house after they were located

onto Haitian property.

       13.     Mr. Stickler solicited involvement from Texas churches and businesses for his

HBHH venture. He invited churches, businesses, and communities to sponsor the construction

of multiple residential structures (referred to hereinafter as “a build” or “builds”), their transport,

their erection in Haiti for homeless Haitians, and one year of support services in Haiti for

$23,000.

       14.     Mr. Stickler represented that HBHH had a partnership with the Dallas Cowboys

and that the Cowboys wanted to have their own build the last week of February 2011 to help

HBHH promote other builds. According to Mr. Stickler, the Cowboys wanted to do a build at



PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 3
Cowboy Stadium with all the players, past and present, the cheerleaders, and staff. Mr. Stickler

claimed that the media would be invited and that this event would attract a lot of attention.

       15.     Mr. Stickler also represented that HBHH would be printing 100,000 brochures

and that sponsors would be included in those brochures.

       16.     HBHH purported to have a number of important-sounding sponsors, many that

turned out to avoid affiliation with HBHH altogether.

       17.     Red Dot contracted with CRI on January 20, 2011 to sponsor a build for $23,000.

The contract is attached hereto as “Exhibit A.” Pursuant to the terms of the contract, HBHH was

supposed to conduct a build on Red Dot’s parking lot on May 7, 2011.

       18.     Hope Fellowship contracted with CRI on November 2, 2010 to sponsor a build for

$23,000. The contract is attached hereto as “Exhibit B.” Pursuant to the terms of the contract,

HBHH was supposed to conduct a build on Hope Fellowship’s parking lot on April 30, 2011.

       19.     Mr. Stickler represented to Red Dot and Hope Fellowship that HBHH owned or

had access to 5,000 acres of property in Haiti and that HBHH possessed three residential sites

within those 5,000 acres to develop. Mr. Stickler indicated that Casimir Developments would be

assisting with the project.

       20.     Upon information and belief, HBHH had no title to any property in Haiti. In

addition, HBHH did not have had access to 5,000 acres of land to develop. The only way the

land would have been conveyed to HBHH is if the President of Haiti conveyed title to HBHH,

which was highly unlikely given that HBHH was not even a registered nongovernmental

organization in Haiti.




PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 4
       21.     Mr. Stickler claimed that HBHH would be providing 5,000 homes to homeless

Haitians over the next 5 years. Without legitimate access to land, these representations were and

are intentionally false or misleading.

       22.     Mr. Stickler also claimed that Clear Channel had donated $1,000,000 of

advertising to HBHH. Upon information and belief, this statement was plainly false.

       23.     On February 21, 2011, Mr. Stickler had a meeting (hereinafter referred to as “the

February Meeting”) at Christ Fellowship Church in McKinney, Texas with the six churches or

businesses that were planning on sponsoring a build in Texas. A representative from Red Dot

was in attendance. At the February Meeting, Mr. Stickler relayed financial statements to the

group, including a “2011 Working Budget,” attached hereto as “Exhibit C.” In that document,

he disclosed a budget line item of $2,500,000 for “Land Development.” Upon information and

belief, Mr. Stickler circulated a budget to Haitians that included a budget line item for “land

development” for $1,500,000—$1,000,000 less than he represented to American sponsors.

       24.     The 2011 Working Budget also included lines for “Fundraising/Marketing.”

Under Mr. Stickler’s working budget, CRI was to pay TVG $1,800,000 in 2011. Therefore, Mr.

Stickler’s non-profit entity would be raising money for homeless Haitians, while his for-profit

company collects payment for fundraising or marketing.

       25.     At the February Meeting, some of the six sponsors that had paid $23,000 to

sponsor a build questioned Mr. Stickler about HBHH’s present financials. Mr. Stickler provided

sponsors with a copy of CRI’s “Profit & Loss” statement, attached hereto as “Exhibit D.”

Despite the $138,000 paid by all six sponsors, Mr. Stickler indicated that CRI and HBHH only

had cash totaling $17,803.54 remaining and that the $120,196.76 spent had gone to alleged

“expenses.” When asked how HBHH could pull off the scheduled builds with only $17,803.54



PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 5
remaining in the coffers, Mr. Stickler indicated that he would attempt to fundraise to cover the

rest of the costs.

        26.     Mr. Stickler also disclosed at the February Meeting that CRI had paid TVG at

least $35,750 between January 1, 2011 and February 21, 2011. In addition, Mr. Stickler charged

CRI in excess of $21,000 for expenses from the first six weeks of 2011.

        27.     Upon information and belief, Mr. Stickler, CRI, and TVG had purchased little, if

any, building materials by the February 21st meeting with the $138,000, despite contracting to

construct multiple residences to ship to Haiti.

                                              IV.       CLAIMS

               COUNT ONE: DISREGARDING THE CORPORATE ENTITY
                               (As to Mr. Stickler)

        28.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-27 as

if fully rewritten herein.

        29.     The court should disregard corporate entity of TVG and CRI and hold Mr.

Stickler personally liable for damages for fraud and the other claims discussed infra because Mr.

Stickler abused the organizational structure of TVG and CRI in order to defraud Plaintiffs as

well as other TVG and CRI creditors.

        30.     Mr. Stickler is, or was at all times relevant hereto, the primary driver of all CRI

and TVG decisions. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Stickler was responsible for, and directed,

the day-to-day operations of CRI and TVG. As such, Mr. Stickler, CRI, and TVG’s action are

indistinguishable for purposes of this complaint.

        31.     TVG and CRI was a mere façade for Mr. Stickler’s personal operations.

        32.     Mr. Stickler’s control over TVG and CRI directly and proximately caused injury

to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial.


PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 6
        33.     As a result of Mr. Stickler’s control aforesaid, Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary

harm and request that Mr. Stickler, CRI, and TVG be personally and jointly and severally liable

to Plaintiffs for the entirety of its damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

                                     COUNT TWO: FRAUD
                                      (As to all Defendants)

        34.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-33 as

if fully rewritten herein.

        35.     By their own representations, HBHH is a collaboration or partnership between the

TVG and CRI. As such, both CRI and TVG are liable for their misrepresentations. For this

complaint’s purposes, TVG and CRI are virtually indistinguishable, as are Mr. Stickler and TVG

and CRI. Upon information and belief, CRI and TVG operate from the same office space and

share resources interchangeably.

        36.     Moreover, Defendants made material representations, which were false.

        37.     Defendants either knew their material representations were false when stated or

Defendants recklessly stated material representations as positive assertions without knowledge of

their truth.

        38.     Defendants intended Plaintiffs to act on those misrepresentations.

        39.     Plaintiffs took action in reliance upon Defendants misrepresentations and thereby

suffered injury as a result.

        40.     As a result of Defendants’ fraud aforesaid, Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary

harm and request compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.




PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 7
                      COUNT THREE: FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
                                (As to all Defendants)

        41.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-40 as

if fully rewritten herein.

        42.     As a consequence of Defendants’ material misrepresentations, Plaintiffs were

improperly induced into entering into the HBHH Sponsorship Contract.

        43.     As a result of Defendants’ fraud aforesaid, Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary

harm and request compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

                             COUNT FOUR: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
                                     (As to all Defendants)

        44.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-43 as

if fully rewritten herein.

        45.     By virture of Defendants actions aforesaid, Defendants actions were fraudulent

because they tended to deceive others, violate confidences, or cause injury to public interests.

        46.     As a result of Defendants’ fraud aforesaid, Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary

harm and request compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

                             COUNT FIVE: BREACH OF CONTRACT
                                     (As to Defendant CRI)

        47.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-46 as

if fully rewritten herein.

        48.     Plaintiffs had a valid contract with CRI, which the Plaintiffs performed.

        49.     CRI, by virtue of its ineptitude and inability to adequately fund and execute the

builds, breached the terms of the agreement.

        50.     As a result of CRI’s breach as aforesaid, Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary harm

in an amount to be determined at trial, but believed to be in excess of $46,000.


PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 8
               COUNT SIX: UNLAWFUL DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
                               (As to all Defendants)

        51.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-50 as

if fully rewritten herein.

        52.     Plaintiffs are both “consumers” for purposes of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §

17.45(4).

        53.     By virtue of Defendants actions aforesaid, Defendants have caused confusion or

misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.

        54.     By virtue of Defendants actions aforesaid, Defendants have caused confusion or

misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another.

        55.     By virtue of Defendants actions aforesaid, Defendants have represented that

goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or

quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation,

or connection which he does not.

        56.     By virtue of Defendants actions aforesaid, Defendants have violated Tex. Bus. &

Com. Code § 17.50(a)(3) in knowingly taking an unconscionable action or course of action.

        57.     As a result of Defendants’ actions aforesaid, Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary

harm and request compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

                             COUNT SEVEN: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
                                     (As to all Defendants)

        58.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-57 as

if fully rewritten herein.

        59.     Plaintiffs provided Defendants with $46,000 to perform a valuable service and for

the purchase of goods.



PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 9
          60.   Defendants have retained the $46,000 and have not performed the valuable

service they were enlisted to perform.

          61.   As a result of Defendants’ actions aforesaid, Defendants have been unjustly

enriched in the amount of $46,000.

                                 COUNT EIGHT: CONVERSION
                                     (As to all Defendants)

          62.   Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-61 as

if fully rewritten herein.

          63.   Plaintiffs possessed $46,000, which they turned over Defendants to sponsor two

builds.

          64.   Defendants unlawfully and without authorization converted the $46,000 to their

own use to the exclusion of, or inconsistent with, the Plaintiffs’ wishes.

          65.   Plaintiffs demanded return of their $46,000; Defendants have refused to return the

$46,000.

          66.   As a result of Defendants’ actions aforesaid, Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary

harm and request compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

                                           JURY DEMAND

          67.   Plaintiffs Red Dot and Hope Fellowship, by and through counsel, hereby requests

a trial by jury on all matters that are so triable.

                                               PRAYER

          WHEREFORE, Red Dot and Hope Fellowship, having fully stated its claims for relief

against Defendants Community Renewal, Inc., The Vision Group, Ltd., and Michael L. Stickler

respectfully now pray for and hereby demand that this Court enter a final judgment in its favor,

and against Defendants, as follows:


PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 10
      I.     that Plaintiffs be awarded compensatory and punitive damages against all

             Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial but

             believed to be in excess of $46,000; and

      II.    that Plaintiffs be reimbursed and awarded its costs and expenses, including, but

             not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred herein; and

      III.   that Plaintiffs be granted prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and

      IV.    that Plaintiffs be granted such other and further relief, in law or equity, as the

             Court deems just and proper.



                                            Respectfully submitted,



                                            _/s/Dan Rogers_____________
                                            Dan Rogers
                                            Texas Bar No. 17163700
                                            Catherine Hough
                                            Texas Bar No. 24048958
                                            FERGUSON LAW GROUP, P.C.
                                            2500 Dallas Pkwy Ste 260
                                            Plano, TX 75093
                                            (Telephone) 972-378-9111
                                            (Facsimile) 972-378-9115
                                            (Email) drogers@dallasbusinesslaw.com
                                            (Email) chough@dallasbusinesslaw.com

                                            ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS




PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION - PAGE 11

								
To top