Get documents about "SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Document Sample
1 Barry R. Himmelstein (State Bar No. 157736)
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
2 Caryn Becker (State Bar No. 196947)
Jenna M. Whitman (State Bar No. 215141)
3 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
4 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
5 Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
7
[Additional Counsel listed on signature page]
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WESTERN DIVISION
11
12 MARK and RACHELLE BERGER, and
MICHAEL ATTAR on behalf of No. CV 05-5373-GHK (CTx)
13 themselves and all persons similarly
situated,
14
Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED CLASS
15
v. ACTION COMPLAINT
16
PROPERTY I.D. CORPORATION, a DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17 California corporation; PROPERTY I.D.
OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California
18 corporation; PROPERTY I.D.
CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California limited
19 liability company; CENDANT
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;
20 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
BROKERAGE COMPANY, a California
21 corporation; CENTURY 21 REAL
ESTATE CORPORATION, a Delaware
22 corporation; RE/MAX OF CALIFORNIA
& HAWAII, INC., a California
23 corporation; PROPERTY I.D.
AFFILIATES 1, LLC, a California limited
24 liability company d/b/a PROPERTY I.D.
USA; PROPERTY I.D. ASSOCIATES,
25 LLC., a California limited liability
company; DISCLOSURE SERVICES,
26 LLC, a California limited liability
company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
27
Defendants.
28
492232.2 -1-
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. Plaintiffs bring this action against Property I.D. Corp.,
3 (hereinafter, “Property I.D.”); Property I.D. of California, Inc.; Property I.D.
4 California, L.L.C.; Cendant Corporation; Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
5 Company (“Coldwell Banker”); Century 21 Real Estate Corporation (“Century
6 21”); Re/Max of California & Hawaii, Inc. (“Re/Max”); Property I.D. Affiliates 1,
7 LLC (d/b/a Property I.D. USA); Property I.D. Associates, LLC.; Disclosure
8 Services, LLC; and Does 1-10, inclusive, under the federal Real Estate Settlement
9 Procedures Act (“RESPA”) (12 U.S.C. §§ 2607(a), (b)), alleging that Defendants
10 injured Plaintiffs through their violations of the anti-kickback and anti-fee-splitting
11 provisions of the statute; unlawful business practices under California Business and
12 Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and that the Broker Defendants also injured
13 Plaintiffs through Broker Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty.
14 THE PARTIES
15 A. Plaintiffs
16 2. Plaintiffs Mark and Rachelle Berger (the “Bergers”) are
17 residents of the City of Calabasas and county of Los Angeles, California. The
18 Bergers sold residential property at 409 21st Place in the city of Santa Monica,
19 County of Los Angeles, California on May 3, 2002. The transaction involved a
20 “federally related mortgage loan,” as defined in § 3(1) of RESPA (12 U.S.C.
21 § 2602(1)). Prior to closing, Mr. and Mrs. Berger contracted with Charles Pence of
22 Coldwell Banker to act as their real estate broker and to provide certain settlement
23 services with regard to the sale. On the date of closing, the Bergers paid $114.00
24 through escrow for an Natural Hazard Disclosure (“NHD”) Statement (also called a
25 “Mandatory Disclosures Report”) issued by Property I.D. Corp. Coldwell Banker
26 provided the Bergers with an Affiliated Business Arrangement Disclosure
27 Statement that listed Property I.D. California as an NHD-provider with whom it had
28 a business relationship.
492232.2 -2-
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 3. Plaintiff Michael Attar is a resident of the city of Tarzana and
2 the county of Los Angeles, California. Mr. Attar sold residential property at 14569
3 Benefit St., #101 in the city of Sherman Oaks, County of Los Angeles on August
4 11, 2005. The transaction involved a “federally related mortgage loan,” as defined
5 in § 3(1) of RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2602(1)). Mr. Attar contracted with Judy Drabin
6 and Ellen Kaluzny of Re/Max Grand Central (a franchise of Re/Max of California
7 and Hawaii, Inc. or “Re/Max”) to serve as his real estate broker and to provide
8 certain settlement services with respect to the sale. On the date of closing, Mr.
9 Attar paid $114.00 through escrow for an NHD Statement (also called a
10 “Mandatory Disclosures Report”) issued by Property I.D. Corp.
11 B. Defendants
12 4. Defendant Property I.D. Corporation is a California corporation
13 with its principal place of business located at 1001 Wilshire Boulevard, Los
14 Angeles, California 90017. Carlos Siderman is the owner and CEO of Property
15 I.D. and serves as agent for service of process. Sergio Siderman is the COO and
16 attorney for Property I.D. Corporation. Upon information and belief, Property I.D.
17 Corporation provides the hazard disclosure services for all of the Property I.D.
18 LLCs, described below.
19 5. Property I.D. of California, Inc. was a California corporation
20 that was dissolved in 2001. On information and belief, Property I.D. of California,
21 Inc. is a predecessor in interest of, successor to, affiliate with, and/or performed the
22 same function as, Property I.D. Corporation. 1
23 6. The “Property I.D. LLCs” (or “Property I.D. LLC Defendants”)
24 are joint ventures formed by or otherwise affiliated with Property I.D. and one or
25 more of the “Broker Defendants” described below and include:
26
27 1
Due to the uncertain status of Property I.D. of California, Inc., where this
28 complaint refers to Property I.D. Corp., the same conduct is imputed to Property
I.D. of California, Inc. and Property I.D. California, LLC, unless otherwise noted.
492232.2 -3-
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 a) Defendant Property I.D. California, LLC, which is or was,
2 upon information and belief, a California limited liability company and affiliated
3 with Defendant Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company and/or the other
4 Cendant Defendants;
5 b) Defendant Property I.D. Affiliates 1, LLC (d/b/a Property
6 I.D. USA), a California limited liability company which reports its principal place
7 of business as being located at 4550 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 200,
8 Westlake Village, California 91362, and whose Manager and agent for service of
9 process is Carlos Siderman, and which is, on information and belief, controlled by
10 or otherwise affiliated with the Cendant Defendants;
11 c) Defendant Property I.D. Associates, LLC, on information
12 or belief, a California limited liability company which reports its principal place of
13 business as being located at 4550 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 200,
14 Westlake Village, California 91362, owned and controlled by Property I.D. Corp.,
15 Cendant Corporation, Coldwell Banker Residential Mortgage Corporation, Carlos
16 Siderman and/or Sergio Siderman;
17 d) Defendant Disclosure Services, LLC, a California limited
18 liability company which reports its principal place of business as being located at
19 4550 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 200, Westlake Village, California 91362,
20 owned and controlled by Property I.D. Corp. and/or RAS Financial Services, Inc.
21 (which is or was affiliated with Re/Max of California and Hawaii).
22 7. The “Cendant Defendants” consist of defendant Cendant
23 Corporation and its affiliates in the real estate industry, including:
24 a) Defendant Cendant Corporation, a Delaware corporation
25 which does business throughout the State of California and is the ultimate corporate
26 parent of each of the other Cendant Defendants;
27
28
492232.2 -4-
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 b) Defendant Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
2 Company, a California corporation with its principal place of business in Orange
3 County and which does business throughout the State of California;
4 c) Defendant Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, a
5 Delaware corporation which does business throughout the State of California; a
6 wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Cendant Corporation; and the franchisor of
7 Century 21 real estate franchisees that do business throughout the State of
8 California. On information and belief, Century 21 Real Estate Corporation is now
9 operating as Century 21, LLC. They are interchangeably referred to herein as
10 “Century 21.”
11 8. The Cendant Defendants have at various times been affiliated
12 with Property I.D. of California, LLC (now defunct) and Property I.D. Affiliates 1
13 (d/b/a Property I.D. USA). Cendant Corporation and Coldwell Banker Residential
14 Brokerage Corp. (a part of NRT Incorporated) are also Members of Property I.D.
15 Associates, LLC.
16 9. Defendant Re/Max, a California corporation with its principal
17 place of business in Palos Verdes Estates, California, has apparently formed a joint
18 venture with Property I.D. Corp. called Disclosure Services, LLC.
19 10. The Cendant Defendants and Re/Max provided real estate
20 brokerage services to Plaintiffs, owed Plaintiffs and members of the Class fiduciary
21 duties, and shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Broker Defendants.”
22 11. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and identities of the
23 defendants identified herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive. Plaintiffs are
24 informed and believes that defendants Does 1 through 10 have acted in combination
25 or conspiracy with or aided and abetted the other defendants named herein or are
26 otherwise responsible for the acts and omissions of defendants as alleged herein.
27 Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to identify said defendants, if and
28 as they become known to Plaintiff.
492232.2 -5-
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 JURISDICTION
2 12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action
3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because one or more claims arise under the laws of
4 the United States, and pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2614 because the plaintiffs allege
5 violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2607(a)-(c)
6 that occurred in the Central District of California.
7 13. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
8 § 1367 to hear and determine Plaintiffs’ state-law claims because those claims are
9 related to Plaintiffs’ federal claims and arise out of a common nucleus of related
10 facts. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are so related to Plaintiffs’ federal law claims that
11 those claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
12 United States Constitution.
13 14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Property I.D. Corp.,
14 Property I.D. of California, Inc., the Property I.D. LLCs, Coldwell Banker
15 Residential Brokerage Company, and Re/Max in that they are California
16 corporations registered to do business, and doing business, in California.
17 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Cendant Corporation
18 and Century 21 in that said Defendants have solicited and conducted business in the
19 State of California, including the transactions that give rise to the claims asserted in
20 this action, and as such, have purposely availed themselves to the privilege of
21 conducting business activities within the State of California.
22 VENUE
23 16. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to
24 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) and 12 U.S.C. § 2614 in that the unlawful conduct that gives
25 rise to these claims occurred within the Central District of California, and pursuant
26 to and 12 U.S.C. § 2614 in that real property subject to these claims is located
27 within the Central District of California.
28
492232.2 -6-
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
2 17. The Bergers’ claims are subject to both equitable estoppel,
3 which focuses on the actions of the defendant in knowingly and fraudulently
4 concealing vital facts from the plaintiff, and equitable tolling, which focuses on the
5 plaintiff’s excusable ignorance of his claims and the limitations period. As
6 explained below, Defendants are estopped from relying upon a statute of limitations
7 defense because they have purposely concealed their kickback scheme from the
8 Bergers’ within a sophisticated set of business transactions which Defendants knew
9 would not be apparent to property sellers like the Bergers, and affirmatively
10 misrepresented the true nature of the LLCs to Plaintiffs, including the Bergers, and
11 the public. Furthermore, the Bergers were excusably ignorant of their claims
12 because they were unable to obtain vital information about their claims.
13 A. Equitable Estoppel
14 18. Defendants are equitably estopped by their own fraudulent
15 concealment from asserting the statutes of limitations as an affirmative defense
16 against the Bergers’ and Class members’ claims.
17 19. As described in paragraphs 73(a)-(j) below, Defendants created
18 sham “affiliated business arrangements” (the LLCs) that have no capital, net worth,
19 errors or omissions insurance, employees, managers, or offices that are separate
20 from Property I.D. Corporation. Further, the LLCs provide no services other than
21 those offered by Property I.D. Corporation, nor do they compete against each other
22 or against Property I.D. The Property I.D. Defendants concealed these
23 characteristics from public view. Defendants then affirmatively represented to
24 Plaintiffs, Class members and the public that these affiliates are legitimate
25 businesses, when they are not. Specifically, the Property I.D. Defendants
26 misrepresented the principal place of business of each LLC in official filings with
27 the California Secretary of State, listing an address where the LLCs conduct no
28 actual business. The Broker Defendants also misrepresented facts bearing on
492232.2 -7-
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 Plaintiffs’ claims by stating in Affiliated Business Arrangement Disclosure forms
2 provided to the Bergers and Class members, that the LLCs are legitimate businesses
3 that do not funnel kickbacks (or “referral fees”) in exchange for business.
4 20. Additionally, the Bergers’ closing statements listed only that
5 “Property I.D.” was paid in connection with the purchase of an NHD statement and
6 therefore concealed that a kickback or referral fee had been paid to one or more of
7 the Broker Defendants. The Defendants thus affirmatively misrepresented and
8 concealed the sham nature of the LLCs.
9 21. The Bergers reasonably relied upon these misrepresentations
10 regarding the true nature of the LLCs. Moreover, as further detailed in ¶¶ 28 and
11 34, below, they also relied upon the Broker Defendants’ affirmative conduct, and
12 their misrepresentations and concealment of, inter alia, the following facts: the true
13 sham nature of the LLCs; that kickbacks were being paid in exchange for referrals
14 of Plaintiffs’ business; and that Broker Defendants’ loyalty was compromised by a
15 conflict of interest and/or self-dealing. Such reliance was reasonable because
16 Plaintiffs, including the Bergers, expected Broker Defendants to abide by their
17 common law fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs.
18 22. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge 2 that their
19 conduct was deceptive, in that they consciously concealed the kickback scheme and
20 knew that it was devised to circumvent the requirements of RESPA, and they
21 agreed and conspired to have the Broker Defendants implement policies requiring
22 their agents to recommend Property I.D. as the only acceptable NHD provider; and
23 to conceal the kickback scheme, thereby violating their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs
24 and members of the proposed Class.
25 23. The purposes of the statutes of limitations period have been
26 2
Plaintiffs further allege, on information and belief, that Defendants’ purpose in
27 engaging in this conduct was improper, although Plaintiffs cannot provide
28 additional, specific facts related to Defendants’ state of mind or knowledge without
discovery, because those facts are within Defendants’ particular knowledge.
492232.2 -8-
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 satisfied because Defendants cannot claim prejudice due to a late filing where
2 Plaintiffs filed suit promptly 3 upon discovering the above-described facts essential
3 to their claims, which Defendants knowingly concealed from them.4
4 24. Even if any of the Defendants did not have an affirmative duty
5 under RESPA or the common law to disclose the true nature of the LLCs to the
6 Bergers, they are nonetheless equitably estopped from asserting the statutes of
7 limitations defense because their conduct can be linked with other parties that were
8 bound to make such a disclosure.
9 25. Similarly, all Defendants were aware of the fact that the Broker
10 Defendants were breaching their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and members of the
11 Class; that such a breach was certain to occur when Defendants participated in the
12 kickback scheme; and that the breach was necessary for the scheme to succeed.
13 Each Defendant aided and abetted and otherwise conspired with one or more
14 Broker Defendant to breach the its fiduciary duties, and directly profited from such
15 breach(es). Based on the foregoing, all Defendants are estopped from relying on
16 any statutes of limitation in defense of this action.
17 B. Equitable Tolling
18 26. The Bergers and members of the Class were or have been unable
19 to obtain vital information bearing on their claims without any fault or lack of
20 diligence on their part. As alleged below, Plaintiffs were not on inquiry notice of
21 any potential wrongdoing, and had no duty to initiate an investigation of any kind,
22 because the transactions appeared (at least outwardly) to be legitimate. The Bergers
23 did not have any reason to know of the RESPA violation or injury. They were also
24 relieved of any duty to investigate because (like all Plaintiffs and Class members)
25
26
3
As alleged below, the Bergers did not learn about their claims until 2005 and filed
their Complaint within a few months of learning about their claims.
27 4
If any evidence has been lost due to the passage of time, for example, it was by
28 Defendants’ own doing. Such losses were not caused by Plaintiffs’ tardiness but by
Defendants’ purposeful concealment of facts supporting Plaintiffs’ claims.
492232.2 -9-
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 they justifiably relied upon Broker Defendants to fulfill their fiduciary duties. Even
2 assuming that there had been any indication of potential wrongdoing, and the
3 Bergers did attempt to investigate, such investigation would have been futile,
4 because it could not have discovered the true, unlawful nature of the scheme or any
5 of the issues and facts described herein, as explained below.
6 27. The Bergers were under no duty to investigate their transactions
7 because they were not on inquiry notice of potential wrongdoing. Nothing that
8 occurred in the course of Plaintiffs’ transaction indicated any potential wrongdoing
9 by the Defendants; thus, neither the Bergers nor Class members were under any
10 duty to investigate their transactions, including but not limited to the legitimacy of
11 the LLCs. Defendants’ wrongdoing was not apparent because it was concealed by
12 the complex nature of the transactions and LLC joint ventures, Defendants’
13 mischaracterization of the true nature of the LLCs, and Defendants’ affirmative
14 misrepresentations that no referral fees were paid. Moreover, the facts
15 demonstrating that the LLCs were not legitimate were shielded from public view.
16 As a direct result of this affirmative fraud and concealment, the Bergers’
17 transactions appeared to be ordinary and lawful in all respects. The Bergers
18 received a disclosure that the provider of the NHD statements was an affiliate of
19 Coldwell Banker and that no referral fee would be paid. The Bergers were
20 provided with an NHD statement; and the fee was paid through escrow. There was
21 nothing about these transactions that would have caused a consumer, such as the
22 Bergers or Class members, to suspect possible wrongdoing and therefore initiate an
23 investigation.
24 28. Furthermore, the Bergers were under no duty to investigate any
25 potential wrongdoing because they reasonably relied upon Broker Defendants to
26 fulfill the fiduciary duties Broker Defendants owe their clients under California
27 common law. As discussed in paragraph 34, the Broker Defendants were and are
28 under a continuous fiduciary duty, and are therefore required to act with undivided
492232.2 - 10 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 loyalty according to the best interests of their clients, and to disclose to the Bergers
2 and members of the Class the true character, quality, and nature of the fees paid for
3 settlement services such as NHD Statement, as such information would be material
4 to the transaction. The Broker Defendants have violated and continue to violate
5 that duty by failing to disclose such information; when they knowingly,
6 affirmatively, and/or actively conceal the nature of the kickback scheme and their
7 self-dealing; when they fail to disclose material facts regarding the fee for the NHD
8 Statements and the availability of less costly NHD Statements; and when they
9 affirmatively misrepresent or imply that no referral fees are being paid as a result of
10 the selling clients’ purchase of a Property I.D. statement. The Bergers and
11 members of the Class, were legally entitled to rely upon Broker Defendants to
12 fulfill their fiduciary obligations, and thus reasonably and justifiably relied upon the
13 Broker Defendants’ knowing, affirmative, and/or active concealment, to their
14 detriment.
15 29. The Bergers and Class members were further relieved of any
16 duty to investigate because such an investigation by an ordinary consumer would
17 have been futile. An inspection of public documents, such as secretary of state
18 filings, would not have revealed any wrongdoing. 5 Moreover, had the Bergers
19 demanded information from Defendants regarding the true nature of the Property
20 5
Defendants’ public filings were themselves fraudulent, and further concealed the
21 sham nature of the ABAs. At most, an examination of public filings would have
22
revealed that “Property I.D. California” might refer to a similarly-named registered
LLC or corporation affiliated with certain defendants, and that its “Principal
23 Executive Office” was located at a different address than defendant Property I.D.
24
Corp. Defendants listed the “Street Address of Principal Executive Office” of
Property I.D. of California, LLC at 4550 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 200,
25 Westlake Village, CA 91362, attesting to the truth and completeness of the
26 information contained in the Certificate and listed the “Street Address of Principal
Executive Office” of Property I.D. Corporation at 1001 Wilshire Blvd., Los
27 Angeles, CA 90017, in another filing. This would not alert the Bergers to the
28 possibility that the LLCs were not conducting any business at a separate address
from Property I.D. Corporation, and were potentially sham entities.
492232.2 - 11 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 I.D. LLCs, they almost certainly would have been rebuffed.6 As such, any
2 investigation by the Bergers would have been futile, and the duty to investigate is
3 accordingly excused.
4 30. The Bergers and members of the Class did not discover and
5 could not have discovered, despite all due diligence, that they paid unlawful referral
6 fees, i.e. that they suffered harm through an unlawful kickback scheme. Plaintiffs’
7 claims were thus equitably tolled until they discovered the facts underlying their
8 claims, in 2005. 7
9 BACKGROUND
10 A. Overview of the Natural Hazards Disclosure Business
11 31. California Civil Code § 1103 and its predecessor statutes require
12 sellers of residential real property or their agents to provide an NHD Statement that
13 discloses to purchasers that the property is located in certain hazardous zones (e.g.,
14 flood, fire, earthquake) if: (a) the seller or agent knows that the property is in such
15 a zone or (b) certain government documents reveal the property to be in such zones.
16 32. The content and even the format of NHD Statements are
17 specified by section 1103.2 of the California Civil Code. Hence, the statements
18 provided to sellers by companies which sell NHD Statements are essentially
19 fungible, and numerous companies provide compliant NHD Statements for sellers
20 in California.
21 33. Such statements are provided by sellers to purchasers of
22 residential real estate in virtually every residential real estate sales transaction
23
6
24
On information and belief, at least one former officer/investor in Property I.D.
Corp. has demanded to exercise his legal right to inspect the corporation’s books
25 and records. Property I.D.’s principals refused and apparently retaliated against
26 that officer/investor a result. Thus, there is no reason to expect that Defendants
would divulge such information to outsiders, like Plaintiffs.
27 7
Without waiver of attorney-client privilege, Mr. Berger discovered his claims
28 when he was advised of the kickback scheme in a casual conversation with Aaron
Dolgin (his attorney in this action) in the spring of 2005.
492232.2 - 12 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 which takes place in California. The business of providing NHD Statements
2 generates many millions of dollars in revenue every year.
3 34. California common law provides, and statutory law recognizes,
4 that real estate brokers and agents owe their clients “[a] fiduciary duty of utmost
5 care, integrity, honesty, and loyalty in dealings with the Seller.” Cal. Civ. Code
6 § 2079.16. In other words, real estate brokers and agents are must safeguard the
7 best interests of their clients and must hold their clients’ interests above their own.
8 Moreover and in light of this, sellers typically rely on their real estate brokers and
9 agents for advice and guidance about a variety of matters relating to the sale of their
10 homes, including satisfying their legal obligations in selling their homes.
11 35. Following the instructions of the Cendant Defendants (in the
12 form of a policy requiring the recommendation of Property I.D. NHD Statements
13 and/or overwhelming “encouragement” to do so), real estate agents and brokers
14 associated with those defendants regularly present Property I.D. NHD Statements
15 as the only acceptable (or the default) product to sellers of property, including
16 Plaintiffs.
17 36. For example, Coldwell Banker’s pre-printed transaction and
18 disclosure forms uniformly include Property I.D. reports, and no others, effectively
19 promoting Property I.D. reports as the only reports used by Coldwell Banker’s
20 brokers. These forms include, among other things, Coldwell Banker’s
21 “Documentation Certification” form, which lists among the required documents for
22 sales transactions the “Property I.D. USA” zone disclosures report; the Coldwell
23 Banker Exclusive Authorization And Right To Sell (listing agreement), which asks
24 the seller to agree to “comply with applicable Federal, State, and local requirements
25 governing the Property, including but not limited to…obtaining a Natural Hazards
26 Zone Disclosure and Property I.D. report”; and its standard Addendum to Real
27 Estate Purchase Agreement, which states that the seller discharges his disclosure
28 obligations by providing a “Property I.D. USA” NHD Statement to the buyer.
492232.2 - 13 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 37. Coldwell Banker provides to its brokers training and
2 instructional materials that offer a single choice to brokers and their selling clients
3 for ordering NHD Statements: Property I.D. For example, Coldwell Banker’s
4 training materials on completing a residential purchase agreement contain the text
5 “Property I.D.” (rather than, for example, a generic reference “name of company
6 providing NHD report”) in the NHD Report section. The line-by-line annotation
7 for this agreement instructs brokers to “insert Prop I.D.” into this section, without
8 any indication that competing NHD Statement providers might be acceptable. In
9 addition, the printed timeline provided to brokers to assist them in meeting due
10 dates for residential property transactions instructs the selling broker to “order
11 Property I.D. [NHD Statement]” as soon as possible (“ASAP”), and provides a toll-
12 free telephone number, for ordering such a report from Property I.D.
13 38. Likewise, Cendant Defendants’ corporate policies consistently
14 and emphatically urge selling brokers employed by the Cendant Defendants to steer
15 selling clients towards Property I.D. NHD Statements. If selling clients question
16 whether they may order a Statement from a different NHD Statement provider, they
17 are required to execute a coercive and ominous disclaimer notice that states: “The
18 mandatory disclosure report received from [competing NHD Statement provider]
19 regarding the above address and escrow number, may or may not fulfill the legal
20 requirements of the Purchase Agreement” and the issuer “may not provide adequate
21 Errors and Omissions Insurance” or “stand behind its accuracy of its content.” The
22 disclaimer form further states that “Coldwell Banker highly recommends the seller
23 provide a Property I.D. of USA report” because “Property I.D. USA is the only site
24 specific disclosure report that currently satisfies Coldwell Banker’s strict control
25 criteria.”
26 39. Century 21 has similarly instituted a formal policy (called a
27 “Customer Program”) regarding the promotion of Property I.D. NHD Statements to
28 selling clients, through an affiliation with “Property I.D. USA” (Property I.D.
492232.2 - 14 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 Affiliates 1, LLC). On information and belief, brokers and agents associated with
2 Century 21 are similarly trained and subject to the same policies which mandate the
3 strong recommendation of Property I.D. NHD Statements to selling clients. On
4 information and belief, Century 21-affiliated brokers and agents first offer Property
5 I.D. NHD Statements as the standard option for their selling clients and, if
6 necessary, employ coercive and fear-provoking tactics in order to persuade those
7 clients to choose Property I.D. over other NHD Statement providers.
8 40. Re/Max similarly promotes Property I.D. NHD Statements to
9 selling clients through its affiliation with Disclosure Services LLC. On information
10 and belief, Re/Max brokers are trained to recommend Property I.D. NHD
11 Statements to their selling clients and/or are directed as a matter of policy to first
12 offer Property I.D. NHD Statements as the standard and only safe/acceptable option
13 for their selling clients and, if their selling client resists, employ coercive tactics to
14 persuade the client to choose Property I.D. over other NHD Statement providers.8
15 41. As a result of the above-described conduct by the Broker
16 Defendants, Plaintiffs and Class members purchased Property I.D. NHD Statements
17 from the Property I.D. Defendants in connection with the sale of real estate and,
18 without their knowledge, paid fees that included an unlawful kickback or referral
19 fee (kickback or fee-split).
20
21
22
23 8
Re/Max appears to enforce this policy even with its buying clients. For example,
24
where a selling agent (and/or his client) elects not to purchase a Property I.D. NHD
Statement), Re/Max agents are expected to present a form release to the selling
25 agent, wherein the selling agent “agree[s] to accept total responsibility and
26 indemnify the selling agent for all liability arising from or related to all hazards and
tax information not disclosed that would have otherwise been disclosed in a
27 Property I.D. report” (emphasis added). This language is undoubtedly intended to
28 impress upon Re/Max agents the “importance” of relying only upon Property I.D.
NHD Statements.
492232.2 - 15 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 B. The Defendants’ Affiliate Structures
2 42. Upon information and belief, the Broker Defendants have
3 entered into joint ventures or similar arrangements with Property I.D. to create
4 sham entities in an effort to evade the anti-kickback and anti-fee-splitting
5 provisions of RESPA.
6 43. Property I.D. California is one such sham entity. Upon
7 information and belief, Property I.D. California is or was at the relevant time,
8 directly or indirectly controlled by Carlos Siderman (owner, President and CEO of
9 Property I.D. Corp.), as either a Member, Manager, or CEO (or through an entity
10 that he controls), and by one or more of the Cendant Defendants, or their owners,
11 managers, employees, agents or others acting on their behalf.
12 44. Upon information and belief, the Cendant Defendants similarly
13 have controlling interests, joint ownership or similar affiliations with additional
14 Property I.D. LLCs, including Property I.D. Affiliates 1, LLC (d/b/a Property I.D.
15 USA) and Property I.D. Associates, LLC.
16 45. Upon information and belief, Re/Max and/or its principals have
17 a has a controlling interest, joint ownership or similar affiliate with another
18 Property I.D. LLC, Disclosure Services, LLC.
19 46. Through this joint-ownership/affiliation structure, the Broker
20 Defendants have received, directly or indirectly, a portion of the fees paid by
21 Plaintiffs and Class members when they purchased their NHD Statements from
22 Property I.D.
23 47. The Property I.D. LLCs are or were shells that merely funnel
24 requests for NHD Statements to Property I.D. Corp., which performs the actual
25 work of providing the NHD Statements. Upon information and belief, some
26 portion of the price paid by Plaintiffs and members of the Class for Property I.D.
27 NHD Statements was paid to Broker Defendants, despite the fact that the these
28 entities performed no “service” in exchange for those funds.
492232.2 - 16 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 48. In fact, the Property I.D. LLCs do not actually perform any
2 business at the address reported in their public filings as their principal places of
3 business. The Westlake Village address publically reported is and at all relevant
4 times was merely the office of an accounting firm, Holthouse Carlin & Van Tright
5 LLP, at which no NHD business was conducted.
6 49. It is well-established that sham affiliated business arrangements
7 cause “reverse competition,” which artificially inflates market rates for settlement
8 services and causes economic injury to purchasers of those services. That (inflated)
9 portion of the NHD Statement fee thus constitutes a referral fee, kickback, or fee-
10 split, all of which violate RESPA’s anti-kickback and anti-fee splitting provisions.
11 50. Property I.D. charged Plaintiffs and members of the Class
12 $114.00 for their NHD Statements. By contrast, competitors of the Property I.D.
13 Defendants charge as little as $29.50 for NHD Statements that fully comply with
14 the seller’s statutory disclosure obligations.
15 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
16 51. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to the provisions of Federal
17 Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
18 situated.
19 52. The Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as:
20 All persons and/or entities who were represented by a
21 Broker Defendant in a sale of residential real estate in the
22 State of California between August 2001 and through the
23 date of judgment, and who paid for a Property I.D. NHD
24 Statement in connection with that sale.
25 Excluded from the class are: a) the Defendants, any entity
26 in which they have a controlling interest, and their legal
27 representatives, officers, directors, assigns and successors;
28
492232.2 - 17 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 and b) the judge to whom this case is assigned and any
2 member of the judge’s immediate family.
3 53. During the relevant time period(s), the Broker Defendants
4 represented many hundreds of individual sellers of residential real estate throughout
5 the State of California. The Class is, therefore, so numerous and geographically
6 dispersed that joinder of all members in one action is impracticable.
7 54. The Class is composed of an easily ascertainable set of
8 individuals and entities who purchased Property I.D. NHD Statements in
9 connection with the sale of residential properties in which they were represented by
10 a Broker Defendant.
11 55. The claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the
12 claims of the Class, in that the representative Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same
13 core facts as those of the Class and Plaintiffs have the same legal claims as those of
14 the Class.
15 56. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to
16 Plaintiffs and the Class, which predominate over any questions that may affect
17 individual Class members, and including the following:
18 a) whether the provision of NHD Statements is a “settlement
19 service” governed by the RESPA;
20 b) whether the Property I.D. LLCs which Defendants claim
21 are “affiliated business arrangements” are bona fide providers of settlement
22 services, or sham entities that merely funnel referrals and kickbacks (or fee splits)
23 among the Defendants;
24 c) whether the Property I.D. LLCs qualify for the
25 “controlled business arrangement” exception of RESPA section 2607(a);
26 d) whether the Broker Defendants or the Property I.D. LLCs
27 performed any actual service for their portion of the NHD Statement fee;
28 e) whether Defendants’ conduct constitutes
492232.2 - 18 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 “unlawful…business acts or practices” in violation of California Business and
2 Professions Code section 17200 et seq.;
3 f) whether the Broker Defendants owe Plaintiffs and
4 members of the Class fiduciary duties;
5 g) whether the Broker Defendants’ affirmative
6 misrepresentations and active concealment of the true nature of the LLCs and the
7 kickback scheme constituted self-dealing or any other breach of their fiduciary
8 duties; and
9 h) whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to damages
10 and/or injunctive relief as a result of the Defendants’ conduct.
11 57. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent
12 and protect the interests of the Class members and do not have interests that are
13 antagonistic to or in conflict with those they seek to represent. Plaintiffs have
14 retained counsel with considerable experience in prosecuting consumer class
15 actions and other forms of complex litigation. Plaintiffs and their counsel are
16 committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class, and have the
17 financial resources to do so.
18 58. This class action is superior to other available methods for the
19 fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy among the parties. The interests
20 of members of the Class in individually controlling the prosecution of a separate
21 action is low, in that most Class members would be unable to prosecute any action
22 at all. The amounts at stake for individuals are sufficiently small for Class
23 members relative to the costs of prosecution that separate suits would be
24 impractical and uneconomical, and most members of the Class would not be able to
25 find counsel to represent them. Concentrating litigation in a single forum will
26 promote judicial efficiency and provide a means for Plaintiffs and the Class to
27 achieve redress.
28 59. The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also
492232.2 - 19 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 superior to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves
2 the resources of courts and the litigants, and promotes consistency and efficiency of
3 adjudication. The disposition of the claims of these Class members in a single class
4 action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court. A class
5 action therefore provides the most fair and efficient method for adjudicating this
6 controversy.
7 60. Members of the proposed class may be identified through
8 Defendants’ records. Class notice may be accomplished at the appropriate time by
9 individual mail and/or publication notice.
10 61. The proposed Class satisfies the certification criteria of Rule 23.
11
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Violations of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a), (b))
14 62. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every
15 allegation in the preceding paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein,
16 and further allege against Defendants as follows.
17 63. 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
18 Act (RESPA) states:
19
“No person shall give and no person shall accept any fee,
20
kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or
21
understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to
22
23 or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a
24 federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any
25 person.”
26 64. 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b) of the RESPA states:
27 “No person shall give and no person shall accept any
28 portion, split or percentage of any charge made or
492232.2 - 20 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 received for the rendering of a real estate settlement
2 service in connection with a transaction involving a
3 federally related mortgage loan other than for services
4 actually performed.”
5 65. At all relevant times, Defendants were “persons” as defined in
6 the RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2602(5).
7 66. The provision of NHD Statements is a “settlement service”
8 governed by the RESPA, as defined in 12 U.S.C. § 2602(3), in that the provision of
9 a required NHD Statement is a “service provided in connection with a real estate
10 settlement.”
11 67. The settlement services provided to Plaintiffs by Defendants are
12 related to “federally related mortgage loan[s]” as defined in 12 U.S.C. § 2602(1).
13 68. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants violated
14 subsection (a) of the RESPA by engaging in a scheme whereby Property I.D.
15 Defendants gave, and the Broker Defendants received, fees, kickbacks or other
16 “thing[s] of value” in exchange for channeling of hazard disclosure statement
17 business.
18 69. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants violated
19 subsection (b) of the RESPA by engaging in a scheme whereby Property I.D.
20 and/or the Property I.D. LLCs gave, and the Broker Defendants received, a portion,
21 split or percentage of the fee charged to Plaintiffs for Property I.D. statements, for
22 which those Defendants performed no actual service.
23 70. Defendants have sought to avoid the anti-kickback and anti-fee-
24 splitting provisions of RESPA by creating sham entities which it claims are
25 “affiliated business arrangements” or “controlled business arrangements” to which
26 § 2607(a) does not apply.
27 71. The fee-splitting and/or kickbacks are not exempted from the
28 requirements of RESPA under § 2607(c), however, in that the Broker Defendants,
492232.2 - 21 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 by requiring their brokers to present Property I.D. as the default choice and/or
2 engaging in high-pressure sales pitches and scare tactics, essentially require the
3 purchase of Property I.D. NHD Statements by selling clients, contrary to the
4 RESPA exception in § 2607(c)(4)(B) (12 U.S.C. § 2607).
5 72. Moreover, the Property I.D. LLCs are not bona fide providers of
6 settlement services; they merely funnels requests for statements to Property I.D. and
7 relay a portion of the statement fees (the kickback) back to some or all of the
8 Broker Defendants.
9 73. Upon information and belief, the Property I.D. LLCs do not
10 meet any of the criteria set forth by HUD for determining whether a controlled
11 business arrangement is a bona fide provider of services, and therefore are not
12 subject to the exception for such arrangements.
13 a) None of the Property I.D. LLCs appear to have initial
14 capital or net worth separate from Property I.D. with which to conduct business.
15 Moreover, the LLCs do not appear to carry errors and omissions insurance separate
16 from the errors and omissions insurance that Property I.D. advertises it carries;
17 b) None of the Property I.D. LLCs are staffed with their own
18 employees to perform their services; the only employees appear to be Property I.D.
19 employees. All disclosure statement orders are processed by Property I.D.’s
20 employees on Property I.D.’s premises;
21 c) The Property I.D. LLCs do not manage their own
22 business affairs; every single one appears to be managed by Carlos Siderman. He is
23 the President, CEO, and/or Manager of all the LLCs – and is also the owner,
24 President and CEO of Property I.D. Corp.;
25 d) None of the LLCs have independent offices. They are all
26 located at either the Wilshire address listed as Property I.D.’s principal place of
27 business, or at the East Thousand Oaks address, on information and belief, another
28 office of Property I.D.;
492232.2 - 22 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 e) The Property I.D. LLCs do not provide a service other
2 than the one offered by Property I.D.;
3 f) The Property I.D. LLCs do not perform any of its services
4 themselves; instead, orders are obtained by Property I.D. employees and a general
5 Property I.D. statement is issued;
6 g) If the LLCs contract out their essential services, the only
7 contracting party is Property I.D.;
8 h) If the LLCs contract out work to Property I.D., it does not
9 appear that the LLCs pay Property I.D. Corp. for its services;
10 i) The Property I.D. LLCs do not actively compete in the
11 market place for business, nor do they compete against Property I.D. or the other
12 LLCs; and
13 j) The LLCs only order statements from Property I.D.,
14 which processes all of these orders and presumably receives profits associated with
15 such orders.
16 74. Additionally, the Property I.D. LLC Defendants do not qualify
17 as “controlled business arrangements” under RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2607(c)(4)),
18 because the Broker Defendants receive fees (other than permissible payments for
19 services rendered) that exceed the permitted return on ownership interest or
20 franchise relationship.
21 75. Additionally, if the Property I.D. LLC Defendants receive any
22 profits or fees from the provision of the NHD Statements prepared by Property I.D.
23 Corp., then such profits or fees also constitute unearned payments in violation of 12
24 U.S.C. § 2607(b) and 24 C.F.R. § 3500.14(b), because Property I.D. Corp., not the
25 Property I.D. LLCs, performs the services.
26 76. As a result of Defendants’ violations of the RESPA, Plaintiffs
27 and members of the Class have suffered damages.
28
492232.2 - 23 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 77. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
2 situated, seek damages equal to three times the full charges paid by Plaintiffs and
3 Class members for NHD Statements, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs according
4 to statute.
5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Violations of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
(Unlawful Conduct))
7
8 78. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action each and every
9 allegation in the preceding paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein,
10 and further allege against Defendants as follows.
11 79. Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits acts of “unfair
12 competition” which encompasses, inter alia, “unlawful… business acts or
13 practices.”
14 80. Defendants violated the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),
15 Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., by, beginning at an exact date
16 unknown to Plaintiffs, engaging in conduct that violates the anti-kickback and anti-
17 fee-splitting provisions RESPA (12 U.S.C. §§ 2607(a), (b), and the related
18 regulations, 24 C.F.R. §§ 3500.1, et seq.), as described herein, and is therefore
19 “unlawful.”
20 81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful
21 business practices, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered injury in fact in the form
22 of lost money because they have, without their knowledge, paid settlement fees for
23 which no services were actually performed (the “kickbacks” and/or unearned “split
24 fees” prohibited by the RESPA).
25 82. Furthermore, by virtue of the reverse competition created by
26 Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs and Class members have paid
27 inflated fees for the subject services. Thus, Plaintiff and the Class are damaged and
28 presumed to have lost money by virtue of having to pay inflated settlement service
492232.2 - 24 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 costs.
2 83. Pursuant to Section 17203 of the UCL, Plaintiffs seek an order
3 of this Court enjoining Defendants from continuing to engage in unlawful, unfair or
4 fraudulent business practices and any other act prohibited by the UCL. Plaintiffs
5 also seek an order (i) requiring Defendants to identify all consumers who have paid
6 any unlawful referral fee associated with the purchase of one or more Property I.D.
7 NHD Statements, in violation of RESPA’s anti-kickback and anti-fee-splitting
8 provisions; (ii) enjoining Defendants from continuing to engage in their unlawful
9 conduct; (iii) requiring Defendants to make full restitution of and/or to disgorge all
10 ill-gotten revenues and/or profits earned or retained as a result of Defendants’
11 violations of the RESPA and other violations of the UCL; and (iv) requiring
12 Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ attorneys’ fees and costs.
13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (Breach of Fidicuary Duty)
(Against Broker Defendants Only)
15
16 84. Each Broker Defendant served as a real estate broker or agent
17 one or more Plaintiffs and/or members of the Class, and at all relevant times owed
18 common law fiduciary duties “of utmost care, integrity, honesty, and loyalty in
19 dealings with the Seller” (Cal. Civ. Code § 2079.16) to Plaintiffs and members of
20 the Class.
21 85. This fiduciary duty imposes on Broker Defendants the duty to
22 act in the best interests of, and with undivided loyalty to, Plaintiffs and Class
23 members; it precludes self-dealing; and further obligates Broker Defendants to
24 disclose all facts material to the sale transaction, including any conflicts of interest.
25 86. Broker Defendants breached their fiduciary duties when they
26 affirmatively misrepresented and concealed from Plaintiffs and Class members
27 material facts; affirmatively misrepresented and concealed the fact that no referral
28 fees were paid through the home sale transactions; and failed to disclose Broker
492232.2 - 25 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 Defendants’ own conflict of interest and self-dealing.
2 87. As a direct and proximate result of the Broker Defendants’
3 breach, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have suffered damages equal to the
4 portion of the charge Plaintiffs paid for NHD Statements for which no services
5 were actually rendered by the Broker Defendants (i.e., the kickback or fee split).
6 88. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
7 situated, seek damages, including but not limited to disgorgement of all “secret
8 profits” fees paid by Plaintiffs and Class members to Broker Defendants, and/or
9 compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
10
11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed
13 Class, prays for relief in this Complaint as follows:
14 1. An order certifying the proposed Class and designating
15 Plaintiffs as Class Representative and his counsel as counsel for the Class;
16 2. A declaration that Defendants are financially responsible for
17 notifying Class members of the pendency of this action;
18 3. Damages equal to three times the amount Plaintiffs and
19 members of the Class paid for the NHD Statements;
20 4. An order of this Court (i) requiring Defendants to identify all
21 consumers who have paid any unlawful referral fee associated with the purchase of
22 one or more Property I.D. NHD Statements, in violation of RESPA’s anti-kickback
23 and anti-fee-splitting provisions; (ii) enjoining Defendants from continuing to
24 engage in their unlawful conduct and any other conduct in violation of the UCL;
25 (iii) requiring Defendants to make full restitution of and/or to disgorge all ill-gotten
26 revenues and/or profits earned or retained as a result of Defendants’ violations of
27 the RESPA and other violations of the UCL;
28 5. An order of this Court ordering the Broker Defendants to
492232.2 - 26 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1 Aaron Dolgin (State Bar No. 101652)
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 2220
2 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 515-0573
3 Facsimile: (818) 788-1904
4 John Robin Orme (State Bar No. 64452)
LAW OFFICES OF ORME AND GRABSTEIN
5 685 Market Street, Suite 370
San Francisco, California 94105
6 Telephone: (415) 495-5500
Facsimile: (415) 495-3202
7 Email address: rorme@ormeandgrabstein.com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
492232.2 - 28 -
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Related docs
