The German investors must have been insane to follow the Pied Piper of Monte Carlo. I can see why AAPT's lawyer quit too. Its Sing Sing prison for greedy love birds Barry & Lisa.
Eugene R. Long, Jr. (SBN 240663)
LONG LAW FIRM
9974 Scripps Ranch Blvd.
Suite 394
San Diego, CA 92131
Telephone: (858) 444-7842
Facsimile: (858) 566-1230
Email: long@longlawsandiego.com
Attorney for the Defendant
ERIC GRUSHKIN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT
ALL AMERICAN PET COMPANY, INC., a Nevada Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC GRUSHKIN, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. SC119776
DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-PLAINTIFF ERIC GRUSHKIN’S COUNTER-COMPLAINT
ERIC GRUSHKIN, an individual,
Counter-Plaintiff,
v.
ALL AMERICAN PET COMPANY, INC., a Nevada Corporation, and ROES 1 through 20 inclusive,
Counter-Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CROSS-COMPLAINT 2
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMES NOW COUNTER-PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT ERIC GRUSHKIN (COUNTER-PLAINTIFF”) in the above-captioned action and files this Counter-complaint alleging as follows:
PARTIES
1. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF is a individual residing in Los Angeles County, California and is identified in the underlying complaint as a Defendant and formerly provided services to COUNTER-DEFENDANT ALL AMERICAN PET COMPANY, INC. (“COUNTER-DEFENDANT”)
2. COUNTER-DEFENDANT is the Plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit and is a Nevada Corporation doing business in the State of California.
3. COUNTER-DEFENDANTS ROES 1-20 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “COUNTER-DEFENDANTS”) are sued herein under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to COUNTER-PLAINTIFF. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these fictitiously named COUNTER-DEFENDANTS are responsible in some way for the occurrences herein alleged and the damages as herein alleged. When the true names of Roes 1-20 are ascertained, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF will amend this Counter-complaint by inserting their true names and capacities herein.
4. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and based on that information and belief allege that at all times mentioned in this Counter-Complaint, COUNTER-DEFENDANTS were the agents, employees or fiduciaries of their Co-Counter-DEFENDANTS and in doing the actions alleged in this Counter-Complaint were acting within the course and scope of such agency, relationship and/or employment.
CROSS-COMPLAINT 3
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VENUE
5. Venue in this Court is proper because the actions, omissions, and occurrences comprising the basis for this Counter-complaint took place primarily in Los Angeles County, California.
6. Venue in this Court is also proper because the COUNTER-DEFENDANT filed a Complaint naming COUNTER-PLAINTIFF as DEFENDANTS in this Court.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF here reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 6 inclusive of this Counter-complaint as if fully set forth herein.
8. On or about February 21, 2012, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was offered the position of Chief Financial Officer of COUNTER-DEFENDANT and offered membership to the COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S Board of Directors. These offers were made by Barry Schwartz, who was at relevant times, the Chief Executive Officer and one of COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S two Directors, the other being the wife of Mr. Schwartz, Lisa Bershan who served as the Company's President.
9. COUNTER-DEFENDANT was at all time a publicly traded company and thus the subject of scrutiny by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). COUNTER-DEFENDANT was required by law to make periodic public filings of financial records and other material data.
10. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF reviewed the SEC data prior to joining COUNTER-DEFENDANT. The SEC Form 10K for the period ending December 31, 2010, which was the most current form available at the time, revealed, among other things, that COUNTER-PLAINTIFF had a payroll tax liability of $764,000 as of December 31, 2010. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF asked Mr. Schwartz if the liability was the result of the COUNTER-
CROSS-COMPLAINT 4
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT’S failure to pay payroll taxes. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF also asked if COUNTER-DEFENDANT had directors and officers insurance.
11. Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the COUNTER-DEFENDANT had never paid payroll taxes and did not file most of its payroll and income tax returns. He also confirmed that the COUNTER-DEFENDANT did not have Directors and Officers insurance.
12. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF informed Mr. Schwartz that COUNTER-PLAINTIFF would not be an officer of a corporation that did not pay and file its taxes properly. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF also said that COUNTER-PLAINTIFF would not serve as a director of a COUNTER-DEFENDANT that did properly file tax returns and/or pay the appropriate taxes.
13. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF accepted a non-officer and non-director position with COUNTER-DEFENDANT with the title of Controller. Work began on February 27, 2012.
14. At the time COUNTER-PLAINTIFF joined COUNTER-DEFENDANT, the COUNTER-DEFENDANT was five periods delinquent with its SEC filings, no Federal or State tax income returns had been filed since 2005, most of the Federal and State tax payroll tax returns had not been filed since 2005, the COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S registration in the state of California was revoked. Furthermore, COUNTER-DEFENDANT and several of its subsidiaries were suspended in Nevada.
15. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF began work at COUNTER-DEFENDANT with great apprehension because in addition to the large payroll tax liability, the SEC data revealed millions in cumulative losses, notes in default including one note holder claiming 51% ownership, multiple over-drafted corporate bank accounts totaling over $96,000, extensive claims of unpaid wages from former employees, numerous vendor disputes, products failures and extensive litigation. Despite this backdrop, Mr. Schwartz and his wife, Ms. Bershan took
CROSS-COMPLAINT 5
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
very high salaries and sold shares in COUNTER-DEFENDANT at or near record high prices. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was very concerned that COUNTER-DEFENDANT was a scam and the Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan were conducting business in some type of fraudulent way.
16. During his tenure with COUNTER-DEFENDANT, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was urged, pressured and even threatened by both Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan to lie, cheat, conceal, misrepresent and engage in other unethical, improper and illegal acts for the personal benefit on Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan and comply with their improper actions.
17. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S initial duties involved maintaining the day-to-day accounting records, bringing the SEC filings to current status, assisting the preparation of the past due tax returns and functioning as the investor relations coordinator, among other duties. Early in his work with the accounting records, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF noticed that COUNTER-DEFENDANT had no sales and all of the money that COUNTER-DEFENDANT used for its operations was raised from shareholders. The shareholder money was deposited or wired into an account in the name of All American Petco, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of COUNTER-DEFENDANT. Very soon, if not immediately, after the shareholder money arrived at the All American Petco's bank account, those funds were transferred to the account of Starr Queens, Inc. Starr Queens, Inc. is owned and controlled by CEO Barry Schwartz. Star Queens was never listed as a subsidiary or affiliate of COUNTER-DEFENDANT. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF traced transfers to and from Star Queens and All American Pet COUNTER-DEFENDANT subsidiaries going back to 2009. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF never saw a mention of Star Queens in any of the required financial statement disclosures or SEC filings. This failure to disclose was a violation of securities laws.
18. At some point in March 2012, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF asked Mr. Schwartz to explain
CROSS-COMPLAINT 6
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the transfers to Starr Queens, Inc. Mr. Schwartz told COUNTER-PLAINTIFF that COUNTER-DEFENDANT, and the two subsidiary companies, All American Petco, Inc. and All American Pet Brands, Mr. Schwartz personally and Ms. Bershan each had Federal and State tax liens of great significance and he had no intention of paying any portion of those tax liens. Schwartz went on to inform COUNTER-PLAINTIFF that any money in any of his personal or COUNTER-DEFENDANT bank accounts could be immediately seized by the IRS, the California Employment Development Department, or one of the other states tax authorities where COUNTER-DEFENDANT operated, and therefore he holds the money in Starr Queens which has a tax ID unconnected to any COUNTER-DEFENDANT and different from himself. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF told Mr. Schwartz that that practice might be considered tax evasion. Mr. Schwartz replied "He did not care about tax payments. He wanted to spend the money on payroll and business expenses instead of taxes.” COUNTER-PLAINTIFF reiterated that the practice still could be considered tax evasion and Mr. Schwartz said "Its not tax evasion if you do not get caught."
19. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF also informed Mr. Schwartz that it is also a violation of SEC rules to sell securities of All COUNTER-DEFENDANT, Inc. and accept monies into the account of All American Petco, Inc. The names are intentionally similar to obfuscate the violation from the SEC and investors. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF inquired why COUNTER-DEFENDANT utilized this practice. Mr. Schwartz told COUNTER-PLAINTIFF that the use of the subsidiary COUNTER-DEFENDANT with a very similar name was necessary since the parent, All American Pet COUNTER-DEFENDANT, Inc. had such a huge number of tax liens and unpaid judgments.
20. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF told Mr. Schwartz that he should file tax returns and pay the
CROSS-COMPLAINT 7
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
taxes. Mr. Schwartz said COUNTER-PLAINTIFF could prepare the tax returns to make the COUNTER-DEFENDANT appear to be legitimate, but he would never pay any taxes. Mr. Schwartz also informed COUNTER-PLAINT that he would only sign payroll tax returns where employees are falsely reported as consultants as a cost saving technique.
21. Mr. Schwartz proceeded to tell COUNTER-PLAINTIFF that the payroll tax liability occurred because in 2006, 2007, 2008 and part of 2009, the COUNTER-DEFENDANT withheld wages from employee paychecks and spent the withheld tax monies on COUNTER-DEFENDANT instead of returning the money to the taxing authorities. In 2009, the COUNTER-DEFENDANT stopped paying employee wages as W-2 salaries and started falsely paying employee wages as 1099 (independent contractor) income. The purpose was for the COUNTER-DEFENDANT to avoid employer taxes. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF informed Barry Schwartz that this practice was improper and he replied that "he did not care.” COUNTER-PLAINTIFF subsequently learned that Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan paid their own salaries thru Starr Queens, Inc. for the purpose of hiding their personal tax identities from any taxing agency and almost $2.3 million of his and Ms. Bershan’s wages between 2006 and 2011 were unreported to any taxation authority. Additionally, Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan disclosed over $750,000 in unreported compensation in 2012. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF told Mr. Schwartz that it was a requirement for all Officers of public COUNTER-DEFENDANT to be employees of the public COUNTER-DEFENDANT and not paid as consultants. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF also told Mr. Schwartz that it was not appropriate to compensate himself and his wife under the name of an unrelated entity and Mr. Schwartz told COUNTER-PLAINTIFF If COUNTER-PLAINTIFF wanted to work there COUNTER-PLAINTIFF needed to do things his way and remain silent to the legality or ethics. Mr. Schwartz also assured COUNTER-
CROSS-COMPLAINT 8
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF that all of the money put into Starr Queens is returned to the COUNTER-DEFENDANT except for the contracted salaries of Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan. This claim turned out to be false.
22. Internal Revenue Service regulations requires that the principals of a company's that files an Offer in Compromise must be current in their personal taxes. Mt. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan did not comply with the requirement because as of January 2013, Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan had not filed personal taxes since at least 2005 despite having been paid over $2.3 million of personal income.
23. Mr. Schwartz stated that he would continue to transferring money to Starr Queens, Inc. as long as the numerous tax liens remained in existence. Mr. Schwartz then assigned COUNTER-PLAINTIFF the task of assisting preparation of an Offer in Compromise (IRS Form 433-B), for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the payroll tax liability. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF informed Mr. Schwartz that since the payroll tax liability resulted from COUNTER-DEFENDANT withholding payroll taxes from employee paychecks and failing to remit these amounts to the IRS and state tax collectors, it was very unlikely to get any reduction, except possibly for penalties that have been assessed or the interest that is accruing. Mr. Schwartz then told COUNTER-PLAINTIFF that the strategy in preparing the Offer In Compromise should be to mislead the IRS into believing that All American Pet COUNTER-DEFENDANT was promptly going out of business. The Offer in Compromise 433-B proposal submitted, around June 25, 2012 that COUNTER-DEFENDANT had expected close to zero sales over the ensuing year or so.
24. In the five weeks prior to June 25, 2012 COUNTER-DEFENDANT issued seven press releases announcing two new products, new shipments of a third product, European expansion
CROSS-COMPLAINT 9
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and the hiring of 16 sales persons. These public statements were intended to create a sense of optimism and sales growth which was in direct conflict with the information presented to the IRS. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF also found factual errors in these press releases and COUNTER-PLAINTIFF believed various statements to be intentionally misleading to investors.
25. In June of 2012, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF discussed the recent press releases with Mr. Schwartz. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF discussed both the accuracy and misleading nature of the press releases with Mr. Schwartz as well as his concern that the press releases were created and distributed without his knowledge while COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was the investor relations coordinator. Mr. Schwartz said that both he and Joel Margulies, COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S director of marketing created and issued the press release solely for the purpose of increasing COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S stock price. Mr. Schwartz acknowledged that there were no sales or production meetings in Europe during his recent trip and he was only on a money raising expedition. When COUNTER-PLAINTIFF confronted Mr. Schwartz regarding the misleading nature of these press releases, Mr. Schwartz told COUNTER-PLAINTIFF “not to worry, nobody can prove otherwise.” Mr. Schwartz then asked for a Board of Directors minute to be prepared confirming the false information in the press release. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF witnessed that the Board of Directors minute being backdated. Mr. Schwartz acknowledged several other obvious misstatements and misleading statements in those press releases, but he said the inaccuracy was not a problem due to the protections offered by Safe Harbor provisions in the press release. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF argued with Mr. Schwartz that the safe harbor provisions are not intended to cover intentional misstatements. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF also witnessed Mr. Schwartz backdating more than a dozen other Board minutes and forging the signature of Ms. Bershan. COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S SEC reports falsely reported that all
CROSS-COMPLAINT 10
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
directors were in attendance at all meetings and the backdating of corporate minute books is expressly prohibited.
26. In July 2012, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was asked to outright lie to investors regarding order sizes, product distribution and delivery dates. The same type of pressure was provided during the Giant Eagle order later in the year in which order sizes, distribution amounts, and deliver dates were exaggerated. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF refused to lie to investors.
27. In November, shortly before release of the September 30, 2012 SEC Form 10Q, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF presented the preliminary financial statements to Ms. Bershan. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF showed her that the salary advances to Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan had grown to $371,000. Ms. Bershan disputed that amount claiming that her facelift and weight reduction surgery, plus the other expenses paid through her personal account were not that high. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF provided the data to Ms. Bershan showing that the $371,000 amount was correct. Ms. Bershan told COUNTER-PLAINTIFF to falsify the number or hide it in the financial statement. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF told her that COUNTER-PLAINTIFF would not falsify or conceal the number.
28. In November 20212, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was informed by COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S new auditors that the $371,000 of salary advances provided to Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Bershan were a clear violation of Sarbanes Oxley legislation. Although salary advances had been listed on the June 30, 2012 SEC form 10Q, the prior auditors had not provided any mention of this violation to COUNTER-PLAINTIFF. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF reported the violation to Ms. Bershan and insisted that the violation be disclosed in COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S SEC Form 10Q for the period ending September 30, 2012. Ms. Bershan replied "if we disclose the Sarbanes Oxley violation there will be no [COUNTER-
CROSS-COMPLAINT 11
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT’S ] and you [COUNTER-PLAINTIFF] will be out of a job." Ms. Bershan proceeded to convene with Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Schwartz emerged from his office and informed COUNTER-PLAINTIFF that "there will be no reporting of any violations."
29. Additionally, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF became aware that COUNTER-DEFENDANT was giving bogus consulting contracts to friends and family, including Jonathan Schwartz and failed to report the income from these transactions in 1099 statements so those individuals could be taxed. The bogus consulting contracts involved grants of stock worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals that did not do any work for AAPT and did not provide any benefit to AAPT shareholders.
30. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF also became aware that COUNTER-DEFENDANT intentionally failed to deliver securities to investors.
31. In early December 2012, COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S investors became increasing nervous about public statements made in press releases that COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S would have products in 65,000 stores by December 31, 2012. In response to numerous phone calls from investors which were fielded by COUNTER-PLAINTIFF, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF told Mr. Schwartz that it was a certain impossibility that COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S would not make this objective by December 31, 2012 as the aforementioned products had been sold in less than 600 shelf location prior to that time. Mr. Schwartz told COUNTER-PLAINTIFF in no uncertain terms to "tell the investors that we will make that goal.” COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was shocked by the obviousness of Mr. Schwartz's dishonesty and COUNTER-PLAINTIFF, reiterated that it was imprudent to perpetuate such false projections. When COUNTER-PLAINTIFF asked Mr. Schwartz what he should do when investors asked specific questions on this subject, Mr. Schwartz said "just lie."
CROSS-COMPLAINT 12
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32. On or about December 10, 2012 COUNTER-PLAINTIFF went to the Company's warehouse facility in Shawnee, KS to supervise a physical inventory of products and conduct other business. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was at the Shawnee facility in late October and on that visit, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF observed numerous pallets of dog food bars throughout the warehouse. These dog food bars were manufactured in August or September and intended to be individually wrapped. However, the pallets themselves were loosely wrapped in plastic and in most cases had tears in the plastic and large areas of uncover product allowing moisture and dust to contaminate the product. Upon his return in December, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF observed that the wrappings of the plastic had deteriorated further and each pallet had become entirely infested with mold. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF informed the onsite auditor and the entire warehouse staff not to count the dog bars as part of the inventory as it needed to be scrapped. The staff complied and the dog food bars were not counted or included in the inventory. Immediately upon the departure of the auditor from the building, Mr. Schwarz ordered that this obviously mold contaminated product be wrapped and prepared for sale to customers. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF had never previously experienced such corporate irresponsibility, contempt for customers and massive disregard for the pets that would attempt to eat these products. There were numerous customer complaints and product returns.
33. On December 13, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was asked by Mr. Schwartz to create a fake internet account for the purpose on anonymously disseminating fake or exaggerated information for the purpose of raising COUNTER- DEFENDANT’S stock price. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF refused to engage in such unscrupulous behavior. At Mr. Schwartz's direction, at least one other employee of COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S created such an account and delivered misleading news by misstated fact or by innuendo.
CROSS-COMPLAINT 13
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34. On December 19, the Thursday before the 4 day Christmas holiday, COUNTER-DEFENDANT failed to pay the payroll owed to 14 of its employees. Approximately half the employees were given $500, the other half received nothing, yet Schwartz and Bershan paid themselves $3,500 though Starr Queens. An employee claimed to have heard Schwartz and Bershan discussing potentially shopping for a new Bentley luxury automobile that same evening.
35. Although no employee had been paid any additional salary as of December 31, 2012, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Bershan paid themselves an additional $10,000 through Starr Queens.
36. On December 31, 2012 the COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S accounts payable supervisor was terminated and as of this date, that person's past due wages remain unpaid. Two additional employees were terminated on January 7, 2013 and at least 1 of those employees wages remains unpaid. Schwartz and Bershan have an incredible history of paying themselves substantial salaries while not paying employees, vendors and taxes.
37. On January 5, 2013, Schwartz asked COUNTER-PLAINTIFF to prepare COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S 2012 payroll tax return and to ignore the salary advances which were given to Schwartz and Bershan and to report the employees. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF refused to file the payroll tax return incorrectly or inaccurately. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF told Mr. Schwartz on that date that he needed to immediately terminate the patterns of dishonesty, corrupt business practices and self interested dealing.
38. On January 7, 2013, none of COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S Los Angeles based employees had received any additional salary yet Ms. Bershan went through the office bragging about the jewelry she intended to purchase for herself on her birthday.
39. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF was concerned about personal liability for improper tax
CROSS-COMPLAINT 14
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reporting as the IRS can prosecute anyone associated with false tax returns, including non-signatories that prepared the return.
40. On January 9, 2013, Schwartz paid himself $20,000 through Starr Queens before the employees had been paid their past due wages. In addition, Ms. Bershan told COUNTER-PLAINTIFF that he would not be getting his past due wages because she wanted to take an additional $5,000 for herself to purchase birthday jewelry.
41. In January 2013, after being repeatedly asked to provide false information to investors in violation of California and federal law, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF sent emails and letters to COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S shareholders. In those letters, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF detailed the numerous violations of the law committed by COUNTER-DEFENDANT. He further stated his intent to inform the appropriate legal authorities of the violations of the law.
42. Immediately after COUNTER-DEFENDANT learned of COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S disclosure to the investors and his intent to inform the appropriate authorities of COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S wrongdoing, COUNTER-DEFENDANT terminated COUNTER-PLAINTIFF.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5)
43. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF here reincorporates Paragraphs 1 – 30 of this Counter-complaint as if fully set forth herein.
44. California Labor Code section 1102.5 prevents employers from terminating employees who disclose violations of the law to government entitities
45. As soon as COUNTER-DEFENDANT was aware of COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S statements to the investors and his stated intent to inform appropriate governmental agencies, COUNTER-DEFENDANT terminated COUNTER-PLAINTIFF in violation of Labor Code
CROSS-COMPLAINT 15
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
section 1102.5.
46. As a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANTS actions, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, to include lost past and future income, emotional distress, attorney’s fees and costs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)
47. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF here reincorporates Paragraphs 1 – 34 of this Counter-complaint as if fully set forth herein.
48. Public policy within California and the United States is against the perpetuation of fraud upon investors by publicly traded companies, such as COUNTER-DEFENDANT.
49. COUNTER-PLAINTIFF refused to participate in COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S fraudulent plan of conducting operations essentially as it were a pyramid scheme, with not profits being made and new investments being used to pay off old investments.
50. To prevent this fraud from continuing, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF informed COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S officers of the improprieties, disclosed these improper actions to the shareholders, and informed COUNTER-DEFENDANT of his intent to speak to the appropriate governmental authorities.
51. As a direct result of these actions, and to obscure the truth, COUNTER-DEFENDANT terminated COUNTER-PLAINTIFF.
52. As a result of COUNTER-DEFENDANTS actions, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, to include lost past and future income, emotional distress, attorney’s fees and costs.
//
CROSS-COMPLAINT 16
Case No. SC119776
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, COUNTER-PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as follows:
1. For general damages;
2. For punitive damages;
3. For attorney’s fees, court costs, investigative costs, and other expenses incurred in the defense of the Complaint according to proof; and
4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Dated: December 6, 2013 ____________________________ Eugene R. Long, Jr. (SBN 240663)
Long Law Firm
9974 Scripps Ranch Blvd, Suite 394
San Diego, CA 92131
Attorney for Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff
Eric Grushkin
