"Synthetic enzymes are widely used in laundry products.
They are effective at breaking down proteins and fat stains on clothes. Using enzymes means you can wash in cold water and you don't need as many harsh chemicals. We believe the downside of using synthetic enzymes in laundry products is more significant. If residual enzymes are trapped in your clothing/sheets/underwear they are up against your skin day and night. They can be reactivated by sweat and moisture - and start doing the job they were designed for - removing fats/protein - on your skin and potentially causing allergic reactions or other health complications."
i guess we will never know as wow green was never tested....
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WOW GREEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
A Michigan Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No:
Hon.
ALEXANDER SCHAUSS,
An Individual,
Defendant.
_ ____________________________________________________________________________
Fakih & Associates, PLLC
By: SAM FAKIH ( P68876)
Attorney for Plaintiff
23400 Michigan Ave., Suite 110
Dearborn, MI 48124
Phone: 313-846-6300
Fax: 313-846-3200
E-mail: sfakih@fakihlegal.com
____________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Wow Green International, LLC (“Plaintiff”), for its claim against defendant
Alexander Schauss (“Defendant”), alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for promissory estoppel and fraud
based upon the parties business dealings and relationship between 2008 and early 2009.
2. During this time, Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in protracted negotiations for
Defendant to join Plaintiff as an employee and member of Plaintiff’s executive team. During the
Case 2:09-cv-12566-SJM-MJH Document 1 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 1 of 8
-2- 2
negotiation period, Defendant made numerous representations, held himself out as a member of
Plaintiff’s executive team and induced Plaintiff to detrimentally rely on his assertions of material
fact that he was joining Plaintiff as an employee.
3. An employment contract was drawn up and agreed upon. However, on February
19, 2009, right before the agreement was to be signed and shortly before Plaintiff was to begin
his employment, Defendant terminated his relationship with Plaintiff, resulting in damages.
4. In bringing this action, Plaintiff seeks money damages, costs and attorneys fees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332 (diversity jurisdiction). The amount in controversy for the Plaintiff exceeds $75,000.00,
exclusive of costs and interest. It is an action between residents of different states.
6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). Defendant availed
himself of this Venue by negotiating and offering to become employed by Plaintiff, a Michigan
based company. In addition, Defendant traveled to Michigan to discuss and negotiate his
employment with Plaintiff, events that give rise to this action.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff is a Michigan Limited Liability Company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Michigan with its principal place of business located at 1000 Town
Center, Suite 2330, Southfield, Michigan.
8. Defendant is an individual residing at 4117 South Meridian, Puyallup, State of
Washington.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
Case 2:09-cv-12566-SJM-MJH Document 1 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 2 of 8
-3- 3
9. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by referenced paragraphs 1 through 8 as set forth
above.
10. Plaintiff is a network marketing company, a form of enterprise also known as a
direct sales organization or a multilevel marketing company.
11. As part of its business plan, Plaintiff seeks to market, distribute and sell natural,
sustainable, enzyme- based green household cleaning products throughout the world.
12. Plaintiff launched its products on February 15, 2009.
13. Prior to the launch of its products, Plaintiff needed to have its products as well as
the products of its competitors scientifically tested for safety, efficacy and toxicity.
14. In furtherance of this need for testing, Plaintiff entered into an Independent
Contractor Agreement with AIBMR Life Sciences, Inc. (“AIBMR”) on December 31, 2008
pursuant to which AIBMR agreed to perform all the required testing prior to the launch of the
product on February 15, 2009. Exhibit “A.”
15. Pursuant to the Independent Contractor Agreement, Plaintiff provided a $10,000
retainer to AIBMR.
16. Defendant was the founder of and a member/owner of AIBMR Life Sciences, Inc.
17. Prior to the execution of the Independent Contractor Agreement with AIBMR,
Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiations in the fall of 2008 for Defendant to assume the title
and position of Chief Scientific Officer for Plaintiff, to commence March 1, 2009.
18. In addition to the above mentioned position in Plaintiff’s company, Plaintiff also
offered for Defendant to be an active voting member of Plaintiff’s Board of Directors and shares of
the company upon the signing of an employment agreement.
Case 2:09-cv-12566-SJM-MJH Document 1 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 3 of 8
-4- 4
19. On October 23, 2008, Defendant and Allie Mallad, President of Plaintiff, met in Las
Vegas where Defendant promised and committed to accepting the position with Plaintiff.
20. After numerous conversations to negotiate the terms of his employment, Mr.
Schauss traveled to Detroit to visit the Plaintiff’s headquarters and meet with Plaintiff’s
management team. In that meeting, Defendant addressed the management team and several
other future distributors in which he stated that he was joining Wow Green and “was thrilled to
be a part of the company”.
21. In the same visit to Detroit, Defendant participated in a series of professional
pictures which were taken of the Plaintiff’s newly assembled Management team which were
meant to be published in future press releases for the company.
22. Further, in the same visit, Defendant attended a gathering of approximately 30-40
future distributors of Plaintiff in which Defendant held himself out to be the future person in
charge of Plaintiff’s Scientific program.
23. Specific terms of an employment agreement were negotiated for months between
Plaintiff and Defendant resulting in a final version sometime in December of 2008.
24. On December 31, 2008, in a conference call, Mr. Schauss solidified his
commitment that he is accepting the position of Chief Scientific Officer at Plaintiff, including all
the terms of the employment agreement and declared that he is “fully on Board” with only the
precise date to be determined.
25. On January 19, 2009, without explanation, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he
will not be joining Plaintiff.
Case 2:09-cv-12566-SJM-MJH Document 1 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 4 of 8
-5- 5
26. In addition, AIBMR terminated its contract with Plaintiff without performing any
of the contracted for testing and returned the $10,000 retainer.
27. As a result of Defendant’s repeated promises and assurances which Plaintiff
detrimentally relied upon, Plaintiff’s products were not tested prior to launch and another Chief
Scientific Officer could not be hired prior to the products launch.
28. As a result of the Defendant’s actions, promises and false assertions of material
facts, the Plaintiff’s products were not tested prior to launch resulting in damages to Plaintiff’s
reputation and business as well as lost profits and revenue.
COUNT I-PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by referenced paragraphs 1 through 28 as set forth
above.
30. On numerous occasions, as described in this complaint, including on October 23,
2008, December 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, Defendant promised and committed to
Plaintiff that he would be joining Plaintiff as Chief Scientific Officer with the duties of testing all
of Plaintiff’s products for safety, efficacy and toxicity.
31. To further induce Plaintiff into believing he would join Plaintiff, Defendant
engaged in protracted negotiations and actively participated in the drafting of an employment
agreement, the execution of which Defendant repeatedly delayed.
32. As a result of Defendants promises and actions, Defendant should have
reasonably expected to induce Plaintiff to forbear in the hiring of another Chief Scientific Officer
before it launched its products as well as to forebear from having its products tested before the
product launch.
Case 2:09-cv-12566-SJM-MJH Document 1 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 5 of 8
-6- 6
33. Plaintiff’s were in fact induced to forebear in hiring of another Chief Scientific
Office and induced to forebear in having its products tested prior to the products launch.
34. Defendant failed to honor his promise causing an injustice to Plaintiff.
35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false promises, as described
above, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $250,000, including damages to its
reputation, business and lost profits, plus interest, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as of the
date of this Complaint, and any further relief the interests of justice and equity require.
COUNT II - FRAUD
36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by referenced paragraphs 1 through 35 as set forth
above.
37. Defendant made false and misleading representations of material fact to Plaintiff
regarding his desire, promise and assurances that he would join Plaintiff as the Chief Scientific
Officer and perform testing on Plaintiff’s products prior to their launch on February 15, 2008.
38. Defendant made the false and misleading promises to Plaintiff regarding his
intention to work for Plaintiff while he was negotiating employment with Monavie, and
intentionally misled and made false statements to Plaintiff in order to secure a more lucrative
employment offer from Monavie.
39. Defendant’s representations to Plaintiff that he promised to join Plaintiff were
false, fraudulent and misleading.
40. The false representations made by Defendant to Plaintiff concerning his promise
to work for Defendant and test Defendant’s products before their launch were material and
Case 2:09-cv-12566-SJM-MJH Document 1 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 6 of 8
-7- 7
central to Plaintiff’s decision to not seek others for the position or have the products tested by
others before their launch.
41. Defendant intended that Plaintiff would be induced and act upon his false
representations and that Plaintiff would be induced to forebear in hiring someone else for the
position or have its products tested before the launch.
42. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied upon the representations made by
Defendant to it.
43. Plaintiff, to whom Defendant’s representations were made, was ignorant as to the
falsity of the representations regarding Defendant’s promises to accept employment with
Plaintiff and Defendant’s promises to test the products and justifiably relied on these
representations and would have hired someone else and had the products tested prior to the
launch but for the lies and fraudulent conduct of Defendant.
44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s fraud, as described above,
Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $500,000, including damages to its
reputation, business and lost profits, plus interest, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as of the
date of this Complaint, and any further relief the interests of justice and equity require.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court enter a judgment against
Defendant in the amount consistent with the damages sustained, plus costs and attorney fees
wrongfully incurred to bring this action, in addition to any other damages as provided by the
applicable law.
Case 2:09-cv-12566-SJM-MJH Document 1 Filed 06/30/2009 Page 7 of 8
