Even More exciting news about Ellis.........
Superior Court of California
County of Orange
Central Justice Center
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA
General Information: 714-834-2200
Limited Civil: 714-834-3580
Unlimited Civil: 714-834-4735
CASE # 02CC18366
PLAINTIFF
Richard Dunham
vs.
DEFENDANTS (Corporate and Individuals)
Universal Broadband Communications (UBC), Norstar Communications, Mark Ellis, Gabrielle Ellis (A.K.A. Gabrielle Ruelas)
COMPLAINT FILED—According to the Complaint filed:
Richard Dunham served as Chief Financial Officer (3 years, 2000-2002) for defendants and allegedly obtained knowledge of improprieties concerning various Securities Exchange Commission violations as well as violations of California Corporations codes.
Allegedly, Dunham complained directly to Mark Ellis of the illegal conduct and Ellis failed to perform an appropriate investigation.
According to Dunham’s complaint, the level of fraud being perpetrated upon the public as it related to the sale and issuance of stock interest was so great that it caused Dunham great emotional distress at work and caused him to seek medical treatment in August 2002. It created so much emotional stress that Dunham called in sick to work, contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and interviewed with the FBI for one-and-a-half hours.
On August 13, 2002, Dunham informed Mark and Gabrielle Ellis that he had spoken to the FBI concerning the numerous SEC violations.
On August 14, 2002, at Mark Ellis’ request, Gabrielle emailed Dunham his employment termination notice. The reason for Dunham’s termination… his work performance was “not in the best interest of the company.”
As part of Dunham’s employment agreement, Dunham’s company RDA Financial Corp. received 100,000 shares of Norstar Communications common stock.
[To shows two sides to this, Google “Richard Dunham RDA Financial 2004.” What a gem.]
Also as part of Dunham’s Employment agreement, he received/was to receive stock disbursements of 60,000 shares UBC; 120,000 shares UBC; and 210,000 shares UBC. During his employment, the stock owned by Dunham split at various times and in various amounts. Dunham believed that he owned issued shares totaling 1,470,000.
Dunham alleges that Ellis’ corporations comprised to deny the existence of those issued shares and have inappropriately and unlawfully stricken record of stock issuances off the corporate books, records and minutes.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
UBC, Norstar Communications, Mark Ellis and Gabrielle Ellis breached the employment agreement by terminating Dunham without good cause, without proper investigation and without proper basis by failing to provide Dunham with any substantive reasoning, documentation or opportunity to respond regarding termination.
Allegedly, Dunham had also returned an investor’s money that had been wrongfully taken in accordance with SEC rules and regulations and under California Secretary of State Rules for Corporations. Specifically that a company is not allowed to take money from investors for reasons other than those represented to the investors.
Dunham alleged that he returned $125,000 to an investor while acting as Chief Financial Officer for Ellis.
Dunham alleged that Mark Ellis became irate because he gave that money back to investors because that money was needed by Ellis to keep the business running.
According to the complaint, the result of Dunham’s careful performance of his duties as CFO was that we was terminated and made into a scapegoat.
Dunham alleged that his motives were regulatory in nature and extraneous to the employment relationship.
Dunham alleged that he relied on Ellis’ representation on deciding on whether to become an employee of UBC/Norstar. On Ellis’ request, Dunham did become an employee of UBC/Norstar for over a three year time period.
Dunham alleged that he was unaware of Ellis’ misrepresentation and was unaware that the representation was false and had no reason at the time to believe otherwise.
As a result of Ellis’ alleged fraud, Dunham has been damaged in the amount for the courts to decide.
Dunham alleged that Ellis’ acts of fraud and omissions of material facts were done maliciously and willfully.
