Rand Suit

Case 4:16-cv-06105-KAW Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 27
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
Marc J Randazza, CA Bar No. 269535

D. Gill Sperlein, CA Bar No. 172887
Alex J. Shepard, CA Bar No. 295058
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
4035 S. El Capitan Way
Las Vegas, NV 89147
Telephone: 702-420-2001
Facsimile: 305-437-7662
ecf@randazza.com
Attorney for Plaintiff,
Consumer Opinion Corp, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
CONSUMER OPINION LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZCS, Inc., a California corporation;
HAIR SOLUTIONS, INC., a California
corporation;
ATLANTIC COAST MEDIA, LLC, a New
Jersey limited liability company;
ADN, LLC, an entity of unknown origin;
DAN NEWLIN, an individual;
REPDEFENSE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
a California corporation;
REPUTATIONDEFENDER, a Delaware
corporation;
MAJESTIC VACATIONS, LLC, an entity of
unknown origin;
BLUEGREEN CORPORATION, a Florida
corporation;
A&D INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a California
limited liability company;
AGORA FINANCIAL, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company;
COLLINS MATTOS, an individual;
JOHN RADONICH, an individual;
NICHOLAS MOREAN, an individual;
DEMOIN STROMAN III, an individual;
ANGELICA LEBRON, an individual;
TARRA MARTIN, an individual;
MARK W. LAPHAM, ESQ., an individual;
OWEN T. MASCOTT, ESQ., an individual;
and DOE CORPORATIONS,
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR:
1) UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, AND
FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICE
UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONS CODE
17200;
2) CIVIL CONSPIRACY; and
3) ABUSE OF PROCESS.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
-1COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1
1.
This case involves a creative solution to a common frustration for
many businesses, who do not like negative reviews that are published about them
on the Internet. However, removing consumer reviews from the Internet is a
difficult process given that they are protected by the First Amendment.
2.
Nevada Corporate Headquarters, has gone to great lengths to
attempt to suppress consumer reviews in the past. It has filed at least one SLAPP1
suit in Nevada seeking injunctive relief to censor those negative reviews. In that
case, Nevada Corporate Headquarters suffered a resounding loss when they
10
were hit with an anti-SLAPP order.
11
Corporate Headquarters, Inc. v. Opinion Corp., Justice Court, Las Vegas
12
Township, Case No. 13-A-003332 (Jan. 22, 2014), attached hereto as Exhibit 1.)
13
They also lost at summary judgment in a SLAPP-back suit. That action resulted in
14
a significant judgment for attorney fees and costs. (See Order, Opinion Corp. v.
15
Nevada Corporate Headquarters, Inc., Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark
16
County, Nevada, Case No. A-14-698267-C (December 11, 2014), attached hereto
17
as Exhibit 2.)
3.
18
(See Referees Findings of Fact, Nevada
Undaunted by these set-backs, Nevada Corporate Headquarters
19
has now conspired with other companies and individuals to create a scam
20
whereby they suppress negative reviews from the Internet, while evading any First
21
Amendment or due process considerations. This scam also allows them to avoid
22
the risk of another anti-SLAPP attorney fee award.
23
...
24
...
25
...
26
27
SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation and

refers to lawsuits designed specifically to quell speech.
1
-2COMPLAINT
4.
Several other businesses and professionals who have been the
subject of negative reviews online have also employed the same fraudulent
machinery as Nevada Corporate Headquarters, as a means of removing this
content while evading detection and liability.

5.
The scam is not all that complicated. Google will remove search
engine results from its well-known search engine if it is provided with a court order
determining that the information is indeed defamatory.

6.
However, when Nevada Corporate Headquarters sued consumer
review websites in the past, it was severely disappointed. (See Exhibits 1 & 2.)
10
Therefore, they needed to concoct a new censorship scam. So they used a
11
stooge plaintiff, ZCS Inc. ("ZCS"), to sue a stooge defendant, Collins Mattos
12
("Mattos").
7.
13
Defendant Doe Corporations, so called reputation management
14
companies, conceived and organized the scam as an alternative way to
15
remove negative posts in lieu of undergoing an adversarial proceeding. Several
16
other
17
management companies, which have used similar schemes to remove negative
18
consumer reviews about them.
19
businesses
8.
and
professionals
have
contacted
these
reputation
The other conspirators engaged attorneys Mark W. Lapham
20
("Lapham") and Owen T. Mascott (Mascott) to file sham lawsuits either by the
21
subjects of the negative reviews or by corporations that had no interest in the
22
allegedly defamatory statements, against a defendant who most certainly was
23
not the party that published the allegedly defamatory statements, and the parties
24
immediately stipulated to a judgment of injunctive relief, so the conspirators could
25
provide the order to Google and other search engines, thus achieving the goal
26
of deindexing all pages containing negative reviews.
27
-3COMPLAINT
9.
At first blush, Defendants scam appears rather brilliant but incredibly
unethical. Now that Plaintiff has uncovered and exposed Defendants unlawful
deeds, Consumer Opinion LLC respectfully requests that this Court discipline them
for those misdeeds.

PARTIES
5
6
7
8
10.
Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC is a Nevada limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Nevada.

11.
There
are
four
categories
of
Defendants
in
this
scheme:
(1) the entities that file and/or benefit from the suit (the Filing Defendants);
10
(2) the attorneys who knowingly and unethically file and prosecute these
11
fraudulent lawsuits (the Attorney Defendants); (3) the defendants in these
12
fake lawsuits who falsely claim to be the authors of allegedly defamatory
13
statements (the Stooge Defendants); and (4) the reputation management
14
companies that devised and carried out these schemes (the RMC
15
Defendants).
The Filing Defendants
16
17
12.
Defendant ZCS, Inc. is a California business organized under the laws
18
of the State of California. In its complaint against Collins Mattos, ZCS, Inc. claimed
19
to be a California company. Records obtained from the California Secretary of
20
State website indicate that ZCS, Inc.s business registration has been suspended
21
for failure to meet filing requirements of the California Franchise Tax Board.
22
ZCS, Inc. stood in place of Nevada Corporate Headquarters in the fake lawsuit
23
against Collins Mattos, most likely to avoid detection of the scheme.
24
13.
Defendant Hair Solutions is a California business organized under the
25
laws of California, and is the plaintiff in the fraudulent lawsuit against Defendant
26
John Radonich.
Hair Solutions stood in place of Defendant Atlantic Coast
27
-4COMPLAINT
Media, LLC in the fake lawsuit against Defendant John Radonich, most likely to
avoid detection of the scheme.
14.
Defendant Atlantic Coast Media, LLC is a New Jersey business and is
the owner of the registered trademark KERANIQUE and, on information and belief,
is the operator of the web site <keranique.com>, the actual subject of the review
at issue in the fake lawsuit against Defendant John Radonich.
15.
Defendant ADN, LLC is an entity of unknown origin that claims to be
located in California. In its complaint against Nicholas Morean, ADN asserts that
it is a California business, but the California Secretary of State web site does not
10
contain any record of ADN. ADN stood in place of Defendant Dan Newlin, most
11
likely to avoid detection of the scheme.
12
16.
Defendant Dan Newlin is an attorney residing and doing business in
13
Orlando, Florida, and is the beneficiary of the fake lawsuit against Defendant
14
Nicholas Morean.
15
17.
Defendant RepDefense Solutions, Inc. is a California business and the
16
plaintiff in the fake lawsuit against Defendant Demoin Stroman III. RepDefense
17
stood in place of Defendant ReputationDefender, LLC, the actual subject of the
18
review at issue in that case, most likely to avoid detection of the scheme.
19
18.
Defendant ReputationDefender is a Delaware business operating in
20
California, and is the entity benefited by the fake lawsuit against Demoin
21
Stroman III.
22
19.
Defendant Majestic Vacations, LLC is an entity of unknown origin and
23
is the plaintiff in the fake lawsuit against Defendant Angelica Lebron. In the
24
complaint against Angelica Lebron, Majestic Vacations claims to be a California
25
entity, but the California Secretary of State web site does not display any record
26
27
-5COMPLAINT
of such entity.2
Corporation, the actual subject of the review at issue in that case, most likely to
avoid detection of the scheme.

20.
Majestic Vacations stood in place of Defendant Bluegreen
Defendant Bluegreen Corporation is a Florida business and the owner
of Bluegreen Resorts, the subject of the review in question in the fake lawsuit
against Angelica Lebron.

21.
Defendant A&D International, LLC is a defunct California business
and is the plaintiff in the fake lawsuit against Defendant Tarra Martin. A&D stood
in the place of Defendant Agora Financial, LLC, the actual subject of the review
10
at issue in that case, most likely to avoid detection of the scheme.

22.
11
Defendant Agora Financial, LLC is a Maryland business and is the
12
actual subject of the review in question in the fake lawsuit against Defendant
13
Tarra Martin.
The Stooge Defendants
14
23.
15
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that
16
Defendant Collins Mattos is an individual who resides in Contra Costa County,
17
California.
24.
18
19
Defendant John Radonich is an individual who resides in Contra Costa County,
20
California.
25.
21
22
Defendant Nicholas Morean is an individual who resides in Contra Costa County,
23
California.
24
25
26
27
There is a record for a company called Majestic Vacations, Inc., but that is not
the subject of the review in the lawsuit and Plaintiff will not assume that Defendant
Majestic Vacations misspelled its own name.
2
-6COMPLAINT
26.
Defendant Demoin Stroman III is an individual who resides in Sacramento County,
California.
4
5
6
27.
Defendant Angelica Lebron is an individual who resides in California.

28.
Defendant Tarra Martin is an individual who resides in Alameda County,
California.
The Attorney Defendants
9
10
29.
Defendant Mark W. Lapham is an attorney licensed to practice in
11
California with the state bar number 146352.
12
practice in Danville, California.
13
30.
Defendant Owen T. Mascott, is an attorney licensed to practice in
14
California with the state bar number 134243.
15
practice in Palm Desert, California.
Mr. Mascott maintains a law
The RMC Defendants
16
17
Mr. Lapham maintains a law
31.
18
RMC Defendants are reputation management companies that orchestrated
19
these schemes of fake litigation to remove consumer reviews. Plaintiff is unaware
20
of the true identity of RMC Defendants and therefore currently identifies these
21
defendant using the fictitious name Doe Corporations until such time as Plaintiff
22
may discover the true names of the Defendants. Upon learning the identity of
23
Doe Corporations, Plaintiff shall seek leave to amend the Complaint in order to
24
name the Defendants using their true names.

JURISDICTION
25
26
27
32.
This Court has original jurisdiction over this action based on diversity
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, as Plaintiff is a resident of Las Vegas Nevada, and

-7COMPLAINT
Defendants, on information and belief, are citizens and residents of the States of
California, Florida, Delaware, Maryland, and/or New Jersey, and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.

VENUE
4
5
33.
Defendants ZCS, Inc., Hair Solutions, ADN LLC, Repdefense
Solutions, Inc., Majestic Vacations, LLC, A&D International, LLC, Collins Mattos,
John Radonich, Nicholas Morean, Demoin Stroman III, Angelica Lebron, Tarra
Martin, Mark W. Lapham, Esq., and Owen T. Mascott, Esq. are residents of the state
of California and Collins Mattos, John Radonich, Nicholas Morean, Angelica
10
Lebron, Tarra Martin, and Mark W. Lapham are residents of this jurisdiction.
11
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant Doe
12
Corporations are residents of the State of California. Defendants Atlantic Coast
13
Media LLC, Dan Newlin, Reputationdefender, Bluegreen Corporation, and Agora
14
Financial, LLC committed the acts complained of in this Complaint directed to
15
the State of California, specifically Contra Costa County. Accordingly, venue is
16
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1).

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
17
18
34.
This action arose in Contra Costa County in that the Defendants filed
19
the abusive complaints in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Accordingly,
20
pursuant to Local Rules of Court 3-2(c) and (d), the Clerk shall assign the action
21
to the San Francisco or Oakland division.

FACTS SUPPORTING CLAIMS
22
23
24
25
35.
Consumer Opinion LLC operates a website residing at the uniform
resource locator (URL) <pissedconsumer.com>.

36.
<pissedconsumer.com> is a consumer review website where
26
individuals can share information about their experiences with businesses
27
providing goods and services, thereby allowing consumers to make better

-8COMPLAINT
choices between competing products and giving consumers an empowering
and unbiased view of companies and products.
37.
The First Amendment and various state anti-SLAPP statutes protect
the right to publish opinions and true statements of fact. Therefore, aside from
improving their business standards, there is little a company can do to prevent
individuals from publishing negative opinions or true facts about them.
38.
Moreover, under 47 U.S.C. 230, providers of interactive computer
services like <pissedconsumer.com> cannot be held liable for defamatory
statements individuals post by and through their interactive services.
10
39.
Understanding the difficulties of removing reviews consisting of
11
negative opinions or statements of true fact, Defendants conspired to misuse
12
Californias legal system to hide the unflattering statements from the consuming
13
public by having popular search engines such as Google to deindex the
14
webpages containing the comments.
15
40.
RMC Defendants are reputation management companies that
16
offer services to help individuals rehabilitate their on-line image. The Filing
17
Defendants engaged RMC Defendants to achieve their goal of minimizing the
18
impact of negative reviews on pissedconsumer.com.
19
41.
RMC Defendants first identified individuals or entities willing to stand
20
in the place of the professionals or businesses that were the actual subject of
21
negative reviews on <pissedconsumer.com>. At this time Plaintiffs do not know if
22
the nominal plaintiffs in the fake lawsuits had pre-existing relationships with the
23
benefited parties of these lawsuits, or if they were simply engaged for the limited
24
purpose of serving as the sham plaintiffs in the fake lawsuits. The conspirators likely
25
understood that if the benefited parties brought the action in their own name, the
26
scam was more likely to be discovered.
27
-9COMPLAINT
42.
Next, RMC Defendants and Filing Defendants sought out someone
willing to take responsibility for posting one or more of the allegedly defamatory
comments. They found these individuals in the Stooge Defendants.
43.
It is unclear whether Stooge Defendants were actually responsible for
posting any of the allegedly defamatory statements at issue in any given fake
lawsuit. However, it is clear that they were not responsible for posting all of the
reviews on <pissedconsumer.com> and comments posted in response to the
reviews. Nonetheless, in each case the conspirators successfully used the scheme
to obtain an injunction ordering all of those reviews deindexed, which was
10
11
precisely their goal.

44.
It is also not clear what RMC Defendants and Filing Defendants
12
offered the Stooge Defendants to secure their cooperation in their scheme to
13
remove First Amendment protected reviews from pissedconsumer.com.
14
45.
Of course, the conspirators required a cooperating attorney willing
15
to file a bogus lawsuit on their behalf.
Accordingly, they invited attorneys
16
Mark W. Lapham, Esq. and Owen T. Mascott, Esq. to join the conspiracy.
17
They accepted.
18
46.
Like most review websites, the profitability of pissedconsumer.com is
19
directly tied to the amount of traffic the website receives. Also, like most websites,
20
individuals usually locate the website through the use of search engines such as
21
Google, Yahoo!, and Bing.
22
47.
Many consumers considering the purchase of goods or services will
23
search for information about a company prior to purchasing good or services by
24
entering the name of the provider into a search engine. By causing the pages to
25
be deindex, Defendants deprived consumers of information posted about the
26
businesses and professionals benefited by these fake lawsuits, and thereby
27
- 10 COMPLAINT
undermined the value of the <pissedconsumer.com> website to the consuming
public.
48.
Defendants actions
caused
further long term damage to
pissedconsumer.com by limiting the usefulness of the website to obtain
information about individuals and companies providing goods and services to the
consuming public.
The Mattos Case
7
49.
ZCS, Inc. filed a bogus complaint against Collins Mattos in California
Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Mattos had posted
10
defamatory statements about ZCS, Inc./Nevada Corporate Headquarters on a
11
consumer gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC.
12
(See Complaint in ZCS, Inc. v. Mattos, Case No. C16-00425 (hereinafter referred to
13
as the Mattos Case), attached hereto as Exhibit 3.)
14
50.
In reality, the statements at issue concerned only Nevada Corporate
15
Headquarters.
16
51.
Based on Nevada Corporate Headquarters unsuccessful attempts
17
to remove reviews from Plaintiffs website in the past, Defendants understood that
18
Plaintiff would resist requests to have the statements removed, especially
19
statements that had not been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead
20
of seeking removal of the statements, Nevada Corporate Headquarters
21
conspired with ZCS and Collins Mattos to file a sham lawsuit for the sole purpose
22
of entering a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction. According to the
23
scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of the stipulated judgment to
24
Google and other search engines demanding that they deindex all negative
25
reviews about Nevada Corporate Headquarters.
26
...
27
...
- 11 COMPLAINT
52.
Defendant Doe Corporation, operating as a reputation management company,
conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of ZCS, Collins Mattos, and
Mark W. Lapham to bring the plan to fruition.
53.
Defendant ZCS, Inc. is an inactive California Corporation. Plaintiffs
are aware of no business operations of the company, other than standing in the
place of Nevada Corporate Headquarters in the underlying litigation. Nevada
Corporate Headquarters provides consulting services to businesses, including
providing information and offering assistance with incorporating businesses.
10
54.
Since September 2010, four individuals have posted complaints
11
about Nevada Corporate Headquarters on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally,
12
twenty-nine comments have been posted in response to those four complaints.
13
The vast majority of the comments have been negative.
14
55.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at
15
the bequest of Defendant Doe Corporation and with the full cooperation of
16
Defendant Mattos, Mr. Lapham filed a complaint on behalf of ZCS, Inc. against
17
Collins Mattos for defamation. (See Exhibit 3.)
18
56.
In the underlying action the conspirators sought only injunctive relief.
19
Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Collins be prohibited
20
from creating statements about Plaintiff or its officers, managers, employees,
21
business partners, agents, servants, attorneys, representatives, products, goods or
22
services, which defame, disparage, or contain libelous statements about
23
Plaintiff, and that Mr. Collins be ordered to take all action, including but not
24
limited to, requesting removal from the internet search engines including Google,
25
Yahoo!, and Bing, of all defamatory, disparaging, libelous, and false statements
26
about Plaintiff that Defendant has posted on the Internet.
27
- 12 COMPLAINT
57.
Curiously, the prayer for relief did not request an order directing
Mr. Collins, to take all action to remove or request removal of the statements from
<pissedconsumer.com>. The conspirators did not want to bring the scheme to
the attention of anyone who would shine light on their unlawful actions.
58.
Mr. Lapham filed the Complaint on March 2, 2016.
59.
The next day, March 3, 2016, Mr. Lapham filed a Stipulation for Final
Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court.
complete copy of that Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
60.
A true and
Having obtained a stipulated injunction from the Court, the
10
conspirators then approached various search engines including, on information
11
and belief, Google, Yahoo!, and Bing and requested that those search engines
12
deindex the pages of <pissedconsumer.com>. Instead of limiting the deindexing
13
to the pages that contained statements Mr. Collins claimed to have posted, the
14
request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Nevada Corporate
15
Headquarters.
16
61.
By engaging in this scheme, Defendant Conspirators obtained a
17
court order under false pretenses and used the court order to persuade popular
18
search engines to deindex every statement about Nevada Corporate
19
Headquarters, including the First Amendment protected statements of opinion
20
and true fact posted by other individuals who were not a party to the underlying
21
action.
The Radonich Case
22
23
62.
Hair Solutions filed a bogus complaint against John Radonich in
24
California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Radonich had
25
posted defamatory statements about Hair Solutions/Atlantic Coast Media LLC on
26
a consumer gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC.
27
- 13 COMPLAINT
(See case file in Hair Solutions, Inc. v. Radonich, Case No. C16-00011 (hereinafter
referred to as the Radonich Case), attached hereto as Exhibit 5.)
3
4
5
63.
In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Keranique, a web site
and trademark owned and operated by Atlantic Coast Media.

64.
Hair Solutions and Atlantic Coast Media understood that Plaintiff
would resist requests to have the statements removed, especially statements that
had not been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking
removal of the statements, Atlantic Coast Media conspired with Hair Solutions
and Radonich to file a sham lawsuit for the sole purpose of entering a stipulated
10
judgment and permanent injunction. According to the scheme, the conspirators
11
then delivered a copy of the stipulated judgment to Google and other search
12
engines demanding that they deindex all negative reviews about Atlantic Coast
13
Media.
14
65.
15
16
conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of Hair Solutions,
17
Radonich, and Owen T. Mascott to bring the plan to fruition.
18
66.
Since September 2010, 865 individuals have posted complaints
19
about Keranique on <pissedconsumer.com>. Additionally, numerous comments
20
have been posted by third parties in response to those complaints. The majority
21
of the comments have been negative.
22
67.
23
24
Defendant Radonich, Mr. Mascott filed a complaint on behalf of Hair Solutions
25
against Radonich for defamation. (See Exhibit 5.)
26
27
68.
Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Radonich be ordered to

- 14 COMPLAINT
take all action, including but not limited to, requesting removal from the Internet
search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing of all defamatory,
disparaging, libelous, and false statements about Plaintiff that Defendant has
posted on the Internet. (Exhibit 5.)
69.
Mr. Mascott filed the Complaint on January 7, 2016.
70.
Shortly thereafter, on January 13, 2016, Mr. Mascott filed a Stipulation
for Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court, containing
a jurat from Radonich dated January 9, 2016. (See Exhibit 5.)

71.
10
11
12
deindex the pages of <pissedconsumer.com.> Instead of limiting the deindexing
13
to the pages that contained statements Radonich claimed to have posted, the
14
request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Keranique.
72.
15
16
17
search engines to deindex every statement about Keranique, including the First
18
Amendment protected statements of opinion and true fact posted by other
19
individuals who were not a party to the underlying action.

The Morean Case
20
73.
21
ADN, LLC filed a bogus complaint against Nicholas Morean in
22
California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Morean had
23
posted defamatory statements about ADN/Attorney Dan Newlin3 on a consumer
24
gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC.
(See case file in
25
26
27
ADN appears to be a non-existent entity used solely for the purpose of initiating
the Morean Case. In fact, ADN appears to an initialism for Attorney Dan
Newlin, making the fraudulent purpose of Defendant ADN even more apparent.
3
- 15 COMPLAINT
ADN, LLC v. Morean, Case No. C16-00119 (hereinafter referred to as the Morean
Case), attached hereto as Exhibit 6.)
3
4
5
74.
In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Dan Newlin, an
attorney located in Orlando, Florida.

75.
ADN and Newlin understood that Plaintiff would resist requests to
have the statements removed, especially statements that had not been
adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking removal of the
statements, Newlin conspired with ADN and Morean to file a sham lawsuit for the
sole purpose of entering a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction.
10
According to the scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of the
11
stipulated judgment to Google and other search engines demanding that they
12
deindex all negative reviews about Newlin.
13
76.
14
15
conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of ADN, Morean, and
16
Owen T. Mascott to bring the plan to fruition.
17
77.
Since November 2014, 59 individuals have posted complaints about
18
Newlin on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, numerous comments have been
19
posted in response to those complaints.
20
78.
21
22
Defendant Morean, Mr. Mascott filed a complaint on behalf of ADN against
23
Morean for defamation. (See Exhibit 6.)
24
79.
25
Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Morean be ordered to
26
27

- 16 COMPLAINT
80.
Mr. Mascott filed the Complaint on February 2, 2016.
81.
Two days later, on February 4, 2016, Mr. Mascott filed a Stipulation for
5
6
Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court. (See Exhibit 6.)
82.
deindex the pages of pissedconsumer.com. Instead of limiting the deindexing to
10
the pages that contained statements Morean claimed to have posted, the
11
request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Newlin.
12
83.
13
14
search engines to deindex every statement about Newlin, including the First
15
16
individuals who were not a party to the underlying action

The Stroman Case
17
18
84.
RepDefense Solutions, Inc. filed a bogus complaint against Demoin
19
Stroman III in California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that
20
Stroman
21
ReputationDefender on a consumer gripe website operated by Plaintiff
22
Consumer Opinion LLC. (See case file in RepDefense Solutions, Inc. v. Stroman,
23
Case No. C16-00205 (hereinafter referred to as the Stroman Case), attached
24
hereto as Exhibit 7.)
25
85.
had
posted
defamatory
statements
about
RepDefense/
In reality, the statements at issue regarded only ReputationDefender,
26
a Delaware business operating in California that offers reputation management
27
services.
- 17 COMPLAINT
86.
RepDefense and Stroman understood that Plaintiff would resist
requests to have the statements removed, especially statements that had not
been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking removal of
the statements, ReputationDefender conspired with RepDefense and Stroman to
file a sham lawsuit for the sole purpose of entering a stipulated judgment and
permanent injunction. According to the scheme, the conspirators then delivered
a copy of the stipulated judgment to Google and other search engines
demanding that they deindex all negative reviews about ReputationDefender.
87.
10
11
conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of RepDefense, Stroman,
12
and Owen T. Mascott to bring the plan to fruition.
13
88.
Since March 2010, seven individuals have posted complaints about
14
ReputationDefender on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, 13 comments have
15
been posted in response to those complaints. The vast majority of these reviews
16
are negative.
17
89.
18
19
Defendant Stroman, Mr. Mascott filed a complaint on behalf of RepDefense
20
against Stroman for defamation. (See Exhibit 7.)
21
90.
22
23
24
25
26
27
91.
Mr. Mascott filed the Complaint on February 2, 2016.

- 18 COMPLAINT
92.
Two days later, on February 4, 2016, Mr. Mascott acquired a jurat from
Stroman admitting to all the allegations in the complaint, and received a Final
Judgment and Permanent Injunction on February 10, 2016. (See Exhibit 7.)
93.
the pages that contained statements Stroman claimed to have posted, the
request
10
11
to
deindex
included
all
web
pages
with
entries
about
ReputationDefender.
94.
12
13
search engines to deindex every statement about ReputationDefender, including
14
the First Amendment protected statements of opinion and true fact posted by
15
other individuals who were not a party to the underlying action

The Lebron Case
16
17
95.
Majestic Vacations, LLC filed a bogus complaint against Angelica
18
Lebron in California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Lebron
19
had posted defamatory statements about Majestic Vacations/Bluegreen
20
Corporation on a consumer gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer
21
Opinion LLC. (See case file in Majestic Vacations, LLC v. Angelica Lebron, Case
22
No. C16-00319 (hereinafter referred to as the Lebron Case), attached hereto as
23
Exhibit 8.)
24
96.
In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Bluegreen Resorts, a
25
name under which Defendant Bluegreen Corporation provides hospitality
26
services.
27
- 19 COMPLAINT
97.
Majestic Vacations and Bluegreen understood that Plaintiff would
resist requests to have the statements removed, especially statements that had
not been adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking removal
of the statements, Bluegreen conspired with Majestic Vacations to file a sham
lawsuit for the sole purpose of entering a stipulated judgment and permanent
injunction. According to the scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of
the stipulated judgment to Google and other search engines demanding that
they deindex all negative reviews about Bluegreen.
98.
10
11
conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of Majestic Vacations,
12
Lebron, and Mark W. Lapham to bring the plan to fruition.
13
99.
707 individuals have posted complaints about Bluegreen on
14
pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, numerous comments have been posted in
15
response to those complaints. The majority of these reviews are negative.
16
100.
17
18
Defendant Lebron, Mr. Lapham filed a complaint on behalf of Majestic Vacations
19
against Lebron for defamation. (See Exhibit 8.)
20
101.
21
Specifically, the complaint requested an injunction that Lebron be ordered to
22
23
24
25
26
102.
Mr. Lapham filed the Complaint on February 22, 2016.
27
- 20 COMPLAINT
1
2
3
103.
On March 2, 2016, Mr. Lapham filed a Stipulation for Final Judgment
and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court.

104.
the pages that contained statements Lebron claimed to have posted, the
request to deindex included all web pages with entries about Bluegreen.
105.
10
11
search engines to deindex every statement about Bluegreen, including the First
12
13

The Martin Case
14
15
106.
A&D International filed a bogus complaint against Tarra Martin in
16
California Superior Court for Contra Costa County, claiming that Martin had
17
posted defamatory statements about A&D/Agora Financial, LLC on a consumer
18
gripe website operated by Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC. (See case file in A&D
19
International v. Martin, Case No. C16-00353 (hereinafter referred to as the Martin
20
Case), attached hereto as Exhibit 9.)
21
22
23
107.
In reality, the statements at issue regarded only Agora Financial, a
financial services company in Maryland.

108.
A&D and Agora understood that Plaintiff would resist requests to
24
have the statements removed, especially statements that had not been
25
adjudicated to be defamatory. Therefore, instead of seeking removal of the
26
statements, Agora conspired with A&D and Martin to file a sham lawsuit for the
27
sole purpose of entering a stipulated judgment and permanent injunction.

- 21 COMPLAINT
According to the scheme, the conspirators then delivered a copy of the
stipulated judgment to Google and other search engines demanding that they
deindex all negative reviews about Agora.
109.
conceived of the plan and organized the cooperation of A&D, Martin, and Mark
W. Lapham to bring the plan to fruition.
110.
Since October 2010, 68 individuals have posted complaints about
Agora on pissedconsumer.com. Additionally, numerous comments have been
10
posted in response to those complaints. The vast majority of these reviews are
11
negative.
12
111.
13
14
Defendant Martin, Mr. Lapham filed a complaint on behalf of A&D against Martin
15
for defamation. (See Exhibit 9.)
16
112.
17
18
19
search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, of all defamatory,
20
21
22
113.
Lapham filed the Complaint on February 22, 2016.
23
114.
Three days later, on February 26, 2016, Mr. Mascott filed a Stipulation
24
for Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction with the Superior Court.
25
Exhibit 9.)
26
27
115.
(See

- 22 COMPLAINT
the pages that contained statements Martin claimed to have posted, the request
to deindex included all web pages with entries about Agora.

116.
search engines to deindex every statement about Agora, including the First
10
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practice under
California Business and Professions Code 17200
(Against All Defendants)
11
12
13
117.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the preceding
14
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein, in support of this
15
claim.
16
118.
The acts and conduct of Defendants, and each of them as alleged
17
above in this Complaint constitute unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business
18
acts or practices as defined by California Business and Professions Code 17200
19
et seq.
20
119.
Defendants acts of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent competition
21
have caused harm to competition, to consumers, to the competitors of the
22
business defendants, and to Plaintiff.
23
120.
24
have proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer injury in fact and loss of money and/or
25
property (including as a result of expenses that Plaintiff has and will incur in its
26
27
- 23 COMPLAINT
efforts to prevent and deter Defendants from engaging in unlawful conduct) in
an amount to be proven at trial.

121.
have also caused irreparable and incalculable injury to Plaintiff, its business, and
its good will, and unless enjoined, could cause further irreparable and
incalculable injury, whereby Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Abuse of Process
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
122.
Plaintiff
incorporates
by
reference
each
of
the
preceding
claim.
123.
Acting in concert, Defendants, and each of them, filed the Mattos
Case, the Radonich Case, the Morean Case, the Stroman Case, the Lebron Case,
and the Martin Case in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Contra Costa.
124.
Defendants did not file the above described actions for the purpose
of determining the liability of the Stooge Defendnats or assessing an amount of

damages.
Rather, the Defendants filed the complaints for the purpose of
obtaining a court order to serve on third party search engines such as Google in
order to persuade those search engines to deindex portions of Plaintiffs website.
Defendants filed the actions to avoid the adversarial process ordinarily involved
in litigation.
125.
As a result of Defendants unlawful acts, Plaintiff Consumer
Opinion LLC was damaged. Specifically, for a time when individuals searched for
information about the beneficiaries of the fake lawsuits, search engines no longer
produced any results indicating that consumers had posted information about
27
- 24 COMPLAINT
the beneficiaries on the pissedconsumer.com website. Those consumers did not
proceed to pissedconsumer.com and did not learn of the negative reviews.

126.
3
4
Defendants conduct as described herein was a substantial factor in
causing harm to Plaintiff.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

CIVIL CONSPIRACY
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
127. Plaintiff
incorporates
by
reference
each
of
the
preceding
claim.
128. Defendants, and each of them, conspired, confederated, and
colluded with the other defendants to engage in the above described scheme
which constitutes a fraudulent and unfair business practice and an abuse of legal
process to Defendants economic benefit and Plaintiffs economic harm.
129. Defendants, and each of them took affirmative steps to advance the
conspiracy by taking part in the fraudulent litigation designed to have complaints
deindexed.
130. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that
Defendants Doe Corporations conceived and organized the scheme to file
bogus legal actions in order to obtain an injunction designed to deceive search
engines and trick them into deindexing pages of pissedconsumer.com webpages
containing legitimate consumer reviews.
Defendants Doe Corporations
engaged in these actions with full knowledge that those actions and the actions
of its fellow conspirators would cause harm to Plaintiff.
131. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based there on alleges that
Defendants ZCS, Inc.; Hair Solutions, Inc.; ADN, LLC; Repdefense Solutions, Inc.;
Majestive Vacations, LLC; and A&D International, LLC, stood in the place of the
27
- 25 COMPLAINT
actual targets of the reviews in question in the fake lawsuits and the actual
beneficiaries of them. They did so for financial gain, knowing that they were
abusing the legal process. Filing Defendants engaged in these actions with full
knowledge that their actions and the actions of their fellow conspirators would
cause harm to Plaintiff.
132. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based there on alleges that
Stooge Defendants stood in the place of one or more individuals who actually
posted comments claimed to be defamatory in the underlying litigation. Stooge
Defendants participated in the plan and allowed the underlying action to be filed
10
even though they had already agreed to settle any claims against them. They
11
did so to advance their own pecuniary interests and with the full knowledge that
12
their actions and the actions of their fellow conspirators would cause harm to
13
Plaintiff.
14
133. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that
15
Defendant Mark W. Lapham filed the Mattos Case, the Lebron Case, and the
16
Martin Case, while Defendant Owen T. Mascott filed the Radonich Case, the
17
Morean Case, and the Stroman Case, knowing that these actions were shams,
18
that the real parties had already resolved any actual disputes, and that the
19
lawsuits were being filed solely for the purpose of obtaining court orders to deliver
20
to search engines in order to deceive them into deindexing legitimate consumer
21
reviews residing on pissedconsumer.com. They did so to advance their own
22
pecuniary interests and with the full knowledge that their actions and the actions
23
of their fellow conspirators would cause harm to Plaintiff.

134. Accordingly, all Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the
24
25
actions of their co-conspirators.
26
...
27
...
- 26 COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
2
3
demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4
5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the following relief:

1)
6
7
herein in an amount to be determined at trial;

2)
8
9
General damages based on Defendants conduct as alleged

Punitive damages based on Defendants willful, malicious,
intentional, and deliberate acts in an amount to be determined at trial;

3)
Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the rate allowed by
12
4)
Reasonable attorneys fees and expenses of litigation;
13
5)
Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing to
10
11
law;
14
engage in unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices and
15
abuse of process as described above in this Complaint; and
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
6)
All other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
Dated: October 21, 2016.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Marc J. Randazza
Marc J. Randazza
D. Gill Sperlein
Alex J. Shepard
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Consumer Opinion LLC
24
25
26
27
- 27 COMPLAINT

Rand Suit

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rand Suit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rand Suit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:16-cv-06105-KAW Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 27

Marc J Randazza, CA Bar No. 269535

Case 4:16-cv-06105-KAW Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 27

This case involves a creative solution to a common frustration for

on the Internet. However, removing consumer reviews from the Internet is a

Nevada Corporate Headquarters, has gone to great lengths to

case, Nevada Corporate Headquarters suffered a resounding loss when they

were hit with an anti-SLAPP order.

Corporate Headquarters, Inc. v. Opinion Corp., Justice Court, Las Vegas

(See Referees Findings of Fact, Nevada

Undaunted by these set-backs, Nevada Corporate Headquarters

the risk of another anti-SLAPP attorney fee award.

SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation and

Case 4:16-cv-06105-KAW Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 3 of 27

Several other businesses and professionals who have been the

machinery as Nevada Corporate Headquarters, as a means of removing this

content while evading detection and liability.

determining that the information is indeed defamatory.

However, when Nevada Corporate Headquarters sued consumer

Therefore, they needed to concoct a new censorship scam. So they used a

Defendant Doe Corporations, so called reputation management

companies, conceived and organized the scam as an alternative way to

remove negative posts in lieu of undergoing an adversarial proceeding. Several

management companies, which have used similar schemes to remove negative

consumer reviews about them.

The other conspirators engaged attorneys Mark W. Lapham

subjects of the negative reviews or by corporations that had no interest in the

allegedly defamatory statements, against a defendant who most certainly was

immediately stipulated to a judgment of injunctive relief, so the conspirators could

of deindexing all pages containing negative reviews.

Case 4:16-cv-06105-KAW Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 4 of 27

At first blush, Defendants scam appears rather brilliant but incredibly

for those misdeeds.

Plaintiff Consumer Opinion LLC is a Nevada limited liability company

with its principal place of business in Nevada.

fraudulent lawsuits (the Attorney Defendants); (3) the defendants in these

fake lawsuits who falsely claim to be the authors of allegedly defamatory

statements (the Stooge Defendants); and (4) the reputation management

Defendant ZCS, Inc. is a California business organized under the laws

to be a California company. Records obtained from the California Secretary of

against Collins Mattos, most likely to avoid detection of the scheme.

Defendant Hair Solutions is a California business organized under the

Hair Solutions stood in place of Defendant Atlantic Coast

Case 4:16-cv-06105-KAW Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 5 of 27

avoid detection of the scheme.

Defendant Atlantic Coast Media, LLC is a New Jersey business and is

at issue in the fake lawsuit against Defendant John Radonich.

Defendant ADN, LLC is an entity of unknown origin that claims to be

likely to avoid detection of the scheme.

Defendant Dan Newlin is an attorney residing and doing business in

Defendant RepDefense Solutions, Inc. is a California business and the

stood in place of Defendant ReputationDefender, LLC, the actual subject of the

Defendant ReputationDefender is a Delaware business operating in

Defendant Majestic Vacations, LLC is an entity of unknown origin and

complaint against Angelica Lebron, Majestic Vacations claims to be a California

Case 4:16-cv-06105-KAW Document 1 Filed 10/21/16 Page 6 of 27

avoid detection of the scheme.

Majestic Vacations stood in place of Defendant Bluegreen