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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Alessandro G. Assanti, Esq. (SBN 181368) A.G. ASSANTI & ASSOCIATE, P.C. 9841 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 100 Irvine, CA. 92618 v: 949-540-0439; f: 949-540-0458 email: aassanti@assantilaw.com email: litigation@assantilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Chad Ullery and Belmont Business Solutions, LLC SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER BELMONT ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC., a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, and CHAD ULLERY, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. BRIAN T. HALL, an individual; DEFENDERS NORTHWEST, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; MICHELE A. HAL L aka MICHELE HALL, an individual; AUTOHOME USA, INC., a Nevada Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: _______________________________ COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; 2. NEGLIGENCE; 3. FRAUD; 4. CONVERSION; 5. FRAUDULENT TRANSFER; 6. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER; 7. QUIET TITLE; 8. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 9. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 10. ACCOUNTING; AND 11. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST. 001 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 09/16/2022 09:23:33 AM. 30-2022-01281344-CU-BC-CJC - ROA # 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By A. Gill, Deputy Clerk. 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff, CHAD ULLERY, (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “ULLERY”) is an individual residing in the county of Orange, State of California. 2. Plaintiff, BELMONT ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC., (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “BELMONT”) is a Wyoming limited liability company in good standing and qualified to conduct business in the State of California, with its principal offices located in, County of Orange, State of California. 3. At all times, ULLERY and BELMONT are collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs.” 4. At the time of the subject incident (hereinafter described below), which gave rise to this complaint, any and all the acts committed upon Plaintiffs occurred within the city of Irvine, County of Orange, California. 5. The Defendant, BRIAN T. HALL aka BRIAN HALL, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Brian Hall”) is an individual residing in the city of Gig Harbor, in the State of Washington at 14716 48 th Avenue NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98332, and has been previously a resident of Laguna Niguel, County of Orange, California. Defendant Brian Hall jointly with other Defendants committed the acts against Plaintiffs as herein complained of. 6. Plaintiffs based on information and belief herein allege that the Defendant MICHELE HALL aka MICHELE ANN HALL aka Michele A. Hall, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Michele Hall”) is an individual and a resident of the State of Washington, and is believed to reside at 3723 42 nd Street Court, Unit B, Gig Harbor, WA 98335. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this complaint when Plaintiffs further ascertain the city, state and county of Defendant Michele Hall’s actual residence. 7. Defendant, Defenders Northwest, LLC (hereinafter “Defenders Northwest”) is believed to be a validly formed Washington Limited Liability Company and is alleged to have committed each and all of the acts as herein complained at all times within the County of 002 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Orange, State of California. Defenders Northwest was organized by Shawn K. Harju, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Washington; Shawn K. Harju has claimed to be “partners” with Defendants and purports to operate a yoga studio called Three Trees Yoga, LLC and a consulting business called Chrysalis Solutions PLLC. Plaintiffs further allege on information and belief that Harju is a principal at Defenders Northwest. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint to name Harju as a defendant in the event that it is found that she acted on behalf of Defenders Northwest to defraud the Plaintiffs in the manner as herein alleged. 8. Defendant, Autohome USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Autohome”) is alleged to be a Nevada Corporation doing business from the same physical location in Gig Harbor, Washington as the other Defendants, and is alleged to have committed each and all of the acts as herein complained within the State of California, County of Orange. 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 to 25 hereinafter also referred to as the “Fictitiously Named Defendants”, are currently unknown to Plaintiffs who, therefore, sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege, that each of the Fictitiously Named Defendants are responsible to Plaintiffs in some manner for the acts, omissions, or other conduct as hereinafter alleged, or each such defendant is a necessary party for the relief sought herein and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court; and further the Fictitiously Named Defendants are being sued in both their individual and official capacity. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege each of their true names and capacities when same have been ascertained. 10. Each reference to “Defendant” or “Defendants”, herein is intended to be a reference to all Defendants named herein, unless otherwise expressly indicated or the context otherwise requires. 003 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege, that at all times herein relevant, each of the Defendant was and is the principal, agent, representative, supervisor, employee, servant, alter ego, partner, shareholder, director, officer, joint venturer, parent corporation, subsidiary corporation, co-conspirator, licensor, licensee, inviter, invitee, predecessor-in-interest, successor-in-interest, assignor and/or assignee (hereinafter referred to as an “Interrelationship”), as may be applicable, of each the other Defendants, and, in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was (a) acting in concert with all of the other Defendants; (b) under the direction, instruction, demand, requirement, and/or control of some or all of the other Defendants; (c) in furtherance of a common plan, scheme, enterprise and/or control of some or all of the other Defendants; (d) in furtherance of a common plan, scheme, enterprise and/or conspiracy with some or all of the Defendants; and/or (e) with the knowledge, consent, acquiescence, and/or prior or subsequent ratification of some or all of the other Defendants. 12. Plaintiffs further allege that each of said Defendants proximately caused the injuries and damages by reason of negligent, careless, deliberately indifferent, intentional, willful or wanton misconduct, including the negligent, careless, deliberately indifferent, intentional, willful or wanton misconduct in creating and otherwise causing the incidents, conditions and circumstances hereinafter set forth, or by reason of the direct or imputed negligence or vicarious fault or breach of duty arising out of the matters herein alleged. 13. Plaintiffs herein allege on information and belief that Defendants entered into a written agreement with Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ representatives to restore a 1984 Land Rover Defender vehicle occasionally referred to by its model reference as “Defender 130” (hereinafter the “Vehicle”), which, upon execution of said agreement, was promptly delivered to Defendants’ restoration shop in Gig Harbor, Washington, in February 2015. A true and correct copy of the subject Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as “ Exhibit 1 ”. As part of the Agreement, the parties have agreed that in the event 004 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES that a dispute arises out of the Agreement, that the dispute shall be resolved in the State of California, County of Orange. 14. Defendants claim through their website (www.defendersnorthwest.com) and through various social media and chat room posts (i.e. Instagram, LinkedIn, etc.) that they operate a Land Rover parts sales and restoration business, and source and broker mostly vintage Land Rover parts and accessories in U.S. and worldwide. Specifically, Defendants allege that Defenders Northwest is a restoration parts supplier “for the ever-growing community of Defender owners and enthusiasts in the USA.” They further claim that in Gig Harbor, Washington they “import and stock a full selection of parts, supplies, and tools to support the restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of the Defender platform. From simple service parts like oil-filters, to full restoration foundation items like replacement chassis...,” Defendants claim that they stock only parts for the Defender 90, 110, and 130,” and accessories such as roof racks and safari-type tools, including safari sleeping tents/systems under the brand Autohome USA. Defendants claim that they perform limited repair and fabrication projects in-house as production schedules permit, specializing in 300Tdi powered Defender 110 frame-off restorations for expedition, recreation, or daily-use. The Plaintiffs allege that recently the majority of the Defendants’ business is predicated on illegal modifications to bypass import restrictions and filing of fraudulent insurance claims and police reports. Plaintiffs fell victims relying on Defendants’ pitch to restore the Vehicle in a few months and the curated social media campaign designed to lure in new “clients” that Defendants aim to defraud. 15. Plaintiffs further allege on information and belief that Defendants never intended to complete the restoration project of the Vehicle. Rather, Defendants and each of them acting in coordination and unison intended to defraud Plaintiffs. To that end, Defendants from approximately February 2015 through 2018 electronically (via email) sent Plaintiffs fraudulent invoices for auto parts to be installed and for labor and miscellaneous expenses 005 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (i.e., import duties, shipping, freight, etc.). Unfortunately, Defendants never acquired the invoiced parts and did not perform any material work on the Vehicle as they represented to the Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendants striped and sold the existing parts and then decided to hold the vehicle hostage unless additional unsubstantiated payments would be made. 16. Defendant Brian Hall began to come up with numerous made-up arguments and outrageous lies to explain delays in completion to perpetuate the fraudulent scheme. These fake excuses included two staged incidents of burglary and vandalism. In both instances Defendants filed false police reports and fraudulent insurance claims to defraud their insurance company and create additional delays – pushing back the inevitable truth that they shamelessly defrauded Plaintiffs. Additionally, Defendants alleged that COVID-19 and scarcity of parts created prolonged delays. Finally, Defendants fabricated mystery mechanical bugs that were challenging to diagnose and fix in order to create further delays. In all, the “restoration project” which was started in or about February 2015 and was supposed to be completed in a few months or earlier, has taken almost 8 years. And presently Defendants claim that the Vehicle “is not roadworthy”, as they stated in the general release, they demanded that Plaintiffs sign before Defendants release the Vehicle. A true and correct copy of the release is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as “ Exhibit 2 ”. 17. This demand was made suddenly and “last minute” just days before the Vehicle was to be released to Plaintiff on August 8, 2022, as was proposed by Defendants themselves and agreed to by Plaintiffs. 18. It was recently discovered that Defendant Brian Hall filed for personal bankruptcy (Chapter 7) in February 19, 2016 (which was discharged August 26, 2016); however, Defendant Brian Hall never notified Plaintiffs of his financial woes, and affirmed that he owed the restored Vehicle to Plaintiffs in numerous emails and communications, as per the terms of the Agreement. 006 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 19. In August 2022, Plaintiff unequivocally confirmed that there was no money owed on the Vehicle and during several years of communication with Plaintiffs and their representatives, Defendants never tendered any invoices for work, parts, storage, etc., and never questioned the title of the Vehicle or the authority of the Plaintiffs and their representatives to, inter alia, set up delivery, guide direction of restoration, and process payments. A true and correct copy of the emails/communication showing that the only topics discussed were delivery and mysterious mechanical issues is attached hereto and referenced hereinafter as “ Exhibit 3 ”. 20. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that in total, Plaintiffs have paid in excess of $140,000.00 (One Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars) for the restoration (parts, miscellaneous expenses, and labor) of the Vehicle. 21. Presently Defendants have refused to release the Vehicle to Plaintiffs after admitting that there is no money owed, and that the Vehicle is still not in drivable condition due to an alleged “no-run” issue – one of numerous that would come up every time delivery was scheduled. Instead, after Plaintiffs challenged and questioned a last minute unreasonable condition for the release of the Vehicle that required Plaintiffs to sign a general release, which the Plaintiffs had not seen at the time the condition was imposed via an email from Defendant Michele Hall, Defendants refused to release the Vehicle and suddenly demanded ridiculous, illegal and baseless “storage fees”, and phantom interest, and additional bogus charges after admitting that no money was owed and committing to releasing the Vehicle on August 8, 2022. No invoices were ever tendered to Plaintiffs to reflect the made-up demand for payment made by Defendants who also fabricated another fake excuse for refusing to deliver the vehicle, claiming that they need proof that Plaintiffs have the title to the Vehicle. A true and correct (redacted) copy of the title is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as “ Exhibit 4 ”. 007 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 22. Many years of written electronic communication between Defendants and Plaintiffs and Plaintiff representatives (emails and texts) dispositively show that title to the Vehicle was never in dispute and that there was no money owed on the project. Moreover, when Defendant Brian Hall feigned scheduling delivery dates in the past (which were nothing more than calculated ruse – a delay tactics), neither title nor additional fees were ever requested. Suddenly, a day before the Defendants were to release the Vehicle to an auto transport company, did the Defendants come up with new reasons why they were not releasing the Vehicle. Defendants’ partner and part-time lawyer while copied on previous emails admitting that nothing was owed and there were no conditions to release the Vehicle on August 8, 2022, sent an email demanding storage payments, other payments and interest and threatened to sell the Vehicle; a copy of Harju’s threats is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as “ Exhibit 5 ”. Defendant Brian Hall and Defendant Michele Hall had not only taken almost 8 years to work on the Vehicle, which they admit is not “in roadworthy condition” and has been in pieces taken apart as of the date that this complaint is filed, but the Defendants also breached the Agreement failing to complete the restoration project. 23. By way of background, Plaintiffs made numerous timely payments to Defendants; majority of the payments were made by credit cards and through PayPal. For example, on January 6, 2015 and January 22, 2015, Plaintiff paid 3 invoices for a total of $14,286.35. One was for Al Tokin, an alleged vendor used by Defendants. On January 29, 2015, Defendants requested additional payments for “steamship line wants another $6,280.00 for additional demurrage (they have indicated that demurrage keeps adding up even though the container left the terminal for exam they say the exam site is an extension of the terminal) before they will deliver the container to you.” 24. The Vehicle was delivered to Defendants February 2, 2015. On March 27, 2015, after Parties executed the Agreement, Defendant Brian Hall emailed Plaintiff representative, 008 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Aaron Cuha explaining that he wanted to sell some of the older stock parts of the Vehicle to offset some of the expenses of the restoration project as follows: Q . What would the cost be [in] total, it is still vague? So, price FOB in WA and with everything swapped. (We realize there can always be extras etc.... but need the final base figure) A . The estimate will vary depending on the cost of the donor (configuration, condition, location) and the scope of work to configure and assemble - fortunately better condition donor parts mean less labor costs For budgeting you should consider the following rough numbers...” $30K to $45K for the donor DDP to our shop (TDI - TDCI) $9K to $18K in labor $12K to $22K in parts - $5K transmission conversion - $5K suspension/upgrades End product is an original paint (no respray) mechanically complete functioning vehicle configured as externally appearing 2007+ TDCI styled Defender 130 HiCap DC Q . What exactly do you think you can get for the current parts and axels... A . Roughly $30K, Both Axles are $1k together. Front axle is likely worth more parted out as it is sided (RHD), discs/calipers have rust, stubs & balls are pitted, without arms - ~$350+/- Rear is standard D90 - better condition and has late type disc brakes, no rear pivot or arms - $650+/- 009 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 130 Body Parts - $13K-$17K as it sits - possible to pick some parts first (bulkhead/doors) and replace with non-puma spec from donor and still pull the same amount (have current customer with $15k offer) 110DC - body parts/motors; without a VIN the truck can be parted out for $6k-$12K $1K for chassis from donor $1K to $4K from donor parts not needed/used (factory suspension, wheels/tires, etc...) 25. In an email between Plaintiffs and Defendant dated September 30, 2015, Defendant Brian Hall discusses recommendations with Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s representatives regarding optimal registration for the Vehicle, clearly acknowledging that attorney Yuri Vanetik (and Defendant officer) and Aaron Cuha represent Plaintiff in all respects related to the Vehicle. 26. Subsequently, Plaintiffs represented by Yuri Vanetik who also facilitated invoice payments and communication with Defendant Brian Hall and Defendant Michele Hall, made a series of timely payments, prepaying all alleged labor and parts purchases, and miscellaneous expenses. Ultimately, Plaintiffs learned and based on information and belief allege that Defendants never purchased the parts for which invoices were tendered and never performed invoiced labor on the Vehicle. 27. Instead, Defendants, acting in coordination from the beginning orchestrated a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs by diverting the funds they received for the vehicle restoration project to pay for their lifestyle and to poach and ultimately steal the Vehicle, defraud their insurance carrier by filing false claims, and defraud the local law enforcement by filing false police 010 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES reports. On April 24, 2015, Defendant Brian Hall sent an email to Plaintiffs stating the following: a. $6653 Custom fabricated ZF conversion kit from Ashcroft for 300tdi into TDCI cabin including console/linkage, etc. b. $4410 300Tdi with performance ported head (minimum needed to push the auto transmission). c. $1500 Turbo, intake plenum, missing/replaced ancillaries from engine delivered. d. $1543 Front & Rear Defender 130 Propshafts (130 rear propshaft is an expensive item from LR). e. $1805 LT230 Transfer Box - rebuilt no core charge. f. Additional parts needed but ones we stock on a regular basis. g. $945 Adwest LHD 4-bolt Power steering box. h. ~$4k Suspension (shocks, springs, spring seats, bushing set, trailing arms, rear A-arm). i. ~$4k misc. large parts (exhaust system, fuel tank, hardware, steering arm & linkage, engine & rear wiring harness, etc.). j. Defendant Brian Hall claimed in the same email that they have a container ready to ship. 28. Based on information and belief Plaintiffs allege that this was another ruse to induce payment. On September 2 nd Defendants received a $2,000.00 deposit as part of the fraudulent “labor retainer.” Aaron Cuha, Yuri Vanetik (representing the Plaintiffs) and all the Defendants except for Shawn Harju and her consulting company were copied on most of the paid invoices. 29. In an email dated September 1, 2015, Defendant Brian Hall wrote to Mr. Vanetik and Mr. Cuha that he has “laid the keel”, explaining that he has set the frame in 011 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES place is preparing to put axles under it “next week”. This email as well as most of the others sent by Defendants was a complete fabrication – a scam. 30. On August 7, 2015, Defendant Brian Hall acknowledged additional payment for $5,000.00 and $6,453.00 and confirmed that Defendants “received payment for the engine”. Subsequent emails confirmed that all invoices had been paid as follows: a. Engine - invoice # 0000008688, b. Transfer box - invoice# 0000008689, c. Front Axle - invoice# 0000008718, d. Suspension - Invoice# 0000008719, Turbo + manifold- invoice# 0000008720, e. IP + ancillaries, invoice# 0000008721, f. Driveline - invoice# 0000008722, g. Electrical Harnesses - invoice# 0000008722, h. Chassis - 0000008449, i. Transmission – 0000008688, j. Rear Axle housing- 0000000000, k. Wheels/Tires , and l. Dash + cluster. 31. In February 20, 2015, after executing the Agreement, Plaintiffs were invoiced for $45,988.46, which represented estimated the total cost of the restoration project of the Vehicle. However, as of the date of this complaint, Plaintiffs have paid Defendants in (estimated) excess of $140,000.00. After numerous delays based on outrageous lies that were meticulously forged into fake excuses, the fraudsters refused to release the Vehicle, attempting to extort more money from Plaintiffs – after admitting in writing that there is no 012 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES money owed and agreeing to release the Vehicle to a vehicle transport currier on the morning of August 8, 2022 without any conditions, but admittedly in a non-operational state. 32. Not only did the Defendants demand money on Sunday the day before Monday 8, 2022, the day that pick up of the Vehicle was scheduled, but they also demanded that Plaintiffs sign a general release. It was a last minute introduced condition to releasing the Vehicle, and it was never sent by Shawn Harju or Defendants for Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel to even read before the scheduled release date. When Plaintiffs protested that it appeared unreasonable to demand a general release, Shawn Harju sent a threatening email, incredulously claiming, inter alia, that there was money owed for labor/parts and for storage, and that Defendants would not release the Vehicle until and unless Plaintiffs prove that they are the title holders because of made up “confusion” about ownership. In fact, empirical evidence shows that there was no money owed and there was no confusion or dispute about title. Only after refusing to release the Vehicle and making threats and demands predicated on truly absurd allegations (which Harju incredulously dismissed as her way of “Advocating” for the Defendants) – only then – did Miss Harju sent a proposed general release, which opaquely described the Vehicle as “ NOT road worthy” and demanded a payment of $20,000.00 as ransom for its release. This was an effort to deliver a stripped chassis and some salvage parts that Defendants stripped but have not been able to sell. The madness of Defendants’ claims and demands clearly showed their desperation and exposed their scheme to defraud Plaintiffs. Sadly projecting their sociopathy, Defendants misinterpreted Plaintiffs kindness, patience and generosity for weakness and stupidity. 33. In fact, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and beliefs allege that Defendants never purchased or installed an engine in the Vehicle or any other parts. On July 23, 2015, Defendants sent another set of fraudulent invoices and 013 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES summarized them. These included payments for the engine, transfer box, front axle, suspension, turbo and manifold, IP and ancillaries, driveline, electrical harnesses. Pending payments were for wheels and tires and the dash and cluster. In the same email, Defendant Brian Hall acknowledged that most of the parts had already been “funded” by the Plaintiffs and indicated that he will be back in Orange County again staying in Laguna Beach to suggest that Plaintiffs’ representatives meet him for coffee. Ultimately, Defendants have shamelessly schemed to defraud Plaintiffs and have perpetrated their fraudulent scheme for almost 8 years. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT BREACH OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT DATED February 2, 2015, AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE. 34. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 33 as though fully pled herein. 35. On or about February 2, 2015, Plaintiffs, as individuals and as a managing member and/or agents of Belmont, entered into a written agreement with Defendants on behalf of himself and as the managing member of Belmont (together with Aaron Cuha, who acted as Plaintiffs’ representative). The contract between parties titled as the Defender 130 Master Restoration Agreement (hereinafter the “Agreement”) memorialized in writing the core terms of the restoration project for the Vehicle. The subject agreement is incorporated fully herein and referred to as Exhibit 1. 36. Exhibit 1 is the Agreement to restore a 1984 Land Rover Defender vehicle between Defenders Northwest, LLC represented by its owners Brian Troy Hall and Michele Ann Hall, with Brian Hall singing the Agreement in his personal capacity and as the defendants in this 014 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES action and managing members of Defenders Northwest, LLC and Autohouse USA an entity that Plaintiffs believe is owned and operated by Defendants on one hand and Plaintiffs on the other. 37. The Agreement was executed in Orange County, California and the parties agreed to in the Agreement to resolve any and all disputes in Orange County, California. Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendants were to complete the restoration project with 2-5 months based on invoices and the Agreement; the invoices and estimate submitted with the Agreement estimated the total cost of the project to be under $60,000.00. 38. Defendants were to maintain insurance for the value of the vehicle as it was being worked on and stored and provide quarterly updates on the project. 39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege, that Defendants failed to perform any material obligations in the Agreement, and never intended to do so, but rather planned to defraud Plaintiffs and strip and fence the Vehicle. 40. Amongst other promises that were made by Defendants, and each of them, were that they would deliver the Vehicle completely restored and in a timely manner in Orange County, California as directed by Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel or representative(s). 41. Further, in the Agreement, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege, that Defendant Brian Hall and Defendant Michele Hall as further consideration for each of the promises, assurances, and consideration, and because of the delays in delivering the Vehicle personally guaranteed each and all of the obligations contained in Exhibit 1 or as further herein alleged in the event of breach. Moreover, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege, that Defendants operated and continue to operate Defenders Northwest, LLC as though it was their sole proprietorship, with 015 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES complete disregard for corporate form, comingling their own funds with the funds of Defenders Northwest, LLC and Autohome USA to where the corporate veil can be pierced, and Defendant Brian Hall and Defendant Michele Hall are liable for the debts and malfeasance of Defenders Northwest LLC. 42. Plaintiffs performed all promises, covenants, and representations of Exhibit 1 43. As of the date of this complaint, Defendants, and each of them, failed to perform on the promises as contained in Exhibit 1 and/or as herein alleged. 44. As a result of the Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount that is in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit to be proven at the time of trial. 45. As result of Defendants’ breach of terms of the agreements and the amendments thereto as herein identified, Plaintiffs have suffered extensive and severe damages in an amount of at least $300,000.00 or more to be proven at the time of trial. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint upon their complete discovery of damages caused by Defendants according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST BRIAN T. HALL, MICHELE A. HALL, DEFENDERS NORTHWEST, LLC, AUTOHOME USA, , AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE 46. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 45 as though fully pled herein. 47. On or about February 20 of 2015 and continuing until present time, Defendants, as herein alleged, promised Plaintiffs and further owed Plaintiffs a duty to conduct the restoration of the Vehicle in accordance with all California laws, including but not limited to maintaining proper 016 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES bond and Washington State DMV licensing so as to protect the Vehicle against burglars and vandals. 48. At the time of entering into the Agreement, on February 2, 2015, and each time Agreement was or modified by additional invoice and payment, Defendants, and each of them knew that the Vehicle was parked in an unsafe area when stored, and that they did not exercise timeliness or diligence in restoring the Vehicle, ignoring not only the Agreement, but also accepted industry standards of service, and diligence. 49. Defendants and each of them were also aware that at the time of entering into said Agreement that they were financially incapable of performing the restoration they were contracted to perform. In the same fashion they did not disclose their personal bankruptcy in 2016 or the multiple infractions Defendant Brian Hall was sanctioned for, which according to the Agreement gave the right to Plaintiffs to terminate any and all payments owed for the Vehicle, if any were owed. 50. Defendants and each of them had a duty to disclose these facts and that Defendants could not possibly perform the Agreement for restoration of the Vehicle because they lacked resources to operate; however, each and all of the Defendants failed to disclose this fact, despite it being known to them that they could not operate their business. 51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege, that Defendants were able to sell parts as brokers, but did not have the experience and expertise that they claimed they had to restore a vintage Land Rover. 017 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 52. As a result of this failure to disclose their financial condition Defendants persuaded Plaintiffs to enter into said Agreement, and wherein Defendants made no effort or attempt to restore the Vehicle. 53. Owners and operators of a business which sells, restores motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts had a duty to restore the Vehicle in a timely matter consistent with the Agreement and industry standards, especially since Defendants represented themselves as experts, specializing in restoring and selling Land Rover Defenders. 54. Defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to timely restore the Vehicle, secure proper insurance and licenses, fix electrical or related problems, and protect the vehicle from neglect, vandalism, and multiple burglaries. 55. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, as herein described, and their further failure to properly transfer said Vehicle to Plaintiffs, Defendants when requests were made, as alleged herein, have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs injury and damage in the form of exposure to business losses and costs therein. 56. Defendants and each of them breached this duty of care by not, restoring the vehicle, failing to make it roadworthy in almost 8 years, and refusing to transfer said Vehicle, which therein caused Plaintiffs damages in an amount that is in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court of at least $300,000.00 to be proven at the time of trial. 57. As a result of each and all of Defendants’ negligent, malicious and purposeful acts, they so failed to properly complete the restoration of the Vehicle and comply with industry standards of care. 018 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST DEFENDANTS BRIAN HALL, MICHELE HALL, AND DEFENDERS NORTHWEST, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE 58. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 57 as though fully pled herein. 59. On or about February 20, 2015 Defendants Brian Hall, Michele Hall, as principals of Defenders Northwest, LLC and Defenders Northwest LLC entered into the Agreement with Plaintiffs represented by Aaron Cuha and Yuri Vanetik, who were representing, advising and assisting Plaintiffs in planning a restoration project for the Vehicle (a 1984 Land Rover Defender) as herein alleged and specified in Exhibit 1 . More specifically, each and all Defendants made affirmative representations that they would timely and professionally restore the Vehicle within a period of approximately 3-5 months or sooner. It was during this time period that Plaintiffs believed that Defendants would purchase parts pursuant to the invoices for, inter alia, parts and labor that they would send to Aaron Cuha and subsequently to Yuri Vanetik, attorney and director of Belmont. Vanetik and Cuha would get the invoice paid, assuming that Defendants actually performed the tasks described in the invoices. 60. From the middle of 2015 through present day, Defendants claimed that the Vehicle was complete, but lacked miscellaneous parts that were “back ordered” from England and other countries where Defendants claimed they were sourcing the parts for the restoration project. The parts delays were predicated on COVID-19 delays and shutdown and 2 claimed incidents of burglary and vandalism. Then, Defendants claimed that there were delays because of phantom non-run issues that had plagued the Vehicle. There were delays after delay and excuses after excuses to the point that Defendants lost any possible credibility. This deterioration of 019 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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES credibility culminated in a grotesque farce when on the eve of the day that the Vehicle was scheduled to be picked up and delivered to Plaintiffs, Miss Harju sent off a bizarre demand letter claiming that various random and fake payments had to be made and threatening to lien and sell the Vehicle. Plaintiff represented by Mr. Vanetik, who is an attorney and Officer of Belmont, initially trusted and agreed to accommodate the Defendants because of their online reputation, which turned out to be carefully curated to enable the Defendants to perpetrate the fraud. Defendant Brian Hall and Defendant Michele Hall operating through Defenders Northwest indexed themselves in the Defender restoration community as Land Rover restoration experts. Initially, the excuses they were coming up with appeared on their face plausible, but multiple last-minute breakdowns, peculiar schedule delays, COVID-19 delays, repeated incidents of burglary and vandalism and Defendants’ shameless efforts to commit to any delivery date ultimately made it clear that the fraudsters were just buying time, and that the Vehicle was never restored. 61. Then, as time progressed, Defendants’ reasons for not committing to a delivery date became progressively more bizarre. Defendant Brian Hall would come up with new problems during the test drives of the Vehicle, even though all the parts were supposed to be legitimate Land Rover parts. Defendants, relying on Plaintiff’s good will and patience shamelessly continued to play games, finally coming up with two staged burglaries and vandalism incidents, sending Plaintiffs copies of police reports and pictures, and insurance claims. 62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege, that Defendants filed false claims with their insurance carrier and fabricating documents and facts to create further delays, and just like Ponzi Scheme operators, Defendants were desperately 020