Above the Law

Update as of 10-15-2018 -- The case has been dismissed by both parties.  As we have agreed to move forward, the dismissed case will remain confidential.

---

When I started my relationship with Victor Alfieri in 2010, he told me about all these different issues he had at that time. He was losing his California home, was getting very little work as an actor and had some debt. He showed me a court notice for a hearing to which he had to appear. It had to do with money that a credit card company was trying to collect from him.

He told me that he did not owe that money, that it was his ex-wife's debt, that she had maxed out their credit cards. I remember asking him what items had been purchased with the money owed. He pointed at his big screen tv, at the furniture. I smiled at him and said, "well, you have the items, why do you refuse to pay?" He was clearly angry and started saying that it was his ex who made the purchases, that he was not responsible. Although I believed that he should pay the balance owed, I offered to call the credit card company and/or collection agency to try to get to an agreement before the court appearance.

I did get him a $600-700 reduction. I even got them to agree to take monthly installments. I told Victor  the good news. He was not happy and said he would fight and ask the judge to order his ex-wife to pay for this debt. I asked Victor if he had gotten any other court notices. He said no.  "Everyone has the right to give their side of the story," I thought. However, I still believed he should have taken that offer.

I went to court with Victor. We were sitting in the last row of the small courtroom. He kept mocking people who were approaching the bench when their cases were called. I told him to be respectful because we were in a courtroom. Finally his case was called. He approached and stood in front of the judge.  I was surprised to hear the judge talking non-stop without giving Victor a chance to say one word. I heard the judge state that Victor had ignored all the court notices sent to him. The judge also said that Victor had been given the opportunity to respond and did not do so.

When Victor requested the opportunity to address the court, the judge loudly said, "you already had an opportunity before. Judgment in favor of plaintiff."

When we were walking out of the courthouse, Victor admitted to having received notices from the court and having ignored them, thinking they were not a big deal. I told him that when an issue is brought to civil court, it goes from the hands of the "private" parties and put in the hands of the court system.  Those notices were coming from the COURT, from a judge, I explained.

It is my opinion that Victor Alfieri believes he is above the law. He already used "the law" against me. His lawsuit contained slanderous claims about me. He used my own money to finance that lawsuit. He pocketed additional money from the budget. He finished the movie and has no intention of ever reimbursing me for my investment. And he still believes the "law" cannot touch him...  that I should "move on" and let him get away with what he did and continues doing.

I filed a complaint against him, his mother, Daniela Carloni and his two production companies on April 15th, 2014.  Alfieri was served on April 16th, 2014. See post "The Service"  for video. He has not filed an answer in court yet.  He has until May 16th to respond.

Because I have filed a "verified" complaint swearing under oath that all the statements contained in the submitted document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, he also has to respond in a similar manner. He has to admit or deny each allegation (paragraph) of my verified complaint. And he also has to do it under oath.  It will be interesting to see his responses. I wonder if he would blatantly lie and deny facts or even statements the he, himself, previously gave under oath during his deposition.

Please go to bottom of the page for the complete complaint filed in court ---

Laws are created to govern our actions and behavior. Laws dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong," what is allowed and not allowed.  These laws are meant to protect our rights and wellbeing. In theory, laws are a great way to maintain balance and fairness. However, it is evident that there are flaws in every country's judicial system - Justice does not necessarily prevail every time.

There is an inherent "legal system" that rules human existence. It is our conscience - that inner voice that tells us when our behavior and actions are "right" or "wrong." We are our own judge. We are the toughest, least forgiving judge we will ever find. We know when we have done something that goes against our principles, morals and values. We know when we are hiding a dark truth. We are also the only ones who can ultimately forgive ourselves. That self-forgiveness can only be achieved if the "wrong" has been acknowledged and somehow rectified either with a sincere apology or proper amends for our actions. Everything can be forgiven - EVERYTHING - as long as we can regain our inner balance and peace through honest, kind, compassionate and generous actions towards others and ourselves.

Please click below [read more] for complete complaint

Adriana Trevino
XXXXX

XXXXX
XXXXX

Plaintiff In Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

Adriana Trevino, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. Victor Alfieri, an individual; Daniela Carloni, an individual; Bondolini Productions, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Black Knight Entertainment, Inc., a California Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR: 1.  Fraud in the Inducement; False Promise 2.  Breach of Contract 3.  Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good      Faith and Fair Dealing 4.  Breach of Fiduciary Duty 5.  Constructive Fraud 6.  Conversion 7.  Accounting

Plaintiff, Adriana Trevino, alleges as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1.              This is the story of a seasoned Hollywood veteran using his fame, good looks, and charm to take advantage of a newcomer to Los Angeles. Said “newcomer” is Plaintiff Adriana Trevino (hereinafter referred to as “Trevino”), who had given practically everything she owned to defendants.  In exchange, Plaintiff was left with nothing but empty promises of eternal love and of becoming a production executive and filmmaker.

2.              Defendant Victor Alfieri’s (hereinafter referred to as “Alfieri”) arrogance, demeanor and manipulative ways became evident after the last wire-transfer for “Looking for Clarissa” was deposited into Alfieri’s Italian bank account. That was the last time Trevino heard Alfieri say, “I love you.” Up to this point, Trevino was witness to her first film almost ending in destruction. Alfieri not only became condescending, rude and entitled to Trevino, but showed the same behavior to many others in his directorial path, including talent and crew.

3.              The film “Looking for Clarissa” was shot in Italy in May 2011. Shortly after his return to the US, Alfieri took the remainder of Trevino’s investment, without her authorization and in breach of contract. Alfieri then disconnected his phone and disappeared for days.

4.              In September 2011, Alfieri filed an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court against Trevino, making false and slanderous allegations. Trevino learned that Alfieri, with the help of his mother Daniela Carnoli, had taken, retained, and concealed a considerable portion of the Italian budget. Trevino filed a cross-complaint. Alfieri dropped his lawsuit against Trevino in March 2012. After depositions and mediation, Trevino dropped her lawsuit without prejudice against Alfieri in August 2012. In January 2013, Trevino learned that the money that Alfieri took without her authorization and which was the main subject of the legal battle was the money he used to hire attorney Roger Muse to sue her. Trevino requested that amount to be returned to the budget and be paid by Alfieri.  Alfieri refused to do so. The movie was completed in October 2013. Alfieri refuses to keep Trevino informed of the sale and distribution process. It is Trevino’s belief that Alferi has no intention to return any of her investment or give Trevino any of the proceeds of the sale of their movie.

THE PARTIES

5.              Plaintiff, Adriana Trevino (“Trevino”), is an individual who resides in Minnesota. Trevino came to Los Angeles in 2009, and now splits her time between the two cities.

6.              Defendant Victor Alfieri (“Alfieri”) is an individual who is a former Los Angeles-based soap opera star, who acted in such productions as “Days of Our Lives” and “The Bold and the Beautiful.” 

7.              Defendant Daniela Carloni (“Carloni”) is an individual who works part-time as a film make-up artist, who resides in Calcata, Italy and who is Alfieri’s mother.

8.              Defendant Bondolini Productions, LLC (“Bondolini”) is a California limited liability company formed by Alfieri in July 2010 and Alfieri is the managing member of Bondolini.

9.              Defendant Black Knight Entertainment, Inc. (“Black Knight”) is a California company where Alfieri is the president and managing member.

10.           PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that each of the Defendants designated as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and legally caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiff as herein alleged.

11.           PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein concerned, Defendants designated herein as DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, were, and now are, citizens and residents of the State of California and/or were licensed to do business in the State of California.

12.           Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants and other Defendants named fictitiously, were the agents, servants, employees, joint-venturers, and copartners of their said co-Defendants and as such, were acting within the course and scope of such agency, service, partnership, venture and employment at all times herein mentioned; that each and every Defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection and hiring of each and every other Defendant, as its agent, servant, employee, joint-venturer and partner.

13.           PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and has therefore sued them by the foregoing names which are fictitious, and is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the said defendants is liable to the PLAINTIFF jointly and severally in this action, and PLAINTIFF asks that when their true names and capacities are discovered, this complaint may be amended by inserting their true names and capacities in lieu of said fictitious names, together with apt and proper words to charge them.

TREVINO AND ALFIERI MEET ONLINE

14.           Trevino arrived in Los Angeles in 2009 and was introduced to Alfieri over the internet by a mutual friend.  After “chatting” on-line and talking on the telephone during that summer, Alfieri invited Trevino to his home.  On September 4, 2009, Trevino went to Alfieri’s West Hollywood home, where they met in person for the first time and spent time together.

Trevino is Led to Believe that She and Alfieri are Involved in an intimate Relationship; After Repeated Requests and Promises of Love by Alfieri, Trevino Agrees to Invest Money to Make a Movie and Build a Production Company Together.

15.            Trevino and Alfieri had email and telephone interaction over the next few months and met again in person in June 2010. Alfieri had explained to Trevino that he was looking for “investors” in an independent film that he planned to make, and invited Trevino to invest $5,000.00.  Alfieri invited Trevino to his home to “talk about the script.”  However, when Trevino arrived, Alfieri was wearing only a towel wrapped around his waist naked underneath, with coconut oil all over him.  The two discussed the script for a few minutes, at which point Alfieri removed the towel and requested sex.

16.           From that day, Alfieri and Trevino had daily contact by telephone, text, email, or in person.  Alfieri and Trevino met regularly at Alfieri’s home, both to discuss Alfieri’s script and to establish their personal and intimate relationship.  The two consistently exchanged flirtatious texts and “instant messages.”  Alfieri regularly greeted Trevino as “baby,” with a kiss on the lips. 

17.           In July 2010, Alfieri convinced Trevino to make an initial investment of $25,000 in his movie “Arturo Bond”, in which Alfieri would portray a James Bond type character.  At Alfieri’s instruction, Trevino delivered the $25,000 check personally to Alfieri on July 19, 2010.

18.           By August 2010, Trevino developed even stronger feelings for Alfieri, and explained this to Alfieri in a letter that, among other things, suggests that they stop having sex in order to protect other aspects of their relationship.  Despite the letter, however, the sexual relationship continued, and Trevino actually perceived their emotional connection strengthening as well based on Alfieri’s continued romancing, affection and daily crooning over Trevino.

19.           In 2010, Alfieri and Trevino grew even closer, with Trevino, when in Los Angeles, at Alfieri’s home daily.  In September 2010, Alfieri convinced Trevino to make a second investment.  Based on Alfieri’s love for Trevino and Alfieri’s constant calling Trevino “my angel,” Trevino wrote a check in the amount of $35,000.

20.           Alfieri constantly instilled in Trevino the belief that they were starting to build a production company together.  Alfieri shared several scripts with Trevino—“Arturo Bond,” “Looking for Clara” (later changed to “Looking for Clarissa”), “Phoenix,” “The Dreamer,” “Colombo,” “Amerika,” and “El Diablo,” among others, in plans for their future production company.  On September 30, 2010, Alfieri sent a text to Trevino “. . . you will be attached to all my dreams and projects.” This was one of hundreds of emails and text messages.

21.           Alfieri stated that he had written all the scripts that he shared with Trevino. Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri had not written most of the scripts he shared with Trevino and that Alfieri had simply used them to convince Trevino that he had talent and there was a future for their production company.

Trevino sELLS Her Home and investS the Proceeds in their movie. 

Alfieri ExhibitS Inappropriate Behavior.

22.           In late 2010, Trevino loaned Alfieri $500 for his personal use. Alfieri promised to return the money immediately, yet has not done so to this date.

23.           Early in 2011, Alfieri stated to Trevino that he wanted to keep their relationship “private” from anyone involved in the production of their first movie. However, Alfieri openly stated to Trevino’s friends and family that they had an intimate relationship and implied that Trevino was his girlfriend.

24.           Alfieri became extremely bold in his requests. In February 2011, Alfieri told Trevino that he now needed $90,000 in order to produce the movie and said that Trevino was his “only hope”.  With his daily, sometimes hourly, texts, emails, calls -sometimes up to 10 times a day - crying, begging and pleading with Trevino to save him.  Trevino sold her condominium, and provided proceeds from the sale to Alfieri as a further investment with Alfieri’s assurance of immediate success and a return of all former investments.

25.           In March 2011, Alfieri’s attorney, Joshua Fine, presented Trevino with a “Production Financing Agreement,” attempting to memorialize the terms promised by Alfieri.  Trevino was not represented by independent counsel.

26.           The “Production Financing Agreement” was executed on March 20, 2011. The Agreement memorialized Trevino’s investment, giving Trevino Executive Producer credit on the movie and the right to “back-end” profit participation. Trevino was given all administrative rights, including the right to access Bondolini’s financial records and bank accounts, so she could monitor whether her money was being spent appropriately.

27.           Trevino also signed a “bookkeeper agreement” with Bondolini. Trevino invested over 300 hours performing duties under this agreement for which she has not yet received payment.

28.           After executing the Production Financing Agreement and the Bookkeeper Agreement, Trevino began to learn about Alfieri’s malicious fraud.  Trevino learned that she had become, in fact, the ONLY investor in this production.  There had been two other investors.  The first investor, R. Kennedy, withdrew her investment in February 2011, later claiming that Alfieri had initiated a sexual relationship with her, manipulated and “used” her to get her money.  The second investor, Sergio D’Amato, was a friend of Alfieri.  Mr. D’Amato withdrew his investment before Trevino signed the Production Financing Agreement.  Indeed, Alfieri convinced Trevino to ear-mark $14,000 of her investment payable immediately to Alfieri, so he could use the money to pay off personal debts and save his soon-to-be foreclosed California home.

29.           In March 2011, during the production’s first introductory meeting with Trevino and actors Clark J. Gable and Joel Moody, Alfieri pulled his pants down and, while hiding nothing and half-naked, gave Trevino and the two young actors a group hug while jumping up and down with excitement, his pants wrapped around his ankles. 

30.           During production meetings, Alfieri directed Trevino, Clark J. Gable and Joel Moody with degrading orders and comments. Alfieri would repeatedly mention that “part of the work you will have to do is suck my cock”.  This was said repeated on set and over dinners.

31.           During a meeting with Co-Director/Editor C. Kelley, Attorney Joshua Fine, Alfieri’s Manager Marco Cuadros, and Trevino, it was discussed whom to choose as the leading actress.  Alfieri repeatedly announced the top three actresses only in terms of whom Alfieri “would like to fuck,” because he’s the “director.”

32.           Nicole Sienna was selected as the leading actress. Alfieri constantly stated that Ms. Sienna should have sex with him as part of her role as the lead actress.  Alfieri made his affections for Ms. Sienna well known to most, if not all of, the production, crew, talent and representatives of talent when in the United States.

33.           Alfieri, evincing seemingly bisexual tendencies, would state obscene comments to male and female actors. Such as one stated to lead actor Joel Moody that, while shooting in Italy, he would be residing in Alfieri’s bed with Alfieri.  Alfieri and Moody had only known each other for a few weeks.

34.           In late March 2011, a confrontation occurred at Alfieri’s West Hollywood apartment.  Alfieri’s attorney, Joshua Fine, and Trevino met with Alfieri and expressed concern that his behavior was inappropriate, disrespectful, immoral, and unethical.  Further, Alfieri’s behavior could hold the group liable for sexual harassment claims.  At said meeting, Joshua Fine stated to Alfieri: “I’ve witnessed at least 50 incidents for which you, (Alfieri), could be sued.” Not only was there concern with Alfieri’s personal team, but representatives of talent engaged to work on film; as actors began to threaten lawsuits due to violations of California State Labor Laws. 

35.           Clark J. Gable’s manager, Roxane Davis, expressed numerous concerns on the way Alfieri was handling the actor and pre-production of the film. On April 30, 2011,in an email, Ms. Davis stated – “From a litigation standpoint I think we know in this indie world what boundaries are being crossed.  It is my job as a manager to protect my client from people like you... if you’re going to direct all your films like this then you should go back to acting and daytime soaps.”

Trevino Arrives to Learn that Alfieri’s Behavior Had Been Belligerent and Aggressive ON THE ITALIAN SET, Risking the Lives of Cast and Crew in Relation to Safety Precautions.

Alfieri’S Sexual HarassMENT OF Actors WAS Jeopardizing

the Success of the Production.

36.           Following her final investment and the execution of the Production Financing Agreement, Alfieri had Trevino become more involved in the production. Trevino was in charge of managing the production’s finances. In addition, Alfieri demanded that Trevino purchase wardrobe, props, and other equipment, and make all necessary travel arrangements for cast and crew to and from Calcata, Italy. Trevino was not paid for all the work performed.

37.           Based on Alfieri’s erratic and inappropriate behavior, Trevino opted not to deposit the rest of her investment into the Bondolini Account to prevent Alfieri’s access to it. She told Alfieri that she would wire the money from her personal account when the crew arrived in Italy.

38.           Alfieri flew to Rome, Italy on April 2, 2011. Trevino took him and his dog, Tarzan to the LAX airport. Alfieri hugged and kissed Trevino on the lips and said, “I will miss you, baby… I love you.”

39.           The cast and crew traveled to Italy in late April 2011.

40.           Alfieri would have daily contact with Trevino over emails and/or skype.  Alfieri would repeatedly tell Trevino that he was sure the movie would be a success and that he loved her. Trevino made a wire transfer on April 15, 2011in the amount of $70,000.

41.           Days later Alfieri then claimed that the budget had increased and needed an additional $10,000.  Trevino was reluctant to wire that money. Alfieri begged Trevino to make a second wire transfer while reminding her that they were in this journey together and that this was just the first of so many projects they would do together. Trevino made a second wire transfer on May 9, 2011 in the amount of $10,000.

42.           Anticipating Trevino’s arrival in Italy, Alfieri again asked Trevino to keep their relationship “secret.” However, Alfieri stated he had made arrangements for Trevino’s sleeping quarters to be located where Alfieri could easily sneak in during the night without being noticed.

43.           A week prior to going to Italy, Trevino received a desperate email from Alfieri complaining about Clark J. Gable being ill and refusing to leave his room.  Alfieri’s email stated:  “Clark’s going to eat the same shit tonight or tomorrow, I don’t like wasting food money, time and be a fucking babysitter for this asshole.” This was only one out of many incidents that created conflict between Clark J. Gable and Alfieri.

44.           Based on information and belief, when Trevino arrived on-set, she was witness to a number of the following illegal issues:

a.     Alfieri would constantly make sexual comments to actors (male and female). “Maybe if you suck my cock, you will improve your performance.” “You want me to come and hold you?” “You want me to come cuddle with you?” “The Director always sleeps with the lead actress. I’m the Director. I’m Victor Alfieri.  I was in Angels and Demons.”

b.     Alfieri would harass, sexually and belligerently, actors and crew while filming.  During one of the recorded takes of a scene Alfieri directed Joel Moody to touch Clark J. Gable’s penis. Yelling, Alfieri said, “Touch his cock!  Rub his ass!” Alfieri would call the scene takes using sexually charged language or degrading comments such as  1) “Desperately Looking for an Ass,” 2) “The Revenge of the Fucking Melons,” 3) “The Revenge of the Fuckers” 4) “The Revenge of the Dicks.”

c.     Actors began to fear for their safety and wellbeing.  Sienna, the film’s aspiring actress, begged Trevino to make Alfieri stop sexually harassing her, showing Trevino a multi-tier page-after-page record of Alfieri’s sexual advances and comments which, after Trevino investigated, were corroborated by many on-set.

d.     Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Joel Moody was terrified of Alfieri’s behavior. Joel Moody stated to Trevino that he believed Alfieri had gone insane and could kill him.

e.     Alfieri had alienated the production’s Data Manager, the Director of Photography, the Co-Director, the Editor and many other crew members.

f.      A production member made allegations to Alfieri about being sexually assaulted.  Alfieri, as Director of “Looking For Clarissa” ignored this allegation and refused to address it.  Instead he responded crudely: “at least you are getting some!”

g.     Crew members complained to Trevino that Alfieri’s behavior had made the working conditions so unbearable that they wanted to walk out.  On top of Trevino’s obligations, Trevino’s additional work, caused by Alfieri, included, but was not limited to, understanding the issues and becoming a confidante for those who had agreed to stay.  Crew members stated they were staying on because a walk–out would have jeopardized her investment.

h.     Prior to Trevino’s arrival on-set, Alfieri told the cast and crew that he was not and had never been romantically involved with Trevino, that Trevino was “obsessed” with him, and that he wanted to “get away from her.”

i.      Alfieri withheld full payment from members of the cast and crew, in breach of contracts.  Alfieri was not willing to pay the crew for overtime work they had performed. Trevino paid the crew for their overtime work, in cash, with her personal money – not money from the budget.

45.           Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri was abusive and put the lives of cast and crew in danger by engaging in the following acts:

a.     Alfieri repeatedly throwing a knife towards cast and crew while screaming “CUT.” 

b.     Alfieri discriminated against and was abusive to the American actors Nicole Sienna, Clark Gable, and Joel Moody.  Alfieri’s name for them became “dumb fuckers” and “little fuckers” among others. There were complaints from Executives, Representatives and crew to Alfieri.  Alfieri ignored and dismissed all complaints.

c.     Clark J. Gable overdosed on Lemoncello, an Italian liqueur.  Alfieri forced Gable to drink the entire bottle while filming a scene.  The following day Gable complained of bleeding, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, shakes, illness and pain.  Alfieri, when requested to do so, refused to provide medical attention to Gable in this state.  An altercation occurred between Alfieri and Trevino when Trevino demanded Gable be rushed to the hospital as he could die.  However, Alfieri did not want to “spend the money.” Again, Trevino was forced to pay Gable’s hospital bill and prescriptions.  Alfieri never addressed the issue again.

d.     Trevino was the only individual allowed to discuss the production with Sienna after Alfieri prohibited Sienna from leaving the set on her days off. Alfieri banned all communication with actors and crew with Ms. Sienna.  Alfieri’s continued anger towards Ms. Sienna included, but was not limited to, screaming at her, forcing her to stay in her bedroom and treating her almost like a prisoner. Alfieri threatened to cut all Sienna’s remaining scenes and immediately fly her back to the United States if she did not do as he said. Ms. Sienna called her mother in the United States.  Her mother arrived shortly thereafter.

e.     On one occasion, during the torture scenes, Alfieri made cast and crew work for 15 continuous hours.  Alfieri never thanked, nor gave any credit to anyone.

f.      Alfieri kept Clark Gable in a cold, wet bathtub, tied up for hours.  Gable was unable to move.  Alfieri had a real “operating” drill in his hand, dangerously close to Clark’s abdomen during the filming of the scene.  Co-Director Ms. Kelley warned Alfieri of the extreme danger and liability of using a real drill, potentially puncturing Gable’s skin or electrocuting him.  Alfieri refused to stop and continued shooting the scene.

g.     Trevino witnessed as Alfieri tied Joel Moody, a 5’8”, 130-pound actor, up to a chair while Alfieri strangled him for a scene.  Alfieri threw Moody onto the floor over and over without a cushion, protection, or any safeguard from head and bodily injury. Similarly, Alfieri found a chair in the dumpster which Moody was tied to.  Said chair broke and Moody fell again to the floor. 

h.     When Alfieri’s character (the killer) was to strangle and kill Ms. Sienna.  Alfieri chose to use a real plastic bag over Ms. Siena’s head, with no ventilation, while tying a rope around Ms. Sienna’s neck.  Trevino and others were terrified that Ms. Sienna could suffocate. Alfieri, being the director and actor, demanded the scene be repeated over and over.  After many takes of this scene, Alfieri screamed out “This bitch cannot even die right!”

46.           Production wrapped at the end of May 2011.  Trevino kept the peace among cast and crew, paid for crew’s overtime, and provided access to medical attention to cast when needed.  Trevino’s efforts to push ahead through struggles throughout filming was key to finishing “Looking for Clarissa.”

47.           On or about May 31, 2011, Alfieri claimed that some of the equipment that Trevino had paid for had been stolen or damaged.  Alfieri blamed the theft on many crew members, including Roberto Moscioni (Sound), Massimiliano Trevis (Director of Photography), and Fabrizo Trevis (Key Grip).  Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri went into a tirade, screaming and crying while these three said accused people were not present, calling them thieves in front of the rest of the production team, creating a set-up so that Alfieri could collect insurance money. 

48.           Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri conspired with the Italian equipment rental company to collect on the alleged stolen and damaged equipment. Trevino, keeping the books, demanded Alfieri produce receipts for the equipment rented. In June 2011, after filming had ceased, no receipts had been provided for what was to be used to pay camera-$10,000, equipment-$14,000, meals/local restaurant-$12,000, housing-$7,000, cleaning/laundry-$1,000. Alfieri could not and did not produce a single valid rental equipment receipt, nor was he able to prove payment for housing and daily meals at the local Calcata restaurant. Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri made separate secret agreements with the providers of such services with the promise of deferred payment and some type of producer credit in the movie. Based on this information, Trevino estimates that Alfieri pocketed around $50,000.00 of the Italian budget.

49.           Later, Alfieri stated to Trevino that he had filed a claim with the Italian insurance company covering the equipment.  Alfieri stated that the insurance company had NOT covered the missing or damaged equipment and the he had paid the equipment rental company € 900. No receipt has ever been produced.

50.           Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri retained the original hard drives containing all of the audio and video files of “Looking for Clarissa.”

Alfieri Returns to the United States, Discontinues Communication With Cast and Crew, Turns Antagonistic,

and Plots Against THE ReMAINDING Crew Involved,

Jeopardizing Post-Production.

51.           Alfieri’s return to the United States began with a tirade against Trevino. Within 24 hours, Alfieri started his plot to separate Trevino from what she rightfully owned.  His degrading comments and creation of friction in his relationship with Trevino included, but were not limited to, fights, screaming matches, demands, and threats that Alfieri should keep the movie and cut Trevino out completely.  Alfieri became hostile for many days with Trevino by starting fights, evincing paranoia of betrayal, and angry that Trevino had kept relations with anyone associated with the production. Alfieri wrote:  “Engaging in a too friendly behavior with the actors.  No Professional. . . . . texting writing on FB walls . . . These are people that have hurt me and took advantage . . . I wouldn’t had imagined that [m]y EP was going to romantically mingle with all of them . . . as far as erasing you from fb . . . yes sorry pissed me off seeing those stupid comments . . .”

52.           Following the verbal attacks Trevino also received continuous harassing emails and text messages from Alfieri.  In one message, Alfieri commented about Trevino’s unconditional love for him, stating:  “. . . sign a contract where it says I own 100% the movie . . . take ur name out then u can say u gave me the money to show love and all the bullshit u r saying . . . unconditional my ass . . .”

53.           Despite problems with Alfieri, Trevino believed she had developed a close friendship with Carloni—Alfieri’s mother.  Trevino and Carloni communicated via skype and email daily. Carloni begged Trevino to be patient with Alfieri and not to abandon him. 

54.           Trevino bought Carloni a plane ticket from Rome to Los Angeles so Carloni could surprise her son, Alfieri, and celebrate his 40th birthday with him.  The ticket was later cancelled as Carloni’s dog, Jane, would not be allowed to travel in the cabin with her.  Trevino’s money was wasted and never reimbursed.

55.           Consistent with Trevino’s position as sole investor and bookkeeper under the Production Financing Agreement, Alfieri and Trevino met on July 3, 2011, to go through the production’s financial records and receipts.  The focus turned towards Alfieri’s inability to account for over half of Trevino’s entire investment. Alfieri, miraculously, returned to his prior, flirtatious and loving self all of a sudden seeing a life for the two of them together again.  Alfieri invited Trevino to call him the next day so they could celebrate Independence Day together.  Trevino had other plans for the holiday and was unable to fulfill his wish.

56.           Alfieri had requested that the Production Financing Agreement be revised.  According to Alfieri, he should receive an additional $130,000 for his services on the movie, and he should receive them in “first position”—i.e., before Trevino was reimbursed for her investment.  Trevino refused to agree to this revision.  Alfieri’s outrageous claims included being paid for doing stunts, visual effects, accounting, set design, post-production supervision, costume design, on-set dressing, music supervision, product placement coordination, animal coordination and craft service  – none of which Alfieri performed.

57.           Trevino demanded all receipts to start accounting for budget.  Alfieri had all receipts in a “Looking for Clarissa” jar.  As Trevino organized documents and receipts, she realized Alfieri had used her monies for much more than production.  Alfieri, with many other receipts for production, also submitted multiple receipts for Italian strip clubs, food for his two dogs, cigarettes, liquor, his mother’s groceries and his visits to tanning salons.  Alfieri scoffed when Trevino demanded he reimburse the production for his personal entertainment expenses.

58.           On July 20, 2011, Alfieri invited Trevino to lunch to celebrate her birthday. Alfieri arrived with a smile, flowers and a birthday card. After lunch, Alfieri held Trevino in his arms, kissed her and said: “I know you miss me. I know you miss my “pito” (‘penis’ in Spanish) … Baby, I cannot give it to you today but I will send you a picture.”  The following day, Alfieri emailed Trevino a picture of one of his black dildos from his collection.

59.           In late July 2011, Alfieri resumed frequent communication with Trevino.  Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri resumed communication due to the arrest of one of the lead actors, Clark J. Gable—Clark Gable’s grandson.  The arrest received a lot of publicity.  Alfieri was furious because the name of the film “Looking for Clarissa” (formerly “Looking for Clara”) had been mentioned by Davis, Gable’s manager. Alfieri considered this a breach of contract.

60.           Alfieri’s delusional paranoia led him to plot against everyone else involved in post-production.  Alfieri told Trevino that he wanted to fire attorney Joshua Fine and Co-Director C. Kelley.  Trevino did not agree. Seeing all the conflict and difficulties caused by Alfieri, Trevino offered to step out of the project if Alfieri found a new investor who could take over the Executive Producer role and had Trevino reimbursed for the money she had already invested. Alfieri started crying and said "No! You can never leave me. You and I started this together... and we finish it together. You are now part of my life. You are close to my mother, my family... even Marco, my manager.... You CANNOT leave me... If I go to hell, you go to hell with me!"

61.           On August 2, 2011, Alfieri left a voicemail message to Trevino stating that he would not pay the Co-Director and Chief Editor the money owed to her. “I’m gonna come up with a strategy to get rid of … she fucked herself up, so there’s no way we’re going to give her the extra money… I’m the sole manager of Bondolini and I don’t like to go to court. I don’t like to get sued… I don’t have time for this…”

Alfieri Withdraws the Remainder of Trevino’s Investment,

is Unable to Account for Most of the Budget,

and Files a “Preemptive Strike” Lawsuit Against Trevino

62.           On or about August 2, 2011, Trevino was informed by Director of Photography Max Trevis and Co-Director C. Kelley that, prior to her arrival in Italy, Alfieri had made derogatory comments to cast and crew; that he despised Trevino.  Alfieri claimed Trevino was obsessed with him and “he would never, ever be with Trevino.” 

63.           On or about August 3, 2011, Trevino emailed a detailed letter to Alfieri, Marco Cuadros (Alfieri’s manager) and Joshua Fine (production attorney).  In the letter, Trevino expressed her concerns about the way Post-Production was being handled and requested the agreement be respected as well as her position as the Executive Producer. 

64.           Upon receipt, Marco Cuadros called Trevino immediately. Feeling she could confide in Marco Cuadros, Trevino told him why she invested and about the intimate relationship she had with Alfieri. Trevino was shaken and concerned about the rest of her investment.  She told Cuadros she was considering withdrawing what was left of her investment from the bank and would oversee the rest of the budget based on Alfieri’s refusal to produce legitimate proof of production expenditures and his unstable state of mind. 

65.           Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Marco Cuadros raced to Alfieri’s home to alert him of Trevino’s intention to withdraw her money.

66.           Alfieri sent a text message to Trevino, “Just read your email. Spoke to my manager. He came over. Thank u so much for making it easy for me. From now on, you can communicate to Joshua. But I also will seek my other attorney… for personal abuse and professional. So be prepared. I have everything in writing... Obviously you want to have sex with me… sorry I am not interested.”

67.           After receiving this text message, Trevino emailed Alfieri, cc’ing Manager Marco Cuadros and Attorney Joshua Fine, addressing Alfieri’s comment “Obviously you want to have sex with me… sorry I am not interested.”  Trevino told the truth about their personal relationship and also addressed the status of the production and ways to reach a mutual agreement. Trevino wrote:

You and I started a “sexual” relationship in June 2010. This “relationship” continued until late March 2011 right before you left for Italy… I am not interested in having any type of personal relationship or friendship with you.  I only want to protect my investment the best way possible now. It is also your investment of time and hard work.  So I suggest that we work out an ethical agreement that honors my position as executive producer and at the same time respects yours as the writer, director, producer and “creator” of the film. I still believe it is “your” project and vision. I continue to respect that.

68.           Later that day, on August 3, 2011, Alfieri secretly withdrew the remaining $17,500 of Trevino’s investment from the Bondolini account, immediately disconnected his telephone and changed his number in order to avoid Trevino. Trevino reported the theft of the $17,500 to the West Hollywood Sheriff’s Department.

69.           Also on August 3, 2011, Trevino emailed Carloni notifying her that Alfieri had stolen 17,500 from her, asking her to please have him return Trevino’s money. Trevino did not specify if the 17,500 were US dollars or euros.

70.           On August 4, 2011, Carloni replied to Trevino “Adriana what you tell me is very serious and ugly, you make me feel very bad, Victor would never do a thing like that. I will call him this evening and he must explain what's going on. Victor did thirty other jobs in order to save even more and not to ask you for money.” About ten minutes later, she then sent an additional email stating, “I forgot to tell you that a friend of mine lent us the money.”

71.           Based on Carloni’s own admission, Alfieri and Carloni had at least € 17,500 euros in cash left from the Italian budget. It is Trevino’s belief that there was no alleged friend who lent them money.  Based on the above information, Trevino believes that the money left from the Italian budget was money that Alfieri and Carloni had planned to pocket and use for their own personal expenditures and not for the production of “Looking for Clarissa.”

72.           On September 7, 2011, Trevino sent a letter to Alfieri asking for her money, the $17,500 dollars to be returned.

73.           On September 9, 2011, Alfieri emailed Trevino informing her, “Joshua M Fine is not representing Bondolini or Victor Alfieri” anymore.

74.           Trevino learned that the $17,500 was not the only part of Trevino’s investment that Alfieri kept for himself.  Among other things, Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges the following:

a.     Alfieri withdrew $3,000 in cash from the Bondolini account to pay C. Kelley.  Alfieri only paid Ms. Kelley $2,000 and pocketed the other $1,000.

b.     Alfieri withdrew all the money he originally invested in the film and production company, leaving Trevino as the sole investor of “Looking for Clarissa” and as the only responsible party for all Bondolini taxes and fees as well as clearance costs for a different film—“Arturo Bond.” Alfieri also used about $1,000 of Trevino’s investment for his personal use.

c.     Director of Photography Massimiliano Trevis informed Trevino that Alfieri had paid the Italian crew less than what he outlined in the budget and/or reported to Trevino, again, stealing funds for his own personal use. 

d.     Cristina Attanasio, Italian crew member, witnessed Alfieri and his mother, Carloni talking about how they were going to spend the money Trevino wired to Italy— not on “Looking For Clarissa”, but Trevino’s money to be spent on “renovations for their homes in Italy”. Ms. Attanasio witnessed Alfieri falsify receipts to be submitted to Trevino as production expenditures. Carloni, herself admitted to having at least 17,500 euros left claiming that it had been a loan from a friend. As stated before, Trevino believes that there was no such loan.

e.     In late August 2011, Alfieri was still unable to document over $70,000 of supposed production transactions and expenditures. This did not include the $14,000 Trevino paid him prior to the production to be the Director of “Looking For Clarissa”.

ALFIERI FILES, BUT DOES NOT SERVE,A COMPLAINT CONTAINING

FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST TREVINO, AND LEAKS IT TO THE PRESS

75.           Feeling the pressure, on September 21, 2011, Alfieri filed, but never served, a “pre-emptive strike” lawsuit against Trevino knowing TMZ and other entertainment-focused media outlets would pick it up due to its salacious and defamatory allegations.  The complaint  against Trevino (LASC Case No. BC470091) contained four causes of action: 1) Claim and Delivery; 2) Breach of Contract; 3) Libel; and 4) Slander.

76.           As a result of the publicity surrounding the false claims, Trevino suffered and continues to suffer much damage to her career and business image.  Among other things, Trevino worked long-term at a company and applied for an executive position at the company that would have paid an additional annual salary of $70,000, allowing her to continue her other business.  After Alfieri’s public complaint, Trevino was informed that the employer wanted to hire her but “could not” because of the publicity surrounding the allegations against her.  Trevino’s interpreting agency business was also severely damaged, with earnings decreasing by $80,000 in 2012 and by an additional $100,000 in 2013 due to Alfieri’s false allegations and media manipulation. In early June 2012, Trevino was nearly banned from a project with TELEVISA, one of the biggest Latin American TV networks. Network representatives stated that, based on Alfieri’s complaint and the media coverage of the resulting scandal, Ms. Trevino’s reputation was questionable. Alfieri’s malicious defamation of Ms. Trevino continues to negatively affect Ms. Trevino’s current and future business, as well as her personal life.

77.           Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri plotted this lawsuit to get publicity, as well as to threaten and intimidate Trevino into walking away and giving him everything.

78.           Based on Alfieri’s allegations of slander and defamation, Trevino is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Alfieri conspired with former actress Patricia Kotero, aka Apollonia Kotero, best known for acting in Prince’s early 1980’s film “Purple Rain.”

a.     Apollonia Kotero made contact with Trevino on August 5, 2011 immediately after Alfieri withdrew the money from the Bondolini account.

b.     On or about September 22, 2011, a day after Alfieri filed the complaint, Apollonia Kotero wrote to Trevino requesting again information on Alfieri.  Trevino explained to Kotero about the pending legal matter and refused to give any further information.

c.     On or about September 23, 2011, Apollonia Kotero called Trevino on the phone claiming she wanted to produce a film with Alfieri and would like a reference. Trevino questioned Kotero about her friendship with Alfieri. Kotero denied any close relationship with Alfieri.

d.     On or about October 25, 2011, Apollonia Kotero denied ever calling Trevino and accused her of disclosing information Kotero did not request.  Trevino only provided information Kotero was requesting.  Kotero’s response: “I was sickened by the information you revealed to me . . . your lawyer would be horrified by a client that does this.”

e.     Alfieri, through his attorney Roger Muse, continued to defame Trevino by sending letters to the cast and crew with claims of theft of hard drives, footage and financial books.  Alfieri had always denied having a copy of the film when, in fact, he had the drives with the digital files and audio of “Looking for Clarissa” in his possession the whole time.

TREVINO RETAINS AN ATTORNEY AND FILES A

CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST BONDOLINI AND ALFIERI

79.           Production and post-production had ceased due to the legal action and there was no reason for any money invested by Trevino to be used. Trevino asked Alfieri to show proof that her money, the $17,500, had not been touched and was indeed in a bank account. Alfieri refused to show proof that he had not converted Trevino’s money.

80.           On November 10, 2011, Trevino cross-complained against Bondolini Productions and Victor Alfieri.

81.           In late December 2012, Trevino learned that she had an insurance policy that covered the nature of Alfieri’s false claims (claims of a personal nature). In Alfieri’s complaint, it is stated that the “representation made and published by TREVINO… to the effect that ALFIERI had a sexual relationship with TREVINO is libelous on its face in that it charges ALFIERI with immoral conduct. Trevino made the representation in order to charge that ALFIERI thereby took unfair advantage of her.” The SLANDER count includes similar language and reasons. These two counts also have a paragraph that reads – “The statements made by TREVINO were false in that ALFIERI did not in fact either steal money from TREVINO, nor did he engage in any sexual intercourse with TREVINO.”

82.           Because Alfieri disappeared for days and refused to show proof that Trevino’s money had not been touched and was sitting in another Bondolini bank account, Trevino believed that Alfieri, in fact, stole her money and had no intention of ever returning it to her.

83.           It is a fact that Alfieri had a sexual relationship with Trevino for about one year. Trevino’s relationship with Alfieri evolved from friends to lovers (sexual partners) to very close friends and lastly to business partners.

84.           In early January 2012, Trevino’s insurance company, American Family Insurance, appointed her an attorney. Litigation costs and attorney’s fees were covered by Trevino’s policy.

85.           Joshua Fine continued to communicate with cast, crew and potential witnesses in this litigation.  It is Trevino’s belief, based on credible information, that:

a.     Joshua Fine, under Alfieri’s direction, offered Ms. C Kelley’s assistant, Michael Frenden money to steal the duplicate hard drives and turn them over to Alfieri.

b.     March 2012, Joshua Fine contacted actor Joel Moody to have him do ADR for the film without informing Trevino in writing while litigation was pending, therefore breaching, once again, the agreement between Bondolini and Trevino. 

UPON ALFIERI DISCOVERING THAT TREVINO’S INSURANCE

COMPANY WAS PAYING FOR HER ATTORNEY,

ALFIERI DISMISSES HIS LAWSUIT AGAINST TREVINO.

86.           On March 30, 2012 Alfieri dismissed his lawsuit against Trevino. Trevino’s attorney sent an email to her. “I called opposing counsel to inquire about the dismissal and was advised that they wanted to show you how serious they are to get the movie sold and or distributed.  I was told that they have finished the movie and now want to sell it and want you to be involved with same.”  Trevino is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri dropped the lawsuit knowing that Trevino would lose coverage and would not be able to continue with her action against Alfieri and Bondolini.

87.           Trevino soon thereafter lost her attorney paid by the insurance company. In April 2012, Trevino withdrew funds from her IRA account to hire new counsel to represent her in her cross-complaint against Alfieri and Bondolini.

88.           On or about May 18, 2012 Alfieri’s attorney submitted discovery to Trevino that included proof that Apollonia Kotero and Victor Alfieri plotted against Trevino to set Trevino up for slander claims. The emails provided with discovery showed uninterrupted communication through email messages between Kotero and Alfieri when Kotero claimed she was not able to contact Alfieri because he was “MIA” (missing in action). It is Trevino’s belief that Alfieri was also present, next to Kotero, when Kotero called Trevino on the phone to ask for references and to inquire what was happening with the film and the lawsuit.

89.           Alfieri was given proper notice of the taking of his deposition, scheduled for July 2, 2012 at 10:00 am.  Alfieri did not show to the deposition. Trevino incurred in expenses due to Alfieri’s failure to appear. Trevino paid $305 for the court reporter ($300 late cancellation fee plus $5 for parking).

90.           Trevino filed her Proposed Amended Cross-Complaint including new facts and additional details that supported her allegations against Alfieri for Fraud in the Inducement, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Fraud, Conversion, Accounting and Defamation.

91.           Based on information provided by Alfieri, himself, he went back to Italy to collect receipts for expenditures he was missing and affidavits from some members of the cast and crew denying any allegations of harassment or abuse.

ALFIERI AND TREVINO GET DEPOSED; ALFIERI COMMITS PERJURY AND GIVES CONTRADICTING STATEMENTS OF WHAT TRANSPIRED.

92.           Trevino was deposed on August 14 and August 15, 2012.

93.           Alfieri was deposed on August 16, 2012.

94.           During Alfieri’s deposition, when asked why he sued Trevino, Alfieri failed to mention any of the allegations and causes of action from his complaint. He simply stated,

Because Adriana, who was my very good friend, she send my mother to the hospital telling her that she was going to call the FBI, put me in jail forever. I disconnected my cell phone.  My mom could not reach me. And she end up with shingles and went to a hospital. Then Adriana -- on September 7th she served me with a 15 pages letter accusing me of theft of money that I never stole. And that's why I went to Ms. Muse -- Mr. Muse -- without laughing because it's a very sensitive matter here because my mom was at the hospital -- and I filed a lawsuit against Adriana Trevino because I'm not a thief.

95.           During his deposition, Alfieri also disclosed the real reason why he dropped his lawsuit against Trevino. When Trevino’s attorney asked, “At what point did you dismiss your lawsuit against Ms. Trevino?” Alfieri’s words were, “When I find out that Ms. Trevino had an insurance policy; so she had a free lawyer. You cannot fight a free lawyer. So I have to, like, dismiss my lawsuit in order to become even with her.”

96.           Alfieri, while under oath, lied about his financial situation in 2011. He claimed to have been in a great financial position when, in fact, his home was to be foreclosed and he was getting hardly any work as an actor. Alfieri asked Trevino for a $14,000 personal loan to save his home. Alfieri added that amount to the budget of “Looking for Clarissa.” The loan was to be paid back to Trevino as part of her investment in the production of the film.

97.           As to safety issues on set, Alfieri admitted to having used a real knife on set and a real operating drill. Alfieri stated, “after the scene, because I was also the prop master, I would take the knife back, so no actors could injure themselves. That’s what a prop master does.” Alfieri clarified that the operating drill was about 10 inches away from Clark J. Gable’s body. It is Trevino’s opinion that Alfieri put the lives of cast and crew at risk.

98.           Alfieri lied multiple times while under oath during his deposition.  When asked if there was any conflict on set, he denied ever having any problems with cast or crew when the truth was that he had written multiple text and email messages to Trevino stating, “these are people who have hurt me and took advantage started rumors and turned against each other… after they bashed me hurt and steal from me… and now I have to sit and watch you laughing and thanking them on facebook? Fuck that.”

99.           Alfieri had written multiple emails and text messages to Trevino accusing Roberto Moscioni, Max Trevis and Fabrizio Trevis of stealing equipment and money from him. In an email that Alfieri sent to Trevino, Alfieri wrote, “like Roberto Moscioni stole money from equipment and asked behind my back for money…Max Trevis and his brother… stealing money again.”  During his deposition he firmly stated that neither Moscioni nor Trevis had stolen from him. When asked if he had any idea who stole the equipment, Alfieri’s reply was that the thief stole it just to hurt him.

100.        Upon completion of the filming, Alfieri had accused actor Joel Moody of creating conflict and being “money hungry.” Alfieri warned Trevino not to get close to Joel. During his deposition, Alfieri assured that Joel Moody and him had been very close friends since the beginning of production and had become even closer friends.

101.        During his deposition, when sexual harassment was addressed, these were Alfieri’s statements and answers:

a.     Alfieri stated that lead actress Nicole Sienna never complained that Alfieri had sexually harassed her. In an email to Trevino, Alfieri wrote, “Nicole Sienna accusing me to come on to her, just because I was too strict with her.”

b.     Alfieri himself shared an incident where he was clearly sexually harassing Clark J. Gable and Nicole Sienna. Alfieri stated, “I remember one time saying to Clark Gable jokingly because he wanted more lines – it’s like, well, you know, if you bend over, maybe I’ll give you more lines.”

c.     As to sexual harassment of Nicole Sienna, Alfieri stated, “I looked at her with puppy eyes and I say, ‘well, if you cuddle,’ like, ‘if you give me a hug’ – not ‘cuddle’ … like 10 seconds, I’ll give you one line… I said that specifically to Nicole Sienna – like, ‘if you give me a hug, 10 seconds’ – I remember ‘a 10-second hugs is one line’… But there was no cuddling, no sucking no – nothing of this nature.”

d.     Alfieri admitted to joking a lot and making sexual jokes. When he was asked about the purpose of those sexual jokes, he proudly responded, “I’m Italian. That’s the way we joke. And I like to joke like that.”

102.        In Trevino’s opinion, the most contradicting statements given by Alfieri during his deposition were those about the relationship with her. Alfieri firmly denied ever been sexually involved with Trevino. He even denied ever having a flirtatious conversation with her.

a.     In his original complaint, Alfieri alleged that Trevino was a relentless and obsessed fan, who would do anything to get romantically and sexually involved with Alfieri. The complaint also stated that when Trevino realized that her fantasy would never become a reality, she became hostile, retained documents, stole the film and slandered Alfieri with claims of theft and of having had a sexual relationship with him.  During Alfieri’s deposition, there was no mention of Trevino ever being an obsessed fan or of ever having sexually harassed Alfieri.

b.     Alfieri claimed to have forgotten how he started to communicate with Trevino, the tone of those communications and what was discussed during their conversations.

c.     Trevino’s attorney showed Alfieri a copy of a facebook chat where both Alfieri and Trevino were flirting with each other. In that chat Trevino wrote, “I will call you tomorrow. Feel better.” Alfieri’s response was, “ok, kisses. Wear some sexy underwear tom night for me so u ll (sic) make me feel better.” Alfieri looked visibly upset and denied ever writing that to Trevino. He admitted the facebook account was his but claimed that a hacker had written that. Alfieri explained that a hacker is an impersonator. Alfieri then looked at Trevino’s attorney and stated, “there are people impersonating out there. I could be you, for example, use your photos and your profile and your name… I could be you… So at that time, I had eight people impersonating Victor Alfieri.”

d.     Alfieri stated that the relationship with Trevino started when she offered “her help with assisting with my scripts, using my personal computer, my personal phone, and be my personal assistant… so she had access at everything.” When Trevino’s attorney asked Alfieri how long Trevino worked as his personal assistant, Alfieri’s response was, “from the moment that she wanted to invest her time and also money into my projects… so June or July of 2010… until there was the separation… – or how do you say? The conflict? … so… June 17 of 2011.”   When asked if he ever paid Trevino for such personal assistant services, Alfieri quickly responded: “no!”

e.     During his deposition, Alfieri was shown several text messages exchanged between him and Trevino. In one of those text messages, Trevino wrote, “Did you have sex with me just to get me to invest?” Alfieri’s immediate text response was

“U know what? Just thinking u said that makes me really sick? Did u fucking invest 2 years ago when I met u? All my fucking hard work it s worth at least 150k.. how about we put that as a back end deal first position now… and put that in the budget… So did u sleep with me so u can make amove [sic – a movie] with no money? Because in my world u got a hell of a deal…”

Alfieri admitted to recognizing the messages but not really remembering. Alfieri then denied sending the text messages to Trevino. When Trevino’s attorney asked Alfieri if those text messages would be found if Alfieri’s phone records were subpoenaed, Alfieri responded, “maybe” but that he could explain why. His explanation was the following, “Ms. Trevino had access to my phone and computer - and I have witnesses – from June, approximately June 2010 until June, end of June 2011. Whenever we met in coffee shops, not at my house, she had access to it… So if I leave my phone here, and I go take a nap or go to the bathroom, somebody can send text messages from my phone.” Alfieri’s explanation to the existence of such text messages was that Trevino, herself, or somebody else would have sent those text messages to Trevino.

f.      Alfieri did not hold himself accountable for any communication with Trevino via phone, text, IM or email.

NO SETTLEMENT IS REACHED IN MEDIATION.

TREVINO DISMISSES HER CROSS-COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

103.        On August 20, 2012, Trevino and Alfieri had a mediation conference in Los Angeles. There were some agreements reached. No formal settlement was reached or signed by either party.

104.         On August 22, 2012, Trevino filed a request to have her action against Alfieri dismissed without prejudice. The main reason of Trevino’s dismissal was her lack of funds to continue paying court and attorney’s fees. The second reason was that Trevino wanted to believe that Alfieri could act in an honorable manner and keep some of the promises he made during mediation.

TREVINO LEARNS THAT ALFIERI HAD USED TREVINO’S MONEY

TO HIRE COUNSEL TO SUE HER AND DEFAME HER.  ALFIERI KEEPS TREVINO INFORMED OF SOME DEVELOPMENTS IN POST-PRODUCTION

BUT FAILS TO RESPECT THE FINANCING AGREEMENT.

105.        On January 4, 2013, Alfieri, himself, gave Trevino evidence that the $17,500 of her investment that Alfieri had taken from the business account without her authorization had been used to hire attorney Roger Muse to sue her. On September 9, 2011,Alfieri made the first withdrawal from the second Bondolini account where the $17,500 in dispute was deposited. He described this $5,410 transaction as a withdrawal to “Reimburse Victor for Lawyers to Protect Bondolini Productions LLC ($5,000) and Various Production Meals & Gas ($410).”  On September 16, 2011 a withdrawal of $5,000 was made by Alfieri to make a second payment to the attorney. Alfieri had already used $10,000 of Trevino’s investment to finance the lawsuit against her even before Alfieri filed it on September 21, 2011. Alfieri used all of the $17,500 that Alfieri took without Trevino’s authorization. Alfieri used around $16,825 of Trevino’s money to pay legal fees for the lawsuit against her; the rest was spent by Alfieri on non-production costs, such as restaurants, taxes, gas, parking and Alfieri’s personal expenses, when Production and Post-Production had ceased and litigation was still pending.

106.        On that same day, January 4, 2013, after reviewing this financial information, Trevino wrote to Alfieri:

So I am NOT agreeing to one penny you spent of this money. You understand, right?  You told me repeatedly that you had not touched the money. I still have all those emails. You attorney also told us that the funds had not been CONVERTED - which was a complete lie. What I agree to do is to have you return those funds to the budget and have those funds be used to finish the movie.

107.        Alfieri refused to cover his own attorney’s fees. He made it clear that he was entitled to use Trevino’s $17,500 to sue her and publicly defame her, claiming that he was protecting “Bondolini Productions.”

108.        On that same day, Alfieri had given Trevino documentation claiming that he had spent over $35,000 of his own money into the Post-production of the movie and Bondolini related costs. After Trevino reviewed those documents and statements, Trevino realized that Alfieri was including close to $22,000 of personal expenses such as gas, meals, and many other expenses for which he had no proof or receipts or that simply were not related to the production of the movie.

109.        Despite Alfieri’s unethical and malicious behavior, Trevino was willing to come to an agreement and offered the following to Alfieri:  $17,500 is returned to the budget;  $14,060 is used to pay for editing, sound/music; and there would be $3,440 left from Trevino’s investment. 

110.        When Trevino explained to Alfieri that what he had done was conversion and clearly breach of contract and that Trevino could easily take legal action but was willing to settle the differences with the above mentioned offer, Alfieri turned hostile and stated, “Not agreed… please have your attorney contact my attorney… I will notify my lawfirm.”

111.        On January 8, 2013, Trevino started to receive email correspondence from Alfieri’s PA (personal assistant), C.R.  It is Trevino’s belief that this personal assistant was and continues to be Alfieri himself. It is Trevino’s opinion that Alfieri wanted to create virtual distance and detachment from Trevino due to his inability to accept responsibility for his illegal actions.

112.        Some of the clauses of the original financing agreement were respected and updates on post-production were communicated through Alfieri’s PA.

113.        On February 20, 2013, Trevino was informed that there were two investors contributing a total of $17,000 who would be sharing Executive Producer credit with Trevino. Trevino did not agree with this. Trevino agreed to give these investors Co-Executive or Associate Producer credit. Trevino asked to see the notarized executed financing agreements and proof of investment. Trevino was never provided with this information.

114.        Around March 2013, Trevino was informed that editor Brian J. Cavanaugh would be receiving an Executive Producer credit because he would still be owed $2,400 although Alfieri had provided copies of cashier’s checks in Mr. Cavanaugh’s name.

115.        Trevino tried to contact Mr. Cavanaugh to verify payments made to him. Mr. Cavanaugh failed to respond to provide confirmation of payment. Based on previous illegal and manipulating acts done by Alfieri, it is Trevino’s belief that Alfieri did not pay Mr. Cavanaugh the amount Alfieri claimed he paid but kept all, or a portion of it, with the promise of giving Mr. Cavanaugh a deferred payment and an Executive Producer Credit.

116.        Chikako Moriguchi and Cinzia Roccaforte are the alleged new investors who contributed with $17,000. To this date Trevino has not received proof of their investment or a copy of their financing agreement.

117.        Cinzia Roccaforte is also part of the cast, playing “Loredana.” It is Trevino’s belief that Ms. Roccaforte was not paid for her performance and was offered an Executive Producer credit instead.

118.        In late August 2013, Trevino received a copy of the final cut. Trevino emailed Alfieri’s PA a long list of comments and suggestions on how to improve the movie. Alfieri refused to take any of the comments into consideration claiming that Trevino was five days too late submitting them, therefore, they would not be considered at all.

119.        During post-production, Alfieri continued altering the budget without Trevino’s written agreement or authorization. During the same time, Alfieri ignored all objections and disagreements voiced by Trevino in writing.

THE FILM IS COMPLETED AND ALFIERI REFUSES TO NEGOTIATE

THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION WITH TREVINO.

120.        On October 30, 2013, Trevino received notice that the movie “Looking for Clarissa” was finally completed. The following day, Trevino received a link to the trailer of “Looking for Clarissa.”

121.        On November 16, 2013, Trevino received, from Bondolini, a DVD copy of the movie.

122.        On December 10, 2013, Trevino received an email from Bondolini with a Summary of Production, listing all the clauses of the original financing agreement with which Bondolini had complied. The email conveniently listed all the instances where Trevino was in agreement but failed to mention the multiple times Trevino disagreed and did not authorize budget changes or other matters. In that same email, it was mentioned that Ms. Kelley had been paid $14,700, when, in fact, she had been paid exactly $5,000.

123.        On December 27, 2013, Joshua Fine, the Production Attorney, contacted Trevino to ask for copies of the contracts for twelve of the actors and four of the crew members, stating that “nothing can be done to exploit the film without a full and complete chain-of-title package.”

124.        On January 2, 2014, Joshua Fine and Trevino met in person to discuss the situation with the documents that Trevino had in her possession. Joshua Fine and Trevino believed that an agreement could be reached if Trevino’s requests were done in writing and then, Mr. Fine would discuss them with Alfieri. Mr. Fine told Trevino that her requests were completely reasonable and that he believed an agreement with Alfieri/Bondolini would be reached.

125.        On January 12, 2014, Trevino emailed Joshua Fine a list of points and requests she would like included in a document to be signed by Alfieri and Trevino.

126.        Trevino emailed her requests to Mr. Fine twice and did not hear back from him and has not to this date.

127.        On February 7, 2014, Trevino received a “Bondolini Demand Letter” via email from attorney Manuel Saint Martin requesting “that within seven days of receipt of this letter that you turn over to my Los Angeles office all the original contracts, logs, business records, original receipts and electronic media in your possession that are related to the production Looking for Clarissa. These materials are necessary for a complete chain-of-tile to sell/license and distribute the movie; and for you to receive a return on your investment.”

128.        On the same day, Trevino replied immediately to Mr. Saint Martin’s letter. Trevino forwarded to Saint Martin the requests that she had emailed Joshua Fine. Trevino also expressed her willingness to discuss these issues with Saint Martin. Because she did not receive a reply from Saint Martin, on February 11^th, Trevino forwarded to him the same email she had sent on February 7^th stating, “I am forwarding you the email that I sent you last Friday in case you did not receive it.”

129.        On February 13, 2014, just one day before the specified seven day “demand,” Trevino decided to call Saint Martin because she had not heard back from him. Trevino introduced herself and simply asked Saint Martin if he received her emails. Saint Martin responded angrily yelling, “I received nothing from you!” Saint Martin refused to listen to Trevino and her proposed agreement. Saint Martin would interrupt Trevino and ignore Trevino’s attempts to reach a fair and reasonable resolution. Saint Martin threatened Trevino with a demand for arbitration and added, “I will go after you. You will have to pay for my attorney’s fees.”

130.        Based on Alfieri’s refusal to reach a reasonable agreement for the sale and distribution of “Looking for Clarissa” that would guarantee transparency and fairness for both parties, it is Trevino’s belief that Alfieri has no intention of ever reimbursing any portion of her investment to Trevino.

131.        In summary, based on reliable information, previous events and Alfieri’s continued refusal to honor the original financing agreement, Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that:

a.     Alfieri started to plot against Trevino in February 2011, when pre-production of “Looking for Clarissa” started. Alfieri started rumors and made false allegations about his relationship with Trevino among cast and crew, claiming Trevino was “obsessed” with him with the intention of setting her up for “sexual harassment” claims.

b.     Alfieri, with Carloni’s help, pocketed a substantial portion of the Italian budget by cutting the crew’s pay, by making secret deals with service providers, by falsifying expenditure receipts and by claiming “cash deals” for many of the production expenses.

c.     Alfieri recruited Carloni to keep Trevino away from cast and crew so Trevino could not witness the illegal and unethical activities surrounding the production.

d.     Alfieri lied about equipment being lost or stolen in order to inflate the budget claiming he had to pay around € 900 to the insurance company. Alfieri pocketed that money.

e.     Alfieri also made claims that he had paid Filippo Valle € 680 (around $965 dlls) to replace 2 keys and 2 locks. Trevino believes this expense is completely false. Although the total amount that Alfieri took from the Italian budget has not been determined, Trevino believes that this amount is at least € 25,500 (around $36,000 us dlls), based on Carloni’s own statements and numerous discrepancies in the Italian budget.

f.      In June and July 2011, Trevino believes that Alfieri created conflict among cast and crew because Alfieri had no intention to finish the film. He would simply keep what he “pocketed” from the budget, an estimated €25,500 (around $36,000 US dlls) from the Italian budget plus what Alfieri had already taken and would later take from the US budget. It is Trevino’s belief that this estimated amount of $36,000 dlls stayed in Italy and was concealed by Alfieri with Carloni’s help.

g.     Trevino learned that about $3,500 of her investment had not gone towards production of the film. This money had been used to pay LLC Fees, clearance for another film and Alfieri’s personal expenses. Alfieri pocketed an additional $1,000 when he withdrew $3,000 in cash from the bank account to cover Ms. Kelley’s second payment. Ms. Kelley was only paid $2,000. Alfieri pocketed $1,000.

h.     On August 3, 2011, when the truth was exposed about his relationship with Trevino, Alfieri stole $17,500, what was left of Trevino’s investment and used it to hire attorney Roger Muse to sue Trevino with false and defamatory allegations.

i.      Out of the total $150,000 that Trevino invested in the production of “Looking for Clarissa,” around $60,000 was not used towards production but towards Alfieri and Carloni’s personal use and to finance the lawsuit against Trevino.

j.      On September 20, 2011, Alfieri and Bondolini filed a lawsuit against Trevino. The allegations included claims of Trevino stealing the footage of the film. This theft claim would support the allegation of Trevino’s responsibility for the film not reaching its completion and would free Alfieri from having to complete post-production, sales and distribution.  Even before Alfieri filed the lawsuit, he had already “converted” Trevino’s money and was clearly in breach of contract.

k.     Litigation would have ceased and Trevino would have not filed a cross-complaint if Alfieri had simply shown proof that Trevino’s $17,500 was intact and not “converted.”  On November 10, 2011, Trevino filed her cross-complaint against Alfieri and Bondolini.

l.      It was not until Alfieri received discovery from Trevino in early 2012 that Alfieri decided to finish the movie. The discovery materials provided by Trevino included clear evidence of Alfieri’s fraud and conversion of funds.

m.   In late March 2012, Alfieri dropped his lawsuit to force Trevino to fund her legal action against him.

n.     Around July of 2012, Alfieri went back to Italy to get receipts and affidavits from Italian cast and crew. It is Trevino’s belief that all or most of the new receipts submitted by Alfieri are false or contain “inflated” amounts.

o.     In August 2012, during his deposition, Alfieri committed perjury and gave contradicting statements.

p.    Trevino dropped her lawsuit due to lack of funds to continue the legal battle.

q.     Early January 2013, Trevino learned that Alfieri had used the $17,500 to sue her. Alfieri refused to return that money to the budget.

r.      From September 2012 to December 12, 2013 Alfieri and Bondolini did keep Trevino informed of some of the developments during post-production but failed to address or respect any of Trevino’s disagreements or objections. During this period of time, Alfieri and Bondolini breached the financing agreement they had with Trevino numerous times. The movie “Looking for Clarissa” was completed in late October 2013.

s.     Some of these breaches include – changes in the budget without Trevino’s written authorization; giving 3 people EP credit while under Trevino’s agreement, she is the Executive Producer; refusing to provide Trevino with proof of alleged investment and copies of such financing agreements; and lack of justification for substantial discrepancies between the actual and the reported expenditures.

t.      Bondolini and Alfieri have altered the budget by including expenditures that are not part of the production or that reflect an “inflated” amount. Some of those amounts include the $60,000 of Trevino’s investment that was retained by Alfieri and Carloni; $14,700 that Alfieri claimed had been paid to Ms. Kelley in September 2012; about $22,000 of unjustified personal expenses, which Alfieri incurred; and several suspicious receipts and cashier’s checks of which their validity and total amount shall be proven in court.

u.     On February 7, 2014, attorney Manuel Saint Martin emailed Trevino a Demand Letter on behalf of Bondolini requesting that Trevino deliver original documents, which are necessary for a complete chain-of-tile to sell, license and distribute the movie.  Trevino replied to Saint Martin immediately willing to negotiate and reach an agreement. Saint Martin refused to listen to Trevino and threatened her to make an immediate demand for arbitration.

v.     The original documents and contracts that Trevino retains contain proof of Alfieri’s fraud and conversion of her investment.

w.   Based on Alfieri’s refusal to negotiate a fair and transparent mutual agreement for the sale and distribution of “Looking for Clarissa,” Trevino firmly believes that Alfieri, Bondolini and Black Knight have no intention to ever returning any portion of Trevino’s investment when the movie gets sold or distributed.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud in the Inducement; False Promise)

(By Trevino against Alfieri and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)

132.        Trevino incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 131 as if set forth herein in full.

133.        Between June 2010 and July 2011, Alfieri used an intimate and romantic relationship to secure multiple contributions of money from Trevino for Alfieri's benefit. In pursuing these contributions from Trevino, Alfieri misled Trevino, misrepresented to Trevino, and concealed facts, as to, among other things: (a) the nature of their relationship, (b) the existence of other investors in the movie, (c) Alfieri's intended use of Trevino's investment, (d) the nature of Trevino's involvement in the production, (e) the budget and production schedule for the movie, and (f) the sale and distribution of the completed film.

134.        Trevino is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Alfieri knew that he was making these false representations and material omissions, and that he did so for the purpose of inducing Trevino's reliance and payment of money to Alfieri and his company, Bondolini.

135.        Trevino reasonably relied on the statements and conduct of Alfieri in deciding to contribute approximately $150,000 into Bondolini.

136.        As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Alfieri damaged Trevino in the amount of her $150,000 investment, $40,000 in attorney’s and legal fees, and approximately $180,000 loss of business plus interest and further deprived Trevino from enjoying any return on her investment in the form of profit participation in the movie's exploitation.  Trevino has suffered damages in an amount of at least $370,000.00; plus further general and compensatory damages, subject to proof at trial.

137.        The above conduct of defendants was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to with the intention on the part of defendants of thereby depriving plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and thus was despicable conduct that subjected her to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.  Defendants acts were done with malice, fraud, and oppression as defined in Civil Code Section 3294, and she should recover, in addition to actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages to make an example of and to punish defendants. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract)

(By Trevino against Alfieri, Bondolini, and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)

138.        Trevino incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 137 as if set forth herein in full.

139.        The Production Financing Agreement was executed on March 20, 2011 by and between Trevino and Alfieri (as managing agent for Bondolini).

140.        Section 1 of the Production Financing Agreement provides that, in exchange for Trevino's contribution of money, Bondolini would produce the movie in accordance with the agreed-upon budget and production schedule.

141.        Trevino contributed the agreed-upon sums and otherwise fully performed her obligations under the terms of the Production Financing Agreement. All necessary preconditions to Trevino's enforcement of the obligations under the agreement occurred.

142.        Trevino is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in or about July or August of 2010, Bondolini, at the direction of Alfieri, ceased production of the movie and otherwise failed to meet the agreed-upon budget or production schedule thus breaching the Production Financing Agreement.

143.        Alfieri provided Trevino - approximately $17,000 of Trevino’s investment was used to hire an attorney to sue her thus breaching the Production Financing Agreement.

144.        Bondolini resumed production and post-production in March 2012 without informing Trevino. There were changes in the budget and the terms of the financing agreement that Trevino did not authorize in writing. A significant percentage of Trevino’s investment was not used for the production of the movie.

145.        Although the film was completed in October 2013, Trevino is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Bondolini and Black Knight, at the direction of Alfieri, have no intention of ever returning any of Trevino’s investment or sharing any of the proceeds from the sale and distribution of the film which constitutes a breach of the construction financing agreement.

146.        As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches, Alfieri and Bondolini have prevented Trevino from recouping any of her investment, or enjoying any profits from the exploitation of the movie. Trevino has been damaged in a sum of at least $370,000 plus interest at the legal rate from the date of breach and continuing through judgment.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing)

(By Trevino against Alfieri, Bondolini, and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)

147.        Trevino incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 146 as if set forth herein in full.

148.        The Production Financing Agreement was executed on March 20, 2011 by and between Trevino and Alfieri (as managing agent for Bondolini). The Production Financing Agreement contained implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing which provided that neither party would do anything to prevent the other party from receiving the benefit of its bargain.

149.        Trevino contributed the agreed-upon sums and otherwise fully performed her obligations under the terms of the Production Financing Agreement. All necessary preconditions to Trevino's enforcement of the obligations under the agreement occurred.

150.        Trevino is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that from May to March of 2012, Alfieri, Bondolini, and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive, and each of them, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when they failed to use all of Trevino's investment solely for the agreed-upon purpose of producing the movie.

151.        As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches, Alfieri, Bondolini, Black Knight and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive, and each of them, have prevented Trevino from recouping any of her investment, or enjoying any profits from the exploitation of the movie. Trevino has been damaged in a sum of at least $370,000 plus interest at the legal rate from the date of breach.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

(By Trevino against Alfieri and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)

152.        Trevino incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 151 as if set forth herein in full.

153.        The facts and conduct alleged herein gave rise to fiduciary duties on the part of Alfieri vis-a-vis Trevino. Among other things, Alfieri's conduct and representations regarding their romantic relationship, Alfieri's position in the entertainment industry, and Alfieri's direct receipt of (most of) Trevino's contribution into Bondolini, created vulnerability in Trevino that resulted in Alfieri's empowerment over Trevino, and which prevented Trevino from effectively protecting herself.

154.        By the acts set forth herein — including, without limitation, Alfieri's acceptance of Trevino's money, Alfieri's conduct preventing the timely completion of the movie, Alfieri’s use of the funds contributed by Trevino other than for the agreed-upon purpose, and Alfieri's secret misappropriation of approximately $22,000 ($17,500 he withdrew from the account plus $1,000 he pocketed from Ms. Kelley’s pay plus $3,500 from LLC fees, taxes, clearance of another film and for his personal use—He withdrew this money because it was originally in the account) from the Bondolini account. Trevino is also further informed and believes that Alfieri and Carloni took about $36,000 of the Italian budget, retained it and concealed it for their personal use. — Alfieri breached his fiduciary duties to Trevino.

155.        As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches, Trevino has been damaged in a sum of at least $370,000 plus interest at the legal rate from the date of breach.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Constructive Fraud)

(By Trevino against Alfieri, Carloni and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)

156.        Trevino incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 155 as if set forth herein in full.

157.        The facts and conduct alleged herein gave rise to a fiduciary and/or confidential relationship between Alfieri and Trevino. Among other things, Alfieri's conduct and representations regarding their romantic relationship, as well as Carloni and Alfieri's direct receipt of (most of) Trevino's contribution into Bondolini, created vulnerability in Trevino that resulted in Alfieri's empowerment over Trevino, which prevented Trevino from effectively protecting herself.

158.        Through the conduct alleged herein — and in particular by misleading Trevino and concealing facts as to, among other things: (a) the nature of their relationship, (b) the existence of other investors in the movie, (c) Carloni and Alfieri's intended use and actual use of Trevino's investment, (d) the nature of Trevino's involvement in the production, (e) the budget and production schedule for the movie, and (f) sale and distribution of the movie — Alfieri gained an unfair and prejudicial advantage over Trevino.

159.        Trevino reasonably relied on the representations made by Alfieri in agreeing to contribute approximately $150,000 into Bondolini, and in allowing Alfieri to maintain control over the use of those funds.

160.        As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Trevino has been damaged in a sum of at least $370,000 plus interest at the legal rate.

161.        The above conduct of defendants was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to defendants with the intention on the part of defendants of thereby depriving plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and thus was despicable conduct that subjected plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.  Defendants were guilty of malice, fraud, and oppression as defined in Civil Code Section 3294, and she should recover, in addition to actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages to make an example of and to punish defendants. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Conversion)

(By Trevino against Alfieri, Carloni, Bondolini, Black Knight and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)

162.        Trevino incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 161 as if set forth herein in full.

163.        Between July 2010 and May 2011, Trevino contributed approximately $150,000 to Bondolini. Trevino paid approximately $105,000 of the investment directly to Alfieri, in his capacity as managing member of Bondolini. Carloni also received and managed a portion of the money Trevino wired to Italy. Trevino paid approximately $35,000 into Bondolini's business account. Trevino paid approximately $10,000 to various third-parties on behalf of Bondolini.  Plaintiff has the right to immediate possession of the above-referenced personal property.

164.        Trevino is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Alfieri and Bondolini accepted the money paid directly to them, but did not use the money for the agreed-upon purpose, refused to return it, and converted it to their own use.  Defendants have failed and refused to provide receipts documenting the use of the money for Bondolini production purposes.

165.        Trevino is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Alfieri also withdrew approximately $22,000 ($17,500 he withdrew from the account plus $1,000 he pocketed from Ms. Kelley’s pay plus $3,500 from LLC fees, taxes, clearance of another film and for his personal use—He withdrew this money because it was originally in the account) from the Bondolini account, and used those funds for his own personal use.  Trevino is also further informed and believes that Alfieri and Carloni took about $36,000 of the Italian budget, retained it and concealed it for their personal use. Plaintiff also has the right to immediate possession of the above-referenced personal property.

166.        Plaintiff has demanded from defendants the return of the personal property described in paragraphs 156 and of this Complaint, but defendants have failed and refused to return such personal property.

167.        As a result of Alfieri's wrongful acts and refusal to return the money, Trevino has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but which is in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

168.        The above conduct of defendants was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to defendants with the intention on the part of defendants of thereby depriving plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and thus was despicable conduct that subjected plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.  Defendants were guilty of malice, fraud, and oppression as defined in Civil Code Section 3294, and plaintiff should recover, in addition to her actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages to make an example of and to punish defendants.  The officers, directors, managing agents, or members of Bondolini and Black Knight participated in the conversion alleged above or authorized or ratified the conduct of Alfieri.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Accounting)

(By Trevino against Alfieri, Carloni, Bondolini, Black Knight and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)

169.        Trevino incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 168 as if set forth herein in full.

170.        As set forth in the preceding paragraphs, Alfieri has failed and refused to provide receipts documenting that he used all of Trevino's investment solely for the agreed-upon purpose of producing the movie. Trevino is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Alfieri did not, in fact, use all of the money for the agreed-upon purpose, and Alfieri refused to return it.

171.        The precise amount of Trevino's investment that was used by Alfieri for purposes other than the production of the movie is unknown to Trevino but estimated to be a minimum of $60,000. It cannot be ascertained without an accounting of the receipts and disbursements of Alfieri and Bondolini.

PRAYER

            WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Adriana Trevino, prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:

            1.            For general damages and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at the                         time of trial, but no less than $370,000.00;

            2.            For interest at the legal rate according to proof at the time of trial;

             3.            For an accounting;

            4.            For punitive damages against defendants Victor Alfieri, Daniela Carloni,                                                 Bondolini Productions, Black Knight Entertainment and Roes 1 to 10, inclusive,                                     and each of them, in an amount to be proven at trial;

            5.            For attorneys' fees and costs of suit herein incurred; and

            6.            For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED:  April 15, 2014.                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                   

                                    By: ____________________________

                                                                                    ADRIANA TREVINO

Plaintiff  In Pro Per

VERIFICATION

I, Adriana Trevino, am the plaintiff in this action.  I have read the foregoing Complaint and know its contents.  The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

            I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

            Executed on April _15_, 2014, in Los Angeles, California.

By:  _______________________________________

        Adriana Trevino, Declarant

Disclaimer – As of October 15, 2018, all legal issues have been resolved. This resolution was reached during arbitration. There are no pending issues related to fraud or theft. The resolution was mutually agreeable. There will be no more posts written about this story.