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.
---
By reading the title of this post, it could be inferred that I will be discussing the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which deals with freedom of speech, press and religion. Although that is not the case, it might seem appropriate as I write another post for this blog.
Because I filed a new lawsuit against Victor Alfieri, I am being very selective when disclosing information on developments on the case. The truth is that I have written about five different posts that are not published yet. I want to make sure it is the right time to share certain information publicly.
On November 7, 2014, I filed a First Amended Complaint. I shortened my complaint from 42 pages to 15. I removed Daniela Carloni and Black Knight Entertainment from the complaint. Why did I do so? Because Black Knight Entertainment is Alfieri himself doing business as such company, it is not appropriate to include Black Knight as an independent entity.
Daniela Carloni, Alfieri's mother, is no longer a defendant in this case not because I believe she is not responsible for what I contend in my original complaint, but because it would become costly for me to continue including her in the legal action. Plus, proving that there is jurisdiction to have her as a defendant when she resides in Italy and having papers served to her would add to the work I have to do.
For First Amended Complaint, please read below.
Adriana Trevino
XXXXX
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; Bondolini Productions, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
[Assigned
to Dept 42; Hon. XXX, presiding]
FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
1. Fraud in the Inducement; False
Promise
2. Breach of Contract
3.
Concealment
4.
Fraud
5.
Conversion
6.
Common Count and Demand for Accounting
|
Plaintiff, Adriana Trevino, alleges as
follows:
THE PARTIES
1.
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.
2.
Defendant Victor Alfieri (“Alfieri”) is an individual
who is a former Los Angeles-based soap opera actor. Alfieri resides in West
Hollywood and continues to do acting work.
3.
Defendant Bondolini Productions, LLC (“Bondolini”) is a
California limited liability company formed by Alfieri in July 2010. Alfieri is
the managing member of Bondolini.
4.
Trevino 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.
5.
Trevino 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.
6.
Trevino 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.
7.
Trevino 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 Trevino jointly and
severally in this action, and Trevino 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.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8.
Trevino contends that Alfieri got involved in an
intimate sexual relationship with her with the purpose of gaining her trust and
monetary contributions.
9.
Trevino
contends that Alfieri falsely stated that he intended to start a production
company with Trevino in order to secure Trevino’s investment into Alfieri’s first
films.
10.
Trevino contends that Alfieri took unfair advantage of
Trevino’s lack of knowledge and experience in the independent filmmaking field.
11.
Trevino contends that Alfieri pocketed a substantial
portion of Trevino’s investment.
12.
Trevino contends that Alfieri planned to defraud and
set Trevino up for harassment.
13.
Trevino contends that upon completion of filming
“Looking for Clarissa” in Italy in the summer of 2011, Alfieri had no intention
to edit, finish and/or distribute the film.
14.
Alfieri took and concealed a portion of Trevino’s
investment to later use it to hire counsel to sue Trevino.
15.
In September of 2011, Alfieri filed a lawsuit with
slanderous sexual harassment allegations against Trevino. Trevino contends that
Alfieri used this lawsuit to threaten and intimidate Trevino into walking away
from her investment.
16.
Trevino contends that her filing of a cross-complaint
in November 2011, which included fraud claims, prompted Alfieri to eventually
complete post-production of the film “Looking for Clarissa” in late 2013.
17.
Trevino contends that Alfieri has no intention to repay
Trevino’s original investment or give Trevino any of the proceeds of the sale
of the movie “Looking for Clarissa.”
FALSE PROMISE
18.
Alfieri started a romantic and sexual relationship with
Trevino in 2009. Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri
started this intimate relationship in order to gain Trevino’s trust and
monetary contributions.
19.
Alfieri 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.
20.
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’S
CONTRIBUTIONS AND INVESTMENT INTO FIRST FILM
21.
A “Production Financing Agreement” was executed on
March 20, 2011 to produce the movie “Looking for Clarissa” (The Movie). The Agreement (Attachment
A) memorialized Trevino’s investment of $130,000 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.
22.
Trevino also signed a “bookkeeper agreement” with
Bondolini (Attachment B). Trevino invested over 300 hours performing duties
under this agreement for which she has not yet received payment.
23.
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.
24.
Trevino invested additional funds. Trevino’s total
contribution into Bondolini or the Movie is approximately $150,000.
ALFIERI’S
BEHAVIOR DURING PRODUCTION
25.
During the filming of the Movie in Italy in May 2011,
Alfieri’s behavior put the safety of actors and crew at risk. Trevino is
informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Alfieri’s inappropriate and
careless behavior impacted the production and jeopardized Trevino’s investment.
Trevino contends that Alfieri’s
behavior during production in Italy increased costs and liability.
a. Alfieri
would harass, sexually and belligerently, actors and crew while filming.
b. Actress
Nicole Sienna begged Trevino to make Alfieri stop sexually harassing her,
showing Trevino a long record of Alfieri’s sexual advances and comments.
c. A
production member made allegations to Alfieri about being sexually
assaulted. Alfieri ignored this
allegation and refused to address it.
Instead he responded crudely: “at least you are getting some!”
d. Crew
members complained to Trevino that Alfieri’s behavior had made the working
conditions so unbearable that they wanted to walk out.
e. Alfieri
withheld full payment from members of the cast and crew. Alfieri was not
willing to pay the crew for overtime work. Trevino paid the crew for such work in
cash.
f. Alfieri
repeatedly threw a knife towards cast and crew while screaming “CUT.”
g. Alfieri
refused to provide medical attention to actor Clark J.Gable when Gable got sick.
Trevino demanded Gable be rushed to a doctor. Trevino paid for Gable’s medical
bills and prescriptions.
h. Alfieri
used a real “operating” drill and placed it dangerously close to Gable’s
abdomen during the filming of one scene.
i. Trevino
witnessed as Alfieri conducted dangerous stunts that involved actors and crew
with no safety precautions.
IRREGULARITIES IN THE ACCOUNTING
26.
Alfieri claimed that some of the equipment had been
stolen or damaged. Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that
Alfieri’s intention was to create a set-up so that Alfieri could collect
insurance money.
27.
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.
28.
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.
29.
Alfieri has not produced a single valid rental
equipment receipt, nor has he
proven payment for housing and daily meals at the local Calcata
restaurant. Based on this information, Trevino estimates that Alfieri
pocketed around $50,000.00 of the Italian budget.
Post-Production
30.
Upon his return to the United States, in June 2011,
Alfieri refused to continue post-production, thereby breaching the contract
with Trevino.
31.
Alfieri told Trevino that he wanted to fire attorney
Joshua Fine and Co-Director C. Kelley.
Trevino did not agree.
32.
Alfieri demanded that the Production Financing
Agreement be revised. According to
Alfieri, he should receive an additional $130,000 for his
services, and he should receive them in “first position.” Trevino refused to
agree to this revision. Alfieri’s demanded
to be paid for visual effects, accounting, costume design, product placement
coordination, animal coordination and craft service – none of which Alfieri performed.
33.
Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that
Alfieri deliberately created conflict among production crew and executives to
avoid completion of the Movie.
CONVERSION OF FUNDS
34.
On August 3, 2011, Alfieri secretly withdrew the
remaining $17,500 of Trevino’s investment from the Bondolini account and
immediately disconnected his telephone. Trevino reported the theft of the
$17,500 to the West Hollywood Sheriff’s Department.
35.
On August 4, 2011, Carloni admitted to having 17,500
euros in cash claiming it was a loan from a friend. It is Trevino’s belief that
there was no alleged friend who lent them money.
36.
Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges 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 the Movie.
37.
Trevino repeatedly demanded Alfieri return her money. On
September 7, 2011, Trevino sent a letter to Alfieri asking for the $17,500
dollars to be returned.
38.
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 the Movie and as the only
responsible party for all Bondolini taxes and fees as well as clearance costs
for a different film—“Arturo Bond.” Alfieri 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 the Movie 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.
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 the Movie.
39.
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.
UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO FINANCING
AGREEMENT
40.
Alfieri altered the budget without Trevino’s written
agreement or authorization. Alfieri ignored all objections and disagreements
voiced by Trevino in writing.
41.
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.
42.
Trevino asked to see the notarized executed
financing agreements and proof of investment. Trevino was never provided with
this information.
43.
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.
44.
Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon
alleges 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.
THE SET-UP AND PREMEDITATED FRAUDULENT
PLAN
45.
Trevino is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that
Alfieri made slanderous statements about her to cast and crew, setting Trevino
up for future sexual harassment claims.
46.
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.
47.
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.
48.
Alfieri, through his attorney, defamed Trevino by
sending letters to the cast and crew with claims of theft of hard drives,
footage and financial books.
49.
Alfieri had always denied having a copy of the film
when, in fact, he had the drives with the digital files and audio of the Movie
in his possession the whole time.
50.
It is Trevino’s belief that Alfieri has no
intention of ever reimbursing any portion of her investment to Trevino.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud in the Inducement; False Promise)
(By Trevino against Alfieri and Roes 1 to
10, inclusive)
51.
Trevino incorporates the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 50 as if set forth herein in full.
52.
In June 2010, Alfieri made a promise to Trevino.
The promise was a film production company that Alfieri and Trevino would build
together. Alfieri shared with Trevino several scripts of films they were to
produce through their production company.
53.
This promise of building a production company together
was important to Trevino’s investment into Alfieri’s first film.
54.
Trevino is informed and believes, and based
thereon alleges, that Alfieri intended that Trevino rely on this promise while
Alfieri had no real intention to build a production company with Trevino.
55.
Alfieri did not build the promised production
company with Trevino.
56.
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.
57.
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.
58.
Trevino reasonably relied on the statements and
conduct of Alfieri in deciding to contribute approximately $150,000 into
Bondolini.
59.
As a direct and proximate result of the
foregoing, Alfieri damaged Trevino in the amount of her $150,000 investment, $50,000
in attorney’s and legal fees, and approximately $250,000 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 to be proven at trial.
60.
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 defendant.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
(By Trevino against Alfieri, Bondolini and
Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)
61.
Trevino incorporates the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 60 as if set forth herein in full.
62.
The Production Financing Agreement (Attachment
A) was executed on March 20, 2011 by and between Trevino and Alfieri (as
managing agent for Bondolini).
63.
Trevino contributed $20,000 in excess of the
agreed-upon sums of $130,000 and otherwise fully performed her obligations
under the terms of Section 2 of the Production Financing Agreement. All
necessary preconditions to Trevino's enforcement of the obligations under the
agreement occurred.
64.
Section 1 of the Production Financing Agreement
provides that, in exchange for Trevino's contribution of money, Bondolini would
(a) produce the movie in accordance with the agreed-upon budget and production
schedule; (b) take full good-faith consideration of Trevino’s comments and
suggestions during preparation of the rough cut and final cut of the Movie; (c)
deliver to Trevino a copy of the final cut and the completed Movie; (d) deliver
a full list of dialogues, list of credits and photographs to Trevino in
accordance with the production schedule; (e) get Trevino’s agreement in writing
in advance for any changes to the production schedule and/or budget; (f) provide
Trevino a full and itemized cost report for the production within 30 days of
completion of the Movie.
65.
All conditions required for Alfieri and
Bondolini to perform their duties under the Production Financing Agreement
occurred.
66.
Alfieri and Bondolini did not produce the movie
in accordance with the agreed-upon budget and production schedule.
67.
Alfieri and Bondolini did not take good-faith
consideration of Trevino’s comments and suggestions.
68.
Alfieri and Bondolini have not provided Trevino
with a full cost report for production.
69.
Alfieri provided Trevino with proof that at
least $17,000 of Trevino’s investment was used to hire an attorney to sue her
thus breaching the Production Financing Agreement.
70.
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.
71.
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 to be proven at trial plus interest at
the legal rate from the date of breach and continuing through judgment.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Concealment)
(By Trevino against Alfieri, Bondolini, and Roes 1 to 10,
inclusive)
72.
Trevino incorporates the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 71 as if set forth herein in full.
73.
Trevino and Alfieri were business partners in
the production of the Movie. A Production Financing Agreement (Attachment A) was
executed on March 20, 2011 by and between Trevino and Alfieri (as managing
agent for Bondolini).
74.
Alfieri stated to Trevino that she was the sole
financier and Executive Producer of the film, in accordance to the Production
Financing agreement.
75.
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, (f)
the actual amount paid to cast and crew, (g) the claim filed for lost/damaged
equipment with the Italian insurance company, (h) independent agreements with
service providers, and (i) the sale and distribution of the completed film.
76.
Alfieri knew that he was making these false
representations and material omissions. Alfieri intentionally failed to
disclose the truth about the above facts to Trevino. Trevino did not know about
such concealed facts.
77.
Alfieri intentionally deceived Trevino by
concealing facts, such as those mentioned in paragraph 75.
78.
Trevino reasonably relied on Alfieri’s deceptive
representations. Alfieri’s concealment has been a substantial factor in causing
Trevino harm.
79.
As a direct and proximate result of the
foregoing, Alfieri damaged Trevino in the amount of her $150,000 investment, $50,000
in attorney’s and legal fees, and approximately $250,000 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 to be proven at trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud)
(By Trevino against Alfieri and Roes 1 to
10, inclusive)
80.
Trevino incorporates the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 79 as if set forth herein in full.
81.
Through the conduct alleged herein — and in
particular by misleading and lying to 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) 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) the actual amount paid to
cast and crew, (g) the claim filed for lost/damaged equipment with the Italian
insurance company, (h) independent agreements with service providers, and (i)
the sale and distribution of the completed film — Alfieri gained an unfair and
prejudicial advantage over Trevino.
82.
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.
83.
Although the film was completed in October 2013,
Trevino is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
Bondolini and 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.
84.
As a direct and proximate result of the
foregoing, Trevino has been damaged in a sum to be proven at trial plus
interest at the legal rate.
85.
The above conduct of defendants was an
intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of material facts known
to defendants such as those mentioned in paragraph 81 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.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conversion)
(By Trevino against Alfieri, Bondolini and
Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)
86.
Trevino incorporates the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 85 as if set forth herein in full.
87.
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. 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.
88.
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.
89.
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 took about $36,000 of the Italian budget, retained it and
concealed it for his personal use. Plaintiff also has the right to immediate
possession of the above-referenced personal property.
90.
Trevino
has demanded from defendants the return of the personal property
described in paragraph 87 of this Complaint, but defendants have failed and
refused to return such personal property.
91.
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.
92.
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 participated in the conversion alleged above or
authorized or ratified the conduct of Alfieri.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Common Count and Demand for Accounting)
(By Trevino against Alfieri, Bondolini and
Roes 1 to 10, inclusive)
93.
Trevino incorporates the allegations of
paragraphs 1 through 87 as if set forth herein in full.
94.
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.
95.
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 $450,000.00;
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, Bondolini Productions 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: November 7, 2014. Respectfully
submitted,
By:
____________________________
ADRIANA
TREVINO
Plaintiff In Pro Per
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment