ecp - media.bizj.us

NOSSAMAN LLF FILEDBrendan Macaulay CAl 62313 Superior Court Of Cailfo riia

bmacauIaynossaman.com SacramentoSylvia Arostegui CA 208452sarosteguinossaman.com50 California Street 34th Floor waquezSan Francisco CA 94111 ________________ Dep tyTelephone 415.398.3600 Casu NumberFacsimile 415.398.2438 34231 5031 78743

Attorneys for Plaintiff Gloria Orozco

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Ill

12GLORIA OROZCO an individual Case No

13Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR

14vs Extortion

Conversion

15 ETHAN CONRAD an individual ETHAN Intentional nfliction of Emotional

CONRAD PROPERTIES INC CaliforniaDistress

16 corporation and DOES to 20 inclusive Negligent Infliction of Emotional

Distress

17Breach of Contract

Trespass to Real Property

18Defendants

Trespass to Chattel

Unfair Competition Bus Prof Code

19 1720OetseqInjunctive Relief

20DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

21

22 Plaintiff Gloria Orozco Orozco brings this Complaint against Defendants

23 Ethan Conrad Conrad Ethan Conrad Properties ECP and DOES 1-20 as follows

24 SUMMARY OF ACTION

25 Defendants have committed extortion conversion trespass and other

26 abusive conduct to forcibly evict paying tenant from her restaurant and steal her

27 personal property Defendants used mob of security guards to surround threaten

28 and intimidate Orozco Defendants touted his personal friendships with the Mayor and

9148030_2 -1-______________________________

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR EXTORTION CONVERSION ETC

Chief of Police of Elk Grove and repeatedly threatened that he would have them bring

criminal charges against Orozco Defendants conduct was so outrageous and extreme

that Orozco had to be hospitalized Among other things Orozco seeks compensation

for Defendants forcible confiscation of her property and her severe emotional distress

plus treble damages under Code of Civil Procedure 735 and punitive damages

THE PARTIES

At all times relevant to this action Plaintiff Gloria Orozco was an individual

and resident of Sacramento County California

Orozco is informed and believes that at all times relevant to this action

10 Defendant Ethan Conrad was an individual working and residing in Sacramento County

11 California

12 Orozco is informed and believes that at all times relevant to this action

13 Defendant Ethan Conrad Properties Inc was California corporation doing business in

14 Sacramento County California

15 Does through 20 are individuals or entities whose identity and

16 involvement in the matters alleged herein is presently unknown to Orozco but who are

17 believed to be responsible in some manner for the actions conduct and damages

18 alleged herein and are therefore identified by these fictitious designations The true

19 names of these defendants will be substituted if and when ascertained Orozco is

20 informed and believes and thereon allege that each such Doe Defendant is legally

21 responsible by contract agreement agency conspiracy negligence or in some other

22 actionable manner for the events or happenings referred to herein which have

23 proximately caused the damages hereinafter alleged

24 Orozco is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of

25 the Defendants at all relevant times herein was the agent and/or employee of each of

26 the other Defendants and in committing the acts herein alleged was acting within the

27 scope of his or their authority as such agents and employees and with the permission

28 consent and/or ratification of his or their co-Defendants On that basis Orozco further

9148030 -2-


alleges that each of the Defendants was responsible for participated in or contributed

to the conduct Orozco alleges herein

Orozco is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Conrad at

all relevant times herein was and is the owner of Ethan Conrad Properties and is the

sole officer and director Conrad is the agent for seMce of process for Ethan Conrad

Properties Orozco further alleges that there existed unity of interest and ownership

between Conrad and Ethan Conrad Properties Individuality and separateness between

them does not exist and the two are alter egos of each other

Orozco is informed and believes that at all relevant times herein Conrad

10 completely controlled dominated and operated Ethan Conrad Properties as his

11 individual business and alter ego Conrad referred to himself and Ethan Conrad

12 Properties interchangeably as suited his personal purposes including identifying himself

13 and/or Ethan Conrad Properties as the owner of the real property at issue in this case

14 Ethan Conrad Properties is mere shell instrumentality and conduit through which

15 Conrad carried out his business Ethari Conrad Properties was and is undercapitalized

16 and disregarded and continues to disregard corporate formalities including failing to

17 hold regular meetings and failing to maintain minutes and adequate records Permitting

18 any corporate distinction between these Defendants with respect to Orozcos claims

19 would permit an abuse sanction fraud promote injustice and cause an inequitable

20 result Any corporate or other separateness between these Defendants should be

21 disregarded

22 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23 Pursuant to Code of Civ Proc 395 jurisdiction is proper in California

24 and venue is proper in Sacramento County because most of the wrongs alleged in this

25 Complaint occurred in Sacramento County the real property at issue is located in

26 Sacramento County and all parties reside and/or are headquartered in Sacramento

27 County

28 /1

9148030 -3-


GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

10 Plaintiff Gloria Orozco is the owner of Vallarta Restaurant family run

Mexican restaurant located at 2513 Riparian Drive Suite 180 Elk Grove CA the

Premises until March 2015

11 Orozco is informed and believes that in 2006 the then-owner Elk Grove

1-5 LLC Original Owner signed 10-year lease with Samuel and Rubicelia

Sanchez collectively Sanchez which provided that moveable furniture and trade

fixtures remain the property of the tenant This is consistent with California Civil Code

1019 which provides that tenants trade fixtures remain the property of the tenant

10 Orozco was not party to the Sanchez Lease

11 12 Orozco is informed and believes that by 2007 Sanchez was not

12 performing under the Sanchez Lease never took possession of the Premises and later

13 filed for bankruptcy

14 13 In or about 2008 Original Owner and Orozco orally agreed that Orozco

15 would lease the Premises to Orozco on month-to-month basis for the purpose of

16 operating restaurant the Agreement Original Owner agreed that Orozco could pay

17 any amount that she could afford because among other things Original Owner would

18 otherwise receive no rent for the Premises and because the shopping center was 80%

19 vacant and could not generate walk-in traffic for the Vallarta Restaurant

20 14 Orozco invested her life savings to build out and equiplfurnish the

21 Premises as restaurant This included constructing restaurant with all of the kitchen

22 storage service and office components as well as furniture decor supplies and

23 related items She received no tenant improvement funds from the Owner and

24 borrowed from relatives to help finance these improvements and purchases Orozco

25 thereafter occupied the Premises paid rent and otherwise materially performed as

26 agreed The Owner accepted rent in the amounts that Orozco paid for many years

27 before Defendants acquired the shopping center

28 15 In or around 2009 the Original Owners lender foreclosed on the shopping

9148030 4-


center and became the new owner of the shopping center Owner and Owner agreed

to honor the Agreement for five years until Owner sold the Premises

16 In November 2012 Sanchez filed petition for bankruptcy protection On

February 19 2013 Sanchez obtained discharge for any debts owed to the Owner

under the Sanchez Lease

17 In or about July 2014 Defendants Conrad and/or Ethan Conrad Properties

purchased the shopping center in which the Premises are located Defendants then

approached Orozco and falsely claimed that she owed hundreds of thousands of dollars

of back rent based on false claim that she was responsible for the rental amounts

10 called for by the Sanchez Lease Defendants threatened to evict her unless she signed

11 written assignment of the Sanchez Lease that had years earlier terminated and/or

12 been discharged in the Sanchez bankruptcy

13 18 Ultimately Orozco signed the purported assignment the Purported

14 Assignment that Defendants induced and pressured her to sign based on fraudulent

15 misrepresentations about her claimed liability and threats to evict Orozco based on rent

16 arrearages she did not owe However the Purported Assignment is unenforceable for

17 many reasons including that the Sanchez Lease and California law require the consent

18 of the assignor the Purported Assignment lacked consideration and was procured by

19 fraud constituted an illegal forfeiture and is unconscionable

20 19 On February 19 2015 just four months after the Purported Assignment

21 Defendants gave notice that they were evicting Orozco effective March 31 2015 even

22 though Orozco was current on her rent Defendants claimed that they had new tenant

23 that would pay more

24 20 During March 2015 Defendants corresponded with Orozcos counsel in an

25 effort to get Orozco to agree that the Purported Assignment was valid and that Orozco

26 would leave behind all of her restaurant furniture fixtures and equipment when she

27 vacated at the end of March Orozcos counsel refused and stated that the Purported

28 Assignment was unenforceable

9148030 -5-


21 Crozco is informed and believes that Defendants stationed security guards

outside Vallarta Restaurantfor 24 hours day to spy on Orozco and her employees

22 Orozco is informed and believes that Defendants began calling and

harassing Orozco and her relatives including her sister and her sisters children to

collect allegedly past due rent and threatened to pursue them for these debts which

did not actually exist

23 On March 17 Orozcos counsel wrote to Defendants

Finally we understand that you and/or your agents have been

repeatedly harassing Ms Orozco her sister her sisters children

and others with your attempts to collect what you claim to be debtYou compound this improper conduct with threats of criminal

10 prosecution over lease issue Such efforts are an unfair debt

collection practice and violate the California Fair Debt Collection

11 Practices Act Civil Code 1788 et seq as well as 15 United States

Code Section 1692d2 These efforts must stop immediately

1224 But Defendants did not stop On the contrary Defendants increased their

13improper behavior with explicit threats of criminal prosecution coupled with bragging

14about Conrads self-avowed importance and vast business empire Defendants also

15touted Conrads claimed personal friendship with the Mayor of Elk Grove and with the

16Chief of Police Elk Grove suggesting that these elected officials would do Defendants

17bidding and prosecute Orozco

1825 On March 19 2015 at 844 am Defendants wrote to Orozco counsel to

19threaten criminal prosecution unless Orozco left behind all of her property as

20Defendants claimed was required under the invalid Purported Assignment

21 Please be advised that if the tenant does take any of the FFE at

all and/ordoes notpaythe March rentbyMarch 31 2015 wewill22

proceed with theft charges relative to the removal of any of the

FFE and we will proceed with legal action against the tenant and

the guarantôrs for any FFE that is removed as well as the March

24rent if its not paid by March 31 2015

26 On March 19 2015 at 1159 p.m Defendants wrote to Orozcos counsel

25

You should be aware that the tenant appears to be trying to steal

26 my property from the premises and we were dispatched to security

guard is there on site now27

We will dispatch the police if needed and will press criminal and

28 civil charges if any of my property is taken

9148030 -6-


changed the locks on the restaurant doors white Orozco and her

employees and movers were still inside and

tried to lock out Orozcos and her employees/movers as they

entered/left the Premises

30 One of the mob of Defendants security personnel individual identified

himself as Spencer Wegley He shouted that Orozco and her helpers were thieves

and that we will hunt them to the ends of the earth He said that Conrad was friends

with the Mayor of Elk Grove and the Chief of Police of Elk Grove that they are involved

now and that they will have you arrested

10 31 short time later different group of Elk Grove police officers arrived

11 These officers refused to listen to Orozco They ordered Orozco and her crew to unload

12 everything from the truck and leave it Orozco was prevented from taking numerous

13 items of personal property including restaurant equipment ovens buffet tables

14 cleaning supplies food items in storage etc friend was not allowed to retrieve his

15 phone Orozco was not even allowed to retrieve her eyeglasses

16 32 Conrad wrote to Qrozco counsel later on March 20 at 1052 am17 You should know that have great relationship with the mayor of

Elk Grove as well as Elk Groves Chief of Police They are both

18 aware of this matter now and will be pursuing full criminal

charges against your clients

19If your clients return the items that they stole today Ive informed

the police that will consider dropping the charges against them20 Otherwise your clients can expect to receive jail time for theft in

addition to ultimately having to return the items they stole from us21

or we will seek restitution for such

2233 Later on March 20 at 113 p.m Conrad wrote

23 look forward to your response to this email and sincerely hope that

your firm will correct this matter by having your clients return the24

personal property that they stole from me Otherwise will have nochoice but to press criminal charges against them and to seek

25 recourse in civil court

2634 On March 25 Orozcos counsel wrote to Defendants to demand access to

27the Premises to finish moving her belongings out of the Premises and to recover

28

9148030 -8- ________________________COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR EXTORTION CONVERSION ETC

27 On March 20 Orozco and her movers were vacating the Premises

Suddenly large group of security guards showed up claiming to work for Defendants

They tried to block one of the moving trucks with their security vehicles and chased the

movers down the block Orozco is informed and believes that Defendants called the

police and falsely reported that theft was in progress

28 Multiple police cars arrived Officers detained the driver of the moving

truck and placed him in police car Officers questioned Orozco and others and

reviewed proof that Orozco had purchased the restaurant fixtures and equipment and

properly concluded that the issue was civil lease dispute not criminal matter that

10 called for any action by police The officers stated that they would not prevent Orozco

11 from removing her belongings and Orozco and her crew continued to do so

12 29 Evidently unhappy with the conclusion of the first set of police officers

13 Defendants sent numerous other private security guards to create an intimidating

14 bullying mob Defendants henchmen

15 surrounded and invaded Vallarta Restaurant

16 refused to leave the Premises despite numerous requests

17 yelled confronted physically intimidated threatened surrounded

18 Orozco and her employees

19 acted as if they were armed with weapons e.g guns

20 blocked the path of Orozco and her employeeslmovers

21 tried to blockade Orozcos moving truck with the security vehicle

22 chased Orozcos moving truck on foot and tried to open the door and

23 board it while moving

24 threatened to arrest Orozco and others pretending that they were

25 legitimate law enforcement although some hid their faces when

26 anyone tried to photograph them

27 grabbed large stove and wheeled it away until stopped by police

28 demanded that Orozco and her helpers leave immediately

9148030 -7-


property that had been wrongfully takenlconverted by Defendants The letter further

demanded that none of Orozcos personal property be disposed of Attached hereto as

Exhibit is copy of Orozcos counsels March 25 letter

35 On March 26 Conrad made further extortionate statements and again

touted his claimed political influence by mentioning my conversation with the City of Elk

Groves Chief of Police Robert Lehner on Tuesday and twice mentioning an ongoing

police investigation Once again Conrad said he would not press charges if Orozco

returned the few items she was able to remove

36 Defendants have failed and refused to provide access to the Premises

10 after March 20 or to return any of the items Orozco was forced to leave behind

11 including many items that Defendants have never claimed ownership of Defendants

12 appear to have permitted the subsequent tenant to use Orozcos restaurant furnishing

13 and equipment Worse still Defendants have thrown some of Orozcos personal

14 property into the garbage despite Orozcos March 26 request forcing her to dig in the

15 garbage to retrieve some of her personal property

16 37 Orozco was so emotionally traumatized stressed and physically taxed by

17 Defendants conduct that she was admitted to the hospital with chest pains similar to

18 heart attack She was finally discharged on March 25 but is still receiving treatment

19 She has suffered severe emotional distress and related physical suffering

20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21 Extortion Against All Defendants

22 38 Orozco realleges and incorporates by reference 37 above

23 39 Defendants by and through Ethan Conrad committed extortion as

24 prohibited by California Penal Code 518 As described above Defendants and their

25 agents used force and threats in an effort to compel Orozco .to give up her property and

26 threatened criminal prosecution on multiple occasions unless Orozco complied with

27 Defendants demand to pay rent and/or comply with contract to which Orozco was not

28 party and/or which was patently unenforceable

9148030 -9-


40 Defendants also committed extortion by threatening letter as prohibited

by California Penal Code 523 Defendants by and through Ethan Conrad wrote

multiple letters to Orozcos counsel in which he accused Orozco of crime and

threatened criminal prosecution unless Orozco did not comply with demands about

civil matter

41 Defendants intended that their threats and extortionate letters would obtain

money and property from Orozco Indeed they expressly conditioned criminal

prosecution unless Orozco complied with Defendants demands and also stated that

they would not have charges brought against Orozco if she complied

10 42 Punitive damages should be assessed against Defendants in an amount

11 not less than $10000000 Such punitive damages should be sufficient to punish and

12 make an example of Defendants and should be based on his financial net worth which

13 stands in marked contrast to Orozco In connection with the computation of punitive

14 damages and as evidence of Defendants pattern and practice of abusive and/or

15 fraudulent conduct the trier of fact will be asked to consider the following facts alleged

16 on information and belief

17 Conrad repeatedly boasts of real estate empire including such his

18 March 20 statement my company is the fasting growing

19 commercial real estate landlord in the Greater Sacramento Area We

20 own approximately 4.4 million square feet of commercial space in over

21 150 buildings with over 650 tenants

22 Conrad boasted during an interview for an October 13 2013 article in

23 the Sacramento Business Journal that he regularly drives 2013

24 BMW M6 sticker price $100000 or more he also is on his fourth

25 Ferrari

26 Conrad has been party to over 60 lawsuits in he last 10 years in

27 Sacramento County alone including multiple lawsuits against him for

28 fraud

9148030 __________________ -10- _________________COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR EXTORTION CONVERSION ETC

Conrad was sued in 2010 for securities fraud resulting in alleged

losses of over $1500000 Miyagi Conrad eta Sacramento

Superior Case No 34-2010-00094291

Conrad was sued in 2010 for running Ponzi scheme in which the

plaintiffs were allegedly defrauded out of over $8200000 Urata

Conrad et Sacramento Superior Case No 34-201 0-00073753

Conrad was sued by group of defrauded investors for allegedly

breaching settlement agreement of the first lawsuit by taking

numerous secret commissions and prohibited payments SFC

10 Leasing et at Conrad et Sacramento Superior Case No 34-

11 2014-000159680.

12 Conrad was sued for conversion and fraud in 2015 for allegedly bilking

13 prospective tenants out of non-refundable security deposits Pate/v

14 Conrad Sacramento Superior Case No 34-2015-00175575

15 SECOND CAUSEOFACTION

16 Conversion Against All Defendants

17 43 Orozco realleges and incorporates by reference IT -42 above

18 44 Orozco is and at all times relevant herein was the owner of and entitled to

19 immediate possession of the furniture trade fixtures1 equipment and personal property

20 at the Premises including but is not limited to the following items

21 Two convection ovens

22 Burner range

23 Dishwasher

24 Griddle

25 Freezer

26 Larger server buffet table

27 Salad bar

28 Kitchen and serving utensils including pots and pans

9148030 -11-


Foodstuffs

Cleaning and other supplies

Telephones

Desk and filing cabinets and

Ms Orozcos eyeglasses

45 Defendants wrongfully interfered with Orozcos ownership possessory and

other interests in the above-described property by seizing the property and failing to

return it despite demand therefor or allow Orozco to retrieve it Defendants conduct

was intentional or at minimum done with reckless disregard for the rights and

10 physicalwell-being of others

11 46 Even if it were determined that Defendants originally took possession of

12 under mistaken claim of ownership Defendants improperly retained it after Orozcos

13 demand for return of the property

14 47 The individuals who engaged in the conduct alleged above including

15 entering the Premises to confiscate property acted or purported to act within the scope

16 of their employment Some of the individuals wore shirts that said Ethan Conrad

17 48 As result of Defendants acts of conversion Orozco has been damaged

18 in the sum or sums to be proven at trial but not less than $100000 Alternatively

19 Orozco is entitled to damages and possession of the converted property and will seek

20 elect her remedies at trial Orozco is further entitled to compensation for the time and

21 money expended pursuit of the property

22 49 In doing the acts herein alleged Defendants acted with oppression fraud

23 malice and in conscious disregard of the rights of Orozco and Orozco is therefore

24 entitled to punitive damages according to proof at trial but not less than $10000000

25 /1

26

27

28

9148030 -12-


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants

50 Orozco realleges and incorporates by reference fff 1-49 above

51 Defendants conduct was outrageous and abusive in its nature and

designed to result in Orozcos distress

52 The conduct was intentional and/or done with reckless disregard of the

potential to cause injury to Orozco

53 The conduct was purposefully directed at Orozco

54 Orozco has suffered severe physical and emotional distress and mental

10 anguish as result of Defendants conduct in an amount to be proven at trial Among

11 other things Orozco was so distressed by the harassment physical and verbal

12 intimidation threats false accusations and theft of her property that she was admitted

13 to the hospital for several days

14 55 As result of Defendants conduct Orozco has been damaged in the sum

15 or sums to be proven at trial but not less than $100000

16 56 In doing the acts herein alleged Defendants acted with oppression fraud

17 malice and in conscious disregard of the rights of Orozco and Orozco is therefore

18 entitled to punitive damages according to proof at trial but not less than $10000000

19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants

21 57 Orozco realleges and incorporates by reference J1 49 above

22 58 Defendants conduct as alleged above was at least negligent

23 59 Defendants conduct was substantial factor if not the sole factor in

24 causing severe emotional distress and mental anguish to Orozco Among other things

25 Orozco was so distressed by the harassment physical and verbal intimidation threats

26 false accusations and theft of her property that she was admitted to the hospital for

27 several days Defendants conduct caused damages in an amount to be proven at trial

28 but not less than $100000

9148030 -13-


FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract Against All Defendants

60 Orozco realleges and incorporates by reference 1111 56 above

61 Orozco and the prior owner of the Premises entered into an oral month-to-

month lease of the Fremises the Agreement That Agreement also provided that

Orozco would be entitled to the return of her security deposit at the end of the lease

term if not applied to monies owed

62 When Defendants purchased the Premises in 2014 Defendants took it

subject to the Agreement between Orozco and the prior owners both of which had

10 affirmed and honored the Agreement

11 63 Orozco has performed all of the material provisions of the Agreement

12 except as were excused by Defendants breach

13 64 In or about March 2015 Defendants breached the Agreement by among

14 other things overcharging Orozco for rent improperly charging 10% late fees on

15 monthly rent physically excluding Orozco from the Premises before the end of the lease

16 term on March 31 2015 by wrongfully confiscating Orozcos security deposit and by

17 converting Orozcos furniture fixtures equipment and personal belongings

18 65 Orozco has suffered damages as result of Defendants breach of the

19 Agreement in an amount to be proven at trial but not less than $100000

20 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

21 Trespass to Real Property Against All Defendants

22 66 Orozco realleges and incorporates by reference 56 above

23 67 Beginning on March 20 Defendants forcibly entered Orozcos Premises

24 without consent and refused to leave and forcibly excluded and locked Orozco out of

25 the Premises Such acts were in violation of Orozcos right under the law and the

26 Agreement to quiet possession/enjoyment and the exclusive use of the Premises

27 68 As proximate result of Defendants trespass upon Orozcos Premises

28 the Premises have been wrongfully occupied and Orozcos property has been

9148030 -14-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR EXTORTION CON VERSION1 ETC

confiscated and damaged Defendants have been repeatedly advised that they had no

right to exclude Orozco or take her personal property

69 As result of Defendants trespass Orozco has been damaged in the sum

to be proven at trial but not less than $100000 trebled under Code of Civ Proc 735

70 In doing the acts herein alleged Defendants acted with oppression fraud

malice and in conscious or reckless disregard of the rights of Orozco and Orozco is

therefore entitled to punitive damages according to proof at the time of trial1 in an

amount not less than $10000000

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10 Trespass to Chattel/Personal Property Against All Defendants

11 71 Orozco realleges and incorporates by reference 1-56 and 67-70 above

12 72 Defendants owned possessed and had right to possess the restaurant

13 furniture fixtures equipment and personal property described above

14 73 Defendants intentionally interfered with Orozcos use and possession of

15 these items in the manner described above but including by changing the locks to lock

16 Orozco out of the Premises by threatening bullying intimidating Orozco by physically

17 preventing Orozco from removing her property by providing false reports to police

18 officers so that they would assist in excluding Orozco from the Premises and lose the

19 use/possession of her property and by wrongfully retaining and refusing to allow access

20 to Orozcos property

21 74 Orozco did not consent to Defendants conduct described above

22 75 Orozco has been damaged by the continued substantial and complete

23 loss of her property damage to some of that property as well as the apparent use of

24 certain of such property by the new tenant operating at the Premises

25 76 As result of Defendants acts of trespass Orozco has been damaged in

26 the sum or sums to be proven at trial but not less than $100000

27 77 Defendants conduct was substantial factor if not the exclusive factor in

28 causing the aforementioned harm to Orozco

9148030 -15-


78 In doing the acts herein alleged Defendants acted with oppression fraud

malice and in conscious or reckless disregard of the rights of Orozco and Orozco is

therefore entitled to punitive damages according to proof at the time of trial in an

amount not less than $10000000

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unfair Business Practices Bus Prof Code 17200 et seq

Against All Defendants

79 Orozco realleges and incorporates by reference 1-56 and 67-78 above

80 California Business Professions Code 17200 et seq defines unfair

10 competition to include any unlawful unfair or fraudulent business act or practice

11 81 As alleged above Defendants have engaged in fraudulent deceptive

12 unfair and unlawful practices with respect to Orozco as proscribed by California

13 Business Professions Code 17200 et seq

14 82 Defendants conduct is part of pattern and practice of unfair unlawful or

15 fraudulent conduct by Defendants against Orozco and others Such conduct includes

16 trespass and conversion as to other tenants defrauding investors and fraud some of

17 which instances were alleged in 41 above

18 83 As result of Defendants unfair and unlawful business practices Orozco

19 has suffered monetary loss in an amount to be established at trial

20 84 Orozco is entitled to restitution of any monies Defendants have received

21 as result of their unlawful unfair and/or fraudulent acts or practices In addition

22 Defendants should disgorge any profits they have received as result of their unlawful

23 unfair and/or fraudulent acts or practices Such disgorgement should include the rental

24 value of Orozcos property being used by Defendants current tenant and/or the

25 increased rent that Orozco has charged by leasing fully equipped restaurant

26 85 Orozco further seeks an injunction against Defendants from engaging in

27 the fraudulent deceptive unfair and unlawful practices described above

28 //

9148030 -16-


NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

injunctive ReliefAgainst All Defendants

86 Orozco realleges and incorporates by reference 11 1-56 and 67-85 above

87 Defendants wrongful conduct as described herein unless and until

enjoined by order.of the Court will cause great and irreparable injury to Orozco and her

property causing additional emotional distress mental anguish and loss of use and

quiet enjoyment of her property

88 Orozco has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries that she will

continue to suffer if such actions are not enjoined by the Court

10 PRAYER

11 WHEREFORE Orozco demands judgment against Defendants as follows

12 For damages according to proof but not less than $100000

13 For treble damages pursuant to Code of Civ Proc 735

14Alternatively for damages and repossession of the converted property

15 upon election of remedies at trial by Orozco

16 For compensation for the time and money expended in pursuit of the

17 property

18 For restitution and disgorgement of sums wrongfully obtained

19 For the imposition of constructive trust on the converted goods and their

20 fruits and tracing with respect to the converted goods

21 For recovery of unjust enrichment

22 For an injunction

23 For costs and attorneys fees

24 10 For prejudgment interest at rate of 10% per annum

25 11 For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish and

26 make an example of Defendants but not less than $10000000 and

27

28

9148030 -17-


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12 For such other and further relief as this Court deems just proper and

equitable

Dated May 2015

By

Plaintiff Gloria


-j

EXHIBIT

NOSSAMAN34th Floor

San Francisco CA 94111

1415.398.3600

415 398.2438

Brendan Macaulay

VIA EMAIL AND MAIL 04.15.438.7204

brracaulay@ floss Oman corn

ReferTo File 000010-0493

March 25 2015

Ethan Conrad

1300 National Drive Suite 100

Sacramento CA 95834

Re Demand for Return of Converted Property at Vallarta Restaurant

Mr Conrad

Nossaman LLP represents Gloria Orozco who owned and operated Vallarta Restaurant

in property you own at 2513 Riparian Drive Elk Grove CA the Premises The purpose of

this letter is to address incredibly improper conduct by you and your agents and to demand

immediate access to the Premises so that Ms Orozco can retrieve her personal property

Ms Orozco operated restaurant at the Premises for years and always paid the

agreed-upon rent both before And after you bought the Premises in around September 2014In February 2015 you served an eviction notice upon Ms Orozco so you could rent the

Premises to someone else at higher rent We confirmed multiple times that Ms Orozco would

vacate by March31 as you demanded

On Friday March 20 while she was vacating the Premises group of your security

guards attempted to physically stop Ms Orozco and her movers Your agents blocked the

movers with their car Your agents screamed at Ms Orozco and her helpers called the police

and made false reports of theft Multiple squad cars of policemen initially detained one of MsOrozcos movers putting him in squad car before correctly concluding that no theft was

occurring Police officers stated thatthis was civil matter and that no one should be arrested

nor should The move be stopped

Not content with the initial police officers correct conclusions you summoned multiple

other security guards who surrounded the facility blocked exits and started changing the locks

while Ms Orozco and her movers and relatives were still inside They demanded that MsOrozco and others immediately vacate the Premises or the security guards would personally

arrest everyone falsely portraying themselves as authorities with the power of arrest Somecovered their faces or otherwise tried to avoid being photographed Your agent Spencer

Wagley claimed that you were personAl friends with the Elk Grove Chief of Police and the

Mayor of Elk Grove and that they would have everyone arrested You touted such political

connections on March 19 implying that these civic leaders would do your bidding Mr Wegleystated these people are thieves and threatened we will hunt them to the ends of the earth

9030769 vi

ness man cc In

Ethan Conrad

March 25 2015

Page

For the second time on Friday you and/or your agents falsely reported to law

enforcement that criminal conduct was underway1 causing second set of police officers to

arrive Now faced with volatile situation caused by you and your numerous agents police

officers forced Ms Orozco and her movers to unload truckload of her personal property and

ejected them from the Premises Ms Orozco has therefore been unable.to complete her move

or leave the Premises in the condition she planned to leave it She was even forced to leave

items that even you would agree she can take such as restaufant suppiles

The conduct of you and your agents is improper and illegal on too many levels to

describe here Your sole basis for claiming Ms Orozcos property is single page document

from September 2014 that you obtained by fraud lacked any consideration wasunconscionable in its terms and the manner obtained and is facially invalid and illegal

assignment of an expired lease that was already rejected and discharged in the bankruptcy of

the original tenant We told you weeks ago that it was unenforceable

Nevertheless you claim that the September2014 assignment entitles you to

misappropriate Ms Orozcos life savings in the form of her restaurant equipment and

furnishings and security deposit You have forcibly converted her property confiscated

security deposit trespassed on the Premises by force threats intimidation and improper color

of authority breached the parties agreement prevented Ms Orozco from performing

thereunder engaged in unfair debt collection practices harassing Ms Orozco her employeesher relatives and even their children made defamatory statements committed public and

private nuisance and intentionally or negligently inflicted emotional distress which has resulted

in Ms Orozco being hospitalized

Demand is hereby made that within 48 hours of this letter you return all property

converted by your agents and provide access to the Premises to Ms Orozco and her movers to

complete the moving process We further demand that you immediately return Ms Orozcos

security deposit We further demand that no personal property of any kind left at the Property

be disposed of

We reserve the rights of Ms Orozco and those of her employees agents and family

members to pursue any and all legal remedies against you personally your company and your

agents for the conduct described above including but not limited to compensatory damagespunitive damages treble damages under Code of Civ Proc 735 all damages available under

Civil Code 3281 3287 3294 3300 333.3 3334 3336 and 3343 and attorneys fees

Sincerely

dan Macaulayossaman LLP

9033769.v1

ecp - media.bizj.us

Documents