AVT Lawsuit
description
Transcript of AVT Lawsuit
-
Page 1 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAW OFFICES OF TINA LOCKLEAR Tina Locklear, Esq. CSB Number 206115 Shirley Kong, Esq. CSB Number 252838 One Park Plaza, Sixth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (714) 331-1014 Facsimile: (714) 283-4984 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Frescos Mexican Grill and Francisco Izawa
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
FRESCOS MEXICAN GRILL, a California
corporation, and
FRANCISCO IZAWA
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AVT, INC., DBA AVT VENDING, INC.,
a California Corporation,
AC MEXICAN FOOD, INC., DBA
JALAPENOS MEXICAN FOOD, a California
Corporation,
and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FRAUD THROUGH INTENTIONAL
MISREPRESENTATION 2. FRAUD THROUGH
CONCEALMENT/NONDISCLOSURE 3. RESCISSION 4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE
-
Page 2 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs FRESCOS MEXICAN GRILL and FRANCISCO IZAWA allege as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. PLAINTIFF FRESCOS MEXICAN GRILL (Frescos) is, and at all times relevant was, a
California corporation doing business in the County of Orange, California.
2. PLAINTIFF FRANCISCO IZAWA (Izawa) is, and at all times relevant was, an
individual residing in the County of Orange County, California.
3. DEFENDANT AVT, INC. doing business as AVT VENDING, INC. (AVT) is, and at all
times relevant was, a California corporation doing business in the County of Orange,
California.
4. DEFENDANT AC MEXICAN FOOD, INC. doing business as JALAPENOS MEXICAN
FOOD (AC MEXICAN FOOD) is, and at all times relevant was, a California corporation
doing business in the County of Orange, California.
5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporation, or otherwise, of
Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-20, inclusive (the DOE Defendants), are unknown to
Plaintiff, who therefore sues DOE Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure 474. When said true names and capacities are
ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this complaint by inserting their true names and capacities
herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously
named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and
that Plaintiff's damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such defendants.
VENUE, NOTICE OF CLAIM AND TIMELINESS
6. The California Superior Court for the County of Orange, Central Justice Center is the
proper venue for the filing and prosecution of the action as the real property that is at issue
in this Complaint is located in the County of Orange and both Plaintiffs and Defendants
reside and/or conduct business in the County of Orange, California.
///
-
Page 3 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Defendant AVT is the parent company of Defendant AC Mexican Food.
8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant AC Mexican Food at
all times mentioned herein is the alter ego of Defendant AVT.
9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that there exists, and at all times
herein mentioned there existed, a unity of interest and ownership between Defendant AC
Mexican Food and Defendant AVT such that any individuality and separateness between
these Defendants had ceased. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that
Defendant AVT paid Defendant AC Mexican Foods taxes, paid the debts of each other,
and shared revenue from each other. Defendants also shared employees and officers.
10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that adherence to the fiction of the
separate existence of Defendant AVT distinct from Defendant AC Mexican Food would
permit an abuse of the corporate privilege and would allow Defendants to commit fraud on
the Plaintiffs and other creditors of Defendants.
11. Further reference to Defendant AVT and Defendant AC Mexican Food herein shall include
their actions taken on behalf of that entity and/or under the guise of either and/or both
entities.
12. Defendant AC Mexican Food advertised the sale of its restaurant, Jalapenos Mexican Food,
located at 23624 El Toro Road, Lake Forest, County of Orange, California 92630 and the
restaurants assets (Subject Property).
13. In October 2011, Plaintiff Francisco Izawa, responded to Defendant AC Mexican Foods
advertisement and requested documents relating to the business.
14. Defendant AC Mexican Food provided Plaintiff Izawa with financial statements for the
Subject Property indicating an annual gross income of one million and ninety thousand
dollars ($1,090,000.00) and a net profit of approximately one hundred fifty-eight thousand
seven hundred and sixty-three dollars ($158,763.00) for the 2010 financial year. These
documents also showed a potential net profit of approximately one hundred and ninety-five
///
-
Page 4 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
thousand dollars ($195,000.00) for 2011. Plaintiff Izawa later learned that this amount was
overly inflated.
15. The financial statements Defendant AC Mexican Food provided to Plaintiff Izawa was
composed from regular restaurant sales of approximately seven hundred and thirty
thousand dollars ($730,000.00) that were included in the restaurants point of sales system,
a large third party catering business of approximately two hundred and eighty thousand
dollars ($280,000.00) that was not included in the restaurants point of sales system, and a
catering business of approximately eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00) to its parent
company Defendant AVT that was also not included in the restaurants point of sales
system. The total amount of business not included in the restaurants point of sales system
represented approximately thirty percent (30%) of the overall gross income.
16. Defendant AC Mexican Food also provided additional catering invoices totaling
approximately eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00) to Plaintiff Izawa. These catering
invoices were not included in Jalapenos reported income but Defendant AC Mexican Food
represented to Plaintiff Izawa that the annual gross income of the business was at least
approximately one million one hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($1,170,000.00) with
profits of more than one hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars ($195,000.00).
17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Ms. Natalie Russell was the
President of Defendant AC Mexican Food and President of Defendant AVT at the time of
the transaction. Ms. Russell represented to Plaintiff Izawa that some of the catering
business was not booked in the Jalapenos sales system for various accounting and tax
reasons. Ms. Russell assured Plaintiff Izawa that Defendant AVT will continue conducting
all the businesses they have been doing with Jalapenos with Plaintiff Izawa and Plaintiff
Frescos (collectively, Plaintiffs) after the Subject Property is transferred to Plaintiff
Frescos. Defendant AC Mexican Foods broker, Mr. Charles Machado made a similar
representation regarding this.
18. Defendants did not inform Plaintiff Izawa that the third party catering business was
exclusively handled by its parent company Defendant AVT, and in fact was not part of the
-
Page 5 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Subject Propertys business, although these sales were included in the financials provided
to Plaintiff Izawa.
19. Defendants did not inform Plaintiff Izawa that the financials provided to Plaintiff Izawa
included sales from Defendant AC Mexican Food providing burritos for Defendant AVTs
vending machines route, which were made to appear as catering business in the financials.
Plaintiffs did not learn that the vending machine burrito sales were included in the numbers
for the catering business until after the Subject Property was transferred to Defendant
Frescos and saw a significant decrease in the sales previously promised. After the Subject
Property was transferred, Plaintiffs discovered that a substantial portion of the catering
business to Defendant AVT was burritos provided for Defendant AVTs vending machine
routes, which Defendant AVT sold after the sale of the Subject Property. Defendants did
not inform Plaintiff Izawa that Defendant AVT would substantially reduce the promised
amount of catering business after the sale of the Subject Property was consummated. After
the Subject Property was transferred, Defendant AVT sold their vending machine route,
thereby eviscerating the income that the Subject Property generated in selling burritos for
Defendant AVTs vending machine route. As a result, Plaintiffs Frescos only received a
fraction of the previously promised catering business with Defendant AVT. In fact,
Defendants kept only approximately four hundred dollars ($400.00) per week in catering
sales or approximately twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per year. This is a substantially
different amount when compared to the promised eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) per
year.
20. Defendants broker represented to Plaintiff Izawa that the Subject Property was worth at
least four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00).
21. On or about November 14, 2011, Plaintiff Izawa signed a purchase agreement with
Defendant AC Mexican Food to acquire the Subject Property for three hundred and twenty-
five thousand dollars ($325,000.00).
22. On or about December 20, 2011, Plaintiff Frescos and Defendant AC Mexican Food
opened escrow for the purchase of the Subject Property.
-
Page 6 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23. On or about February 28, 2012, the Subject Property was transferred to Plaintiff Frescos.
24. After taking possession of the Subject Property, Plaintiffs discovered that they did not
receive all of the third party catering business in the transaction, contrary to the
representations made to him by Defendants and their representatives. Instead, the catering
business was exclusively handled by Defendant AVT and the catering customers dealt
directly with Defendant AVT. Upon information and belief, Defendants had no intention
of transferring the catering business set forth in the financial records to Plaintiffs.
25. The gross income from the catering business and the vending routes totaled approximately
four hundred and forty thousand dollars ($440,000.00). As a result of Defendants
misrepresentations regarding the value of the Subject Property to Plaintiffs and Defendants
misconduct after the transfer of the Subject Property to Plaintiff Frescos, Plaintiff Frescos
did not receive the benefit of the third party catering business or the promised catering
business with Defendant AVT .
26. Plaintiffs invested at least eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00) in the Subject Property
after it was transferred.
27. Plaintiff Frescos has been operating at a monetary loss since the Subject Property was
transferred.
28. Defendants conduct and misrepresentations have caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs
great financial harm.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD THROUGH INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1-20)
29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-28 supra as though fully
set forth herein.
30. Defendants misrepresented material facts to Plaintiff including, but not limited to the
following:
-
Page 7 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a. That the annual gross income of the Subject Property was approximately one million
one hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($1,170,000);
b. That the value of the Subject Property was at least four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000.00);
c. That the Subject Property generates income from restaurant sales, providing third
party catering services, and a maintaining a substantial catering business with
Defendant AVT;
d. That the third party catering business and catering business with Defendant AVT were
included in the sale of the Subject Property;
e. That AVT will continue to use Plaintiff Frescos for its cateringneeds;
f. That the Subject Property generated a profit of at least one hundred and ninety-five
thousand dollars ($195,000.00); and
g. That the financial statements provided to Plaintiffs were misleading and did not
accurately reflect Defendant AC Mexican Foods income.
31. The representations made to Plaintiff Izawa were false. Neither the third party catering
service nor the catering business with Defendant AVT were included in the sale of the
Subject Property.
32. Defendants knew that the representations were false when Defendants representatives
made them. Defendants provided Plaintiffs with false and misleading financial statements.
Defendants knew that the third party catering business was Defendant AVTs exclusive
businesses and that Defendant AC Mexican Food only provided services to Defendant
AVT and not to end customers. Defendants knew that those businesses would not transfer
to Plaintiff Frescos.
33. Defendants also knew that after selling their vending route business, Defendant AVT
would not keep the majority of the catering business with Plaintiff Frescos as promised at
the time of negotiations.
34. Defendants intended for Plaintiffs to rely on their representations. Defendants advertised
the sale of the Subject Property as a business earning more than one million dollars
-
Page 8 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
($1,000,000) annually with one hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars ($195,000.00) in
profit. Defendants intended for prospective buyers to rely on these figures to enter
negotiations. Defendants intended for Plaintiffs to rely on the financial documents and
financial figures to induce Plaintiff Frescos to purchase the restaurant. Defendants
presented Plaintiff Izawa with financial statements that included income from third party
catering business, income that Plaintiff Frescos would not later receive after the Subject
Property was transferred. Defendants never disclosed to Plaintiffs that part of the catering
business to Defendant AVT included the vending route business that Defendant AVT
planned to sell to a third party. Defendants never disclosed that the third party catering
business was exclusively handled by Defendant AVT and was not part of Jalapenos
business. Defendants knew that both the catering business and the vending machine
business would be eliminated after the transfer of the Subject Property.
35. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants representations and the financial documents
Defendants provided to Plaintiff Izawa. In efforts to perform due diligence, Plaintiff Izawa
questioned the discrepancy in figures between the gross sales on the Profit & Loss
statement provided to him and the restaurant Point of Sales System. Defendants officer,
Ms. Natalie Russell, advised Plaintiff that these transactions had not been reported in order
to optimize tax and accounting processes between AVT and AC Mexican Grill. Defendants
provided invoices to Plaintiff Izawa to confirm Defendants claims regarding the above-
mentioned discrepancies.
36. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants representations in the amount of at least four
hundred and ten thousand dollars ($410,000.00). Plaintiff Frescos purchased the Subject
Property for three hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($325,000.00). Plaintiff
Frescos also made improvements to the restaurant in the amount of at least eighty-five
thousand dollars ($85,000.00). Plaintiff Frescos also had to pay the fees and costs
associated with the transaction. Plaintiffs have been further financially harmed as Plaintiffs
could have invested the money used for the Subject Property to invest in another restaurant
or other business venture.
-
Page 9 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37. Plaintiffs reliance on Defendants representations and financial statements was a
substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. Plaintiffs were not aware that
approximately four hundred and forty thousand dollars ($440,000.00) of the annual gross
income represented to Plaintiff Izawa was earned through the third party catering and
vending route services. Plaintiffs were not aware that these income-generating assets
would not be acquired in the purchase of the Subject Property. Had Plaintiffs been fully
apprised of the aforementioned material facts, Plaintiff Frescos would not have purchased
the restaurant.
38. In doing the things herein alleged, Defendants acted willfully and with malice to defraud
Plaintiffs as defined in California Civil Code 3294, with the intent to cause injury to
Plaintiffs by depriving them of their assets and for Defendants financial gain. Defendants
are therefore guilty of fraud in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, thereby warranting
an assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and
deter similar misconduct in the future.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD THROUGH CONCEALMENT AND/OR NONDISCLOSURE
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1-20)
39. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-38 supra as though fully
set forth herein.
40. Defendants actively concealed important facts from Plaintiff and/or prevented Plaintiffs
from discovery important facts, including, but not limited to the following:
a. That the Subject Propertys third party catering business never belonged to Defendant
AC Mexican Food, and that all customers traded exclusively with Defendant AVT. As
such, earnings from the catering business would not be included in the sale of the
Subject Property to Plaintiff Frescos;
///
-
Page 10 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b. That a large part of the catering business to Defendant AVT included the vending
route business, and the revenue generated from the vending routes would not be
included in the sale of the Subject Property to Plaintiff Frescos;
c. That the Subject Propertys vending routes were being sold to a third party; and
d. That the Subject Propertys financials did not accurately reflect the actual value of the
Subject Property.
41. Plaintiffs did not know of these undisclosed and concealed facts.
42. Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiffs by concealing and/or not disclosing these facts.
Upon information and belief, Defendants knew that the Subject Property would not be
worth the purchase price and that Plaintiff Frescos would not purchase the Subject Property
at that price if these facts were truthfully relayed to Plaintiffs. Defendants also knew at the
time of the transaction that they would be selling the vending routes to a third party.
Defendants knew that the catering business was from AVTs customers and not AC
Mexican Foods customers. Defendants also knew the actual amount of profits that AC
Mexican Food would generate.
43. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants deception. Defendants provided Plaintiffs
with financial documents including the gross income from the catering service and the
vending routes. Defendants misled Plaintiffs by providing such information without
disclosing that the catering service and vending routes were not included in the transaction.
Defendants confirmed the Subject Propertys finances associated with the catering services,
provided additional invoices of catering services not included in the finances, and provided
Plaintiffs with invoices associated with the vending routes to convince Plaintiffs to
purchase the Subject Property. Defendants misled Plaintiffs into believing that the Subject
Property would generate gross income in the amount of approximately one million one
hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($1,170,000.00). Defendants failed to disclose to
Plaintiffs that the sale of the Subject Property would not include the third party catering
business or the vending route business. These sales totaled approximately four hundred
and forty thousand dollars ($440,000.00), which was included in the calculation of the
-
Page 11 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
gross income represented to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Izawa asked Defendants about the
discrepancy in the financials, more specifically, the four hundred and forty thousand dollars
($440,000.00) gross income that was not included in the restaurants point of sales system.
Ms. Russell, Defendants officer, represented to Plaintiff Izawa that the inconsistent
transactions had not been included in order to optimize tax and accounting processes
between Defendants AVT and AC Mexican Food. Defendants provided invoices to
Plaintiff Izawa to confirm Defendants claims regarding the above-mentioned
discrepancies.
44. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants concealment and/or nondisclosure in the amount of
at least four hundred and ten thousand dollars ($410,000.00). Plaintiff Frescos purchased
the Subject Property for three hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($325,000.00).
Plaintiff Frescos also made improvements to the restaurant in the amount of at least eighty-
five thousand dollars ($85,000.00). Plaintiff Frescos also had to pay the fees and costs
associated with the transaction. Plaintiffs have been further financially harmed as Plaintiffs
could have invested the money used for the Subject Property to invest in another restaurant
or other business venture.
45. Defendants concealment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. Had
Plaintiffs been aware of the true annual net income of the Subject Property without the
catering service and vending routes, Plaintiff Frescos would not have purchased the
restaurant.
46. In doing the things herein alleged, Defendants acted willfully and with malice to defraud
Plaintiffs as defined in California Civil Code 3294, with the intent to cause injury to
Plaintiffs by depriving them of their assets and for Defendants financial gain. Defendants
are therefore guilty of fraud in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, thereby warranting
an assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and
deter similar misconduct in the future.
///
///
-
Page 12 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
RESCISSION
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE)
47. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of 1-46 supra as though fully set
forth herein.
48. At the time Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the Subject Property, Defendants and Does 1-20
and each of them misrepresented material facts and concealed and/or failed to disclose
material facts to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were not aware of the true financial status of the
Subject Property or that the third party catering business belonged to Defendant AVT and
would not transfer with the Subject Property as promised. Plaintiffs were also not aware
that Defendant AVTs catering business included a large vending machine route business
which Defendant AVT planned to sell, and that Defendant AVT would not keep the totality
of its catering business as promised throughout the negotiations. If all material facts were
truthfully disclosed to Plaitniffs, Plaintiffs would not have agreed to purchase the Subject
Property.
49. Defendants knew Plaintiffs were not aware of the material facts as set forth above.
50. At the time of the transaction, Defendants knew of the true financial status of the Subject
Property, that the vending routes and catering business would not be included in the sale,
and that the vending routes would be sold to a third party.
51. The fraudulent and unlawful actions by Defendants were likely to induce Plaintiffs to
purchase the Subject Property.
52. By this Complaint, Plaintiffs demand that Defendants rescind the sale. Plaintiffs offer to
return the Subject Property in exchange for a restoration to Plaintiffs of the amount paid by
Plaintiffs to Defendants. This amount is three hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars
($325,000.00).
53. Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of their costs, expenses, and damages incurred in order
to restore the parties to their respective positions as they existed prior to the sale of the
-
Page 13 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Subject Property, which amount exceeds four hundred and ten thousand dollars
($410,000.00) and will be proven at trial. Plaintiffs further seek an adjustment of the
equities between the parties, including without limitation, an award of consequential
damages.
54. If the Court finds that the rescission is based upon fraud, Plaintiffs request the Court
exercise its discretion to award exemplary damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be
determined by the trier of fact.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE)
55. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations of 1-54 supra as though fully set
forth herein.
56. Defendants by their conduct as alleged above have been unjustly enriched at the expense
and detriment of the Plaintiffs. Defendants received at least three hundred and twenty-five
thousand dollars ($325,000.00) from Plaintiff for the Subject Property. Plaintiff Frescos
also expended at least eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00) to improve the Subject
Property.
57. Plaintiffs do not presently know the value of goods and monetary enrichment of
Defendants. Assets and money wrongfully begotten from Plaintiffs by the Defendants are
unknown with specificity but are certainly in excess of four hundred and ten thousand
dollars ($410,000.00).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Frescos Mexican Grill and Francisco Izawa pray for judgment
against Defendant AVT, Inc., Defendant AC Mexican Food, Inc., and DOES 1-20, and each of
them, as follows:
1. For monetary damages in an amount to be determined according to proof;
-
Page 14 of 14 Frescos Mexican Grill, et al. v. AVT, et al. Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Special and general damages in an amount to be determined according to proof;
3. Compensatory damages, incidental damages, and consequential damages to be
determined according to proof;
4. Exemplary and punitive damages as allowed by law in an amount to be determined by a
trier of fact;
5. For rescission of the agreement and sale of the Subject Property based on Defendants
fraud;
6. For an Order of the Court requiring Plaintiffs to restore to Defendants and requiring
Defendants to restore to Plaintiffs everything of value received under the agreement and
sale of the Subject Property;
7. For an adjustment of the equities between the parties to the agreement and the sale of the
Subject Property including without limitation an award of consequential damages
incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of entering into the agreement and purchasing the
Subject Property;
8. Disgorgement of profits resulting from the misconduct alleged herein;
9. Interest as provided by law;
10. The costs of suit;
11. All attorneys fees incurred herein;
12. All statutory damages allowed under applicable statutes; and
13. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: December 20, 2012
LAW OFFICES OF TINA LOCKLEAR
/s/ Shirley Kong By: Shirley Kong, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs Frescos Mexican Grill and Francisco Izawa
Bookmarks