You are on page 1of 17

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

SEGUROS UNIVERSALES, S.A., a Guatemalan anonymous society, FIANZAS UNIVERSALES, S.A. n/k/a ASEGURADORA FIDELIS, S.A., a Guatemalan anonymous society, and ORDENADORES, S.A., a Guatemalan anonymous society, Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant.

CASE NO.: 1:13-cv-22131-JLK

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, SEGUROS UNIVERSALES, S.A., FIANZAS UNIVERSALES, S.A. and ORDENADORES, S.A., by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., hereby file this First Amended Complaint as a matter of course, and sue MICROSOFT CORPORATION as follows: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964

(the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question).

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 2 of 17

2.

Furthermore, this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332

because this dispute is between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1965(a) and 28 U.S.C.

1391(b) and (c). THE PARTIES AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION 4. Plaintiff SEGUROS UNIVERSALES, S.A. (Seguros) is an anonymous society

organized and existing under the laws of Guatemala. 5. Plaintiff FIANZAS UNIVERSALES, S.A. n/k/a ASEGURADORA FIDELIS S.A.

(Fianzas) is an anonymous society organized and existing under the laws of Guatemala. 6. Plaintiff ORDENADORES, S.A. (Ordenadores) is an anonymous society

organized and existing under the laws of Guatemala. 7. Defendant MICROSOFT CORPORATION (Microsoft) is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of Washington and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court because Microsoft does substantial and not isolated business in the State of Florida. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS A. 8. Plaintiffs Are Well Established Legitimate Guatemalan Businesses Plaintiff Seguros is a major Guatemalan insurance company founded in 1962.

Seguros has 243 employees, enjoys annual revenues of US$38Million and is ranked the fourth (4th) largest insurance company in Guatemala by revenues. legitimate business. 9. Seguros's affiliate, Plaintiff Fianzas, is likewise a well-established legitimate Seguros is a well-established

business. Established in 1976 to provide smaller insurance coverage and surety services, Fianzas

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 3 of 17

has 53 employees and is ranked the second (2nd) largest surety company in Guatemala by annual revenues of US$5.25Million. 10. Ordenadores is the above Plaintiffs affiliate. Ordenadores provides internal

information and telecommunications services to Plaintiffs and is the title holder of Plaintiffs computer servers. 11. To aid in the conduct of their businesses, like myriad other legitimate companies,

Plaintiffs purchased, installed and operated Microsoft licensed software including Microsoft's Windows operating systems with its Microsoft Office suite of software (e.g., Microsoft Word, Excel, Power Point, Publisher, and Outlook). B. Microsoft With the Aid of Multiple Co-Conspirators Fraudulently Obtains a Guatemalan Seizure Order Microsoft needs but little introduction. The U.S. multinational software

12.

corporation develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of products and services related to computing. Microsoft is the world's largest software maker measured by revenues of US$73.72Billion. By any definition, Microsoft is a Goliath. 13. On or about March 7, 2012, Microsoft, filed a complaint requesting an ex parte

seizure order under Guatemalan law alleging that the company, SEGUSA, SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, (not any of the Plaintiffs) was operating Microsoft proprietary software ("Microsoft Software") without license in violation of Microsoft's intellectual property rights. See certified English translation of Microsoft's Guatemalan Complaint and Motion for Seizure Order ("Microsoft's Seizure Motion"), including copy of the original, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "A," at 5. 14. By sworn declaration, on or about March 20, 2012, Microsoft amended the facts

alleged in its Seizure Motion to state Plaintiffs were the actual occupants of the suspected offices.

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 4 of 17

A certified translation into English of Microsoft's Sworn Declaration, including a copy of the original, is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "B." 15. Microsoft's obviously cookie cutter declaration against an unrelated SEGUSA

demonstrates Microsoft's shoddy "investigation" (if any) and fraudulent sworn accusations. Microsoft never explained this glaring inaccuracy to the Guatemalan court, of course. 16. Microsofts Sworn Declaration falsely states that by a certain letter of June 9, 2008,

Microsoft invited Fianzas and Seguros to resolve alleged software infringement violations and that these Plaintiffs ignored the request. A certified translation into English of the June 9, 2008 letter, including a copy of the original, is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." Plaintiffs are unaware of what entity or person actually sent the letter inasmuch as it contains no letterhead or signature block. 17. C. 18. Microsofts declaration is an outright fraud. Microsofts Fraudulent Intellectual Property Enforcement Scheme Starting in 2008, at least with respect to Plaintiffs, Microsoft carried out a

fraudulent scheme to extort monies from its licensees under ostensible copyright policing and enforcement. 19. In 2008, 2010 and 2012 (every two (2) years) Microsoft sent out cookie cutter

demands on Fianzas and other licensees demanding the licensees complete certain software licensing compliance reports. 20. 21. 22. 23. Each time, Fianzas and its related companies complied. Fianzas complied in 2008. Fianzas complied in 2010. And, Fianzas complied in 2012.

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 5 of 17

24. closed. 25.

Indeed, in 2012 Microsoft communicated to Fianzas that its investigation had been

Contrary to the demonstrable facts, however, by sworn declaration of March 22,

2012, Microsoft falsely represented that Microsoft's records do not reflect any volume purchase of software that supports the software Plaintiffs were using. A certified English translation of Microsoft's March 22, 2012 Sworn Declaration, including a copy of the original, is attached hereto as Exhibit "D." In its Declaration, Microsoft readily admits that it has been sending letters to [Plaintiffs] for years. Id. at p.1, a. D. 26. Microsoft Directs BSA to Facilitate Microsofts Scheme To lend unmerited credibility to its false Sworn Declaration, Microsoft attached a

letter also dated March 22, 2012 from Microsofts co-conspirator Business Software Alliance ("BSA") located in Washington, D.C., stating To Whom It May Concern that BSA's Ms. Duran had personally reviewed Microsoft's sales records corresponding to each of the Plaintiffs and (paraphrasing): Microsoft's records do not reflect any volume purchase of software that supports the software Plaintiffs are using. See id., certified English translation of BSA's letter, including a copy of the original. This statement is false. Plaintiffs purchased and held all licenses required. 27. On information and belief, BSA is a corporate entity separate from Microsoft, has

a distinct line of business and at the relevant time was an active, operating business entity. E. 28. Microsoft Directs Microsoft Guatemala to Facilitate Microsofts Scheme To further lend unmerited credibility to its false Sworn Declaration, Microsoft

attached a March 16, 2012 letter from co-conspirator Microsoft de Guatemala, S.A. ("Microsoft Guatemala") certifying the credentials of a certain Juan Carlos Fletes Monroy that Microsoft offered as a licensed expert witness who would provide expert testimony that Plaintiffs were

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 6 of 17

operating unlicensed software. See id., certified English translation of Microsoft Guatemala's letter, including a copy of the original. The representation is false. Plaintiffs purchased and held all licenses required. 29. Although Microsoft and Microsoft Guatemala share the Microsoft name,

Plaintiffs cannot know these entities business structure, relationship, and precise roles. While it might appear Microsoft Guatemala is the Guatemalan corporate vehicle through which Microsoft operates in Guatemala, it was actually Microsoft who secured the seizure order and not Microsoft Guatemala. The information that would establish the precise relationship and roles of these two entities is solely within the control of Microsoft. Therefore, Plaintiffs require discovery to ferret out further facts in this regard. 30. On information and belief, however, Microsoft and Microsoft Guatemala are

distinct entities with distinct objectives inasmuch as, for example, Microsoft secured the seizure order in Guatemala rather than Microsoft Guatemala. The foregoing, and Microsofts own sworn allegations to the Guatemalan court, indicate Microsoft is the entity that owns the subject intellectual property located in Guatemala. Microsoft Guatemala fulfills other business roles. 31. It was Microsoft Guatemala as a separate and distinct entity to Microsoft, that

drafted at least one (1) letter (the March 16, 2012 letter, at Exhibit D) that Microsoft attached to its false Declaration to lend unmerited credibility to Microsofts false accusations. In this manner, Microsoft used the separately incorporated nature of Microsoft Guatemala to facilitate and perpetrate the fraudulent scheme. F. 32. Microsofts Additional False Sworn Allegations In addition, on information and belief, Microsoft falsely declared that at least one

of the Plaintiffs was operating a CALL CENTER using pirated Microsoft software.

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 7 of 17

33.

The prosecutors investigator, however, concluded in a report that, no CALL

CENTER operated at Plaintiffs headquarters. This further demonstrates Microsoft's shoddy investigation, if any. 34. By sworn declaration of its agent, on or about April 26, 2012, Microsoft amended

the facts alleged in its Seizure Motion to state "ORDENADORES, S.A." was also infringing Microsoft copyright. 35. Based on the foregoing shoddy pre-suit "investigation" and on the foregoing

patently false sworn declaration of facts and supporting independent letters, Microsoft secured a seizure order from the Guatemalan Court. G. Microsoft With the Aid of Multiple Co-Conspirators Fraudulently Raids Plaintiffs Business and Extorts a Payment of US$70,000 On April 27, 2012 Microsoft appeared at Plaintiffs' business offices occupying

36.

seven (7) stories of a prominent commercial building in Guatemala City and housing more than 240 of Plaintiffs employees. 37. Microsoft appeared with armed Guatemalan law enforcement officers and halted

Plaintiffs business operations. Microsoft then proceeded to extort Plaintiffs by demanding an on the spot agreement to pay US$70,000 or Microsoft would remove all of Plaintiffs' servers containing ALL of the Plaintiffs' data and operational software. 38. Microsoft, previously aided by its co-conspirators, ultimately forced Plaintiffs' to

capitulate to Microsoft's extortion to avoid the complete shutting down of their businesses for what would have been an unknown amount of time. 39. Presented with the false choice of being impaled by Scylla or Charabis, Plaintiffs

were forced to pay Microsoft US$70,000 to avoid the complete interruption of their businesses which would, among other things, result in Plaintiffs inability to service the insurance needs of

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 8 of 17

their customers. Again, Seguros is ranked the fourth (4th) largest insurance company in Guatemala and Fianzas is ranked the second (2nd) largest surety in Guatemala. 40. Plaintiffs forced capitulation under duress to Microsofts coercive demand is not a

cognizable or enforceable agreement or contract under the applicable Guatemalan law. This will constitute written notice to Microsoft of the foregoing issue of foreign law pursuant to Rule 44.1, Fed.R.Civ.P. H. 41. At Microsofts Direction Sofier Trading World Facilitates Microsofts Scheme At Microsoft's express instructions, Seguros, on behalf of Plaintiffs, made four (4)

installments payments as follows. At Microsofts direction, Seguros made the first payment to Microsofts co-conspirator Sofier Trading World and the remaining three (3) payments to Microsoft directly into a U.S. bank account. 42. On information and belief, Sofier Trading World is a corporate entity, organized

and existing under the laws of Panama, separate from Microsoft, has a distinct line of business and at the relevant time was an active, operating business entity. I. 43. Microsofts Tax Evasion Although Microsoft appears to operate in Guatemala through the Guatemalan

corporation Microsoft Guatemala, on information and belief, Microsoft diverted payment away from that Guatemalan entity and failed to disclose Microsoft's U.S. receipt of the payment to the Guatemalan authorities, as to evade Guatemalan tax laws and improperly shift the financial burden of paying those taxes to Plaintiffs. This will constitute notice to Microsoft of the foregoing issue of foreign tax law pursuant to Rule 44.1, Fed.R.Civ.P.

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 9 of 17

44.

As a result of Microsofts tax evasion, Seguros, on behalf of Plaintiffs, was forced

to pay the amount of Microsofts $21,000 (i.e., 31% of $70,000) tax liability to the Guatemalan government, resulting in additional damage to Seguros. 45. On information and belief, Microsoft fraudulently used the separately incorporated

nature of Microsoft Guatemala to play a tax shell game, conducting business in Guatemala through Microsoft Guatemala and then diverting payments away from Guatemala to itself in the United States as to evade Guatemalan taxes while saddling Plaintiffs with that liability. 46. The information that would establish the precise relationship and tax structure of

these two entities is solely within the control of Microsoft. Therefore, Plaintiffs require discovery to ferret out further facts in this regard. J. Contrary to Microsofts Fraudulent Sworn Declarations Plaintiffs Have Already Documented At Least 98% of their Licenses As set forth above, Microsoft represented to the Guatemalan court that it had

47.

conducted a reasonable investigation and that its investigation had discovered Plaintiffs copyright infringement. The foregoing are bald faced lies and misrepresentations. 48. In truth and in fact, Plaintiffs had purchased and were operating their Microsoft

software lawfully. 49. Plaintiffs have documented valid licenses for at least 98% of their Microsoft

software. Although Plaintiffs have not yet located the documentation of their valid licenses for the remaining 2% of the Microsoft software, on information and belief either (a) Microsofts records will contain such documentation; or (b) these programs did not require licenses. Plaintiffs search for the remaining documentation will continue. Plaintiffs were 100% compliant. 50. In this manner, Microsoft and its co-conspirators (a) shut down Plaintiffs business

operations for a day, (b) extorted an unjustified US$70,000 payment from Plaintiffs, and (c)

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 10 of 17

fraudulently transferred Microsofts tax liability for that same payment to Plaintiffs - when at worst Plaintiffs were 100% compliant but lacked documentation for 2% of their software licenses. This, in a country with an average compliance rate of a mere 20%, i.e., 80% non-compliance. See Exhibit B at 1, Microsofts proffered June 9, 2008 letter stating Guatemalas software piracy rate (80%) is the second highest in Central America. Plaintiffs were 100% compliant. 51. In addition to its immense legitimate business endeavors, Microsoft and its co-

conspirators are also engaging in a worldwide criminal enterprise to wrongfully extort monies from innocent licensees under the guise of Microsofts worldwide intellectual property enforcement programs. K. 52. Microsofts Fraudulent Scheme Continues Unimpeded As if the foregoing were not enough to shock the conscience, by e-mail of

December 18, 2012, and despite its recent seizure, Microsoft has renewed its demand that Fianzas and its related companies now including Neutra Uno comply with yet another Microsoft audit. 53. If unchallenged, Microsoft will continue its criminal scheme throughout the world.

FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS PRECEDENT, ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS FEES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES 54. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have been performed,

have occurred, or have been waived or excused. 55. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned attorneys to bring this action and are

obligated to pay a reasonable attorneys fee for their services. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of their attorneys fees against Microsoft pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964I. 56. Because Microsofts actions as described herein were performed with actual

malice, ill will and gross indifference to or with reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights, and amount to willful and wanton acts which were deliberate and without reasonable cause or basis, Plaintiffs

10

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 11 of 17

seek punitive damages. COUNT I: RACKETEERING BY MICROSOFT (IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1964) 57. Plaintiffs adopt and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 56

above as if fully and expressly set forth herein and further allege as follows. 58. The operations of Microsoft in its international intellectual property enforcement

programs and consequent dealings with Plaintiffs constitute a racketeering operation. 59. Microsoft directed and coordinated the following entities (1) Microsoft de

Guatemala, S.A., (2) Business Software Alliance, (3) Sofier Trading World, and (4) as yet unidentified additional parties (the Microsoft Rico Enterprise) within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4), which Enterprise was engaged in, or the affairs of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce. 60. Alternatively, Microsoft itself was also a member of the Microsoft Rico Enterprise

with Microsoft being a distinct entity, separate and apart, from each of the Microsoft Rico Enterprise members together. 61. 62. The Microsoft Rico Enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. As set forth above, one objective of the Microsoft RICO Enterprise was to create

the false appearance that multiple independent parties had vetted Microsofts allegations of infringement and as such, Microsofts allegations were founded and reliable. In truth, Plaintiffs were 100% compliant and Microsoft and its co-conspirators perpetrated a fraud. 63. Each entitys participation was effective partly because each was an actual on-going

business with a presence in the marketplace: Guatemala, the United States, Panama, and indeed worldwide. Thus the entities together, made coordinated fraudulent representations to Plaintiffs,

11

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 12 of 17

to other similarly situated Microsoft customers, to the Guatemalan courts, and to Guatemalan law enforcement. 64. As set forth above, the Microsoft Rico Enterprise engaged in the following

predicate acts of racketeering within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(1): d. b. c. d. 65. Mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341; Wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343; Acts interfering with commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951; and Fraud.

The predicate acts set forth in this Complaint, including defrauding and extorting

the three (3) Plaintiffs including by filing false sworn declarations and false supporting letters to secure an improper payment of $US70,000 and to evade Microsofts tax obligations while shifting them to Plaintiffs, are related, in that they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, and methods of commission, and are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. The related criminal schemes set forth in this Complaint constitutes a pattern or patterns of racketeering activity as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1961(5). Microsoft engaged in two or more predicated acts of racketeering within a period of ten years and committed at least one such act after October 15, 1970. Indeed, Microsoft readily swore to the Guatemalan court that it has been sending letters to [Plaintiffs] for years. See Exhibit D, at p.1, a. 66. The information that would establish further predicate acts and further acts of

racketeering is solely within the control of Microsoft. Due to the global nature of their business interests, with the great distances between each of the members of the Microsoft Rico Enterprise (i.e., Washington, Panama, Washington D.C. and Guatemala), it is practically assured that the Enterprise members communicated with each other, with Plaintiffs, with customers similarly

12

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 13 of 17

situated to Plaintiffs, with the Guatemalan courts, and with Guatemalan law enforcement, through use of mail and wire. Plaintiffs require discovery to ferret out the further extent of predicate acts and further acts of racketeering. 67. Microsoft has received income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of

racketeering activity and used or invested, directly or indirectly, part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of an interest in, or in the establishment or operation of, the Microsoft Rico Enterprise, an enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a). 68. Microsoft through a pattern of racketeering activity maintains, directly or

indirectly, an interest in or control of the Microsoft Rico Enterprise, an enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b). 69. Microsoft was associated with the Microsoft Rico Enterprise, and conducted or

participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the Enterprises' affairs through the pattern of racketeering activity described herein in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). 70. (1) Microsoft, (2) Microsoft de Guatemala, S.A., (3) Business Software Alliance,

(4) Sofier Trading World, and (5) as yet unidentified additional parties each entered into a conspiracy to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the Microsoft Rico Enterprises' affairs through the pattern of racketeering activity described herein, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d). 71. As a direct and proximate result of Microsofts unlawful actions, in conjunction

with the actions of its co-conspirators and associates, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including the financial cost attendant to the interruption of each of Plaintiffs business, the extortion of

13

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 14 of 17

US$70,000, and the extortion of $21,000 representing Microsoft's wrongfully evaded and misdirected tax liability (i.e., 31% of $70,000). COUNT II: FRAUD 72. Plaintiffs adopt and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 56

above as if fully and expressly set forth herein and further allege as follows. 73. Microsoft committed fraud on the three (3) Plaintiffs by filing false sworn

declarations to secure an improper payment of $US70,000 and to evade Microsoft's tax obligations while shifting them to Plaintiffs. 74. Microsoft conspired and directed (1) Microsoft de Guatemala, S.A., (2) Business

Software Alliance, (3) Sofier Trading World, and (4) as yet unidentified entities or persons, to carry out the fraud. 75. For example, and as set forth above, one objective of the Microsoft RICO

Enterprise was to create the false appearance that multiple independent parties had vetted Microsofts allegations of infringement and as such, Microsofts allegations were founded and reliable. In truth, Plaintiffs were 100% compliant and Microsoft and its co-conspirators lied. 76. The information that would establish further acts of fraud is solely within the

control of Microsoft. Therefore, Plaintiffs require discovery to ferret out these additional facts. 77. fraud. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of Microsoft's

14

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 15 of 17

COUNT III: UNJUST ENRICHMENT 78. Plaintiffs adopt and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 56

above as if fully and expressly set forth herein and further allege as follows. 79. As forth above, as a result of Microsofts tax evasion, Seguros, on behalf of

Plaintiffs, was forced to pay Microsofts tax liability to the Guatemalan government. The information that would establish Microsofts precise tax structure is solely within the control of Microsoft. Therefore, Plaintiffs require discovery to ferret out further facts in this regard. 80. As set forth above, Microsoft, using duress, coerced Plaintiffs into agreeing to make

payment. This is an invalid agreement under Guatemalan law. Therefore, there was no legally cognizable agreement. This will constitute written notice to Microsoft of the foregoing issue of foreign law pursuant to Rule 44.1, Fed.R.Civ.P. 81. thereof. 82. 83. Microsoft voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit conferred. The circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for Microsoft to retain the Accordingly, Plaintiffs conferred a benefit upon Microsoft who had knowledge

benefits of the $21,000 (i.e., 31% of $70,000) taxes Plaintiffs paid the Guatemalan government which Microsoft should have paid, directly or indirectly. 84. 85. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of Microsofts

unjust enrichment.

15

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 16 of 17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiffs,

FIANZAS

UNIVERSALES,

S.A.,

SEGUROS

UNIVERSALES, S.A., and ORDENADORES, S.A., demand that judgment be entered against Defendant MICROSOFT CORPORATION as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) damages; statutory trebled damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c); punitive damages; costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c); temporary and permanent injunctions enjoining Microsoft from, directly or

indirectly, continuing its above described fraudulent copyright policing scheme against Plaintiffs or any related company; (f) (g) (h) costs; interest; and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable.

16

Case 1:13-cv-22131-JLK Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2013 Page 17 of 17

Respectfully submitted, THE BOBADILLA LAW FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 786.446.8643 Facsimile: 786.446.8641 By: s/ D. Fernando Bobadilla D. Fernando Bobadilla, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 0136948 fernandob@bobadillafirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 26th day of August 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the below Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. By: s/ D. Fernando Bobadilla, Esq. D. Fernando Bobadilla, Esq. SERVICE LIST Hilarie Bass, Esq. Ricardo A. Gonzalez, Esq. Jonathan J. Rodriguez, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 333 Avenue of the Americas Miami, Florida 33131 Tel. (305) 579-0500 Facsimile (305) 579-0717 gonzalezr@gtlaw.com rodriguezjo@gtlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant

17