D'Agostino V Appliances Buy Phone Complaint

Case
Case3:10-cv-05415-FLW
2:33-av-00001 Document
-DEA Document
9737-1 Filed
1-1 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page 1Page
of 201PageID:
of 20 PageID:
923807
EXHIBIT A
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 Filed
1-1 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page 2Page
of 202PageID:
of 20 PageID:
923818
Attorney (s) Google Corporation

Office Address & Tel. No.: 76 Ninth Avenue 4th Floor New York NY 10011
Attorney(s) for PIaintiff(s)p
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Ocean COUNTY
LAW DIVISION
Steven DAgostino
Piaitlff( Docket No. L-3250-10
vs. CIVIL ACTION
AppliancesByP hone, Steven&CherylSigman, Google
Defendant(s) SUMMONS
From The State of New Jersey
To The Defendant(s) Named Above:
The plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of New Jersey.
The complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you dispute this
complaint, you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of service with the
deputy clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above within 35 days from the date you
received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (The address of each deputy clerk of
the Superior Court is provided.) If the complaint is one in foreclosure, then you must file your written
answer or motion and proof of service with the Clerk of the Superior Court, Hughes Justice
Complex, P.O. Box 971, Trenton, NJ 08625-0971. A filing fee payable to the Clerk of the Superior
Court and a completed Case Information Statement (available from the deputy clerk of the Superior
Court) must accompany your answer or motion when it is filed. You must also send a copy of your
answer or motion to plaintiffs attorney whose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no
attorney is named above. A telephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve a
written answer or motion (with fee of $135.00 and completed Case Information Statement) if you
want the court to hear your defense.
If you do not file and serve a written answer or motion within 35 days, the court may enter a
judgment against you for the relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs of suit. If judgment is
entered against you, the Sheriff may seize your money, wages or property to pay all or part of the
judgment.
If you cannot afford an attorney, you may call the Legal Services office in the county where you
live. A list of these offices is provided. If you do not have an attorney and are not eligible for free
legal assistance, you may obtain a referral to an attorney by calling one of the Lawyer Referral
Services. A list of these numbers is also provided.
/\_i( laq
DONALD F. PHELAN
Clerk of the Superior Court
DATED: September 2, 2010
Name of Defendant to Be Served: Goog1 Corporation
Address of Defendant to Be Served: 76 Ninth Avenue

4th Floor
New York, NY 10011
10
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 Filed
1-1 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page 3Page
of 203PageID:
of 20 PageID:
923829
OCEAN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

OCEAN COUNTY COURTHOUSE
CIVIL LAW DIVISION
TOMS RIVER NJ 08754
TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICE
COURT TELEPHONE NO. (732) 929-2016
COURT HOURS
DATE: AUGUST 30, 2010

RE: DAGOSTINO VS APPLIANCES BY PHONE INC
DOCKET: OCN L -003250 10
THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 2.
DISCOVERY IS 300 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYS
FROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON THOMAS S. O'BRIEN
F YO'J HAVE ANY 'JE7T7OH5, CONTACT TEAM 032

AT: (732) 929 V2.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE A

CERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE Ff2ING OF YOUR PLEADING.
PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH R.4:5A-2.
ATTENTION:
STEVEN DAGOSTINO
765 MANTOLOKING RD
BRICK NJ 08723
JUQMANO
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
4 of 20
4 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9238310
CIVIL CASE INPORMATION STATEMENT LJCK JCA

Iy:TT
(CIS) [HG/CKNO.
Use for initial Law Division

Civil Part pleadings (not moflons) under Rule 4:5-1
Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c), OVERPAYMENT:
if information above the black bar is not completed
1 BATCH
or attorney's signature is not affixed
ATTORNEY I PROSE NAME ONE ER COUNTY OF VENUE
RMNAME0fapphCabIe> DOCKET NUMBER (when available)
OFFICEADDRLS DOCUMENT TYPE
(3 C-4 it5 C )- JURY DEMAND Ei"YEs 0N

NAME OF PARTY (e.g., John Doe, Plaintiff)
$1 D'Ms
CAPTION
fl3i V. he
, J Cc/
CASE TYPE NUMBER (See reverse side for listing) IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE? 0 YES
/
W / /
j Q IF YOU HAVE CHECKED YES SEE N.J.SA. 2A. 53 A -27 AND APPLICABLE CAS J
REGARDING YOUR OBLIGATION TOFILEAN AFFIDAVIT OFMERIT.
RE1JTED CASES PENDING? IF YES, LIST DOCKET NUMPERS
o
YES Q/No
DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING ANY PARTIES NAME OF DEFENDANT'S PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY (if known)
(arising out of same transaction or occurrence)? 0 Nd
El es [?'No El eN
CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION

DOPARTIESI-LAVEACURRENTPAST OR IFYESiSTHTRELATIONSHIP: —
RECURRENT RELATIONSHIP?
YES J No
EMPLOYE WEMPLOYE I, FRIEND/NEIGHBOR 0 0 OTHER (explain)
L FAMILIAL [,-(BUSINESS
DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS CASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES BY THE LOSING PARTY? 0 YES
USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMEI OR
ACCELERATED DISPOSITION
DO Y OU OR YOUR CLIENT NEE'

YES 9/No
WILL AN INTERPRETER BE NE ceo? IF YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE?
El YES
I
certify that confidential personal Identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to t4e a d vL
redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b).
SIGNAThRE ,
J
Effective 04/0112040 CN 1flE17.Rnci
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
5 of 20
5 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9238411
ECHL6
(CK) MO CA
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Amount

Plaintiff N DIVISION CIVIL PART DATE
'OCEAN
H OCEAN COUNTY
OvP
IniaIs'J-t
V. N
Appliances Buy Phone, Inc., PLAINT AUG 2

d 2010
Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman,
and GooQle Corporation
Defendants 25D7O
Plaintiff Steven D'Agostino, by way of complaint against the above-captioned defendants, says as follows:
THE PARTIES AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PARTIES:
1) Defendant Appliances Buy Phone, Inc. is an online retailer of major home appliances, formed in early 2003.
2) Defendaiu Appliances Buy Phone, Inc. is a coipor'ition wholly owned and operated by defendants Steven and Cherl
Sigman, husband and wife, Defendants Appliances Buy Phono, Inc., Steven Siginan and Cher yl Sigman are all located at the
address of 3 Devonshire Was', Jackson NJ 08527.
3) Defendant Google Corporation is a worldwide entity, whose online applications, software and services are used by billions of
people. While Defendant Googie Corporation's most widely used service is their internet search engine, they additionally
offer many other products services. Some of these services are fee-based (e.g. such as their sponsored advertising "AdWords"
and their online credit card payment processing "Google Checkout"). However, many of their products and services are free
of charge to customers and to merchants (e.g. products such as their own toolbar "Google Toolbar", their own web browser
"Chrome", and specifically for merchants, services such as posting listings in their online shopping comparison "Google
Products", formerly known as "Froogle").
4) Plaintiff Steven D'Agostino is a web developer, whom single-handedly created all of the numerous software applications that
have powered the ApplianccsBuvPhonecom website since August of 2003. Throughout this certification. Plaintiff will refer
to himself in the third person, except in instances where he will refer to himself in the first person for the sake of clarity or
simplicity.
FAC TUAL_BACKGROUND:
5) A few months before the Plaintiff would later met defendant Steven Sigman that summer, in early 2003 Steve Sigman and
Cheryl Sigman first launched their initial website, AppliancesBuvPhone.com , for their corporation of AppliancesBuyPhone,
Inc. This initial website was developed by some guy named "Shawn". Also, sometime in the early spring of 2003, apparently
Steven Sigman (henceforth referred to as "Steven") had made the very unwise choice of registering literall y hundreds and
hundreds of domain names, with the intention of keeping those names until another competitor wanted one of them, to which
he would then charge them an exorbitant price to purchase. Soon after, there were numerous complaints made about that
illegal activity, and Steven was eventually fined heavily for "cybersquatting". (1 believe the fine was in excess of $100,000 if
I recall his story conectly). Along with that hefty fine. Steven also had to relinquish all but a couple dozen or so of his
domain names.
6) Plaintiff met defendant Steven in July of 2003, outside the Computer City store in Freehold. Plaintiff was lookin g to pick up
extra work doing computer repairs, computer tutoring, or developing websites. I was passing out flyers, placing them into car
windshields, but as chance would have it, Ijust happened to be placing one of m y flyers on Steven's car right as Steven was
walking back to his car.
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
6 of 20
6 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9238512
7) Plaintiff and Steven had a brief conversation, and while there in person, Steven noticed the plaintiff's flyer offered website
development services. It was then that Steven mentioned that he was unhappy with his current website. After a brief
discussion, Steven said he was very interested and would call soon. Fortunately, I had the foresight to also ask Steven what
was the name of his website, which lie replied was "AppliancesBuyPhonc.coin"
8) So after a few days and Steven hadn't called. Plaintiff then went online and found the AppliancesBuyPhone.com website.
Plaintiff called the tollfree number and mentioned who he was, and then learned that the guy on the other end of the phone
was the same person whom he had met at Computer City. Soon thereafter, both parties set up a meeting and met in person
and discussed Steven's needs. Steven claimed his current website ran too slow, and that no customers were placing any
orders online at all. All of his orders up to that point all had been placed via phone. He was also upset because at that time,
the only option he had available for online checkouts was to have his orders processed via Shop.ebaappliances.com , which
charged somewhere around 5% per transaction,
9) When Plaintiff asked Steven why did he agree to pay such a high percentage, Steven's answer was "Because I have no other
choice". They also discussed Steven's recent past with his website, which was front inception noticeably slow and bloated
with unnecessary code and media content. This was apparently the only version of the website that was ever developed by
that guy named "Shawn", whom according to Steven allegedly was more concerned about being out on his boat rather than
meeting Steven's needs for his website.
10) 1 assured Steven that he would have my 100% devotion to his website, a promise which to this day, 7 years later, 1 have
always kept.
11) So in August 2003, Steven entered into a fixed price contract with Plaintiff to develop a brand new website. Steven
specifically instructed that the new website, which Plaintiff was to design. would have absolutely no pictures, just plain text
only. This was because of Steven's concern about his prior website being bogged down with multiple large slow pictures.
Further, the new website would have it's own customized search engine, shopping cart and custom online payment
processing solution, tailored to fit their unique needs. Plaintiff agreed to develop all of this for Steven for a flat fee of $1500.
Steven agreed that for this price, he would be buying a lifetime license to use the plaintiff's software, but Plaintiff still
retained ownership of any and all software he developed. Unlike what was common with all of the plaintiff's competitors at
that time. Plaintiff did not ask for any recurring fees whatsoever. Most competitors charged a recurring fee per item stored in
the database, as well as a percentage of all of the sales which were processed directly online.
12) The new website developed by the plaintiff then vent live a short while afterwards, and almost immediately after launching
the new website, Steven's number of phone calls increased dramatically, and there were finally a few online orders coming in
as well.
13) Over time, Plaintiff eventually convinced Steven to allow at least a few pictures, such as a logo image and a couple other
small images to make the website look nicer. I assured him I knew what I was doing and I knew how to keep the bandwidth
and footprint very low. (Keep in mind, that most people still used dialup connections, and the older computers had limited
CPU power, limited RAM, and the browsers had vastly significant differences in their Document Object Models). So I made
sure that everything I developed was going to perform very well on all conlputers, regardless of how fast or slow their
internet connection was, and it would work as desired on virtually all browsers and versions thereof.
14) One of the tools Plaintiff had made for Steven was the ability for Win enter, edit, and delete any/all of his own data. We
discussed allowing Steven the ability to upload product pictures, but Steven said it would take Will way too long and way too
much effort to find, download and reupload pictures for all of his thousands of products.
15) Then in 2005, Steven found a solution to this problem, in a company called "Retail Deck", owned by a person by the name of
Jim Kane". Jim Kane had claimed to have a ready-made pre-existing database with full descriptions and pictures to
thousands of home appliances, to which multiple other online appliance retailers already had recurring subscriptions with to
utilize for their own websites. Although the subscription price was several thousand dollars per year (I recall the estimates
being between $10,000 and $20,000) Steven definitely wanted to have this, because it would save him a lot of manual work
and provide him product pictures on his website, which at that point he still did not have. However, Jim Kane would not sell
to Steve Sigman, because Steven had/has a very bad reputation with all of his nearby competitors in the buying group, and
thus Jim Kane did not want to deal with Steven nor his wife Cheryl at all. Steven tried very hard to convince him otherwise,
but Jim Kane still refused to sell a subscription to his data to either Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman or any representative of
AppliancesBuyPhone Inc.
16) But then in Sep of 2006, Steven Sigman happened to meet someone by the name of Richard Akerman, whom was from either
the Brooklyn or Queens area. Mr. Akerman had a company called "Real Time LLC", and claimed he could get Steven a
subscription to Jim Kane's data, and could offer him an entire new web solution as well. Akerman claimed to have a
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
7 of 20
7 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9238613
developer in India named Raj, whom had a product called DynaShoppe. Steven liked the look of the DynaShoppe websitcs
which were shown to him by Akerman, and thus Si gman agreed to pay Akerma.n $57,00() for the initial data subscription and
development of a new "DynaShoppe" website. During this time, Akerman claimed that Raj from DynaShoppe owed him
money and tried to offer Sigman several substitute products. Steven Sigman was not satisfied with any of those substitutes.
and when Akerman suggested going back to 'riaShoppe, Plaintiff then got involved and began to evaluate the actual
DynaShoppe product along side of Steven Signrnn. We both found the DyiiaShoppe CMS (Content Management System) to
be very clumsy and awkward, I also noticed that just beyond the pretty images of DynaShoppe, there were many basic
fundamental flaws with the code. There were blatant errors on the front end, errors on the back end retrieving the data, and
had the horrendously unacceptable practice of processing Credit Card orders via an unsecured connection, which is an
extreme risk to the customers. For a period of several weeks, and then months, Plaintiff documented the flaws with several
DynaShoppe websites, and I even made a videotape of myself visiting these sites and the numerous errors,
17) Then Raj told Akerman that he could not provide the desired custom functionality of the online payments that Steven had
with my software, unless I were to give Raj m y proprietary code. I told Steven it was my intellectual property and 1 would
not just give it to him. But what I did instead was, I wrote out a ver y long and detailed specification requirement of what Raj's
code would need to do in order to give Steven the same functionality he has with my code. R.aj could not do it, and that's
when Akerinan contacted me directly. Akerman tried to convince inc that I should (cam up with him, and just give Raj my
software. I told Akerman that I was unwillin g to do that, then Akerman said he wanted to make a deal with me where he
would get other clients in, and I could then use my software for those new clients he would line up for me. Basically
Akerman was offering me a partnership with him for new clients. I considered that idea and asked Akerman for more details,
He then said that he first wanted me to just tell Steven not to worry about DynaShoppe, and in return Akerman promised me
$20,0(X) up front once I got Steven to agree to take Raj's stuff as-is. So basically, he wanted me to betray Steven and have
him accept an inferior and unacceptable product, but out of my own integrity and loyalty to Steven 1 refused,
18) Prior to this, Steven told me Plaintiff that he was not happy about giving up so much control to Akerman, but said he had no
choice. While they were negotiating back and forth. Jim Kane at Retail Deck had already opened an account that Steven
could get data from. I had quickly written software that would read this data, made new separate database tables to use it, and
on our current website, I showed Steven how Jim Kane's data would look like on our current site. Steven seemed to be
satisfied with my new software using that data, and by that time he was dissatisfied with Akerman, who reneged on his
DynaShoppe contract. So Steven cancelled his contract with Akermnan. The battle between Sigman and Akerman was
growing ever increasingly hostile and nasty, with numerous threats going back and forth.
19) Although Steven had already paid for a one-year subscription of Jim Kane's data, since the account was opened in Akerman's
name, Plaintiff feared that Akennan may kill the data feed, and Steve would lose all of the product images and data he just
had access for. Plaintiff relayed these concerns to Steven, but he said to just wait and not to do anything yet. But against
Steven's instructions. Plaintiff went ahead anyway and made scripts that grabbed all of the thousands of product images and
stored them in our own website server. This took hours and hours to run and complete. Well, not more than 24 hours after I
had copied all the images and data to our server, did Akerman do just as I suspected - he killed Sigman 's subscription. Steve
Sigman tried to contact Jim Kane and have him re-open his account, but Kane refused, as the account was in Aker-man's
name and Akerman said to cancel it. Akerman then proceeded to defame Steve Sigman in numerous internet publications and
websites. And even to this da y, there is still exists at least one negative defamatory article posted by Akerman on
ripoffreport.com about Steven Siginan,
20) So Steven was devastated afterwards, thinking he had lost all of his images for good. Then I surprised him, telling him that I
went ahead on my own and copied all of the images just the day before he was canceled. So then I changed the website code
to use the new data and pictures stored on our server, as well as an update to our current CMS, to allow for manual uploads of
individual images for any new products.
21) Then over the next weeks and months, more facts would come to light about the Akerman character he had been dealing
with. Akermnan was a con man, a liar, had committed SS disability fraud, and had extorted numerous other companies whom
caught on to him and refused to give him any more money. Steven fought with American express, the CC he used to pay part
of Akerman's fees, for several months about the fact he should not owe an ything to Akermnan. Amex went back and forth
several times on their decision, before it was finally resolved favorably to Steven.
22) So by my scrutiny of Akerman and DynaShoppe, I saved Appliances Buy Phone from being taken over by an evil malicious
conman, whom no doubt would have demanded increasingly more and more money from Steven.
23) So for all the weeks I spent researching DynaShopue, Arguing with Raj and Akerman, writing numerous emnails and writing
detailed requirements specs for Raj. and for saving AppliancesBuyPhone.com from complete rein, I was hoping that Steven
would voluntarily offer me some sort of reward. But no, instead, he never offered me a dime.
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
8 of 20
8 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9238714
24) The only thing Steven offered to pay inc for, was that he had specificall y asked for an invoice for the work I did for the new
front end, to copy the images and the new CMS tools. The invoice I submitted only listed that specific work, although I was
sure he would remember all of the other stuff that was not on the invoice I did in connection with the whole fIasco. I didn't
mention all my weeks of work researching DynaShoppe, Akerman and Raj. I didn't include my time and effort writing Raj
the detailed specs. I didn't include converting the code first initially from Jim Kane's data feed directly then to read from our
server and new database tables. I only included the specific costs he asked about, but Steven had to realize I had done so
much more than that. And he was getting to use this new data almost for free. And I stopped him from walking off the edge
of a cliff with an unscrupulous, vindictive and malicious fraudster. So I waited only a short time for him to send a check.
When I opened it, I saw that lie paid my invoice, to the penny. But not one cent extra. And not even a "Thank you" for
providing his compan y the additional earning capability of hundreds of thousands of dollars in future profits and saving his
company millions of dollars from being ruined by Akerman He paid to the specific invoice he requested to the penn y. But
not one cent more.
25) So for all the other countless hours Plaintiff spent on the Akerman/DynaShoppe issue, and for the fact Plaintiff had saved his
multi-million dollar company from complete ruin, in return Plaintiff got absolutely zilch. That hurt. I never mentioned
anything to him about it until our diner conversation on July 3l' 2010, but I should not have ever needed to. He should have
done it on his',lition way back in 2006. When Cheryl Sigman interjected at that point to the diner conversation about those
un-rewarded efforts which saved AppliancesBuyPhone, she said they would have paid me an appropriate reward and
compensation if they thought it was worth it to them. For that statement for be truthful, then it would mean that all of my
uncompensated hours spent saving their multi-million dollar business was worth absolutely nothing to them. Because that's
exactly what they gave me.
26) But facts will show this statement by Cheryl, whereby she claims that they would have paid me appropriately if they thought
it was worth it to them, cannot possibly true.
27) In 2008, Plaintiff built a special CMS tool that allowed Steven the ability to upload product data and pictures much more
quickly than before. Before, with the previous CMS Plaintiff built, Steven would have to load all the data for each product
one at a time, even if it was diffrent versions (i.e. different colors) of the same exact item. Also with each upload, he would
have to find a picture of that44né"somcwhere online, then copy it to his liar-drive, giving it a name and location he could
easily find again. Then he would have to browse to that folder, select that filename, and re-upload back to the website server.
That took a lot of time and effort when dealing with hundreds, if not thousands, of new products. Every few months or so,
Steven will get updates for scores of new products, and will have to delete scores of discontinued items as well.
28) So the new tool Plaintiff built for him allowed him to enter the* same basic data for several versions of the same item at once
(i.e. if the appliance is available in White, Black and Stainless, he would only have to type the basic information once. Then
lie could enter the specific model number, color and price for each variation.
29) He could also load multiple items, each with multiple color variations, all in one shot. This was a big advantage already.
30) But this new version of my CMS tool offered even something more - the ability to load pictures directly from another site.
What he could now do, instead of downloading each picture to his hardrive, saving it somewhere with a name he could
remember and then having to find it again and re-upload it with the old CMS, now he could now just right click on the
picture lie found on the other website and get it's location. He could then just paste that pictures location into the new CMS,
and my tool would do all the work to grab the image directly from the target website. This saved Steven huge amounts of
time and effort.
31) Although Steven had not authorized any specific compensation for this task. Plaintiff wound up spending over 300 hundred
hours developing it for him. When I mentioned it to him, I told him just to pay me what lie thought was fair. It would later
turn out, that he paid me less than a third of my already discounted price of $40/hour. At $40/hr, it would have been over
$12,000. But he only paid me a total of $4,000 for it, and he paid that amount in 4 equal installments of $1,000 each per
month, for a period of 4 months.
32) In 2009, Steven purchased a license from Nextopia.com , for a more robust internal search engine. Plaintiff then later
investigated what Nextopia had offered. After several communications back and forth, Chris, the Nextopia sales rep, had
addressed all of the technical concerns about the use of their product causing the risks of potentially having dual points of
failure in serial. (I.e. where we would fail if either our server goes down or if their server goes down). However, Steven then
asked me if I could develop the same functionality instead of his paving for ii. annuall y via Nextopia. I told Win could do it.
He said he would pay inc to develop it, offering me a one-time fee in the same amount he was paying them annuall y , to
which I agreed. Steven said he was paying them $450 per year, so if I would agree to build it for him for a one-time cost of
$450, he would "rather see me get the money". I agreed to build it for him for that price. However, after Steven cancelled his
agreement with Nextopia. I spoke to Chris the sales rep a few more times. During one of those discussions, the issue of costs
came up. I then asked him how much was Steven paying them. Chris responded that they were charging Steven $1,000 per
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
9 of 20
9 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9238815
year. So Steven's offer to pay me the same as what it would have cost him for a year with Nextopia was absolutely not true.
Instead of offering me the true value of what it was worth, or his even his oivri stated terms, in turns Out that he had conned
me and had given me less than half of what he said he was giving me. Instead of paying $1,000 a year each and every year to
Nextopia, lie only paid me a one-lime fee of $450.
33) It is also relevant to note that the defendants are also paying this other company WPRMOTE. $600/month to upload their
product feeds to Yahoo Shopping and a few other shopping sites. But by their own admission, the combined traffic front
these shopping sites, all pale in comparison to what, the y get from The Google Products shopping site alone. Plaintiff built for
the Siginans a tool which allows them to upload to Google Products whenever they wish, without limitation. And fly tool
no recurring fees, they simply paid a very nominal one-time fee for inc to build it. So rhetorically speaking, if Cheryl
Sigman meant what she said about that they were willing to reward me with an amount of what my work is worth to them,
how after all these years 4ite I still never seen a dime extra for it?
34) This is also in addition to the countless other times when I dropped what I was doing to help Steve, all at no compensation.
During the early years, we had hosted the site on different hosting companies, where frequently the flies and/or the data on
the server got corrupted. Often Steven would only notice this around 11:00PM to even past midnight, but lie couldn't reach
anyone at our hosting companies. So then he would call me, and I would stop what I was doing to go online, try to diagnose
his problems, and either re-upload the corrupted files, find the glitches in the data, or do whatever I could to re-configure his
account on the server to get it back up and running again.
35) I also made several rush changes to his website, and often didn't even get compensated for it. One time, I was driving
somewhere to an important meeting, While en route, my cell phone rung - Steven had called me in panic, saying he was
contacted by GE Monogram, whom threatened legal actions against him if lie didn't immediately remove the prices shown on
the website for GE Monogram appliances. Without even talking to me first, he promised them that the GE monogram prices
would be gone by 3:00 PM that day. I told him he shouldn't have made that promise, as I was driving somewhere important
and I could not be back home by then. But Steven was all upset and told me how important it was that he not jeopardize his
relationship with GE. So I then pulled over, called the other people at my important meeting and cancelled, and rushed back
home to make the changes to Steven's website, all so that he would not get in trouble with GE. I never billed him for that,
and the reward or compensation Steven offered me for it in return was ... as one might have guessed ... absolutely nothing.
36) Even one time when I was on vacation in Florida, when the NJ state sales tax changed from 6% to 71/o, Steven called me and
said lie needed the change right away. So in the middle of my vacation, I went to the computer room in the Hotel's lobby, and
I downloaded the necessary software I needed to make the changes. I also just happened to remember Steve's login
information, so then I retrieved the necessar y files, made the changes and re-uploaded thcThen to make sure that nobody
else using that computer could ever hack into Steven's account, I spent hours Irving to clean out all references in the
computer's system files that may have possibly stored Steve's login information. (A hacker could easily go into a public
computer and find toms of personal information). It was only after I was sufficiently convinced there was none of Steven's
data still stored in that computer, did I then cease my work. And I did this all out of the loyalty and devotion I had to Steven's
website.
37) All of the work I have ever done for Steven Sigman has either been done ar huge discounts, or often completely free. Never
has Steven offered me a single penny extra for anything I did. But Steven doesn't just take advantage of me; he does it to
anyone else lie does business with.
38) For example, there was a very successful internet marketer than was friends with his daughter Randi. named Lea Synefakis.
Lea offered Steven to help him with his SIlO (Search Engine Optimization), but she needed some technical tools to be built
by inc in order to allow her to do it dynamically. She sent me the software specs and even a desired GUI (Graphical User
Interface), which I appreciated because it took the guess work out of my part as to how she wanted it to look and operate. So
I then built software to do what she needed, that was to let her dynamically change META tags, keywords, page titles, etc. I
completed this work in just a few weeks, and Lea responded she was amazed by that feat. Lea worked for a large company in
North Jersey with their own in-house IT dept., and according to Lea, it would take her entire IT team over 10 times longer to
develop something way less complicated than what I did, So then over the next several weeks. Lea performed her SEO
services for Steven, which proved to be quite beneficial
39) Lea then apparently sent Steven a rather large bill for her services, and lie objected to the cost. He then wanted an itemized
invoice from her, and from what l gather, he was trying to scrutinize everything she did in order to try to haggle her down on
her fees. She then got upset with Steven, and called him a "Gonif' (which means thief in Hebrew). Steven then got angry
with Lea, and told me that only because she was such good friends with his daughter Randi, would he ever pay her what she
asked for. He said if she was anyone else, she would not have paid her anywhere near as much as what she billed him for.
And Steven admits that even to this day, he still doesn't speak to her.
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
10 of 20
10 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9238916
40) So Steven and Cheryl Sigman do not pay what things are worth, just the opposite. They try to haggle and connive and take as
much as they possibly can from others with giving in return as little as they can get away with. They are not fair in their
business dealings. Their decades long bad reputation amongst the entire New York and New Jersey appliances industry and
buying groups only further support this.
41) After he had to pay Lea more than he wanted to, Steven then hired another lady, Laura Henr y. to do his SEQ for him, I made
a new login for Laura to use the same SEO tool I had developed for Lea, and Laura began to do SEQ work for Steven.
Although sometimes Laura and myself had different ideas on what was practical or not, Laura was ver y dedicated and put in
a lot of effort into doing the best she could to optimize Steven's SEO index ranking. She also took over setting Steven's
sponsored advertising on Google, and set his pay-pre-click budget much higher than Steven would have otherwise wanted to
pay . But regardless, in the end, her efforts led to the AppliancesBuyPhone.com website to be the first search result on the first
page of Google, for numerous keyword searches (i.e. if a visitor typed the keywords "discount appliances NJ" into the
Google Search, Steven's website was the very first organic search result to show). But even though her efforts paid off very
well for Steven. he was unhappy about paying so much for the pay-per-clicks advertising she set up. Then he was extremely
unhappy when she sent him her bill, which 1 understand he argued with her about, and after he eventually paid her, he told
me to remove her login to his SEO tool, and he was not going to use her services ever again.
42) So in the summer of 2009, when Steven approached inc about learning SEO techniques to help promote his website, I knew
he would object to the enormous price I would have to charge him in order to do so. He tried to convince me to learn it,
saying I would improve my own marketability in the process as well, which was true. But even still, that benefit alone would
not nearly justify the incredible amount of time and effort I would need to invest into this in order to do it. So I thought of an
idea, what I thought was a perfect idea infact - a win-win situation.
43) Rather than Steven paying me hourly, and ratherromoting the current AppliancesBuyPhone.com site, where the benefits of
my SEO efforts would be hard to measure, instead I thought of the following. That I would use one of Steven's idly parked
domain names (i.e. one of the few domain names that he was still allowed to cybersquat with for the past 7 years). and I
would build an entire new website, and try to promote that with purely organic (free and unpaid) SEO techniques. It would
have it's own loll free, and payment processing too. But I wanted to make a percentage based solely on how well that new
website did.
44) So I met with Steven and Cheryl in August 2009 at the Barnes & Nobles in Brick. I told them what I wanted to do. that I
would put the website in my name, get my own CC payment processing, my own toll free number. I would build the new
website, research and learn all the needed SEO techniques, then put the techniques into action to promote the site, then do all
the work to keep the data and prices current, and I would pay for all expenses involved (such as the toll free number, hosting
the site. etc.). It would not cost Steven and/or Cher y l a penny, and I would only make money if and when people ordered
from the new website. Steven and Cheryl agreed to this, and we agreed to split the profits 5050. I also agreed to keep the
prices exactly the same, and not to make m y new website look fhncy, so that the customers would not make any unfair
comparisons between the 2 sites.
45) After several months, the new website was built, and I had learned enough SEQ techniques that I was ready to launch that
new website. I used the domain name of Appliances4Sale.com , one of the couple dozen names that Steven was allowed to
continue to cybcrsquat with from back in 2003. I launched my site in October 2009, but even though I pasted my product
data immediately with Google products, I received almost no calls. By the end 2009. I had received only 2 orders for that
entire 2009 y ear. In Januaiy, sales were still very slow, but were starting to increase. Over then next few months, my rate of
sales began to climb. Also during this time, I would cheek to see how well my site was indexing on Google's organic search.
At first, I could not find the website at all. Then I was on page 12, then a few weeks later, on page 10. Over the next few
months, I moved up and up. and I was on pages 4,5 and 6 of the Google results pages, depending upon what keywords were
typed in. Finally by June, 1 was on Google's search result page 3 for various keywords. It was during this time, when finally
my sales were doing well. In the month of June 2010, I had received over $30,000 worth of orders. Some of these orders had
to be refunded, either because they were for unconfirmed shipping addresses, or because we did not have certain items in
stock. But even just the actual completed June 2010 sales had grossed over $12,000. And the first half of Jul y was also
equally strong.
46) But then the beginning of July, Steven told me that our warehouse was cutting off all wholesale/reseller sales on air
conditioners due to limited supply. Steven told inc that until further notice, we could not sell another single air conditioner.
immediately changed m y website code to reflect that, where every air conditioner would indicate to the customer the
following message "Out of stock until further notice". They could not order it or place it into their online shopping cart. I
offered to make the same change on Steven's website, but he told me not to, that he didn't know how long the freeze would
be in place for. But just a few days prior, he said we were done for the whole summer season, saying that we could not sell
anymore AJCs until September.
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
11 of 20
11 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239017
47) 1 thought this to be very odd, and since we use the same warehouse as PC Richard does, I went to the local PC Richard store,
which is only a mile from my house. I saw about 65 boxes of brand new air conditioners just sitting on their showroom floor,
so it hardly seemed like there was any shortage. When I called Steven and told him this fact, he said that the shortage was
based in their North Jersey and New York stores, and soon they would need to transfer their units in Brick up there to
accommodate the shortage. Again he said that neither my website or his could sell any A/Cs. Again I offered to change the
code on his website to say "Out of stock until further notice" like mine did, so he wouldn't be wasting mone y on all of those
incoming tolifree calls for nothing. But he then said he didn't mind, claiming that he could sell them some other appliance
instead. I knew that had to be pure hogwash, because I couldn't fathom how an yone could possibly talk somebody into
buying a stove or a refrigerator if they were looking for an air conditioner. It then seemed obvious to me that Steven was still
selling AJCs but wanted to keep all of the air conditioner sales for himself. This also fit in within something else, because
previously he complained about the amount of work involved in processing air conditioner sales for the small profit that was
involved. His own words were, which he said repeatedly to me throughout Ma y and June "I hate selling air conditioners, they
are more hassle than they are worth".
48) So I really started to strongly suspect that Steven was depriving me of making any A/C sales on my own. Then a few days
later, all remaining doubt was removed. While eating my lunch at a McDonalds in Toms River, a lady at a nearby table took
up a conversation with me, noticing that I looked troubled by something. I then told her my concerns that my business partner
was being unfair with me, and I asked her to do me a favor. I asked her if she would call Appliances Buy Phone on her cell
phone, and to say that she was interested in buying a specific air conditioner, a Sharp AFQ I 20PX, which is unit that PC
Richard had literally dozens of in stock in their Brick store, and which Steven had specifically told me a few days before that
we could not get. She called the Appliances Buy Phone tolifree number and put her cellphonc on loudspeaker mode. I heard
Steven answer, and she asked him about the AFQ I 20PX. Just as I had prepped her to expect. Steven asked her where it was
going to, and after she replied "Freehold NJ" just as I had instructed her to say. Steven then said it could be delivered in a
couple days. She then said she would ask her husband and get back to him and hung up, once again as I had previously
instructed her to do.
49) Then later that same day, I called Steven and said I had a customer that wanted a Sharp AFQ I 20PX, but once again Steven
told me that we were still blocked and still can't sell any air conditioners at all."
50) But even without my selling any air conditioners, my sales for other appliances were still very strong for the first half of July.
approximately $5500 in gross sales for only a half month that did not include any of the turned-down A/C orders.
51) However, then all of the sudden may sales seemed to dr y up overnight, as the next couple weeks. I got almost no calls or
orders. On July 24', I then learned that Google Products had mistakenly identified my website and the other website as
duplicates. I wrote them several emails, and eventually they agreed to correct it.
52) But unfortunately, during this time Steven had tortiously interfered with this and then look my website down completely
down. Because the cybersquatted domain name of Appliances4Sale.com was still registered in Steven's name, he was able to
log into the registrar and put the entire domain name of Appliances4sale.com back to being in an idly parked state. This
means I could not receive any traffic at all whatsoever, and I could not even receive any emails from current or former
customers. Below is the chronology of those events.
53) On Sat Jul 24th, I happened to notice that I had no active items listed on Google Products. So then I tried uploading my
product feed again, but then I received a "disapproved" error message. I suspected that perhaps Google mistook my site and
Steven's as mirrors, but to be sure I then wrote Google an email asking for an explanation.
54) On Monday Jul 26th, Google had replied that they thought my website was a duplicate of another site, but did not specify
which site they believed it to be a duplicate of. 1 immediately wrote back that my site was not a duplicate, and I explained the
situation in detail on how I understood their confusion, but explained in detail how I had ownership of Applainces4 Sale. coin
and paid for all the expenses.
55) After still not hearing anything from Google by Tuesday Jul 27', I was speaking about this issue with Steven, and he then
claimed that Google had previously told hini that because he was around longer and spent more money, that if there was ever
any conflict between another site and his, that they would give his websile preference over any conflicting site, which of
course would include my site.
56) On Wed Jul 28t1, Google wrote me back, but had seemingly ignored the contents of my 7/26 email. saying they thought it
was the same ownership. I then replied back with a strongly worded message, and indicated explicitly that I would
commence tort litigation if this was not corrected immediately.
57) When I spoke to Steven about this later that evening, he said that Google would still prefer him over me because he has spent
more money on advertising with them.
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
12 of 20
12 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239118
58) Then Google replied to me on Friday Jul 30', slating that my feed was re-approved. Google replied that after further review,
they re-approved my account and I could just re-upload my feed. So then 1 tried throughout the day to re-upload my feed. But
when I tried uploading it again, although I was no longer getting disapproved errors, instead I was getting technical error
messages. (i.e. the feed was corrupted or the IJRL was invalid). I manually inspected my data feed and even manually re-
uploaded it, but still I was getting the same errors. I tried several times, all with the same error messages. I then wrote Google
another email, thanking them for re-approving my feed but also alerting them Clint there was still another glitch on their end
because it was showing errors with my feed when there were no errors with my feed.
59) On Monday Aug 2nd, they wrote back and said they fixed the problem. I re-uploaded my feed, and this time it was successful.
I saw later that day that I was finally listed again on Google Products. So as of Aug Google had corrected it's mistake
from 2-3 weeks prior when they removed inc from their Google Products listing.
60) However during this time, Steven had thrown a proverbial monkey wrcnch into the works.
61) To rewind a bit, on Thur night Jul 29tl, Steven's Google product feed had experienced a technical glitch with uploading to
Google Products, as none of his products were being accepted. (But his glitch was that no products were being processed. and
more specifically, he had not received any disapproved error messages, so he had a different issue than what I had at that
time.)
62) Around the same time on Friday morning when I was experiencing glitches with uploading my feed. Steven called saying his
feed was down, and told me of his problems with loading his data feed into Google Products. He was under the impression
that he was shut down instead of me for being disapproved. But when I learned that he had not received any error messages
saying he was disapproved, I told him not to jump to any conclusions and tried to explain my own difficulties with loading
my feed, which was just re-approved. I also tried to explain the difference in the error messages (and lack thereof). But
regardless however, he assumed it was because of a conflict with my site. So either late morning or early afternoon on Friday.
Steven jumped the gun and called Google in a panic. And in doing so, he then gave them incorrect information, claiming that
he owned Appliances4Sale. Then Google was confused and didn't know what to do, and allegedly Google told Steven to take
one of his 2 websites down. He told Google to shut my site down rather than his. Then, according to Steven, Google
allegedly told him that even if someone else owned the Applianccs4Sale.com site, he would still have to get that owner to
take that site down or else his site would be completely removed from Googles listings also. (Allegedly for both their general
web search and their Google Product shopping comparison).
63) 1 spoke to Steven again on Friday evening, it was then that he asked me just to walk away from m y business of Appliances 4
Sale completely. And after much discussion, it turned out that Steven wanted to offer no compensation for my loss.
64) We also agreed to meet at a local diner the next day on Saturday Jul 3 l' s . After a lengthy discussion at the diner with the
Sigmans and myself, both Steven and Cheryl admitted that Google did not sa y they would definitely take them down if my
site sta yed active, but instead said there was a possibility that one or both sites could be removed from all of Google's search
indexes if they determined the sites were duplicates. Steven repeated what he said earlier, that it was because of what he said
to Google about his owning Appliances4Sale, did they then once again consider our websites to be possible duplicates. I
explained to them that Steven should not have claimed ownership of Appliances4Sale, and he only made the issues much
worse. I told them their only concern was the issue of ownership, not the similarity of the data on the 2 websites. I tried to
explain that most of the data in any retail site is objective and fixed, thus there will be great similarity from one website to the
next, (i.e. No matter which retailer sells a product, that product will have the same features, specification, and even the title
and product description will be almost the same from one retailer to the next. Even the product image often will be exactly
the same, as usually it will be supplied directly by the manufacturer). We discussed these concerns in detail, but Cher yl said
even aside front ownership issue, she still believed that if the two sites appeared to be too similar, Google would have an
issue with that. Cher yl admitted that Google only said there was a possibility of that, but explained she did not want to take
that chance and wanted me to just step aside as not to interfere with their listings on Google. Cheryl in her own estimation
believed that I had invested somewhere between 1,000 to 2,000 hours of my time into this website m, not to mention my out of
my pocket costs. So then I asked Cheryl and Steven how much they were offering me to step aside and forfeit the business I
had worked so hard for, and all of the future income I would be forfeiting as well. Cheryl and Steven replied they wanted to
offer inc nothing.
65) They thought I should just walkaway with the minimal amount of sales I already made, while they continue to stuff their
already overflowing pockets. I explained that this was analogous to a farmer who spends time and effort preparing and
cultivating the land, plowing the fields, planting the seeds, nurturing protecting and building the crops until the y finally
bloom months later. But no sooner then that crop has finally started to yield the fruits of that farmer's months of labor, does
someone else tell them to completely stop and just to keep the minimal amount of crops they have already harvested.
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
13 of 20
13 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239219
66) Their own estimate of the amount of time I invested over the past year was between 1,000 and 2.000 hours, which I agreed
with. They also agreed that I had minimal sales up until the beginning of June, and my total profits to date for this entire
existence of Appliances4Sale was only about $2,000 (i.e. One or two dollars per hour). However when I asked them if th/
thought it was fair that I did all that work for such a meager amount, they tried to sa y it was the risk I took. But they are tl(e
ones whom have breached their own contract with me, and who are the ones whom are attempting to have inc stop operating.
My position is that if the y want me to go away just to protect their own potential risk with Google products, then at a
minimum, they should at least fairly compensate me for my time already invested, if not also for my lost future income as
well.
67) 1 then explained how unfair I thought that was, and then reminded them of all the things I had done for them over the years. It
was then that I mentioned about my never being rewarded a penny for saving their company from Akerman. I then mentioned
how they got things from me way cheaper and way better than anyone else would have offered them. Before Cheryl had said
they would always pay me fairly for what the y thought things were worth, but that obviously was not true. I then mentioned
about the deal with Nextopia, and I knew that Steven had cheated me on that. Cheryl tried to tell me that
AppliancesBuyPhone was their livelihood, another complete lie which was also an insult to my intelligence. They tried to say
that my website was just a hobby. If anything, the reverse is true. Steven admits that he has more money than he could ever
spend in his lifetime, or what his children or grandchildren could spend in their lifetimes. Cheryl admitted that they have
more than enough to last ten lifetimes. Steven admits that he only does this because he enjoys the process of making money
and he would be bored to death if he just retired and did nothing. So for him and Cheryl, in reality this is just a hobby. It is
not their livelihood of how they pay their bills and put o'n'their table each month. Whereas with in my case, I am unemployed
and currently my only other income is from teaching 4 guitar lessons a week (less than $1 00/week). I needed this
Appliances4Sale website for my own livelihood.
68) On Monday Aug 2, after I was relieved to finally be listed once again in Google Products, to my horror did I see that Steven
had parked the nameservers for Appliances4Sale.com back at GoDaddy. Which means my site is 100% completely down,
nobody can see my site even if they were to type in the URL directly. I cannot even receive any of my email. When I called
Steven that evening, he claimed he had to do it, claiming Google gave him no other choice.
y
69) Then Steven changed his stor slightly, saving that they still had an issue over ownership. Then Cher yl indicated that Google
didn't say they would definitely lake the sites off of their index if we both remained live, but stated rather that they might.
regardless of the issue of ownership. She said if the sites were too similar, there was a chance that Googtc might still decide
to take both the sites off of their general search index as well as their shopping (Google Products) index. Steven said he
wanted me to change the data so it would appear different than his data, which I told him that I could do, but would take
some time. I also told him once again, that in general for any retailers selling the same item, there would bound be to
very similar data for that item, as the features, specifications, title, product descriptions, etc All were objective pieces of
information, rather than a subjective interpretation of what the item was. Even the product pictures often come directly from
the manufacturers, rather than a person at each retailer's warehouse unpacking each item and taking their own unique picture
of it. But regardless, Steven did not want to reactivate my domain name and both Steven and Cheryl wanted to offer me no
compensation for it. According to Cheryl, she said she believes they own 100% of the Appliances4Sale.com domain name,
and half of the Appliances4Salc website 1 developed. It was at that point where I said: "On that note, I am going to say
'goodnight."', and I then instantly ended our phone call.
70) A couple days later, I received a certified letter from the Sigmans. Although Steven Sigmnan signed the letter, it was clear to
me that it was really Cheryl Sigman whom was the author. In that letter, Steven admitted to a large portion of the significant
facts,
CAUSES OF ACTION
Due to the time factor involved and the continuing harm to Plaintiffs reputation the longer his business his inactive, is it
important that this complaint is filed soon as possible. So in advance, Plaintiff requests liberal leave of court to amend complaint
with additional causes of action and to refine the pleadings and/or stated causes of action below as needed.
Counts I through 10 are specific to defendants Appliances Buy Phone, Inc., Steven Sigman, and Cheryl Sigman. Counts 11
through 13 are specific to defendant Google Corporation.
Count 1 - Unjust enrichment

71. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 70 hereof as though fully set
forth at length herein.
72. To the benefit of the defendants and detriment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was uncompensated for either his
time or his inconvenience of making the emergency change to thwebsit's displayed prices for GE
Monogram products.
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
14 of 20
14 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239320
73 To the benefit of the defendants and detriment of Plaintiff Plaintiff was uncompensated for over 100
hours of his time investigating Raj and DynaShoppe, identifyi ng and documenting flaws in the software,
writing software requirement specs for Raj, communi cating with Raj and Akerman, and ultimately
savingthe defendants from the clutches of the malicious Richard Akerman character.
74. To the benefit of the defendants and detriment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was uncompensated for over $8,000
worth of his time in building the new CMS tool, which the defendants are still using to this day to create
and maintain their database.
75. Additionally, to the benefit of the defendants and detriment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was underpaid for
everything else, in respect to their value offered. For example, Plaintiff offered defendants an e-
commerce solution with no fee per item nor any fee to process payments. If instead Plaintiff had
required just 1%, or even 0.5%, in 2003 (where the standard rate at that time for shopping cart software
was around 2%), Plaintiff would have earned well over $1,000,000 in additional profits.
76. It is irrefutable that the defendants availed themselves of these benefits.
77. It was unjust for defendants to receive these benefits without proper compensation being paid to
Plaintiff
78. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.
79. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman
and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:
a. contractual damages;
b. consequential damages;
C. compensatory damages;
d. punitive damages;
e. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,
£ such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Count 2 - Breach of Contract Causing Damage
80. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 79 hereof as though fully set
81. Plaintiff entered into contract with defendants in August of 2009. Defendants were seekin g additional
sales from Plaintiff's efforts. Plaintiff was the sole party whom was investing his time, efrt, skills, and
money into this contract. While on the otherhand, Defendants were not investing any time, effort or
monetary expenses whatsoever into this contract, Plaintiff solely spent the time to build the new website,
to research the effective SEO techniques, to then implement all of the tedious tasks needed to have
successful SEO, and to keep the data and prices current on the new website. Plaintiff also spent the time
and money to establish the website's hosting, to establish the online Payment processing (i.e. Paypal), to
establish the business bank account, to establish the toll free number, etc. Plaintiff solely paid for all
operating costs of the new website.
82. The contract terms specified that both parties were to split the net profits equally, 50% each. The
contract terms also provided that both websites were to sell all of the exact same products, all at the
exact same prices.
83. However, in early July, the defendants breached the contract by refusing to allow Plaintiff to make sales
of any air conditioners, falsely telling Plaintiff that they were both banned by the warehouse from any
further A/C sales until September. All the while the defendants continued to make A/C sales from their
own website, just so that could keep all of the profits for themselves. This was clearly a breach of the
agreed upon contract terms.
84. Defendants then on Aug 2, 2010, one-sidedly decided to completely terminate the contract with
Plaintiff, which they claimed was due to an unforeseeable issue with Google.
85. This breach of contract by the defendant occurred much earlier than would have been necessary for
Plaintiff to receive proper compensation or consideration for what he had invested into the performance
of the contract. However Defendants completely refused to compensate Plaintiff for his losses.
£ such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
15 of 20
15 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239421
Count 3 - Breach of ln ,pjjed Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dewing

88. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 87 hereof as though fully set
89. Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiff, when defendant
Steven negotiated with Plaintiff to develop a substitute for Nextopia.com' s software. Steven offered
Plaintiff compensation equal to one year's worth of Nextopia's annual fees in exchange for Plaintiff's
development of substitute software. Steven indicated he was paying Nextopia $450/year for use of their
software, which he said he would rather see the Plaintiff receive instead. Plaintiff agreed to this, but then
later learned that Steven had rossly lied about the annual cost of Nextopia software. Defendant
essentially had cheated Plaintiff about of more than half of the compensation offered.
90. Since a different monetary amount was agreed upon and paid, it is unclear if this constitutes a breach of
contract. However, it can be undeniable that such conduct is a breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing with the Plaintiff.
91. The contract terms specified that both parties were to split the net profits equally, 50% each. The
contract terms also provided that both websites were to sell all of the exact same products, all at the
exact same prices.
92. However, in early July, the defendants breached the contract by refusing to allow Plaintiff to make sales
of any air conditioners, falsely telling Plaintiff that they were both banned by the warehouse from any
further A/C sales until September. All the while the defendants continued to make NC sales from their
own website, just so that could keep all of the profits for themselves. This was clearly a breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with the Plaintiff.
f. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Count 4 -business information mispresented
95. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 —94 hereof as though fully set
96. Steven admits that on more than one occasion, starting from Friday July 30th, he had told to Google that
he owned the Appliances 4 Sale website. Everything developed on that site was built by Plaintiff and
owned by Plaintiff, Plaintiff solely paid for all expenses and solely performed all the countless hours of
required tasks to build, maintain and run the daily operation of Appliances4 Sale. com . Aside from
Steven's illegal cybersquatting on the domain name itself for 7 years, Defendants had no ownership
interest in Appliances 4 Sale at all.
97. Defendants have admitted that they have never down anything with the Appliances 4 Sale domain name,
and that they have no intentions of ever doing anything with it in the future.
98. Because the defendants provided Google with incorrect information, it caused continued confusion on
Google's part, which only exacerbated the problems.
100. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl
Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:
a. consequential damages;
b. compensatory damages;
C. punitive damages;
d. costs of Suit and attorneys fees; and,
e. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Count 5 -business injured by anothers false descrintion

101. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paraaraphs I - 100 hereof as though
fully set forth at length herein.
102. Steven admits that on more than one occasion, starting from Friday July 30th, he had told to Google
that he owned the Appliances 4 Sale website. Everything developed on that site was built by Plaintiff
and owned by Plaintiff, Plaintiff solely paid for all expenses and solely performed all the countless hours
of required tasks to build, maintain and run the daily operation of Appliances4Sale.com . Aside from n
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
16 of 20
16 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239522
103 Defendants admitted that they have never down anything with the Appliances 4 Sale domain name,
and have no intentions of ever doing anything with it in the future.
104. Regardless however, defendants have refused to transfer ownership of the Appliances4Sa!e. corn
domain name to Plaintiff, and instead wish to continue to cybersquat on the domain name.
105. Because the defendants provided Google with incorrect information, it caused continued confusion
on Google's part, which only exacerbated the problems.
107, WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demandsjudgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl
d. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,
Count 6 -business intentionally interfered with by outsider

108. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 - 107 hereof as though
109. Steven admits that on more than one occasion, starting from Friday July 30th, he had told to Google
that he owned the Appliances 4 Sale website. Everything developed on that site was built by Plaintiff
and owned by Plaintiff, Plaintiff solely paid for all expenses and solely performed all the countless hours
of required tasks to build, maintain and run the daily operation of Appliances4Sale.com . Aside from tllIl
110. Defendants have admitted that they have never down anything with the Appliances 4 Sale domain
name, and have no intentions of ever doing anything with it in the future.
111. Regardless however, defendants have refused to transfer ownership of the Appliances4 Sale. com
domain name to Plaintiff,and instead wish to continue to cybersquat on the domain name.
112. Defendants Aug 2 parking of the domain name back at GoDaddy has completely shut down
Plaintiff's website, as none of Plaintiffs visitors can see the website at all, even if they were to directly
type in the URL into their web browsers. Plaintiff cannot even receive his email from the website, all
because the domain name is now just sitting idly parked back at GoDaddy.com .
113. Because of the defendants' actions on Aug 2' , Plaintiff's business is now completely inactive.
d, costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,
Count 7 - Cyberspuatting
116. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 - 115 hereof as though
117. Defendants have admitted that they have never down anything with the Appliances 4 Sale domain
name, and have no intentions of ever doing anything with it in the future.
118. Regardless however, defendants have refused to transfer ownership of the Appliances4Sale.com
domain name to Plaintiff, and instead wish to continue to cybersquat on the domain name.
119. Defendants' cybersquatting of the Appliances4Sale,com domain name is in violation of both
1CANN's (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) policies, and the United States
federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
121. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demandsjudgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl
b, compensatory damages;
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
17 of 20
17 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239623
such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Count 8 - Future Earning Cajacity am.g d by Tort

122. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 121 hereof as though
123. Plaintiff was just starting to reap the benefits of his previous months of hard work in June and July.
However by defendants' intentional acts, Plaintiff was prevented from making any additional sales.
124. Plaintiff has since lost his ranking and index on all Google search indexes
125. Google has since rejected Plaintiffs claimed URL for their products search, as the domain name is
idly parked at GoDaddy now.
126. Plaintiff's hard-earned customer base and solid reputation is now shattered with the website being
completely shut down.
127. Plaintiff had likelihood of earning substantial profits with the continued use of his website. By
interpolating Plaintiff's estimations and direct prior statements made by Defendants, Plaintiff estimates
that Defendants are currently earning net profits of approximately $750,000 per year.
128. Based upon the rate of growth and other indicators, it seemed likely that success of Plaintiff's
website would soon be comparable to that of the defendants. Even assuming arguendo that the plaintiff's
website would only become half as successful as the defendants' website, that website would still then
net approximately $375,00 per year. Splitting that $375,00 in profits equally, results in the Plaintiff's
direct losses of $187,500 per year.
129. Plaintiff is currently 44 years old, and could easily perpetuate in his pursuit of this business for
several decades to come.
130. However Defendants have prevented this future earning capacity by providing false information to
Google on several occasions and then parking the domain name back at GoDaddy, the latter of which
has completely shut down Plaintiff's website, as none of Plaintiff's visitors can see the website at all,
even if they were to directly type in the URL into their web browsers. Plaintiff cannot even receive his
email from the website, all because the domain name is now just sitting idly parked back at
GoDaddy.com .
c. punitive damages;
Count 9 - Tortious Interference with Piio pective Economic Advantage

134. Plaintiff was just starting to reap the benefits of his previous months of hard work in June and July.
However by defendants' intentional acts, Plaintiff was prevented from making any additional sales.
135. Plaintiff has since lost his ranking and index on all Google search indexes
136. Google has since rejected his claimed URL for their products search, as the domain name is idly
parked at GoDaddy now.
137. Plaintiff's hard-earned customer base and solid reputation is now shattered with the website being
completely shut down.
138. Plaintiff had likelihood of earning substantial profits with the continued use of his website. By
interpolating Plaintiff's estimations and direct prior statements made by Defendants, Plaintiff estimates
that Defendants are currently earning net profits of approximately $750,000 per year.
139. Based upon the rate of growth and other indicators, it seemed likely that success of Plaintiff's
website would soon be comparable to that of the defendants. Even assuming arguendo that the plaintiff's
website would only become half as successful as the defendants' website, that website would still then
net approximately $375,00 per year. Splitting that $375,00 in profits equally, results in the Plaintiff's
direct losses of $187,500 per year.
140. Plaintiff is currently 44 years old, and could easily perpetuate in his pursuit of this business for
several decades to come.
141. However Defendants have tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's prospective economic advantage, by
providing false information to Google on several occasions and then parking the domain name back at
GoDaddy, the latter of which has completely shut down Plaintiff's website, as none of Plaintiff's visitors
can see the website at all, even if they were to directly type in the URL into their web browsers. Plaintiff
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
18 of 20
18 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239724
cannot even receive his email from the website, all because the domain name is now just sitting idly
parked back at GoDaddy. corn.
142. Plaintiff had a significant probability of economic advantage with the continued use of his website,
and if not for said interference by defendants, Plaintiff would have received those economic benefits.
b, compensatory damages;
Count 10 - Punitive Dama ges due from Tortfeasor
145. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I 144 hereof as though
146. Defendants' actions in misrepresentations to Plaintiff and in cheating plaintiff on work done to
develop substitute software for the Nextopia search were done completely selfishly, maliciously, and
with a blatant disregard to Plaintiff.
147. Defendants' actions in misrepresentations to Plaintiff and in cheating plaintiff out of air conditioner
sales were done completely selfishly, maliciously, and with a blatant disre8ard to Plaintiff.
148. Defendant's actions in terminating contract and cybersquatting were without justification and were
done completely selfishly, maliciously, and with a blatant disregard to Plaintiff
Count gent's N gThence Causing Harm
152. Without asking, defendant Google assumed that Plaintiffs website was a duplicate of Steven's
website and under the same ownership. This assumption by Google would later prove to be the catalyst,
which started the whole chain of events that led up to the cumulation of these damages.
153. Defendant breached their reasonable obligation and duty to investigate and make inquires first
before just taking any adverse action against either website. instead however, Goole just assumed the 2
websites were duplicates, and further made the arbitrary decision to remove Plaintiff's website's listings
on Google Products while allowing the other defendants' website's listings on Google Products to
remain active.
154. Defendant gave Plaintiff no notice whatsoever. Not only was the Plaintiff's listings removed without
any prior notice, further there was no given notice to Plaintiff even after the fact. Only by Plaintiffs own
research 2 weeks later, was their mistake uncovered by Plaintiff.
155. Even after Plaintiff revealed the mistake to Google on Sat July 24th, Defendant's further reluctance
and delays to correct their mistke caused further losses to plaintiff. The issue was ultimately not
corrected until Monday Aug 2, more than another week later.
156. Thus for a period of approximately, 3 weeks, plaintiff lost revenue due to Defendant's negligence.
158. WhEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendant Google Corporation for:
C. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,
d. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
19 of 20
19 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239825
Count_L2 -_Competition_Unlawfully Restrained

160. According to several statements made by defendant Steven, even after Goo gle had later learned that
their was different ownership of the 2 websites, Google indicated to Steven that his website would be
given preference over Plaintiffs website.
161. According to defendant Steven, Defendant Google allegedly indicated that even if there was unique
ownership, that his website might be completely removed from all Google indexes unless Plaintiff's
website was removed.
162. Although Plaintiff presumes that the initial action taken by Google was due to a mistaken
assumption, particularly that Plaintiffs website was a duplicate of Steven's website and under the same
ownership, Google's subsequent giving preference to Steven's website over Plaintiffs website was an
unfair discriminatory practice in clear violation of numerous federal antitrust laws and congressional
acts, including but not limited to, 15 U.S.C. § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 13, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and the
Sherman, Robinson-Patman, and Clayton Acts.
163. Plaintiff has suffered damages by Defendant's unfair and unlawful restraint of Plaintiffs competition.
165. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendant Google Corporation for:
Count 13 - UnjLQometition
167. According to several statements made by defendant Steven, even after Google had later learned that
their was different ownership of the 2 websites, Google indicated to Steven that his website would be
given preference over Plaintiffs website.
168. Allegedly Google had indicated that Steven's website would be given favoritism based upon the
previous amount of advertising money he had spent with Google. The preferential treatment would
include allowing Steven's website to enjoy the free services of being listed on Google Products, while
disallowing Steven's competitors the use of that same free service.
169. It is unfair for Google to selectively offer free services to one merchant vs. another, based on the
amount of paid advertising that a particular merchant happens to spend.
170. it is unfair for Google to deliberately engage in conduct, which in effect would force one competitor
out of the market, even after it was known to be of different ownership.
171. Google's giving preference to Steven's website over Plaintiffs website created unfair competition in
clear violation of numerous federal antitrust laws and congressional acts, including but not limited to, 15
U.S.C. § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 13, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and the Sherman, Robinson-Patman, and
Clayton Acts.
172. Plaintiff has suffered damages by Defendant's actions creating unfair competition.
171 By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.
174. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendant Google Corporation for:
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of
the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
/ DATE
Case
-DEA Document
9737-1 1-1
Filed 10/19/10
Filed 10/19/10
Page Page
20 of 20 PageID:
of 20 PageID:
9239926
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all triable issues

of fact raised herein.
RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to R. 4:5-1, it is hereby certified that, to the best of plaintiff's knowledge and belief,
the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or of a pending
arbitration proceeding. Also, to the best of plaintiff's knowledge and belief, no other action or arbitration
proceeding is contemplated. Further, other than the parties set forth in this pleading, at the present time
plaintiff knows of no other parties that should be joined in this action.
L )) )
/ I -
DATE: M€4 2010
Steven D'Aostino /pro-se

D'Agostino V Appliances Buy Phone Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

D'Agostino V Appliances Buy Phone Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case

Attorney (s) Google Corporation

Address of Defendant to Be Served: 76 Ninth Avenue

OCEAN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

DATE: AUGUST 30, 2010

THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 2.

THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON THOMAS S. O'BRIEN

F YO'J HAVE ANY 'JE7T7OH5, CONTACT TEAM 032

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE A

CIVIL CASE INPORMATION STATEMENT LJCK JCA

Use for initial Law Division

ATTORNEY I PROSE NAME ONE ER COUNTY OF VENUE

RMNAME0fapphCabIe> DOCKET NUMBER (when available)

OFFICEADDRLS DOCUMENT TYPE

(3 C-4 it5 C )- JURY DEMAND Ei"YEs 0N

CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION

DO Y OU OR YOUR CLIENT NEE'

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Amount

Appliances Buy Phone, Inc., PLAINT AUG 2

THE PARTIES AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PARTIES:

Count 1 - Unjust enrichment

Count 2 - Breach of Contract Causing Damage

Count 3 - Breach of ln ,pjjed Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dewing

Count 4 -business information mispresented

Count 5 -business injured by anothers false descrintion

Count 6 -business intentionally interfered with by outsider

Count 8 - Future Earning Cajacity am.g d by Tort

Count 9 - Tortious Interference with Piio pective Economic Advantage

Count 10 - Punitive Dama ges due from Tortfeasor

Count gent's N gThence Causing Harm

Count_L2 -_Competition_Unlawfully Restrained

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all triable issues

RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION

plaintiff knows of no other parties that should be joined in this action.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen