5-4.81 Violation of Cal Corp Code 25401, 25501

LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS SLAIN
Douglas Slain (State Bar No. 048686)

Jonathan Matthews (State Bar No. 232157)
755 Baywood Drive, 2nd Floor
Petaluma, California 94954
Telephone: (707) 658-4437
Facsimile: (707) 658-4401
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
Maureen Catalina ) Case No.
an individual. )
Plaintiff ) COMPLAINT FOR:
vs. )
) 1. FRAUD AND INTENTIONAL
Suzanne L. Bowser, ) MISREPRESENTATION
an individual ) 2. FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT
) MISREPRESENTTION
Suza Lambert Bowser, LLC, and ) 3. SALE OF UNREGISTERE
Does-1-50 ) SECURITIES UNDER SECTION 10(b)
Defendants ) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
) AND 25110 OF THE CALIFORNIA
) CORPORATIONS CODE
) 4. FRAUD IN THE OFFER OR SALE OF
) SECURITIES UNDER 17(a) OF THE
) SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
) 5. VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF
) THE EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND
) RULE 10B-5 THEREUNDER
) 6. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
) CORPORATIONS CODE SECTIONS
) 25401 AND 25501
) 7. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT
) 8. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
) 9. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
) 10.RESCISSION
) 11.REFORMATION
) 12.UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN
) VIOLATION OF 17200 OF THE
) CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
__________________________________________) PROFESSIONS CODE
Date Filed:
Plaintiff, an individual, hereby alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. This court has jurisdiction over this matter, and venue is proper in
part pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 77v, and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Sections 395 and 395.5
in that at all times relevant hereto defendant Suzanne L. Bowser and defendant
Suzanne Lambert Bowser LLC (“the defendants”) conducted business in California,
including Humboldt County. The defendants as well as DOES 1 through 50 engaged
in substantial, systematic, and continuous activities in California in order to
effectuate the sale of movie investment securities in Humboldt County. The
amount in controversy among the parties exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of
this Court.
2. Plaintiff was induced to make the investment alleged herein in part
pursuant to personal meetings between plaintiff and defendant Suzanne L Bowser,
for her own account and in her capacity as an member of defendant Suza Lambert
Bowser LLC, occurring in Humboldt County, California. The letter agreement
dated August 10, 2009, establishing a partnership, is attached hereto as Exhibit
A-1 (hereinafter “the Letter Agreement”) alleged herein was entered into by
plaintiff in Humboldt County, California.
3. E-mails from defendant Suzanne L. Bowser, many of which are
attached as print outs in Exhibit B, as well as the Letter Agreement, establish
that:
a) defendant Suzanne L. Bowser held herself out as possessing professional
knowledge of the movie production industry;
b) defendant Suzanne L. Bowser solicited plaintiff to invest in a
partnership investment that would produce movies with defendant Suzanne L
Bowser running the partnership business; and,
c) defendant Suzanne L. Bowser sold a security interest, without
registration or Federal or state securities exemption, to the plaintiff to

help finance one or more movies. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that defendant Suzanne L. Bowser continues to offer
similar equity interests to others.
4. On or about August 10, 2009, defendant Suzanne L. Bowser made the
following representation to the plaintiff: In exchange for $50,000,
defendant Suzanne L. Bowser agreed to make plaintiff a 50% equity owner in a
movie production company styled “Sheep Ranch Productions” to be managed by
defendant Suzanne L. Bowser, who was perceived to have the professional
qualifications and experience described in her own communications and in
newspaper interviews.
5. This representation made by the defendant was in fact false. The true
facts were defendant Suzanne L. Bowser intended to thereafter form a limited
liability corporation to give herself control of virtually the same movie
production company, which she did, re-styling it “Suza Lambert Bowser LLC.”
6. When defendant Suzanne L. Bowser made this representation she knew to
be false and made this representation with the intention to deceive and
defraud plaintiff and to induce the plaintiff to act in reliance on this
representation in the manner hereafter alleged, or with the expectation that
the plaintiff would so act.
7. The plaintiff, at the time this representation was made and at thetime
the plaintiff took the actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of
defendant Suzanne L. Bowser’s representation and believed it to be true. In
reliance on this representation, the plaintiff was induced to and did invest
$50,000 plus other consideration. Had the plaintiff known the actual facts,
she would not have taken such action. The plaintiff’s reliance on defendant
Suzanne L. Bowser’s representations was justified because defendant Suzanne

L. Bowser led plaintiff to believe that plaintiff would be a passive
investor/partner in an ongoing movie production business.
8. As a approximate result of the fraudulent conduct of defendants as
herein alleged, the plaintiff was induced to spend over 100 hours of her time
and effort in an attempt to derive a profit from the security interest sold
to her by defendant Suzanne L. Bowser but has received no profit or other
compensation, by which plaintiff has been and will be damaged in the sum of
$50,000 plus interest and expenses.
9. The aforementioned conduct of defendant Suzanne L. Bowser was an
intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact
known to defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby
depriving the plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing
injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected plaintiff to cruel and
unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, so as to
justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Maureen Catalina is an individual whose principal
residence in Humboldt County, California.
11. Defendant Suza Lambert Bowser LLC is a California corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its
principal place of business unknown, and which regularly conducts business, and
at all times relevant hereto regularly conducted business, in Humboldt County,
California.
12. Defendant Suzanne L. Lambert is an individual, whose principal
residence is in Humboldt County, California, and who regularly travels to and
conducts business, and at all times relevant hereto regularly conducted
business, in Humboldt County, California.

13 At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, the
defendant Suza Lambert Bowser LLC was acting in concert with, or under the
direction and control of the defendant Suzanne L. Bowser.
14. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, identities or capacities of
Defendants DOES 1 through 50, or any of them, and for this reason said
defendants are sued herein by such fictitious names. When Plaintiff ascertains
the true names, identities and capacities, whether corporate, individual,
associate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, or any of them,
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege the same. Plaintiff is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that at all times relevant to the facts alleged
herein, each such fictitiously named defendant was responsible in some manner
for the acts, occurrences, happenings and/or omissions hereinafter alleged.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all
times relevant to the facts alleged herein, each defendant was the agent,
servant or employee of each of the other defendants, and as such was acting
within the course and scope of such agency and employment, and with the express
permission of, consent to and ratification by each of the other defendants.
MOVIE INVESTMENT SCHEME
16. As set forth in the Letter Agreement and elsewhere, defendant
Suzanne L. Bowser sought to raise to raise money and did raise money to produce
movies.
17. Prior to plaintiff’s investment in approximately August 10, 2009,
defendant Suzanne L. Bowser provided plaintiff with e-mails and other
communications as alleged herein. Plaintiff relied upon these communications and
the same had a material influence upon plaintiff and induced plaintiff to make
the investment alleged herein.
18. As part of the investment scheme, defendant Suzanne L. Bowser
represented to plaintiff that she would own 50% of a start-up movie production
company to be managed by her partner, defendant Suzanne L. Bowser.

19. On or about August 10, 2009 plaintiff invested the sum of $50,000
cash in the investment scheme.
20. As part of the investment scheme, defendant Suzanne L. Bowser
offered and issued to plaintiff a partnership interest in exchange for $50,000.
A true and correct copy of the partnership agreement is attached hereto as
Exhibit “A-1” and made a part hereof.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD AND INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
(Against All Defendants)
21. Plaintiff re-alleges and reincorporates each and every allegation
contained in the General Allegations and all previous paragraphs of all previous
sections and Causes of Action this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set
forth herein.
22. At the time that plaintiff was induced to make the investment
alleged herein, and continuing thereafter, plaintiff was led to believe that the
representations in emails sent to plaintiff by defendant Suzanne L. Bowser as
alleged herein, were true, namely: plaintiff would own 50% of an start-up movie
production company.
23. When defendant Suzanne L. Bowser made the above representations, she
knew them to be false and made these representations with the intention to
deceive and defraud plaintiff and to induce plaintiff to act in reliance on
these representations in the manner herein alleged and invest in the movie
investment scheme.
24. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by
defendants, and each of them, and at the time plaintiff took the actions herein
alleged, was unaware of the falsity of defendants’ representations and believed
them to be true. In reliance on these representations, plaintiff was induced to
and did invest in the movie investment scheme.

25. Had plaintiff known the actual facts, plaintiff would not have
invested in the movie investment scheme.
26. Plaintiff’s reliance on the representations of defendant Suzanne L.
Bowser was justified because defendant Suzanne L. Bowser represented that she
possessed creative talents and was technically and financially capable with
lucrative business prospects.
27. As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct as herein alleged,
plaintiff has incurred damages in that plaintiff was induced to invest in the
movie investment scheme, all by reason of which plaintiff has been damaged in at
least the sum in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this Court, and
additional amounts according to proof at time of trial.
28. The aforementioned conduct of defendants, and each of them, was an
intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known
to each of the defendants with the intention on the part of the defendants of
thereby depriving plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing
injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected plaintiff to a cruel and
unjust hardship and conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify
an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
forth herein.
30. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that each of the
representations described above was false or misleading when made by defendants
(as described above), was made without a reasonable basis for believing it to be
true, and was made with intent to mislead and deceive plaintiff. The
representations were made with the intent to induce plaintiff's reliance and to
invest in the movie investment scheme as herein alleged.
31. Defendant Suzanne L. Bowser had a duty to disclose the true
information on the grounds that the information was material to the investment
alleged herein and the investment required the disclosure of all material facts.
Defendants' failure to disclose these material facts to plaintiff, therefore,
constitutes fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation.
32. Had plaintiff known of the true facts; to wit, defendants intended
to take plaintiff’s money, using some of the money for purposes of the
partnership while using the bulk of the money to develop other projects,
excluding plaintiff from participating in such other projects, she would not
have invested in the movie investment scheme.
33.. As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of defendant as
herein alleged, plaintiff has incurred damages in that plaintiff was induced to
invest in the movie investment scheme, by reason of which plaintiff has been
damaged in at least the sum in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this
Court, and additional amounts according to proof at time of trial, including
interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
UNREGISTERED OFFER AND SALE OF SECURITIES
Violations of Sections 12(a) of the Securities Act
and Section 25110 of the California Corporations Code
forth herein.
35. The defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct
described above, directly or indirectly, made use of means or instruments of

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, to offer
to sell or to sell securities, or to carry or cause such securities to be
carried through the mails or in interstate commerce for the purpose of sale or
for delivery, in the movie investment scheme. which constituted the offer and
sale of securities and is an offering as that term is used in regard to the
Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act of 1934, and the California
Corporations Code.
36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
no registration statement has been filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or has been in effect with respect to the offering
alleged herein.
37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
no qualification statement has been filed with the California Commissioner of
Corporations or has been in effect with respect to the offering alleged herein.
38. By engaging in the conduct described above, each of the defendants
violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and
77e(c), and thereby violated Section 12(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§
77l(a), and defendants violated section 25110 of the California Corporations
Code.
39. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendant as herein alleged,
movie investment scheme, by reason of which plaintiff has been damaged in at
least the sum in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this Court, plus
attorneys fees and costs, and additional amounts according to proof at time of
trial, including interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD IN THE OFFER OR SALE OF SECURITIES
Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
forth herein.
42. Defendants, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct described
above, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities by the use of
means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce
or by use of the mails: (1) with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or
artifices to defraud; (2) obtained money or property by means of untrue
statements of a material fact or by omitting to state a material fact necessary
in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
they were made, not misleading; or (3) engaged in transactions, practices, or
courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon
the purchaser.
43. By engaging in the conduct described above, defendants, and each of
them, violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate,
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).
44. As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of defendant as
invest in the YYY investment scheme, all by reason of which plaintiff has been

Court, plus attorneys fees and costs, and additional amounts according to proof
at time of trial, including interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF SECURITIES
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
forth herein.
above, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of a
security, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of
the mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange, with
scienter: (1) employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud; (2) made
untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or (3) engaged in
acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a
fraud or deceit upon other persons.
47. By engaging in the conduct described above, defendants, and each of
them, violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
invest in the movie investment scheme, all by reason of which plaintiff has been

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DAMAGES FOR SALE OF SECURITIES BY MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS
CONTAINING FALSE STATEMENTS AND OMISSIONS
Violations of Section 25401 and 25501 of California Corporations Code
forth herein.
above, offer and sold a security in the state of California by means of a both
written and oral communications which included an untrue statement of material
fact and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT
(Against Defendant Suzanne L. Bowser)
forth herein.
54. The written contract between plaintiff and defendant Suzanne L.
Bowser is evidenced by the handwritten partnership agreement, Exhibit A-1.
55. Pursuant to the above written contract, defendant Suzanne L. Bowser
agreed to give plaintiff a 50% interest in an ongoing movie production company.
56. Plaintiff fully performed all conditions, covenants, and promises to
be performed on the part of plaintiff under the written contract between
plaintiff and defendant Suzanne L. Bowser.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
forth herein.
59. Defendants, and each of them jointly and severally, through their
wrongful conduct as described in this Complaint, have reaped substantial profits
from the monies and investment belonging to plaintiff, and in so doing has
caused plaintiff, to suffer substantial monetary losses, as well as emotional
stress, and physical injury, all of which damages and costs were not only
foreseeable but were the intended consequences of defendants’ collective
actions.
60. Based on the facts as alleged herein and as proven at trial, in
equity and good conscience, it would be unconscionable and otherwise unjust for
defendants to enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiff.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(Against Defendant Suzanne L. Bowser)
sections and Causes of Action in this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set
forth herein.
63. Plaintiff is a partner with defendant Suzanne L. Bowser and was
owed, and continues to be owed, fiduciary responsibilities and duties.
64. Defendant Suzanne L. Bowser breached her fiduciary obligations by
making the misrepresentations alleged above and by otherwise engaging in the
course of conduct alleged herein.

65. The above course of conduct was pursued without due regard for and
in reckless and conscious disregard of the financial circumstances of plaintiff
and resulting damage to plaintiff.
66. Defendants pursued such course of conduct intentionally and
maliciously while unconscionably disregarding of the rights of plaintiff and
with a fraudulently and/or with reckless disregard of the likelihood of causing
plaintiff economic damage and/or at all times to further their own economic
interest at the expense of plaintiff’s economic interest.
67. As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct as herein alleged,
movie investment scheme, all by reason of which plaintiff has been damaged in at
least the sum in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this Court, plus
attorneys fees and costs, and additional amounts according to proof at time of
trial, including interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RESCISSION
Under Section 25501 of the California Corporations Code and Common Law
forth herein.
69. Section 25501 of the California Corporations Code provides that any
person who violates Section 25401 shall be liable to the person who purchases a
security from him or sells a security to him, and the purchaser may sue either
for rescission or for damages. Section 25501 further provides that upon
rescission, a purchaser may recover the consideration paid for the security plus
interest at the legal rate.

70. The partnership interest in this case is unlawful because it was
made and issued contrary to both an express provision of law and contrary to the
policy of express law in that it was offered and sold in violation of section
25401 of the California Corporations Code, and constitutes the offer and
issuance of unregistered securities in violation of sections 5(a) and 5(c) of
the Securities Act of 1933.
71. The public interest will be prejudiced if the above instruments are
permitted to stand in that public confidence in the issuance of securities and
the dealings between corporate issuers and their shareholders requires that any
contract in contravention of express provisions of law and contrary to the
policy of express law be voided.
72. Plaintiff will suffer substantial harm and injury under the letter
agreement attached as Exhibit A-1 and incorporated herein if it is not rescinded
in that as a result of defendants’ fraudulent course of conduct as herein
alleged, plaintiff would be deprived of its bargain and investment.
73. Plaintiff intends service of the summons and complaint in this
action to serve as notice of rescission of this letter agreement and hereby
demands that defendant restore to plaintiff the consideration furnished by
plaintiff, specifically the sum of $50,000.00 plus interest, attorney fees and
costs as may be allowed by law or equity and determined at time of trial.
74. As a result of the movie investment scheme and entering into the
letter agreement plaintiff has incurred expenses in addition to those alleged
above. Plaintiff seeks such additional expenses as may be allowed by law or
equity and determined at time of trial.
invest in the movie investment scheme, all by reason of which plaintiff is
entitled to Rescission of the Contract and return of all consideration paid by
plaintiff thereon.
76. As a further proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of defendant
as herein alleged, plaintiff has incurred damages in that plaintiff was induced
to invest in the YYY investment scheme, all by reason of which plaintiff has
been damaged in at least the sum in excess of the jurisdictional amount of this
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
REFORMATION
forth herein.
78. The Letter Agreement fails to reflect the true intent and bargain relied
upon by plaintiff in that it provides
79. The above-described failure of the Letter Agreement to reflect the true
intent and bargain relied upon by plaintiff resulted from defendant's false
representation to plaintiff that the above-mentioned written instruments
embodied the true intent and bargain relied upon by plaintiff in making its
investment in the movie investment scheme.
80. Without knowledge of the true facts and in reliance on defendants’
false representations, plaintiff was deceived and misled into signing writings
that differed materially from the true intent and bargain relied upon by
plaintiff in making its investment in the movie investment scheme.
81. Plaintiff prays that the Letter Agreement be reformed to reflect the
intention of the parties that the $50,000 investment be returned to plaintiff if
there is a breach of contract such as occurred in the instant case.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

In Violation of Section 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions
Code
forth herein.
83. On or about August 10, 2009, and continuing thereafter, defendants,
as a part of their business practices, fraudulently induced plaintiff to invest
in a movie investment scheme in violation of section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933, section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and sections 25401 and 25501 of the California Corporation Code, and issued
plaintiff unregistered securities in violation of section 5(a) and 5(c) of the
Securities Act of 1933.
84. Defendants have a business practice of fraudulently inducing
investors to invest in a movie investment scheme in violation of section 17(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933, section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and sections 25401 and 25501 of the California
Corporation Code, and the issuance of unregistered securities in violation of
section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. The business practice of
defendants is unlawful and fraudulent and violates Federal law and California
law as alleged herein. Further, defendants, and each of them, knew that their
business practice were unlawful and fraudulent.
85. Pursuant to Sections 17200 et seq. of the California Business and
Professions Code, unfair business practices include any unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent business practice. The fraudulent and unlawful conduct of defendants
as alleged herein is an unlawful and fraudulent practice within the provisions
of Sections 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code, and,
accordingly, constitutes a violation of Sections 17200 et seq. of the California
Business and Professions Code.
86. As a direct and proximate result of the unfair business practices of
defendants as herein alleged, plaintiff has incurred damages in that plaintiff
was induced to invest in the movie investment scheme, all by reason of which
plaintiff has been damaged in at least the sum in excess of the jurisdictional
amount of this Court, plus attorneys fees and costs, and additional amounts
according to proof at time of trial, including interest, attorneys’ fees and
costs. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to restitution in a sum of not less
than $50,000 plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
87. As a further direct and proximate result of the unfair business
practices of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff is entitled to an order
directing defendants, and each of them, to return plaintiff’s investment plus
interest and costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as follows on all claims for relief:
UNDER THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1. For general damages in an amount according to proof at time of
trial;
2. For exemplary and punitive damages;
3. For interest in an amount according to proof at time of trial;
4. For attorneys’ fees and costs;
UNDER THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
trial;
UNDER THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

trial;
UNDER THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
trial;
UNDER THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
trial;
UNDER THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
trial;
UNDER THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
trial;
UNDER THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
trial;
UNDER THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
trial;
UNDER THE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
32. For rescission as determined according to proof at time of trial;
trial;
UNDER THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
36. For reformation as determined according to proof at time of trial;
trial;
UNDER THE TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
40. For restitution in an amount according to proof at time of trial;
42. For a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting defendants
from
UNDER ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
45. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
46. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and
proper.
DATED:
Law Offices of Douglas Slain
By: _________________________
Douglas Slain
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATION BY CLIENT

5-4.81 Violation of Cal Corp Code 25401, 25501

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

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

5-4.81 Violation of Cal Corp Code 25401, 25501

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS SLAIN

Douglas Slain (State Bar No. 048686)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Suzanne Lambert Bowser LLC (“the defendants”) conducted business in California,

including Humboldt County. The defendants as well as DOES 1 through 50 engaged

in substantial, systematic, and continuous activities in California in order to

effectuate the sale of movie investment securities in Humboldt County. The

amount in controversy among the parties exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of

2. Plaintiff was induced to make the investment alleged herein in part

pursuant to personal meetings between plaintiff and defendant Suzanne L Bowser,

Bowser LLC, occurring in Humboldt County, California. The letter agreement

dated August 10, 2009, establishing a partnership, is attached hereto as Exhibit

plaintiff in Humboldt County, California.

3. E-mails from defendant Suzanne L. Bowser, many of which are

attached as print outs in Exhibit B, as well as the Letter Agreement, establish

a) defendant Suzanne L. Bowser held herself out as possessing professional

knowledge of the movie production industry;

b) defendant Suzanne L. Bowser solicited plaintiff to invest in a

partnership investment that would produce movies with defendant Suzanne L

Bowser running the partnership business; and,

c) defendant Suzanne L. Bowser sold a security interest, without

registration or Federal or state securities exemption, to the plaintiff to

thereon alleges that defendant Suzanne L. Bowser continues to offer

similar equity interests to others.

4. On or about August 10, 2009, defendant Suzanne L. Bowser made the

following representation to the plaintiff: In exchange for $50,000,

defendant Suzanne L. Bowser agreed to make plaintiff a 50% equity owner in a

movie production company styled “Sheep Ranch Productions” to be managed by

defendant Suzanne L. Bowser, who was perceived to have the professional

qualifications and experience described in her own communications and in

facts were defendant Suzanne L. Bowser intended to thereafter form a limited

liability corporation to give herself control of virtually the same movie

6. When defendant Suzanne L. Bowser made this representation she knew to

defraud plaintiff and to induce the plaintiff to act in reliance on this

representation in the manner hereafter alleged, or with the expectation that

the plaintiff would so act.

defendant Suzanne L. Bowser’s representation and believed it to be true. In

Suzanne L. Bowser’s representations was justified because defendant Suzanne

investor/partner in an ongoing movie production business.

8. As a approximate result of the fraudulent conduct of defendants as

to her by defendant Suzanne L. Bowser but has received no profit or other

$50,000 plus interest and expenses.

9. The aforementioned conduct of defendant Suzanne L. Bowser was an

intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact

depriving the plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing

unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, so as to

justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

10. Plaintiff Maureen Catalina is an individual whose principal

residence in Humboldt County, California.

11. Defendant Suza Lambert Bowser LLC is a California corporation

at all times relevant hereto regularly conducted business, in Humboldt County,

12. Defendant Suzanne L. Lambert is an individual, whose principal

residence is in Humboldt County, California, and who regularly travels to and

conducts business, and at all times relevant hereto regularly conducted

business, in Humboldt County, California.

direction and control of the defendant Suzanne L. Bowser.

14. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, identities or capacities of

the true names, identities and capacities, whether corporate, individual,

associate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 50, or any of them,

for the acts, occurrences, happenings and/or omissions hereinafter alleged.

permission of, consent to and ratification by each of the other defendants.

MOVIE INVESTMENT SCHEME