D'Agostino v Appliances Buy Phone Complaint

8/8/2019 D'Agostino v Appliances Buy Phone Complaint

1/20

E X H I B I T A

Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 9737-1 Filed 10/19/10 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 92380Case 3:10-cv-05415-FLW -DEA Document 1-1 Filed 10/19/10 Page 1 of 20 PageID: 7


2/20

A t t o rn e y ( s ) G o o g l e C o r p o r a t io nOf f ice A d d r e ss & T e l . No . : 7 6 N in th A ve n u e 4 t h F l o o r Ne w Y o r k NY 1 0 0 1 1Attorney(s) for PIaintiff(s)pS U P E R I O R C O U R T O F N E W J E R S E YO c e a nO U N T YL A W D I V IS I O NSteven DAgost ino Pia i t l f f (ocket No. L-3250-10vs .IV IL ACTIONA p p l ia n c e s B y P h o n e , S t e v e n & C h e r y lS i g m a n , G o o g leD efendan t ( s )U M M O N S

F r o m T h e S t at e o f N e w J e r s e yT o T h e D e f e n d a n t (s ) N a m e d A b o v e :The p lain t if f , named abov e , has f il ed a law s u i t aga ins t you i n t he S u per io r C ou r t o f N ew J e rs ey .T h e c o m p l ai n t at t ac h e d t o t h i s s u m m o n s s t at e s t h e b a s i s f o r th i s l aw s u i t . I f y o u d i s p u t e t h i sco m p lain t , yo u o r yo u r a t to rn e y m u s t f i le a wr i t t e n an swe r o r m o t io n an d p ro o f o f se rv i ce w i th th ed e p u t y c l e r k o f th e S u p e r i o r C o u r t in t h e c o u n t y l is t e d a b o v e w i th i n 3 5 d a y s f ro m t h e d a t e y o ur ec e i v ed th i s s umm ons , no t c oun t i ng t he da te you rec e i v ed i t . (The addres s o f eac h dep u ty c le r k o ft he S upe r io r C our t i s p rov ided . ) If t he c om p lain t is one i n f o rec los u re , t hen you mu s t f il e you r w r i tt ena n s w e r o r m o t io n a n d p r o o f o f s e r v ic e w i th t h e C l e r k o f th e S u p e r i o r C o u r t , H u g h e s J u s t ic eCo m p le x , P .O . Bo x 97 1 , T re n to n , NJ 0 86 25 -0 97 1 . A f i l i n g fe e payab le to th e C le rk o f th e Su pe r io rCour t and a completed Case In format ion Statement (avai lable f rom the deputy c lerk o f the Super iorCo u r t ) m u s t acco m p an y yo u r an sw e r o r m o t io n w h e n i t i s fi l e d . Yo u m u s t also se n d a co py o f yo u ransw er o r m ot ion to p la in t i f fs a t to rne y wh ose n ame and addre ss appear abov e, o r to p la in t i f f , i f noatt o rney i s name d above . A t e l eph one ca ll w i ll no t p ro t ec t you r r i g h t s ; you m us t f il e and se rve awr i t te n an swe r o r m o t io n (w i th fe e o f $ 1 35 .0 0 an d co m p le te d Case In fo rm at io n S tate m e n t ) i f yo uw ant t he c ou r t to hear you r de fens e .I f y o u d o n o t f il e a n d s e r v e a w r it te n a n s w e r o r m o t io n w i th i n 3 5 d a y s , t h e c o u r t m a y e n t e r a

j u d gm e n t aga in s t yo u fo r th e re l i e f p lain t if f d e m an d s , p lu s in te re s t an d co s ts o f su i t . I f ju d gm e n t i se n te re d aga in s t yo u , th e Sh e r i f f m ay se ize yo u r m o n e y , w age s o r p ro pe r ty to pay al l o r par t o f t h ej udgment .I f yo u can n o t a ffo rd an a tto rn e y , yo u m ay cal l th e Le ga l Se rv i ce s o f f i ce in th e co u n ty wh e re yo ul i ve . A l i s t o f t h e se o f f i ce s i s p ro v id e d . I f yo u d o n o t h ave an a t to rn e y an d a re n o t e l i g ib le fo r f r e el eg a l ass i s t ance , you m ay ob t a in a re f e r ra l t o an a tt o rney by ca l li ng on e o f t he L aw yer R e f e r ra lSe rv ice s . A l i s t o f th e se n u m be rs i s also p ro v id e d ./\_i(aqD O N A L D F . P H E LA NC le rk o f the S up er io r C our tDA T ED : Se p te m be r 2 , 2 0 1 0N a m e o f D e f e n d an t to B e S e r v e d : Goog1 Corporation Add res s o f D e fendan t t o B e S erv ed : 76 N in th Av enue

4 t h F l o o rN e w Y o r k , N Y 1 0 0 1 1

1 0



3/20

OCEAN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTOCEAN COUNTY COURTHOUSECIVIL LAW DIVISIONTOMS RIVERJ 08754

TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICECOURT TELEPHONE NO. (732) 929-2016COURT HOURS

DATE:UGUST 30, 2010RE:AGOSTINO VS APPLIANCES BY PHONE INCDOCKET: 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 TEAM32AT:732) 929 V2.IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE ACERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE Ff2ING OF YOUR PLEADING.PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCEWITH R.4:5A-2. ATTENTION: STEVEN DAGOSTINO765 MANTOLOKING RDBRICKJ 08723

JUQMANO



4/20

U

CIVIL CASE INPORMATION STATEMENT IyTTJC KCA(CIS) [HG/CKNO.U s e for in i t ial Law Div is ion

C i v i l P ar t p lead i ng s (no t m o f l ons ) und e r Rule 4:5-1Pleading wil l be rejected for f i l ing, under Rule 1:5-6(c) , O V E R P A Y M E N T :if information above the black bar is not completed

or attorney's signature is not affixed 1 BA TC HA T T O R N E Y I P R O S E N A M E O N ER C O U N T Y O F V E N U E

R M N A M E 0 f a p p h C a b I e > D O C K E T N U M B E R ( w h e n a v a i la b le )

OFFCEADDRLS D O C U M E N T T Y P E( 3- 4t5- J U R Y D E M A N Di " Y E s N

N A M E O F P A R T Y ( e .g . , J o h n D o e , P l a in t i ff )$1'Ms CA PT I O Nfl3i.e,C c /C A S E T Y P E N U M B E R ( S e e r e v e r s e s i d e f o r li s t in g ) I S T H IS A P R O F E S S I O N A L M A L P R A C T I C E C A S E ? Y E S/ j I F Y O U H A V E C H E C K E D Y E S S E E N.J.SA. 2 A . 5 3 A - 2 7 A N D A P P L I C A B L E C A SW/ / R E G A R D I N G Y O U R O B L I G A T I O N T O F I L E A N A F F I D A V I T O F M E R I T .R E 1 J T E D C A S E S P E N D I N G ?F Y E S , L IS T D O C K E T N U M P E R SoE S/NoD O Y O U A N T I C I P A T E A D D IN G A N Y P A R T I E SA M E O F D E F E N D A N T ' S P R IM A R Y I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y (if k n o w n )(aris ing ou t of sam e t r ansac t ion o r occu r r ence )?N dE l es?'NolNC A S E C H A R A C T E R I S T IC S F O R P U R P O S E S O F D E T E R M I N I N G I F C A S E I S A P P R O P R I A T E F O R M E D I A T I O NDOPARTIESI-LAVEACURRENTPAST OR I F Y E S i S T H T R E L A T I O N S H I P :R E C U R R E N T R E L A T I O N S H I P ?Y E S E M P L O Y E W E M P L O Y E I , 0R I E N D / N E I G H B O ROTHER ( e x p l a i n )Lo F A M I L I A L, - ( B U S I N E S SD O E S T H E S T A T U T E G O V E R N I N G T H I S C A S E P R O V ID E F O R P A Y M E N T O F F E E S B Y T H E L O S I N G P A R T Y ?E SU S E T H IS S P A C E T O A L E R T T H E C O U R T T O A N Y S P E C I A L C A S E C H A R A C T E R I S T IC S T H A T M A Y W A R R A N T I N D IV I D U A L M A N A G E M E IRA C C E L E R A T E D D I S P O S IT I O N

D O Y OU OR Y O U R C L I E N T N E E 'Y ES/NoW I L L A N I N T E R P R E T E R B E NE ceo? IF Y E S , F O R WHAT LANGUAGE?El YESI certify that confidential personal Identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to t4ed vLre dacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b). S I G N A T h R E ,E f f e c t iv e 0 4 / 0 1 1 2 0 4 0 C N 1 f lE 1 7 . R n c i



5/20

AUG 2 d 2010L A I N T

25D7OApp l iances B uy Phon e , Inc . ,S teven S igm an, Che ry l S igman,and GooQ le Corpora tionD e f e n d a n t s

P l a i n t i f f

V .

S U P E R IO R C O U R T O F NEW J E R S E YNO C E A NDIVIS ION CIV IL PARTH O C E A N C O U N T YN

ECHL6(CK) MO CA

A m o u n tD A T E O vPIniaIs'J-t

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 earl y 2 0 0 3 .2) Defend aiu Appliances Buy Phone, Inc. is a coipor 'i t ion wholly owned and operated b y defend ants Steven and CherlSigman, husband and wife, Defendants Appliances Buy Phono, Inc. , Steven Siginan and Cher y l Sigman are all located at theadd ress 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 ofpeople. While Defendant Googie Corporation's most widely used service is their internet search engine, they additionallyoffer many other products services. Some of these services are fee-based (e.g. such as their sponsored ad vert ising "Ad W ords"and their online credit card payment processing "Google Checkout"). However, many of their products and services are freeof 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", formerl y known as "Froogle").4) Plaintiff Steven D'Agostino is a web developer, whom single-handedly created all of the numerous software applications thathave powered the A pplianccsBuvPhonecom websi te s ince August of 20 03 . Throughout this certi f ication. Plaintiff wil l referto himself in the third pe rson, except in instances where h e will refer to himself in the first person for the sake of c larity orsimplicity.FAC TUAL_BACKGROUND:5) A few months before the Plaintiff would later met defend ant Steven Sigman that summer, in early 20 03 Steve Sigman andCheryl Sigman first launched their initial website, AppliancesBuvPhone.com , for their corporat ion of AppliancesBuyPhone,Inc. This ini tial websi te was developed by some guy named "Shawn". A lso, sometime in the early spring of 2 00 3, apparentlySteven S igman (henceforth referred to as "Steven") had mad e the v ery unwise choice of registering l i teral l y hundreds andhundreds 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 comp laints mad e about thatillegal activity, and Steven was eventuall y fined heavily for "cybersquatt ing". (1 believe the fine was in excess of $100 ,000 ifI recall his story conectly). Along with that hefty fine. Steven also had to relinquish all but a couple dozen or so of hisdomain names.6) Plaintiff met defendant Steven in July of 2003, outside the Computer City store in Freehold. Plaintiff was lookin g to pick upextra work doing computer repairs, computer tutoring, or developing websites. I was passing out flyers, placing them into carwindshields, but a s chance w ould have i t , I just happened to be placing one of m y flyers on Steven's car right as Steven wa swalking back to his car .



6/20

7 ) Pl a i n t if f an d S teven had a br i e f co n versa t i o n , an d w h i le there i n person, S teven n o t i ced the p l a i n ti f f 's f l yer o ffered w ebsi t edev el o pm en t serv i ces . I t w as then tha t S teven m en t i o n ed tha t he w as u n hap py w i th h i s cu rren t w ebsi t e . A f ter a b r i e fd i scu ss i o n , S teven sa i d h e w as v ery i n teres ted an d w o u l d ca l l so o n . Fo r tu n ate l y , I had the fo res i ght to a lso ask S teven w hatw as the n am e o f h i s w ebsi t e , w hi ch l ie rep l i ed w as "A ppl i an cesBu yPho n c.co i n "8 ) So after a few days and Steven hadn't called. Plaintiff then went online and found the AppliancesBuyPhone.com websi te .Pl a i n t if f ca l l ed the to ll f ree n u m ber an d m en t i o n ed w ho he w as , an d then l earn ed tha t the gu y o n the o ther en d o f the pho n ew as the sam e perso n w ho m he had m et a t C o m pu ter C i ty . S o o n thereaf te r , bo th par t ies se t u p a m eet i n g an d m et i n perso nan d d i scu ssed S teven 's n eed s . S teven c l a i m ed h i s cu rren t w ebsi t e ran to o s lo w , an d tha t n o cu s to m ers w ere p l ac i n g an y

o rders o n l i n e a t a l l. Al l o f h i s o rders u p to tha t po i n t a l l had been p l aced v i a pho n e . He w as a l so u pse t becau se a t tha t t i m e,the o n l y o pt io n he had ava i l ab l e fo r o n li n e check o u ts w as to have h i s o rde rs pro cessed v i a S ho p.ebaappl i an ces .co m , whichc h a rg e d some w h e re a round 5% p e r t ra nsa c t ion ,9) W hen P l a i n t if f ask ed S teve n w hy d i d he agree to pay su ch a h i gh percen tage , S teven 's an sw er w as "Beca u se I have n o o therchoice". They also discussed Steven's recent past with his website, which was front nception noticeably slow and bloatedw i th u n n ecessary co de a n d m edi a co n ten t . T his w as app aren t l y the o n l y vers i o n o f the w ebsi t e tha t w as ev er dev el o ped bythat gu y n am ed "S haw n " , w ho m acco rd i n g to S teven a l l eged l y w as m o re co n cern ed abo u t be i n g o u t o n h i s bo at ra ther thanmeeting Steven's needs for his website.10 ) 1 assu red S teven tha t he w o u l d have m y 1 00 % dev o t io n to h i s w ebsi t e , a p ro m i se w hi ch to th i s day , 7 years l a t e r , 1 havealways kept.11 ) S o i n Au gu st 20 03 , S teven en tered i n to a fi xed pr i ce co n t rac t w i th P l a i n t if f to devel o p a bran d n ew w ebsi t e . S tevenspeci f i ca ll y i n s tru c ted tha t the n e w w ebsi t e , w hi ch P l a i n t if f w as to des i gn . w o u l d have abso l u te ly n o p i c tu res , j u s t p l a in t ex to nl y . T hi s w as becau se o f S teven 's co n cern abo u t h i s p r i o r w ebsi t e be i n g bo gged do w n w i th m u l t i p le l a rge s l o w p i c tu res .Fu r ther , the n ew w eb si te w o u l d have i t ' s o w n cu s to m i zed search en gi n e , sho ppi n g car t an d cu s to m o n l i n e paym en tpro cess i n g so l u ti o n , t a il o red to f i t t he i r u n iqu e n eed s . P l a i n ti f f agreed to dev el o p a l l o f th is fo r S teven fo r a f l a t fee o f $1 5 00 .S teven agreed tha t fo r th i s p r i ce , he w o u l d be bu yi n g a l i fe t i m e l i cen se to u se the p l a i n ti f f 's so f tw are , bu t P l a i n t if f s t i llretained ownership of any and all software he developed. Unlike what was common with all of the plaint i ff 's competi tors attha t t im e. P l a i n t if f d i d n o t ask fo r an y recu rr i n g fees w hat so ever . Mo st co m pet i to rs charged a recu rr i n g fee per i t em s to red i nthe da tabase , as w el l as a percen tage o f a l l o f the sa l es w hi ch w ere pro cessed d i rec t l y o n l in e .12 ) The new website developed by the plaintiff then vent live a short while afterwards, and almost immediately after launchingthe n ew w ebsi t e , S teven 's nu m ber o f pho n e ca l l s in creased dram at i ca ll y , an d there w ere f i n a l ly a few o n l in e o rders co m i n g i nas well.13 ) O v er t i m e, P l a i n ti f f even tu al ly co n vi n ced S teven to a l l o w a t l eas t a few p i c tu res , su ch as a l o go i m ag e an d a co u pl e o thersm al l im ages to m ak e the w ebsi t e lo o k n i cer . I assu red h i m I k n ew w hat I w as d o i n g an d I k n ew ho w to k eep the ban dw i dth

an d fo o tpr i n t very l o w . (K eep i n m i n d , tha t m o st peo pl e s t i ll u sed d i a l up co n n ect i o n s , an d the o l der co m pu ters had l im i tedC PU po w er , l im i ted R A M, an d the bro w sers had v as t l y s ign i f ican t d i f fe ren ces i n the ir D o cu m en t O b j ec t Mo del s ) . S o I m ad esu re tha t every th i n g I dev e l o ped w as go i n g to perfo rm ve ry w el l o n a l l co n l pu ters , regard l ess o f ho w fas t o r s l o w the i ri n tern et co n n ect i o n w as , an d i t w o u l d w o rk as des i red o n v i r tu a l ly a l l b ro w sers an d vers i o n s thereo f .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. Wediscussed allowing Steven the ability to u p l o ad pro du ct p i c tu res, bu t S teven sa i d i t w o u l d t ak e W i ll w ay to o l o n g an d w ay to om u ch effo r t to f i n d , do w n l o ad a n d reu pl o ad p i c tu res fo r a ll o f h i s tho u san ds o f p ro d u ct s .15 ) Then in 2005, Steven found a solution to this problem, in a company called "Retail Deck", owned by a person by the name ofJ im K an e" . J i m K an e had c l a i m ed to have a ready -m ad e pre-ex i s t in g da tabase w i th fu l l descr i p t i o n s an d p i c tu res totho u san ds o f h o m e appl i an ces , to w hi ch m u l t i p l e o ther o n l in e appl i an ce re ta i l e rs a l ready had recu rr i n g su bscr i p ti o n s w i th tou t il ize fo r the i r o w n w e bsi t es . Al tho u gh the su bscr i p t i on pr i ce w as severa l tho u san d do l l a rs per year ( I reca l l the es t i m atesbei n g be tw een $1 0 ,00 0 an d $2 0 ,00 0) S teve n def i n i te l y w an ted to have th i s , becau se i t w o u l d save h i m a l o t o f m an u al w o rkan d pro vi de h i m pro du ct p i c tu res o n h i s w ebsi t e , w hi ch a t tha t po i n t he s t i ll d i d n o t hav e . Ho w ev er , J im K an e w o u l d n o t se l lto S teve S i gm an , becau se S teven had /has a very bad repu ta t io n w i th a l l o f h i s n earby co m pet i to rs in the bu yi n g gro u p, an dthu s J im K an e d i d n o t w an t to dea l w i th S teven n o r h i s w i fe C hery l a t a l l. S teven t r i ed very hard to co n vi n ce h i m o therw i se ,bu t J i m K an e s t i l l re fu sed to se l l a su bscr i p t io n to h i s d a ta to e i ther S teven S i gm an , C hery l S i gm an o r an y represen ta t ive o fA p p l ia nc e sBuy P h one Inc .16 ) Bu t then in S ep o f 200 6 , S teven S i gm an happ en ed to m eet so m eo n e by the n am e o f R ichard A k erm an , w ho m w as f ro m e i therthe Bro o k l yn o r Q ueen s area . Mr. Ak erm a n had a co m pan y ca l l ed "R eal T im e L L C ", an d c l a i m ed he co u l d g e t S teven asubscription to Jim Kane's data, and could offer him an entire new web solution as well. Akerman claimed to have a



7/20

dev el o per in In d i a n am ed R aj , w ho m had a pro d u ct ca ll ed D yn aS ho pp e. S teven l ik ed the l o o k o f the D yn aS ho ppe w eb si tcsw h i c h w e r e s h o w n t o h i m b y A k e r m a n , a n d t h u s S i g ma n a g re e d t o p a y A k e rma . n $57 , 0 0 ( ) for t h e in it ia l d a t a sub sc r ip tion a nddev el o pm en t o f a new "D yn aS ho pp e" w ebsi t e . D u r i n g th i s ti m e, Ak erm an c l a im ed tha t Raj f ro m D yn aS h o ppe o w ed h i mm o n ey an d t r ied to o ffer S i gm a n severa l su bs t itu te pro du ct s . S t even Sigman was not sat isfied wi th any of those subst i tutes.and when Akerman suggested going back to 'riaShoppe, Plaintiff then got involved and began to evaluate the actualD y n aS ho ppe pro d u ct a lo n g s i de o f S teven S i gn rn n . W e bo th fo u n d the D yi i aS ho ppe C MS (C o n ten t Man agem en t S ys tem ) tobe very c l u m sy an d aw k w ard , I a l so n o ti ced tha t j u s t beyo n d the pre t ty i m ages o f D y n aS ho ppe, there w ere m an y bas i cfu n dam en ta l f law s w i th the co d e . T here w ere b l a tan t e r ro rs o n the f ro n t en d , e r ro rs o n the back en d re t r iev i n g the da ta , an dhad the ho rren d o u sl y u n acceptab l e prac t ice o f p ro cess i n g C red i t C ard o rde rs v i a an u n secu red co n n ect i o n , w hi ch i s anex t rem e r i sk to the cu s to m ers . Fo r a per i o d o f severa l w eek s , an d then m o n ths , P l a i n ti f f do cu m en ted the f l aw s w i th severa lD yn aS ho pp e w ebsi t es , an d I even m ad e a v i deo tape o f m ysel f v i s i ti n g these s it es an d the n u m ero u s er ro rs ,

17 ) T hen R aj to ld A k erm an tha t he co u l d n o t p ro vi d e the des i red c u s to m fu n ct i on al i ty o f the o n l in e paym en ts tha t S teven hadw i th m y so f tw are , u n l ess I w ere to g i ve R aj m y pro pr i e tary co d e . I to l d S teven i t w as m y i n te l lec tu a l p ro per ty an d 1 w o u l dn o t j u s t g ive i t to h i m . Bu t w hat I d i d i n s tead w as , I w ro te o u t a ve r y l o n g an d de ta i l ed spec i f i ca t i on requ i rem en t o f w hat R aj ' sco de w o u l d n eed to do i n o rder to g i ve S teven the sam e fu n ct i o n ali ty he has w i th m y co d e . R .a j co u l d n o t do i t , an d tha t ' sw hen A k er i n an co n tac ted m e d i rec t ly . Ak e rm an t r i ed to co n vi n ce i n c tha t I sho u ld (cam u p w i th h i m , an d j u s t g i ve R aj m yso f tw are . I to ld A k erm an tha t I w a s u n w i l li n g t o d o t h a t , t h e n A k e r m a n s a i d h e w a n t e d t o m a k e a d e a l w i th m e w h e r e h ew o u l d g e t o ther c l ien t s i n , an d I co u l d then u se m y so f tw are fo r tho se n ew c l i en t s he w o u l d l in e u p fo r m e. Bas i ca l lyA k erm an w as o ffer i n g m e a par tn ersh ip w i th h i m fo r n ew c l ien t s . I co n s i dered tha t i dea an d ask ed A k erm an fo r m o re d e ta i ls ,He then sa i d tha t he f i rs t w an ted m e to j u s t t e ll S teven n o t to w o rry abo u t D yn a S ho ppe, an d i n re tu rn A k erm an pro m i sed m e$20 ,0 (X) u p f ro n t o n ce I go t S teven to agree to t ak e R aj 's s tu ff as - is . S o bas i ca l ly , he w an ted m e to be t ray S teven an d havehi m accept an i n fer i o r an d u n acceptab l e pro du ct , bu t o u t o f m y o w n i n tegr ity an d l o yalty to S teven 1 refu sed ,18 ) Pr i o r to th i s , S teven to ld m e P l a i n t if f tha t he w as n o t happy ab o u t g i v in g u p so m u c h co n t ro l to A k erm an , bu t sa i d he had n ocho i ce . Wh i le they w ere n e go t i a ti n g back an d fo r th . Ji m K an e a t R eta i l D e ck had a l ready o pen ed an acco u n t tha t S tevenco u l d ge t da ta f ro m . I had qu i ck l y w ri t ten so f tw are tha t w o u l d read th i s da ta , m ade n ew separa te da tabase t ab l es to u se i t , an do n o u r cu rren t w ebsi t e , I sho w ed S teven ho w J im K an e 's d a ta w o u l d l o o k l i k e o n o u r cu rren t s i t e . S teven seem ed to besa t is f i ed w i th m y n ew so f tw are u s i n g tha t da ta , an d by tha t t im e he w as d i ssa ti s f ied w i th Ak erm an , w ho ren eged o n h i sD yn aS ho ppe co n t rac t . S o S teven can cel l ed h i s co n t rac t w i th Ak erm n an . T he ba t t le be tw een S i gm an an d Ak erm an w asgro w i n g ever i n creas in gl y ho s t i le an d n as ty , w i th n u m ero u s threa t s go i n g back an d fo r th .19 ) A l tho u gh S teven had a l ready pa i d fo r a o n e-year su bscr i p t io n o f J im K an e 's da ta , s i n ce the acco u n t w as o pen ed i n Ak erm an 'sn am e, P l a i n t if f feared tha t A k en n an m ay k i l l t he da ta feed , an d S teve w o u l d l o se a l l o f the pro du ct i m ages an d da ta he j u s thad access fo r . P l a i n t if f re l ayed these co n ce rn s to S teven , bu t he sa i d to j u s t w ai t an d n o t to do an yth i n g ye t . Bu t aga i n s tS teven 's i n s tru c t i on s . P l a i n ti f f w en t ahead an y w ay an d m ad e scr i p t s tha t g rabbed a l l o f the tho u san ds o f p ro d u ct i m ages an ds to red them i n o u r o w n w ebsi t e server . T his to o k ho u rs an d ho u rs to ru n an d co m pl e te . Wel l , n o t m o re than 2 4 ho u rs a f t e r Ihad c o pi ed a l l t he im ages an d da ta to o u r server , d i d A k erm an d o j u s t as I su spected - he k i l led S i gm an ' s su bscr i p t io n . S teveS i gm an t r i ed to co n tac t J im K an e an d have h i m re-o pen h i s acco u n t , bu t K an e refu sed , as the acco u n t w as i n A k er-m an 's

n am e an d A k erm an sa i d to can cel i t. Ak erm an then pro ceeded to defam e S teve S i gm an i n n u m ero u s i n tern et pu bl i ca ti o n s an dwebsites. And even to this day , t here i s s t il l ex is t s a t l eas t o ne n egat i ve d efam ato ry ar t i c l e po s ted by A k erm an o nripoffreport .com a b out S t e v e n S ig ina n,2 0 ) S o S teve n w as d evas ta ted a f t e rw ard s , th in k i n g he had l o s t a l l o f h is i m ages fo r go o d . T hen I su rpr i sed h i m , t e ll in g h i m tha t Iw e n t a h e a d o n m y own and copied all o f the i m ages j u s t the d ay befo re he w as can cel ed . S o then I chan ged the w ebsi t e co deto u se the n ew da ta an d p i c tu res s to red o n o u r server , as w el l as an u pdate to o u r cu rren t C MS , to a ll o w fo r m an u al u p l o ads o fi n d i v i du al im ages fo r an y n ew pro du ct s .2 1) T hen o ver the n ex t w eek s an d m o n ths , m o re fac t s w o u l d co m e to l igh t abo u t the Ak erm a n charac ter he had bee n dea l i n gw i th . Ak erm n an w as a co n m an , a l ia r , had co m m i t ted S S d i sab il ity f rau d , an d had ex to r ted n u m ero u s o ther co m pan i es w ho mcau ght o n to h im an d refu sed to g i ve h i m an y m o re m o n ey. S teven fo u ght w i th A m eri can express , the C C he u sed to pay par tof Akerman's fees, for several months about the fact he should not owe an y t h ing t o A k e rmna n. A me x we nt b a c k a nd for thsevera l t i m es o n the i r d ec i s i o n , befo re i t w as f i n a ll y reso l ved fav o rabl y to S teven .2 2 ) S o by m y scru t i n y o f A k erm an an d D yn aS ho ppe , I saved A ppl i an ces Bu y Pho n e f ro m bei n g tak en o ver by an ev i l m al i c i o u sc o n m a n , w h o m n o d o u b t w o u l d h a v e d e m a n d e d i nc r e a s in g l y m o r e a n d m o r e m o n e y f r o m S t e v e n .2 3 ) S o fo r a l l t he w eek s I spen t research i n g D yn aS h o pu e, Argu i n g w i th R aj an d A k erm an , w r i t in g n u m ero u s em n ai l s an d w ri ti n gdetailed requirements specs for Raj. and for saving AppliancesBuyPhone.com f ro m co m p l e te re in , I w as ho pi n g tha t S tevenw o u l d v o l u n tar i ly o ffer m e so m e so r t o f rew ard . Bu t n o , i n s tead , he n ev er o ffered m e a d i m e.



8/20

2 4) T he o n l y th i n g S teven o ffered to pay i n c fo r , w as tha t he ha d sp ec i f ica l l y ask ed fo r an i n vo i ce fo r the w o rk I d i d fo r the n ewfro n t en d , to co py the i m ages an d the n ew C MS to o l s . The invoice I submitted only l i sted that specific work, al though I wassu re he w o u l d rem e m ber a l l o f the o ther s tu ff tha t w as n o t o n the i n vo i ce I d i d i n co n n ect i o n w i th the w ho l e f Iasco . I d i d n ' tm en t i o n a l l m y w eek s o f w o rk research i n g D yn aS ho pp e, Ak erm an an d R aj . I d i dn ' t in c l u de m y t i m e an d e f fo r t w r i ti n g R ajthe detailed specs. I didn't include converting the code first initially f r om J im K an e 's da ta feed d i rec t l y then to read f ro m o u rserver an d n ew d a tabase t ab l es . I o n ly i n c l u ded the spec i f i c co s t s he ask ed ab o u t , bu t S teven had to rea l ize I had do n e som u ch m o re than tha t. An d he w as ge t t i n g to u se th i s n ew da ta a l m o st fo r free . An d I s to pped h i m f ro m w al k i n g o ff the edgeo f a c l i f f w i th an u n scru pu l o u s , v i n d i c t i ve an d m al i c io u s f rau ds ter . S o I w ai t ed o n l y a sho r t t i m e fo r h i m to sen d a check .W hen I o pen ed i t , I saw tha t l i e pa i d m y i n vo i ce , to the pen n y. Bu t n o t o n e cen t ex t ra . A n d n o t even a "T han k yo u " fo rpro vi d i n g h i s co m pan y the add i t io n al earn i n g capabi l ity o f hu n dred s o f tho u san ds o f d o l la rs i n fu tu re pro f it s an d sav i n g h i scompany millions of dollars from being ruined by Akerman He paid to the specific invoice he requested to the penn y . Butnot one cent more .

2 5 ) S o fo r a l l t he o ther co u n t less ho u rs P l a i n t if f spen t o n the A k erm an /D yn aS ho pp e i ssu e , an d fo r the fac t P l a in t i ff had saved h i smult i -mil l ion dol lar company from complete ruin, in return Plaint i ff got absolutely zi lch. That hurt . I never mentionedanything to him about it until our diner conversation on July 3l' 2010, but I should not have ever needed to. He should havedone it on his',lition way back in 2006. When Cheryl Sigman interjected at that point to the diner conversation about thoseu n -rew arded ef fo r t s w hi ch saved Appl i an cesBu yPho n e, she sa i d they w o u l d have pa i d m e an appro pr i a te rew ard an dco m pen sat i o n i f they tho u ght i t w as w o rth i t to them . Fo r tha t s t a t em en t fo r be t ru thfu l, t hen i t w o u l d m ean tha t a l l o f m yu n co m pen sated ho u rs spen t sav i n g the i r m u l t i-m i l li o n do l l a r bu s i n ess w as w o rth abso l u te ly n o th i n g to them . Beca u se tha t ' se xa c t ly wh a t t h e y g a v e m e .

2 6) But facts will show this statement by Chery l , w hereb y she c l a i m s tha t they w o u l d have p a i d m e appro pr i a te ly i f they tho u ghti t was wo rth i t to them, canno t possibly t rue.2 7 ) In 20 08 , P l a i nt i ff bu i l t a spec i a l C MS to o l tha t a l l o w ed S teven the ab i l i ty to u p l o ad pro d u ct da ta an d p i c tu res m u ch m o requ i ck l y than befo re . Befo re , w i th the previ o u s C MS P l a i nt i ff bu i l t, S teven w o u l d have to l o ad a l l t he da ta fo r each pro du ctone at a time, even if it was diffrent versions (i.e. different colors) of the same exact item. Also with each upload, he wouldhave to find a picture of that44n"somcw here onl ine, then copy i t to his l iar-d rive, giving i t a name and locat ion he couldeas i l y f in d aga i n . T hen he w o u l d have to bro w se to tha t fo l der , se l ec t tha t fi l en am e, an d re -u pl o ad back to the w ebsi t e server .T hat to o k a l o t o f t i m e an d ef fo r t w hen d ea l i n g w i th hu n dreds , i f n o t tho u san ds , o f n ew p ro du ct s . Every few m o n ths o r so ,S teven w i ll ge t u pdates fo r sco res o f n ew pro d u ct s , an d w i l l have to de l e te sco res o f d i sco n t in u ed i t em s as w el l .2 8 ) S o the n ew to o l P l a in t i ff bu i l t fo r h i m a l l o w ed h i m to en ter the* sam e ba s i c da ta fo r severa l vers i o n s o f the sam e i t em a t o n ce( i .e . i f t he appl i an ce i s ava i l ab l e i n W hi te , B lack an d S ta i n l ess, he w o u l d o n l y hav e to type the bas i c i n fo rm at i o n o n ce . T henl ie co u l d en ter the spec i f ic m o del n u m be r , co l o r an d pr i ce fo r e ach va r i a ti o n .2 9) He could also load multiple items, each with multiple color variations, all i n o n e sho t . T hi s w as a b i g adv an tage a l ready .3 0 ) Bu t th i s n ew vers i o n o f m y C MS to o l o ffered ev en so m eth i n g m o re - the ab i l ity to l o ad p i c tu res d i rec t l y f ro m an o ther s i te .W hat he co u l d n o w d o , in s tead o f do w n l o adi n g each p i c tu re to h i s hardr i ve , sav i n g it so m ew here w i th a n am e he co u l drem em ber an d then havi n g to f i n d i t aga i n an d re -u pl o ad i t w i th the o l d C MS , n o w h e co u l d n o w j u s t r i gh t c li ck o n thepi c tu re l ie fo u n d o n the o ther w ebsi t e an d g e t i t 's l o ca t i o n . He co u l d then j u s t pas te tha t p i c tu res l o ca t io n i n to the n ew C MS ,an d m y to o l w o u l d do a l l t he w o rk to grab the i m age d i rec t ly f ro m the t a rge t w ebs i t e . T his saved S teven hu ge am o u n ts o ft ime and effor t .3 1) A l tho u gh S teven had n o t au tho r i zed an y spec i f i c co m pen sat io n fo r th is t ask . P la i n t if f w o u n d u p spen d i n g o ver 3 00 hu n dredho u rs dev el o pi n g i t fo r h i m . W hen I m en t i o n ed i t to h im , I to l d h i m j u s t to pay m e w h at l ie tho u ght w as fa i r . I t w o u l d l a t e rtu rn o u t, tha t he pa i d m e l ess than a th i rd o f m y a l read y d i sco u n ted pr i ce o f $4 0/ho u r . A t $4 0/hr , it w o u l d have been o ver$1 2 ,00 0 . Bu t he o n l y pa i d m e a to ta l o f $4 ,000 fo r i t, an d he pa i d tha t am o u n t i n 4 equ al i n s ta l l m en ts o f $1 ,00 0 eac h permont h , for a p e r iod of 4 mont h s .3 2 ) In 20 09 , S teven pu rchased a l i cen se f ro m N exto pi a .co m , for a more robus t internal search engine. Plaint i ff then lateri n ves t iga ted w hat Nex to pi a had o ffered . A f ter severa l co m m u n i ca t i o n s back an d fo r th , C hr i s , the Nex to pi a sa l es rep , hadadd ressed a l l o f the t echn i ca l co n cern s abo u t the u se o f the i r p ro du ct cau s i n g the r i sk s o f po ten t i a ll y havi n g d u al po i n ts o ffa i lu re i n ser i a l. ( I . e . w here w e w o u l d fa i l i f e i ther o u r server go es d o w n o r i f the i r server go es d o w n ) . Ho w ever , S teven thenask ed m e i f I co u l d dev el o p the sam e fu n ct i o n al ity i n s tead o f h i s pavi n g fo r i i . an n u all 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 , tow hi ch I agreed . S teven sa i d he w as payi n g them $4 5 0 per year , so i f I w o u l d agree to bu i l d i t fo r h im fo r a o n e- t i m e co s t o f$450, he w o u l d " ra ther see m e get the m o n ey" . I agreed to bu i l d i t fo r h im fo r tha t p r i ce . Ho w ever , a f t e r S teven can cel l ed h i sagreem e n t w i th Nex to pi a . I spo k e to C hr i s the sa l es rep a few m o re t i m es . D u r i n g o n e o f tho se d i scu ss i o n s , the i ssu e o f co s t scame up. I then asked him how much was Steven paying them. Chris responded that they were charging Steven $1,000 per



9/20

y ear. So Steven's offer to pay me the same as w hat it would have cost him for a year with Ne xtopia was absolutely not t rue.Instead of offering me the t rue value of what it was w orth, or his even his oivri stated terms, in turns Out that he had connedme and h ad given me less than half of what he said he was giving me. Instead of paying $1,000 a year each and every y ear toNextopia, l ie only paid me a one-lime fee of $450.33) It is also relevant to note that the defend ants are also paying this other company W PRMOTE . $600/month to upload theirproduct feeds to Y ahoo Shopp ing and a few other shopping si tes . But by their own adm ission, the combined traff ic frontthese shopping sites, all pale in comparison to what, the y get from The Google Prod ucts shopping site alone. Plaint iff built forthe Siginans a tool which al lows them to upload to Google Products w henever the y wish, without limitation. And fly t o o lno recurring fees, the y simply paid a very nominal one-t ime fee for inc to build it . So rhetorically speaking, if Cheryl

Sigman m eant what she said about that they were w illing to reward me w ith 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 addit ion to the countless other t imes when I dropped what I w as doing to help S teve, all at no compensat ion.During the early y ears, we had hosted the site on d ifferent hosting companies, where frequently the flies and/or the d ata onthe server got corrupted. O ften Steven would only not ice this around 11:00 PM to even past m idnight , but l ie couldn' t reachanyone at our host ing companies. So then he would call me, and I w ould stop what I was d oing to go online, t ry to diagnosehis problems, and either re-upload the corrupted files, find the glitches in the d ata, or do wh atever I could to re-configure hisaccount on the server to get i t back up and running again.35) I also made se veral rush changes to his website, and often didn' t even get compensated for it . One t ime, I was drivingsomewhere to an important meet ing, While en route, my cell phone rung - Steven had called me in panic, saying he wascontacted by GE Monogram, whom threatened legal act ions against him if lie didn' t immed iately remove the prices shown onthe website for GE Monogram ap pliances. Without even talking to me first, he promised them that the GE monogram priceswould be gone by 3:0 0 P M that day. I told him he shouldn 't have made that promise, as I was d r iving somewhere importantand I could not be back home by then. But Steven was all upset and told me how important it was that he not jeopardize hisrelat ionship with GE. So I then pulled ove r, called the other people at my imp ortant meet ing and c ancelled, and rushed backhome to mak e the changes to Steven's website, all so that he would not get in t rouble 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.3 6) Even one t ime w hen I was on v acation in Florida, when the N J state sales tax changed from 6% to 7 1/ o ,Steven called me andsaid lie needed the chang e right awa y . So in the mid dle of m y vacat ion, I went to the computer room in the Hotel 's lobby, andI download ed the necessary software I needed to make the changes. I also just happened to remember S teve's logininformation, so then I retrieved the necessar y f i les , made the changes and re-uploaded thcThen to make sure that nobodyelse using that computer could ever h ack into Steven's account , I spent hours Irving to clean out all references in thecomputer 's system files that may h ave possibly stored S teve's login information. (A hacker could easily go into a publiccomputer and find toms of personal information). It was only after I was sufficient ly convinced there was none of Steven'sdata st il l stored in that computer, did I then cease my work. And I did this all out of the loyalty and d evotion I had to Steven'swebsite.3 7 ) All of the work I have ever d one for Steven Sigman h as either been done ar huge discounts, or often completely free. Neverhas Steven offered me a single penny extra for anything I did . But Steven doesn' t just take advantage of me; he does it toanyone else lie does business with.3 8 ) For example, there was a ve ry successful internet marketer than was friends with his daugh ter Randi. named Lea S ynefakis.Lea offered S teven to help him with his SIlO (Se arch Engine O ptimizat ion), but she needed some technical tools to be builtby inc in order to allow her to do it dynamically. She sent me the software specs and even a d esired GUI (Grap hical UserInterface), which I appreciated because it took the guess work out of my part as to how she w anted it to look and operate. SoI then built software to do what she need ed, that was to let her dynamically change ME TA tags, keyw ords, page t it les, etc. Icompleted this work in just a few w eeks, and Lea responded she was am azed by that feat. Lea worked for a large compan y inNorth Jersey with their own in-house IT d ept . , and according to Lea, i t would take her ent ire IT team over 10 t imes longer todeve lop something way less complicated than what I did , So then over the next several weeks. Lea performed her SE Oservices for Steven, which proved to be quite beneficial3 9) Lea then apparent ly sent Steven a rather large bill for her services, and lie objected to the cost . He then wanted an itemizedinvoice from her, and from wha t l gather, he was t rying to scrut inize everything she did in order to t ry to haggle her down onher fees. She then got upset with Steven, and cal led him a "G onif' (which means thief in Hebrew). Steven then got angrywith Lea, and told me that only because she was such good friends with his daughter Randi, would he ever pay her what sheasked for. He said if she was anyone else, she would not have paid her anywhere nea r as much as what she billed him for.And Steven adm its that even to this d a y , he still doesn't speak to her.



10/20

40 ) S o S t e v e n a n d C h e r y l Sigman do not pay what things are worth, just the opposite. They try to haggl e an d co n n i ve an d t ak e asm u ch as they po ss i b l y can f ro m o thers w i th g i v i n g i n re tu rn as l it t le as they ca n ge t aw a y w i th . T hey are n o t fair in theirbu si n ess dea l i n gs . T hei r decad es l o n g bad repu ta t i o n am o n gst the en t ire New Yo rk an d New Jersey appl i an ces in du s t ry an dbuying groups only further support th is .41 ) A fter he had to pay L ea m o re than he w an ted to , S teven then h ired an o ther l ady , L au ra Hen r y . to do his SEQ for him, I madea new login for Laura to use the same SEO tool I had developed for Lea, and Laura began to do SEQ work for S t e v e n.A l tho u gh so m et im es L au ra an d m ysel f had d i f fe ren t i deas o n w hat w as prac t i ca l o r n o t, L au ra w as ver y d e d ic a t e d a nd p ut ina lot of effort into doing the best she could to optimize Steven's SEO i n dex ran k i n g . S he a l so to o k o ver se t t in g S teven 'sspo n so red ad ver t i s in g o n G o o gl e , an d se t h i s pay-pre-c li ck bu dget m u ch h i gher than S teven w o u l d have o therw i se w an ted to

p a y . Bu t regard l ess , i n the en d , her e f fo r t s l ed to the A ppl i an cesBu yPho n e.co m web si te to be the fi rst search re sul t on the fi rstpage o f G o o gl e , fo r n u m ero u s k eyw o rd searches ( i . e . if a v i s i to r typed the k ey w o rd s "d i sco u n t appl i an ces NJ" i n to theGoogle Search, Steven's website was the very f i rs t organ i c search resu l t to sho w ). Bu t even tho u gh h er e f fo r t s pa i d o ff veryw el l fo r S teven . he w as u n happ y abo u t payi n g so m u ch fo r the pay -per-c l ick s ad ver t i s in g she se t u p . T hen he w a s ex t rem el yu n happy w hen she sen t h i m her b i l l , w hi ch 1 u n d ers tan d he a rgu ed w i th her abo u t , an d af t e r he even tu al l y pa i d her , he to l dm e to rem o v e her l o g i n to h is S E O to o l , an d he w as n o t go i n g to u se her serv i ces ever ag a i n .42 ) S o i n the su m m er o f 20 09 , w hen S teven ap pro ached i n c abo u t learn i n g S EO techn i qu es to he l p pro m o te h i s w ebsi t e , I k n ewhe w o u l d o bj ec t to the en o rm o u s pr i ce I w o u l d have to charge h i m i n o rder to do so . He t r i ed to co n vi n ce m e to l earn i t,say i n g I w o u l d i m pro ve m y o w n m ark etab i l ity i n the pro cess as w e l l, w hi ch w as t ru e . Bu t even s t i ll , tha t ben ef i t a l o n e w o u l dn o t n ear l y j u s ti fy the i n cred i b l e am o u n t o f t i m e an d e f fo r t I w o u l d n eed to i n ves t in to th is i n o rder to d o i t . S o I tho u ght o f ani dea , w hat I tho u ght w as a p erfec t i dea i n fac t - a w i n -w i n s itu a t io n .43 ) Rather than Steven paying me hourly, and ratherromoting the current AppliancesBuyPhone.com si te, where the benefi ts ofm y S EO effo r t s w o u l d be hard to m easu re , i n s tead I tho u ght o f the fo l l o w i n g . T hat I w o u l d u se o n e o f S teven 's i d l y park eddo m ai n n am es ( i . e . o n e o f the few d o m ai n n am es tha t he w as s t i ll a l lo w ed to cybersqu at w i th fo r the pas t 7 years ) . an d Iw o u l d bu i l d an en t i re n ew w ebsi t e , an d t ry to pro m o te tha t w i th pu re l y o rgan i c ( f ree an d u n pai d ) S EO techn i qu es . I t w o u l dhave it's own loll free, an d p aym en t pro cess i n g to o . Bu t I w an ted to m ak e a percen tage based so l e ly o n ho w w el l tha t n ewwebsite d id .44 ) S o I m et w i th S teven an d C hery l i n A u gu st 200 9 a t the Barn es & No bl es i n Br i ck . I to ld them w hat I w an ted to do . tha t Iw o u l d pu t the w ebsi t e in m y n am e, ge t m y o w n C C paym e n t pro cess i n g , m y o w n to l l f ree n u m ber . I w o u l d bu i l d the n eww ebsi t e , research an d l earn all the n eed ed S EO techn i qu es , then pu t the t echn i qu es i n to ac t io n to pro m o te the s i t e , then d o a l lthe w o rk to k eep the d a ta an d pr i ces cu rren t , an d I w o u l d pay fo r a l l expen ses i n vo l ved (su ch as the to l l f ree n u m be r , ho s t in gthe s i t e . e t c . ) . I t w o u l d n o t co s t S teven an d /o r C her y l a pen n y, an d I w o u l d o n l y m ak e m o n ey i f an d w hen peo pl e o rderedfrom the new website. Steven and Cheryl agreed to this, and we agreed to split the profits 5050. I also agreed to keep thepr i ces exact l y the sam e , an d n o t to m ak e m y n ew w ebsi t e lo o k fhn cy , so tha t the cu s to m ers w o u l d n o t m ak e an y u n fa i rc omp a r isons b e t we e n t h e 2 s i te s .45 ) A fter severa l m o n ths , the n ew w eb si te w as bu i l t , an d I had l earn ed en o u gh S E Q techn i qu es tha t I w as ready to l au n ch tha tn ew w ebsi t e . I u sed the do m ai n n am e o f Ap pl i an ces4S al e .co m , o n e o f the co u pl e do zen n am es tha t S teven w as a l l ow ed toco n t i n u e to cybcrsqu at w i th f ro m back i n 200 3 . I l au n ched m y s i t e i n O cto ber 200 9 , bu t even tho u gh I pas ted m y pro du ctda ta i m m ed i a te ly w i th G o o gl e pro du ct s , I rece i ved a l m o st n o ca l ls . By the en d 20 09 . I had rece i ved o n l y 2 o rders fo r tha te n t ir e 2 0 0 9 y ear . In Jan u ai y , sa les w e re s t i ll very s l o w , bu t w ere s t a r t in g to i n crease . O ver then n ex t few m o n ths , m y ra te o fsa l es began to c l im b. A l so du r i n g th is t i m e, I w o u l d cheek to see ho w w el l m y s i t e w as i n dex i n g o n G o o g l e 's o rgan i c search .A t f i rs t , I co u ld n o t f i n d the w e bsi t e a t a ll . T hen I w as o n page 1 2 , then a few w ee k s l a t e r , o n page 1 0 . O ver the n ex t fewmonths, I moved up and up. and I was on pages 4,5 an d 6 o f the G o o gl e resu l ts pages , depen d i n g u po n w hat k eyw o rd s w eretyped i n . F i n a l l y by Ju n e , 1 w as o n G o o gl e ' s search resu l t page 3 fo r var i o u s k eyw o rd s . I t w as d u r i n g th is t i m e, w hen f i n a l lym y sa l es w ere do i n g w el l . In the m o n th o f Ju n e 201 0 , I had rece i ved o ver $3 0 ,000 w o rth o f o rders . S o m e o f these o rders hadto be re fu n ded , e i ther becau se they w ere fo r u n co n f i rm ed sh i ppi n g add resses , o r becau se w e d i d n o t have cer t a i n i tem s i ns to ck . Bu t even j u s t the ac tu a l co m pl e ted Ju n e 201 0 sa l es had gro ssed o v er $1 2 ,00 0 . A n d the f i rs t ha l f o f Ju l y was a lsoequally s t rong.46 ) Bu t then the beg i n n in g o f Ju l y , S teven to l d m e tha t o u r w areho u se w as cu t t in g o ff a l l w ho l esa l e / rese ll e r sa l es o n a i rco n di t i o n ers du e to l i m i ted su ppl y . S teven to l d i n c tha t u n t i l fu r ther n o t i ce , w e co u l d n o t se l l an o ther s i n g l e a i r co n d i t io n er .i m m edi a te l y chan ged m y w ebsi t e co de to re f l ec t tha t , w here ev ery a i r co n di t i o n er w o u l d i n d i ca te to the cu s to m er thefo l lo w i n g m essage "O u t o f s to ck u n t i l fu r ther n o t i ce" . T hey co u l d n o t o rder i t o r p l ace i t i n to the i r o n li n e sho ppi n g car t . Ioffered to make the same change on Steven's website, but he told me not to, that he didn't know how long the freeze wouldbe i n p l ace fo r . Bu t j u s t a few days p r i o r , he sa i d w e w ere d o n e fo r the w ho l e su m m er seaso n , say i n g tha t w e co u l d n o t se l lan ym o re A JC s u n ti l S eptem ber .



11/20

47 ) 1 tho u ght th i s to be very o dd , an d s i n ce w e u se the sam e w areho u se as P C R i chard do es , I w e n t to the l o ca l PC R i chard s to re ,which i s o n l y a m i l e f ro m m y ho u se . I saw abo u t 6 5 bo xes o f b ran d n ew a i r co n di t io n ers j u s t s it t in g o n the i r sho w ro o m f l o o r ,so i t hard l y seem ed l ik e there w as an y sho r tage . Whe n I ca l l ed S teven an d to ld h i m th i s fac t, he sa i d tha t the sho r tage w asbased i n the i r No r th Jersey an d N ew Y o rk s to res , an d so o n they w o u l d n eed to t ran sfer the i r u n i ts i n Br i ck u p there toacco m m o date the sho r tage . A gai n he sa i d tha t n e i ther m y w ebsi t e o r h i s co u ld se l l an y A /C s. A gai n I o f fered to chan ge thecode 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 thosei n co m i n g to li f ree ca l l s fo r n o th in g . Bu t he then sa i d he d i dn ' t m i n d , c l a im i n g tha t he co u l d se l l them so m e o ther app l ian ceinstead. I knew that had to be pure hogwash, because I couldn't fathom how an y o n e co u l d p o ss i b ly t a l k so m ebo d y i n tobu yi n g a s to ve o r a re f r i gera to r if they w e re l o o k i n g fo r an a i r co n di t io n er . I t t hen seem ed o bvi o u s to m e tha t S teven w as s t i l lse l li n g A JC s bu t w an ted to k eep a l l o f the a i r co n di t io n er sa l es fo r h i m sel f . T hi s a l so f i t in w i th i n so m eth i n g e l se , becau seprevi o u s l y he co m pl a i n ed a bo u t the am o u n t o f w o rk i n vo l ved i n pro cess i n g a i r co n di t i o n er sa les fo r the sm al l p ro f i t tha t w asi n vo l ved . Hi s o w n w o rds w ere , w hi ch he sa i d repeated l y to m e thro u gho u t Ma y an d Ju n e " I ha te se l l in g a i r co n d i t io n ers , theya re more h a ss le t h a n t h e y a re w or t h " .

48 ) S o I rea l l y s t a r ted to s t ro n gl y su spect tha t S teven w as d epr i v i n g m e o f m ak i n g an y A /C sa l es o n m y o w n . T hen a few day slater, all rem ai n i n g do u bt w as rem o ved . W hi l e ea ti n g m y l u n ch a t a McD o n al ds i n T o m s R i ver , a lady a t a n earby t ab l e to o ku p a co n v ersa t i o n w i th m e, n o t ic i n g tha t I l o o k ed t ro u bl ed by so m eth i n g . I t hen to l d her m y co n cern s tha t m y b u s i n ess par tn erw as be i n g u n fa i r w i th m e, an d I ask ed her to do m e a favo r . I ask ed her i f she w o u l d ca l l Appl i an ces Bu y Pho n e o n her ce l lpho n e , an d to say tha t she w as i n teres ted i n bu yi n g a spec i f i c a i r co n di t io n er , a S harp A FQ I 2 0P X, w hi ch i s u n i t tha t PCR i chard had l it e ra l ly do ze n s o f i n s to ck i n the i r Br ick s to re , an d w hi ch S teven had spec i f i ca ll y to ld m e a few days b efo re tha twe could not get. She called the Appliances Buy Pho n e to l i free n u m ber an d pu t her ce l lpho n c o n l o u dspeak er m o de . I heardS teven an sw er , an d she ask ed h i m abo u t the AFQ I 2 0P X. Ju st as I had prepped her to expect . S teven ask ed her w here i t w asgoing to, and after she replied "Freehold NJ" just as I had instructed her to say. Steven then said it could be delivered in aco u pl e days . S he then sa i d she w o u l d ask h er hu sban d an d ge t back to h i m an d hu n g u p , o n ce agai n as I had previ o u s l yinst ructed her to d o.

49 ) T hen l a te r tha t sam e day , I ca l led S teven an d sa i d I had a cu s to m er tha t w an ted a S harp A FQ I 20 PX, bu t o n ce agai n S tevento ld m e tha t w e w eret i l l blocke d an d st i l l can 't sel l any ai r cond i t ioners at al l ."5 0 ) But even without my selling any air conditioners, my sales for other appl iances were st i l l very strong for the fi rst hal f of July.appro x i m ate l y $5 5 00 i n gro ss sa les fo r o n l y a ha l f m o n th tha t d i d n o t i n c lu de an y o f the tu rn ed-do w n A /C o rders .5 1) Howe v e r , th e n a l l of th e sud d e n ma y sa le s se e me d t o d r y u p o vern i ght , as the n ex t co u pl e w eek s . I go t a l m o st n o ca l l s o rorders. On July 24', I then learned that Google Products had mistakenly identified my website and the other website asdu pl i ca tes . I w ro te them seve ra l em ai l s , an d even tu al l y they agreed to co rrec t i t.5 2 ) But unfortunately, during this time Steven had tortiously interfered with this and then look m y we b s i t e d own c om p le t e lydown. Because the cybersquatted domain name of Appliances4Sale.com w as s t i l l reg i s t e red i n S teven 's n am e, he w as ab l e tol o g i n to the reg i s t ra r an d pu t the en t i re do m ai n n am e o f A ppl i an ces4sa l e .co m back to be i n g i n an i d l y park ed s t a te . T his

m ean s I co u l d n o t rece i ve an y t ra f f ic a t a l l w hat so ever , an d I co u l d n o t even rece i ve a n y em ai l s f ro m cu rren t o r fo rm ercustomers. Below is the chronology of those events.5 3 ) On Sat Jul 24th, I happen ed to n o t ice tha t I had n o a c t i ve i tem s l i s t ed o n G o o gl e Pro d u ct s . S o then I t r ied u p l o ad i n g m ypro du ct feed a ga i n , bu t then I rece i ved a "d i sappro ved" e r ro r m essage . I su spected tha t perhaps G o o gl e m i s to o k m y s i t e an dS teven 's as m i rro rs , bu t to be su re I then w ro te G o o gl e an em ai l ask in g fo r an exp l an at io n .5 4) On Monday Jul 26th, G o o gl e had rep l i ed tha t they tho u ght m y w ebsi t e w as a d u pl i ca te o f an o ther s i te , bu t d i d n o t spec i fyw hi ch s i t e they be l i eved i t to be a d u pl ica te o f . 1 i m m ed i a te ly w ro te bac k tha t m y s i t e w a s n o t a du p l ica te , an d I e xpl a i n ed thes i tu a t io n i n d e ta i l on ho w I u n d ers to o d the i r co n fu s io n , bu t expl a i n ed i n de ta il ho w I had o w n ersh i p o f A ppl a i n ces4 S a l e . co i na nd p a id for a l l th e e xp e nse s .5 5 ) After st i l l not hearing an ything from Google by Tuesday Jul 27', I was speaking about this issue with Steven, and he thencl a i m ed tha t G o o gl e had previ o u s l y to ld h i n i tha t becau se he w as a ro u n d l o n ger an d sp en t m o re m o n ey, tha t i f there w as everan y co n f l i c t be tw een an o ther s i t e an d h i s , tha t they w o u l d g i ve h i s w ebsi l e preferen ce o ver an y co n f l ic t i n g s it e , w hi ch o fc ourse would inc lud e m y s i t e .5 6) On Wed Jul 28t1, G o o gl e w ro te m e back , bu t had seem i n gl y i gn o red the co n ten t s o f m y 7 /26 em ai l . say i ng they tho u ght i tw as the sam e o w n ersh i p . I t hen rep l i ed back w i th a s tro n gl y w o rded m essage , an d i n d i ca ted expl i c i tl y tha t I w o u l dcommence tort l i t igat ion i f this was not corrected immediately.5 7 ) W hen I spo k e to S teven a bo u t th is l a t e r tha t even i n g , he sa i d tha t G o o gl e w o u l d s t i l l p refer h i m o ver m e becau se he has spen tm o re m o n ey o n ad ver t i s in g w i th them .



12/20

5 8 ) Then Google replied to me on Friday Jul 30', slating that m y feed w as re -appro ved . G o o gl e rep li ed tha t a f t e r fu r ther rev i ew ,they re -appro ved m y acco u n t an d I co u l d j u s t re -u pl o ad m y feed . S o then 1 t r ied th ro u gho u t the day to re -u pl o ad m y feed . Bu tw hen I t r ied u p l o ad i n g i t aga i n , a ltho u gh I w as n o l o n ger ge t t i n g d i sappro ved er ro rs , in s tead I w as ge t t i n g t echn ica l e r ro rm essages . ( i . e . the feed w as co rru pted o r the IJR L w as i n val id ) . I m an u al l y in spected m y da ta feed an d ev en m an u al l y re -u pl o aded i t , bu t s t il l I w as ge t t i n g the sam e erro rs . I t r i ed severa l t i m es , a l l w i th the sam e erro r m essag es . I t hen w ro te G o o gl eanother emai l , thanking them for re-approving my feed but also alert ing them Clint there was st i l l another gl i tch on thei r endbecau se i t w as sho w i n g er ro rs w i th m y feed w hen there w ere n o er ro rs w i th m y feed .5 9) On Monday Aug 2nd, they w ro te back an d sa i d they f i xed the pro bl em . I re -u plo aded m y feed , an d th i s ti m e i t w as su ccessfu l .

I saw l a ter tha t day tha t I w as f i n a l l y li s ted a ga i n o n G o o gl e Pro d u ct s . S o as o f Au goog le h a d c or re c t e d i t 's mis t a kef ro m 2-3 w eek s pr i o r w hen they rem o ved i n c f ro m the i r G o o gl e Pro du ct s l i s ti n g .60 ) Ho w ev er du r i n g th i s t i m e, S teven had thro w n a pro verb i a l m o n k ey w rcn ch i n to the w o rk s .61 ) To rewind a bit, on Thur night Jul 29tl , S teven 's G o o gl e pro d u ct feed had exper i en ced a t echn i ca l g l i tch w i th u pl o ad i n g toG o o gl e Pro d u ct s , as n o n e o f h is p ro du ct s w e re be i n g accepted . (Bu t h i s g l i tch w a s tha t n o pro du ct s w ere be i n g pro cessed . an dm o re spec i f i ca l ly , he had n o t rece i ved an y d i sappro ved er ro r m essage s , so he had a d i f fe ren t issu e than w hat I had a t tha ttime.)62 ) A ro u n d the sam e t i m e o n Fr i day m o rn i n g w hen I w as exper i en ci n g g l i tches w i th u pl o ad i n g m y feed . S teven ca l l ed say i n g h i sfeed was down, and told me of his problems with loading his data feed into Google Products. He was under the impressiontha t he w as shu t do w n i n s tead o f m e fo r be i n g d i sappro ved . Bu t w hen I l earn ed tha t he had n o t rece i ved an y er ro r m essagessayi n g he w as d i sappro ve d , I to l d h i m n o t to j um p to an y co n cl u s i o n s an d t r i ed to expl a i n m y o w n d i f f i cu l ti es w i th l o ad i n gm y feed , w hi ch w as j u s t re -appro ved . I a l so tr i ed to expl a i n the d i f fe ren ce i n the e r ro r m essages (a n d l ack thereo f) . Bu tregard l ess ho w e ver , he assu m ed i t w as becau se o f a co n f l i c t w i th m y s i t e . S o e i ther la t e m o rn i n g o r ear l y a f t e rno o n o n Fr i day .S teven j u m ped the gu n an d c a l l ed G o o gl e i n a pan i c . An d i n do i n g so , he then gave them i n co rrec t i n fo rm at io n , c l a im i n g tha the o w n ed A ppl i an ces4S al e . T hen G o o gl e w as co n fu sed an d d i dn ' t k n o w w hat to do , an d a l leged l y G o o gl e to ld S teven to tak eo n e o f h i s 2 w e bsi t es do w n . He to l d G o o gl e to shu t m y s i t e do w n ra ther than h i s . T hen , acco rd i n g to S teven , G o o gl eallegedly told him that even if someone else owned the Applianccs4Sale.com si te, he would st i l l have to get that owner totak e tha t s i te d o w n o r e l se h i s s i t e w o u l d be co m pl e te l y rem o ved f ro m G o o gl es l is t in gs a l so . (Al l egedl y fo r bo th the i r gen era lw eb search a n d the i r G o o gl e Pro du ct sho ppi n g co m par i so n ) .63 ) 1 spo k e to S teven agai n o n Fr i day even i n g , i t w as then tha t he ask ed m e j u s t to w al k aw ay f ro m m y b us ine ss of A p p l ia nc e s 4S al e co m pl e te l y . An d af t e r m u ch d i scu ss io n , it tu rn ed o u t tha t S teven w an ted to o ffer n o co m pe n sat io n fo r m y l o ss .64 ) W e a l so agreed to m ee t a t a l o ca l d i n er the n ex t day o n S atu rday Ju l 3 l ' s . After a lengthy discussion at the diner wi th theSigmans and myself, both Steven and Chery l adm i t t ed tha t G o o gl e d i d n o t sa y they w o u l d d ef i n it e ly t ak e them d o w n i f m ysi te sta yed ac t i ve , bu t in s tead sa i d there w as a po ss i b i li ty tha t o n e o r bo th s i tes co u l d be rem o ved f ro m a l l o f G o o gl e ' s search

i n dexes i f they de term i n ed the s i tes w ere d u pl ica tes . S teven repeated w hat he sa i d ear l i e r , tha t i t w as be cau se o f w hat he sa i dto Google about his owning Appliances4Sale, did they then once again consider our websites to be possible duplicates. Iexpl a i n ed to them tha t S teven sho u l d n o t have c l a im ed o w n ersh i p o f Ap pl i an ces4S al e , an d he o n l y m ad e the i ssues m u chw o rse . I to l d them the i r o n ly co n cern w as the i ssu e o f o w n ersh i p , n o t the s i m i lar i ty o f the d a ta o n the 2 w ebsi t es . I t r ied toexpl a i n tha t m o st o f the d a ta i n an y re ta i l s i te i s o b j ec t i ve an d f i xed , thu s there w i ll be grea t s i m i l ar i ty f ro m o n e w ebsi t e to then ex t , ( i .e . No m at ter w h i ch re ta i le r se l l s a p ro du c t , tha t p ro du ct w i l l have the sam e fea tu res , spec i f i ca ti o n , an d ev en the t i t lean d pro du ct d escr i p t io n w i l l be a l m o st the sam e f ro m o n e re ta i le r to the n ex t . Even the pro du ct i m age o f ten w i l l be exac t lythe same, as usually it will be supplied directly by the manufacturer). We discussed these concerns in detail, but Chery l saideven as i de f ro n t w n ersh i p i ssu e , she s t i ll be l ieved tha t i f the tw o s i t es appeared to be to o s i m i lar , G o o gl e w o u l d have anissue with that. Chery l adm i t t ed tha t G o o gl e o n l y sa i d there w as a po ss i b i li ty o f tha t, bu t expl a i n ed she d i d n o t w an t to t ak etha t chan ce an d w an ted m e to j u s t s tep as i de as n o t to i n ter fere w i th the i r l is t in gs o n G o o gl e . C hery l i n her o w n es t i m at io nbelieved that I had invested somewhere between 1,000 to 2,000 hours of my time into this website , not t o me nt ion my out ofm y po ck et co s t s . S o then I ask ed C hery l an d S teven ho w m u ch they w ere o ffer i n g m e to s t ep as i de an d fo rfe i t the bu s i n ess Ihad w o rk ed so hard fo r , an d a l l o f the fu tu re in co m e I w o u l d be fo rfe i t in g as w e l l. C hery l an d S teven rep l i ed they w an ted tooffer inc nothing.65 ) They thought I should just walkaway with the minimal amount of sales I already made, while they continue to stuff theiral ready o verf l o w i n g po ck et s . I expl a i n ed tha t th i s w as an al o go u s to a fa rm er w ho spen d s t i m e an d ef fo r t p repar i n g an dcultivating the land, plowing the fields, planting the seeds, nurturing protecting and building the crops until the y finallybloom months later. But no sooner then that crop has finall y started to yield the frui ts of that farmer's months of labor, doesso m eo n e e l se t e l l them to co m pl e te ly s to p an d j u s t to k eep the m i n i m al am o u n t o f c ro ps they have a l ready harves ted .



13/20

6 6) T h e ir o w n e s t im a t e o f t h e a m o u n t of t im e I i n v e st e d o v e r t h e p a s t y e a r w a s b e t w e e n 1 ,0 0 0 a n d 2 . 0 0 0 h o u r s, w h i c h I a g r e e dw i th . T hey a l so agreed tha t I had m i n i m al sa l es u p u n t i l t he begi n n in g o f Ju n e , an d m y to ta l p ro fi t s to da te fo r th i s en t i reexistence of Appliances4Sale was only about $2,000 (i.e. One or two dollars per hour). However when I asked them if th/tho u ght i t w as fa i r tha t I d i d a l l t ha t w o rk fo r su ch a m eage r am o u n t , they t r i ed to sa y i t was the risk I took. But they are t l (eo n es w ho m h ave breache d the i r o w n co n t rac t w i th m e, an d w ho are the o n es w ho m are a t t em pt i n g to have i n c s to p o pera t i n g .My p osi t ion is that i f the y w an t m e to go aw a y j u s t to pro tec t the i r o w n po ten t i a l r i sk w i th G o o gl e pro du c t s , then a t am i n i m u m , they sho u l d a t l eas t fa i r l y co m pen sate m e fo r m y t i m e a l read y i n ves ted , i f n o t a l so fo r m y l o s t fu tu re i n co m e aswell.

6 7 ) 1 then expl a in ed ho w u n fa i r I tho u ght tha t w as , an d then rem i n ded them o f a l l t he th in gs I had d o n e fo r them o ver the years . I tw as then tha t I m en t i o n ed abo u t m y n ever be i n g rew ard ed a pe n n y fo r sav i n g the i r co m pan y f ro m A k erm an . I then m en t i o n edho w the y go t th in gs f ro m m e w ay cheaper an d w ay be t t e r than an yo n e e l se w o u l d have o ffered them . Befo re C hery l had sa i dthey w o u l d a l w ays pay m e fa i r ly fo r w hat the y tho u ght th i n gs w ere w o rth , bu t tha t o bvi o u s ly w as n o t t ru e . I t hen m en t i o n edabo u t the dea l w i th Nex to pi a , an d I k n ew tha t S teven h ad ch eated m e o n tha t . C hery l tr i ed to t e ll m e tha tA ppl i an cesBu yPho n e w as the i r l i ve li ho o d , an o ther co m pl e te l ie w hi ch w a s a l so an i n su l t to m y i n te l li gen ce . T hey t r i ed to saythat m y w eb si te w as j u s t a ho bby. I f an yth i n g , the reverse i s tru e . S teven adm i t s tha t he has m o re m o n ey than he c o u l d everspen d i n h i s li fe t im e, o r w hat h i s ch i l d ren o r gran dch i ld ren co u l d spen d i n the i r li fe ti m es . C hery l adm i tt ed tha t they hav em o re than en o u gh to l as t ten l i fe ti m es . S teven ad m i t s tha t he o n l y do es th i s becau se he en j o ys the pro cess o f m a k i n g m o n eyan d h e w o u l d be bo red to dea th i f he j u s t re t i red an d d i d n o th i n g . S o fo r h i m an d C hery l , in rea l i ty th i s i s ju s t a ho bby. I t i sn o t the ir l i ve l iho o d o f ho w they pay the i r b i l ls an d pu t o 'n 'the i r tab l e each m o n th . W hereas w i th i n m y case , I am u n em pl o yedan d cu rren t l y m y o n l y o ther i n co m e i s f ro m teachi n g 4 gu i ta r l esso n s a w eek ( l ess than $1 00 /w eek ) . I n eed ed th i sA ppl i ances4 S al e w ebsi t e fo r m y o w n l i ve l iho o d .

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 Stevenhad park ed the n am eservers fo r App l ian ces4 S al e .co m b a c k a t G o D a d d y . W h i c h m e a n s m y s i te i s 1 0 0 % c o m p l e te l y d o w n ,n o bo dy ca n see m y s i te even i f they w ere to type i n the U R L d i rec t ly . I can n o t even rece i ve an y o f m y em ai l . Wh en I ca l l edSteven that evening, he claimed he had to do it, claiming Google gave him no other choice.69 ) Then Steven changed his stor y slightly, saving that they still had an issue over ownership. Then Cher y l indicated that Googledi dn ' t say they w o u l d de f i n it e l y l ak e the s i tes o ff o f the i r i n dex i f w e bo th rem ai n ed l ive , bu t s t a t ed ra ther tha t they m i ght .regard l ess o f the i ssu e o f o w n e rsh i p . S he sa i d i f the s i t es w ere to o s i m i l ar , there w as a chan ce tha t G o o gtc m i ght s t i ll dec i deto t ak e bo th the s i t es o ff o f the ir gen era l search i n dex as w el l as the i r sho ppi n g (G o o gl e P ro du ct s ) i n dex . S teven sa i d hew an ted m e to chan ge the d a ta so i t w o u l d ap pear d i f fe ren t than h i s da ta , w hi ch I to l d h i m tha t I co u l d do , bu t w o u l d t ak esome time. I also told him once again, that in general for any retailers selling the same item, thereould bound be tovery similar data for that item, as the features, specifications, title, product descriptions, etc All were objective pieces ofi n fo rm at io n , ra ther than a su bj ec t i ve i n terpre ta ti o n o f w hat the i t em w as . E ven the pro du ct p i c tu res o f t en co m e d i rec t l y f ro mthe m an u factu rers , ra ther than a perso n a t each re ta i le r ' s w areho u se u n pack i n g each i t em an d t ak i n g the ir o w n u n i qu e p i c tu reo f i t. Bu t regard l ess , S teven d i d n o t w an t to reac t i va te m y do m ai n n am e an d bo th S teven an d C h ery l w an ted to o ffer m e n ocompensation for it. According to Cheryl, she said she believes they own 100% of the Appliances4Sale.com d oma in na me ,

an d h a l f o f the A ppl i an ces4 S al c w ebsi t e 1 devel o ped . I t w as a t tha t po i n t w here I sa i d : "O n tha t n o te , I am go i n g to say'go o dn i ght ." ' , an d I then i n s tan t ly en d ed o u r pho n e c a l l.7 0 ) A co u pl e days l a t e r , I rece i ved a cer t if i ed l e t t e r f ro m the S i gm an s . Al tho u gh S teven S i gm n an s i gn ed the l e t t e r , it w as c l ear tom e tha t i t w as rea l l y C hery l S i gm an w ho m w as the au tho r . In tha t le t t e r , S teven adm i t ted to a l a rge po r t i o n o f the s i gn i f ican tfacts,

CAUSES OF ACTIONDue to the time factor involved and the continuing harm to Plaintiffs reputation the longer his business his inact ive , is i ti m po rtan t tha t th is co m p l a i n t is f i l ed so o n as po ss i b l e . S o i n adv an ce , P l a i n t if f requ es t s l i bera l leave o f co u r t to am en d co m pl a i n tw i th add i t io n al cau ses o f ac t io n an d to re f i n e the p l ead i n gs an d/o r s t a ted cau ses o f ac t i o n be l o w as n eede d .C o u n ts I th ro u gh 1 0 are spec i f i c to defen dan t s A ppl i an ces Bu y Pho n e, In c . , S teven S i gm an , an d C hery l S i gm an . C o u n ts 1 1thro u gh 1 3 are spec i f ic to d efen dan t G o o gl e C o rpo ra t io n .

Count 1 - Unjust enrichment71. Pl a i nt if f i ncorpora tes each and ev ery a l l egat ion conta i ned i n paragraphs I - 7 0 hereof as though ful l y s e tfor th at length herein .72. To the benef i t of the d efendants and de t r i ment of P l a int if f , P l a int if f was uncompe ns ated for e i ther h i stime or his inconvenience of making the emergency change to thwebsit's displayed prices for GEMonogram products .



14/20

73 To the bene f i t of the defend ants and d e t r ime nt of P l a int i f f P l a i nt if f was uncom pens ated for ov er 10 0hours of h i s t i me i nv es t iga t i ng Raj and D ynaShoppe , i dent i fyi ng and docum ent ing f l aws i n the s of tware ,wr i t ing s of tware requi rement s pecs for Raj , communicatinwith Raj and Akerman, and ultimatelys av i ng the defendants f rom the c l utches of the mal ic i ous Richard A kerman c harac ter .74 . To the benef i t of the defend ants and d e t r iment of P l a int i ff , P l a int if f was uncom pens ated for ov er $8 ,00 0wor th of h i s t i me i n bui l d i ng the new C MS tool , wh i ch the d efendants a re s t il l us ing to th i s day to c rea teand m aintain their database.75 . A dd i ti onall y , to the benef i t of the d efendants and de t r i ment of P l a int if f , P l a int if f was u nderpa i d forev ery th i ng e l s e , in res pect to the i r v a l ue of fered . For e xam pl e , P l a int if f of fered d efendants an e -comm erce s ol ut ion w i th no fee per i t em nor any fee to p roces s payments . I f i nstead P l a int i ff hadrequi red j us t 1%, or ev en 0.5%, i n 20 03 (where the s tandard ra te a t tha t t ime for s hopp i ng car t s of twarewas around 2% ) , P l a int if f woul d hav e earned wel l ov er $1,00 0 ,00 0 i n ad d i t i onal p rof i ts .76. I t i s irrefutable that the d efend ants avai led them selves of these benefi ts .77 . I t was unj us t for defendants to rece i v e thes e b enef i ts wi thout p roper com pens at i on be i ng pa i d toPlaintiff78. By reason of the foregoing, plaint i ff has been d ama ged .79 . W HE RE F ORE , p la i nti f f hereby dem ands j udgm ent aga ins t defend ants S tev en S i gm an, C hery l S i gmanand A ppl iances B uy Phone Inc . , jo i nt ly , s ev era l ly and i n the a l te rna ti v e , for :a . contractual damages;b. consequent ial damages;C.om pensa tory d am ages ;d. p u n it iv e dam ag es ;e . costs of suit and a t torneys fees; and,uch other and fur ther re l ie f as the C our t may d eem j ust and p roper .

Count 2 - Breach of Contract Causing Damage80 . P l a i nti f f incorpora tes each an d e v ery a l l egat ion conta i ned i n paragraphs I - 79 hereof as though ful ly s e tfor th at length herein .81. P l a i nti f f entered i n to cont rac t wi th defend ants in A ugus t of 200 9 . D efend ants were s eek i n g additionalsa le s f rom P la in ti f f 's e f for ts . P la in ti f f wa s the so le pa r ty w hom wa s inve s t ing h i s t ime , e f r t , sk il ls , a ndmoney i nto th i s cont rac t . W hi le on the otherhand , Defend ants were not i nv es t ing any t i me, e f for t ormonetary e xpens es w hats oev er i n to th is cont rac t , P l a i nti f f s ole l y s pent the t i me to bui ld the new webs i te ,to res earch the e f fec t iv e S E O techni ques , to then i mpl ement a l l of the ted i ous tas ks need ed to hav es ucces s ful SE O , and to ke ep the d a ta and p r i ces cur rent on the new webs i te . P l a int if f a l s o s pent the t i meand mon ey to es tab l i s h the webs i te ' s hos ti ng , to es tab li s h the onl i ne Paym ent p roces s i ng ( i . e . Paypal ) , toestabl ish the business bank acco unt, to es tabl ish the tol l free num ber, etc. Plaint i ff solely paid for al loperat ing costs of the new w ebsite .82. The contract terms specified that both part ies were to spl i t the net profi ts equal ly , 50% each. Thecont rac t t e rms a l s o p rov i ded tha t both webs i tes were to s e l l a l l of the exac t s ame p roducts , a l l a t theexact same pr ices .83 . Howev er , i n ear ly J ul y , the defend ants b reached the cont rac t by re fus i ng to a l low Pl a i nti f f to m ake s a l esof any a i r cond i ti oners , fa l s e ly te l li ng P l a i nti f f tha t they w ere both banned by the w arehous e f rom anyfur ther A /C s a l es unt il Sep tember . A l l the w hi le the d efendants cont i nued to m ake A /C s a l es from the i row n we bsi te, jus t so that could keep a l l of the profi ts for them selves . This was clearly a breach o f theagreed up on contract terms.84. Defend ants then on A ug 2 , 20 10 , one-s i ded l y de c i ded to com pl e te ly te rmi nate the cont rac t wi thPl a i nti f f, wh i ch they c l a i med was d ue to an unfores eeab l e i s s ue wi th Googl e .85. Thi s b reach of cont rac t by the defend ant occurred m uch ear l i e r than woul d h av e been nece s s ary forP l a i nt if f to rece i v e p roper com pens at ion or con s i dera t ion for w hat he had i nv es ted i n to the per formanceof the cont rac t . Howev er D efendants com pl e te l y re fus ed to com pens ate P l a i nt if f for h i s l oss es .86. By reason of the foregoing, plainti ff has been dam aged .87 . W HE RE F ORE , p l a int if f hereby dem ands j udgm ent aga ins t defend ants S tev en S i gm an, C hery l S i gmanand A ppl iances B uy Phone Inc . , jo i nt ly , s ev era l ly and i n the a l te rna ti v e , for :a . contractual damages;b. consequent ial damages;

C.om pensa tory d am ages ;d. p u n it iv e dam ag es ;e . costs of suit and at torneys fees; and ,uch other and fur ther re l ie f as the C our t may d eem j us t and p roper .Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 9737-1 Filed 10/19/10 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 92393Case 3:10-cv-05415-FLW -DEA Document 1-1 Filed 10/19/10 Page 14 of 20 PageID: 20


15/20

Coun t 3 - Breach of ln ,pjjed Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dewing88. Pla in t i ff inc orpora te s e a c h a nd e ve ry a l le ga t ion c onta ine d in pa ra gra ph s 1 87 he re of a s though fu l ly se tfor th at length herein .89. Defend ants b reached the i mpl i ed cov enant of good fa i th and fa i r dea l ing wi th P l a i nti f f, when d efendantSteve n negotiated w ith Plainti ff to dev elop a subst itute for Nextopia.com' s software. Steven offeredPl a i nt if f com pens at i on equal to one year ' s wor th of N extop i a ' s annual fees i n exchang e for P l a int i ff ' sde v el opme nt of s ubs ti tu te s of tware . S tev en i nd i ca ted he w as pay i ng Nextop i a $450/year for use of theirsoftware, which he said he would rather see the Plaint i ff receive instead. Plaint i ff agreed to this , but thenl a ter l earned tha t S tev en had ros s ly l ied abo ut the annual cos t of Nex top i a sof tware . D efend ant

essential ly had c heated Plaint i ff about of more than half of the compen sation offered.90 . S i nce a d i f fe rent monetary am ount was ag reed up on and pa i d , i t is uncl ear i f th i s cons t itu tes a b reach ofcont rac t . How ev er , i t can be undeni ab l e tha t s uch conduc t i s a b reach of the i mpl i ed cov enant of goodfaith and fair de aling with the Plaint if f .91. The cont rac t t e rms s pec i f ied tha t both par t i es were to s p l i t the ne t p rof i ts equa l ly , 50% each. Thecont rac t t e rms a l s o p rov i ded tha t both webs i tes were to s e l l a l l of the exa ct s ame p roducts , a l l a t theexact same pr ices .92. How ev er , i n ear l y J uly , the defend ants b reached the cont rac t by re fus i ng to a l low Pl a i nti f f to m ake s a l esof any a i r cond i ti oners , fa l s e ly te l li ng P l a i nti f f tha t they w ere both banned by the w arehous e f rom anyfur ther A /C s a l es unt il Sep temb er . A l l the whi l e the d efend ants cont inued to make NC s a l es f rom the i row n we bsi te, jus t so that could k eep al l of the profi ts for themse lves . This was clearly a breach of theimplied cove nant of good fai th and fa i r deal ing with the Plaint i ff .93. By reason of the foregoing, plaint i ff has been d ama ged .94. WHE RE F O RE , p la i nt if f hereby dem ands j udgm ent aga ins t defend ants S tev en S i gman, C hery l S i gmanand A ppl iances B uy Phone Inc . , jo i nt ly , s ev era l ly and i n the a l te rna ti v e , for :a . contractual damages;b. consequent ial damages;C.om pensa tory d am ages ;d. p u n it iv e d amag es ;e . costs of suit and at torneys fees; and ,f . s uch other and fur ther re l ie f as the C our t may deem j us t and p roper .Count 4 -business information mispresented

95. Plaint iff incorporates each and every al legation contained in para graphs 1 94 hereof as though ful ly setfor th at length herein .96. S tev en ad mi ts tha t on more than o ne occas i on, s ta r ti ng f rom F r i day J ul y 30th, he had to ld to G oogle tha th e o w n e d t h e A p p l ia n c e s 4 Sal e w ebs i te . E v e ry th ing d ev el oped on tha t s i t e was bui l t by P l a i nt if f andowned by P l a int i ff , P l a i nti f f s ole l y pa i d for a l l expens es and s ol e ly per formed a l l the count l ess hours ofrequired tasks to bui ld, maintain and run the d ai ly operat ion of A ppl iances4 Sale. com . Aside f romStev en 's i l lega l cybers quat t i ng on the d oma i n name i ts e l f for 7 years , D efendant s had no ownershipi n teres t in A pp l i ances 4 Sale at all.97 . D e f e n d a n t s h a v e a d m i tt e d t h a t t h e y h a v e n e v e r d o w n a n y t h in g w i th t h e A p p l ia n c e s 4 Sale do main n ame,and tha t they hav e no i n tenti ons of ev er d oi ng any th i ng wi th i t in the future .98 . B ecaus e the defend ants p rov i ded G oogl e wi th incorrec t i nformat i on, it caused cont inued confusion onGoogl e ' s par t , wh i ch onl y exacerbated the p rob l ems .99. By reason of the foregoing, plaint i ff has been d ama ged .1 0 0 . W H E R E F O R E , p l a in t if f h e r e b y d e m a n d s j ud g m e n t a g a in s t d e f e n d a n t s S t e v e n S i g m a n , C h e r y lSi gman and A ppl iances B uy Phone Inc . , jo i nt ly , s ev era l ly and i n the a l te rna t i v e , for:a. consequent ial damages;b. com pensa tory dam ages ;C.unit ive damages;d. costs of Suit and at torneys fees; and,e. such other and further rel ief as the Court may d eem just and prop er.

Coun t 5 -business injured b y anothers false descrintion101. Plaintiff incorporates each and ever y a l legat i on

D'Agostino v Appliances Buy Phone Complaint

Documents

Transcript of D'Agostino v Appliances Buy Phone Complaint