Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

Filed1-1

10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page 1Pageof 201PageID:of 20 PageID:923807

EXHIBIT A

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

Filed1-1

10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page 2Pageof 202PageID:of 20 PageID:923818

Attorney (s) Google Corporation Office Address & Tel. No.: 76 Ninth Avenue 4th Floor New York NY 10011 Attorney(s) for PIaintiff(s)p

Steven DAgostino

Piaitlff(

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Ocean

Docket No. L-3250-10

COUNTY

LAW DIVISION

vs.

AppliancesByP hone, Steven&CherylSigman, Google Defendant(s)

CIVIL ACTION

SUMMONS

From The State of New Jersey To The Defendant(s) Named Above:

The plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you dispute this complaint, you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of service with the deputy clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above within 35 days from the date you received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (The address of each deputy clerk of the Superior Court is provided.) If the complaint is one in foreclosure, then you must file your written answer or motion and proof of service with the Clerk of the Superior Court, Hughes Justice Complex, P.O. Box 971, Trenton, NJ 08625-0971. A filing fee payable to the Clerk of the Superior Court and a completed Case Information Statement (available from the deputy clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany your answer or motion when it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiffs attorney whose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above. A telephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve a written answer or motion (with fee of $135.00 and completed Case Information Statement) if you want the court to hear your defense. If you do not file and serve a written answer or motion within 35 days, the court may enter a judgment against you for the relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs of suit. If judgment is entered against you, the Sheriff may seize your money, wages or property to pay all or part of the judgment. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may call the Legal Services office in the county where you live. A list of these offices is provided. If you do not have an attorney and are not eligible for free legal assistance, you may obtain a referral to an attorney by calling one of the Lawyer Referral Services. A list of these numbers is also provided.

/\_i(

laq

DONALD F. PHELAN Clerk of the Superior Court

DATED: September 2, 2010

Name of Defendant to Be Served: Goog1 Corporation

Address of Defendant to Be Served: 76 Ninth Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10011

10

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

OCEAN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OCEAN COUNTY COURTHOUSE CIVIL LAW DIVISION TOMS RIVER NJ 08754

COURT TELEPHONE NO. (732) 929-2016 COURT HOURS

TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICE

Filed1-1

DATE:

AUGUST 30, 2010

RE:

DAGOSTINO VS APPLIANCES BY PHONE INC

DOCKET: OCN L -003250 10

THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 2.

10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page 3Pageof 203PageID:of 20 PageID:923829

DISCOVERY IS 300 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYS FROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

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

F YO'J HAVE ANY 'JE7T7OH5, CONTACT TEAM

AT:

(732) 929 V2.

032

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE A CERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE Ff2ING OF YOUR PLEADING. PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.4:5A-2.

JUQMANO

ATTENTION:

STEVEN DAGOSTINO 765 MANTOLOKING RD BRICK

NJ 08723

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page4 of 204 PageID:of 20 PageID:9238310

U

CIVIL CASE INPORMATION STATEMENT

(CIS)

Use for initial Law Division

Civil Part pleadings (not moflons)

be rejected for filing,

Pleading will

under Rule 4:5-1

under Rule 1:5-6(c),

if information above the black bar is not completed or attorney's signature is not affixed

Iy:TT

[HG/CKNO.

OVERPAYMENT:

1 BATCH

ATTORNEY I PROSE NAME

ONE

ER

COUNTY OF VENUE

LJCK

RMNAME0fapphCabIe>

OFFICEADDRLS

(3

C-4

it5

C

NAME OF PARTY (e.g., John Doe, Plaintiff)

$1

D'Ms

CASE TYPE NUMBER (See reverse side for listing)

/ Q j

W

/

/

RE1JTED CASES PENDING?

o

YES

Q/No

DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING ANY PARTIES

(arising out of same transaction or occurrence)?

El es

[?'No

DOCKET NUMBER (when available)

)-

DOCUMENT TYPE

JURY DEMAND

Ei"YEs

0 N

CAPTION

fl3i

V.

,

he

J Cc/

IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE?

IF YOU HAVE CHECKED YES SEE N.J.SA. 2A. 53 A -27 AND APPLICABLE CAS REGARDING YOUR OBLIGATION TOFILEAN AFFIDAVIT OFMERIT. IF YES, LIST DOCKET NUMPERS

0 YES

NAME OF DEFENDANT'S PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY (if known)

0

Nd

El

CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION DOPARTIESI-LAVEACURRENTPAST OR IFYESiSTHTRELATIONSHIP:

RECURRENT RELATIONSHIP?

EMPLOYE WEMPLOYE I,

FAMILIAL

0 FRIEND/NEIGHBOR

[,-(BUSINESS

L

YES

J No

DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS CASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES BY THE LOSING PARTY?

0

OTHER (explain)

0

YES

USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMEI ACCELERATED DISPOSITION

JCA

J

eN

OR

DO Y OU OR YOUR CLIENT NEE'

YES

9/No

WILL AN INTERPRETER BE NE ceo?

El YES

IF YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE?

I

certify that confidential personal Identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to t4e redacted from all documents

submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b).

SIGNAThRE

a d vL

,

J

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page5 of 205 PageID:of ECHL6 20 PageID:9238411

(CK) MO CA

Plaintiff

V.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY DIVISION CIVIL PART

N

H OCEAN 'OCEAN COUNTY

N

Amount

DATE

OvP

IniaIs'J-t

Appliances Buy Phone, Inc., Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman, and GooQle Corporation Defendants

PLAINT

25D7O

AUG 2 d 2010

Plaintiff Steven D'Agostino, by way of complaint against the above-captioned defendants, says as follows:

THE PARTIES AND THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PARTIES:

1)

Defendant Appliances Buy Phone, Inc. is an online retailer of major home appliances, formed in early 2003.

2)

Defendaiu Appliances Buy Phone, Inc. is a coipor'ition wholly owned and operated by defendants Steven and Cherl Sigman, husband and wife, Defendants Appliances Buy Phono, Inc., Steven Siginan and Cher yl Sigman are all located at the address of 3 Devonshire Was', Jackson NJ 08527.

3)

Defendant Google Corporation is a worldwide entity, whose online applications, software and services are used by billions of people. While Defendant Googie Corporation's most widely used service is their internet search engine, they additionally offer many other products services. Some of these services are fee-based (e.g. such as their sponsored advertising "AdWords" and their online credit card payment processing "Google Checkout"). However, many of their products and services are free of charge to customers and to merchants (e.g. products such as their own toolbar "Google Toolbar", their own web browser "Chrome", and specifically for merchants, services such as posting listings in their online shopping comparison "Google Products", formerly known as "Froogle").

4)

Plaintiff Steven D'Agostino is a web developer, whom single-handedly created all of the numerous software applications that have powered the ApplianccsBuvPhonecom website since August of 2003. Throughout this certification. Plaintiff will refer to himself in the third person, except in instances where he will refer to himself in the first person for the sake of clarity or simplicity.

FAC TUAL_BACKGROUND:

5)

A few months before the Plaintiff would later met defendant Steven Sigman that summer, in early 2003 Steve Sigman and Cheryl Sigman first launched their initial website, AppliancesBuvPhone.com , for their corporation of AppliancesBuyPhone, Inc. This initial website was developed by some guy named "Shawn". Also, sometime in the early spring of 2003, apparently Steven Sigman (henceforth referred to as "Steven") had made the very unwise choice of registering literall y hundreds and hundreds of domain names, with the intention of keeping those names until another competitor wanted one of them, to which he would then charge them an exorbitant price to purchase. Soon after, there were numerous complaints made about that illegal activity, and Steven was eventually fined heavily for "cybersquatting". (1 believe the fine was in excess of $100,000 if I recall his story conectly). Along with that hefty fine. Steven also had to relinquish all but a couple dozen or so of his domain names.

6)

Plaintiff met defendant Steven in July of 2003, outside the Computer City store in Freehold. Plaintiff was lookin g to pick up extra work doing computer repairs, computer tutoring, or developing websites. I was passing out flyers, placing them into car windshields, but as chance would have it, Ijust happened to be placing one of m y flyers on Steven's car right as Steven was walking back to his car.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page6 of 206 PageID:of 20 PageID:9238512

7)

Plaintiff and Steven had a brief conversation, and while there in person, Steven noticed the plaintiff's flyer offered website development services. It was then that Steven mentioned that he was unhappy with his current website. After a brief discussion, Steven said he was very interested and would call soon. Fortunately, I had the foresight to also ask Steven what was the name of his website, which lie replied was "AppliancesBuyPhonc.coin"

8)

So after a few days and Steven hadn't called. Plaintiff then went online and found the AppliancesBuyPhone.com website. Plaintiff called the tollfree number and mentioned who he was, and then learned that the guy on the other end of the phone was the same person whom he had met at Computer City. Soon thereafter, both parties set up a meeting and met in person and discussed Steven's needs. Steven claimed his current website ran too slow, and that no customers were placing any orders online at all. All of his orders up to that point all had been placed via phone. He was also upset because at that time, the only option he had available for online checkouts was to have his orders processed via Shop.ebaappliances.com , which charged somewhere around 5% per transaction,

9)

When Plaintiff asked Steven why did he agree to pay such a high percentage, Steven's answer was "Because I have no other

choice". They also discussed Steven's recent past with his website, which was front

with unnecessary code and media content. This was apparently the only version of the website that was ever developed by that guy named "Shawn", whom according to Steven allegedly was more concerned about being out on his boat rather than meeting Steven's needs for his website.

inception noticeably slow and bloated

10) 1 assured Steven that he would have my 100% devotion to his website, a promise which to this day, 7 years later, 1 have always kept.

11) So in August 2003, Steven entered into a fixed price contract with Plaintiff to develop a brand new website. Steven specifically instructed that the new website, which Plaintiff was to design. would have absolutely no pictures, just plain text only. This was because of Steven's concern about his prior website being bogged down with multiple large slow pictures. Further, the new website would have it's own customized search engine, shopping cart and custom online payment processing solution, tailored to fit their unique needs. Plaintiff agreed to develop all of this for Steven for a flat fee of $1500. Steven agreed that for this price, he would be buying a lifetime license to use the plaintiff's software, but Plaintiff still retained ownership of any and all software he developed. Unlike what was common with all of the plaintiff's competitors at that time. Plaintiff did not ask for any recurring fees whatsoever. Most competitors charged a recurring fee per item stored in the database, as well as a percentage of all of the sales which were processed directly online.

12) The new website developed by the plaintiff then vent live a short while afterwards, and almost immediately after launching the new website, Steven's number of phone calls increased dramatically, and there were finally a few online orders coming in as well.

13) Over time, Plaintiff eventually convinced Steven to allow at least a few pictures, such as a logo image and a couple other small images to make the website look nicer. I assured him I knew what I was doing and I knew how to keep the bandwidth and footprint very low. (Keep in mind, that most people still used dialup connections, and the older computers had limited CPU power, limited RAM, and the browsers had vastly significant differences in their Document Object Models). So I made sure that everything I developed was going to perform very well on all conlputers, regardless of how fast or slow their internet connection was, and it would work as desired on virtually all browsers and versions thereof.

14) One of the tools Plaintiff had made for Steven was the ability for Win enter, edit, and delete any/all of his own data. We discussed allowing Steven the ability to upload product pictures, but Steven said it would take Will way too long and way too much effort to find, download and reupload pictures for all of his thousands of products.

15) Then in 2005, Steven found a solution to this problem, in a company called "Retail Deck", owned by a person by the name of Jim Kane". Jim Kane had claimed to have a ready-made pre-existing database with full descriptions and pictures to thousands of home appliances, to which multiple other online appliance retailers already had recurring subscriptions with to utilize for their own websites. Although the subscription price was several thousand dollars per year (I recall the estimates being between $10,000 and $20,000) Steven definitely wanted to have this, because it would save him a lot of manual work and provide him product pictures on his website, which at that point he still did not have. However, Jim Kane would not sell to Steve Sigman, because Steven had/has a very bad reputation with all of his nearby competitors in the buying group, and thus Jim Kane did not want to deal with Steven nor his wife Cheryl at all. Steven tried very hard to convince him otherwise, but Jim Kane still refused to sell a subscription to his data to either Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman or any representative of AppliancesBuyPhone Inc.

16) But then in Sep of 2006, Steven Sigman happened to meet someone by the name of Richard Akerman, whom was from either the Brooklyn or Queens area. Mr. Akerman had a company called "Real Time LLC", and claimed he could get Steven a subscription to Jim Kane's data, and could offer him an entire new web solution as well. Akerman claimed to have a

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page7 of 207 PageID:of 20 PageID:9238613

developer in India named Raj, whom had a product called DynaShoppe. Steven liked the look of the DynaShoppe websitcs which were shown to him by Akerman, and thus Si gman agreed to pay Akerma.n $57,00() for the initial data subscription and development of a new "DynaShoppe" website. During this time, Akerman claimed that Raj from DynaShoppe owed him money and tried to offer Sigman several substitute products. Steven Sigman was not satisfied with any of those substitutes. and when Akerman suggested going back to 'riaShoppe, Plaintiff then got involved and began to evaluate the actual DynaShoppe product along side of Steven Signrnn. We both found the DyiiaShoppe CMS (Content Management System) to be very clumsy and awkward, I also noticed that just beyond the pretty images of DynaShoppe, there were many basic fundamental flaws with the code. There were blatant errors on the front end, errors on the back end retrieving the data, and had the horrendously unacceptable practice of processing Credit Card orders via an unsecured connection, which is an extreme risk to the customers. For a period of several weeks, and then months, Plaintiff documented the flaws with several DynaShoppe websites, and I even made a videotape of myself visiting these sites and the numerous errors,

17) Then Raj told Akerman that he could not provide the desired custom functionality of the online payments that Steven had with my software, unless I were to give Raj m y proprietary code. I told Steven it was my intellectual property and 1 would not just give it to him. But what I did instead was, I wrote out a ver y long and detailed specification requirement of what Raj's code would need to do in order to give Steven the same functionality he has with my code. R.aj could not do it, and that's when Akerinan contacted me directly. Akerman tried to convince inc that I should (cam up with him, and just give Raj my software. I told Akerman that I was unwillin g to do that, then Akerman said he wanted to make a deal with me where he would get other clients in, and I could then use my software for those new clients he would line up for me. Basically Akerman was offering me a partnership with him for new clients. I considered that idea and asked Akerman for more details, He then said that he first wanted me to just tell Steven not to worry about DynaShoppe, and in return Akerman promised me $20,0(X) up front once I got Steven to agree to take Raj's stuff as-is. So basically, he wanted me to betray Steven and have him accept an inferior and unacceptable product, but out of my own integrity and loyalty to Steven 1 refused,

18) Prior to this, Steven told me Plaintiff that he was not happy about giving up so much control to Akerman, but said he had no choice. While they were negotiating back and forth. Jim Kane at Retail Deck had already opened an account that Steven could get data from. I had quickly written software that would read this data, made new separate database tables to use it, and on our current website, I showed Steven how Jim Kane's data would look like on our current site. Steven seemed to be satisfied with my new software using that data, and by that time he was dissatisfied with Akerman, who reneged on his DynaShoppe contract. So Steven cancelled his contract with Akermnan. The battle between Sigman and Akerman was growing ever increasingly hostile and nasty, with numerous threats going back and forth.

19) Although Steven had already paid for a one-year subscription of Jim Kane's data, since the account was opened in Akerman's name, Plaintiff feared that Akennan may kill the data feed, and Steve would lose all of the product images and data he just had access for. Plaintiff relayed these concerns to Steven, but he said to just wait and not to do anything yet. But against Steven's instructions. Plaintiff went ahead anyway and made scripts that grabbed all of the thousands of product images and stored them in our own website server. This took hours and hours to run and complete. Well, not more than 24 hours after I had copied all the images and data to our server, did Akerman do just as I suspected - he killed Sigman 's subscription. Steve Sigman tried to contact Jim Kane and have him re-open his account, but Kane refused, as the account was in Aker-man's name and Akerman said to cancel it. Akerman then proceeded to defame Steve Sigman in numerous internet publications and websites. And even to this da y, there is still exists at least one negative defamatory article posted by Akerman on ripoffreport.com about Steven Siginan,

20) So Steven was devastated afterwards, thinking he had lost all of his images for good. Then I surprised him, telling him that I went ahead on my own and copied all of the images just the day before he was canceled. So then I changed the website code to use the new data and pictures stored on our server, as well as an update to our current CMS, to allow for manual uploads of individual images for any new products.

21) Then over the next weeks and months, more facts would come to light about the Akerman character he had been dealing with. Akermnan was a con man, a liar, had committed SS disability fraud, and had extorted numerous other companies whom caught on to him and refused to give him any more money. Steven fought with American express, the CC he used to pay part of Akerman's fees, for several months about the fact he should not owe an ything to Akermnan. Amex went back and forth several times on their decision, before it was finally resolved favorably to Steven.

22) So by my scrutiny of Akerman and DynaShoppe, I saved Appliances Buy Phone from being taken over by an evil malicious conman, whom no doubt would have demanded increasingly more and more money from Steven.

23) So for all the weeks I spent researching DynaShopue, Arguing with Raj and Akerman, writing numerous emnails and writing detailed requirements specs for Raj. and for saving AppliancesBuyPhone.com from complete rein, I was hoping that Steven would voluntarily offer me some sort of reward. But no, instead, he never offered me a dime.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page8 of 208 PageID:of 20 PageID:9238714

24) The only thing Steven offered to pay inc for, was that he had specificall y asked for an invoice for the work I did for the new front end, to copy the images and the new CMS tools. The invoice I submitted only listed that specific work, although I was sure he would remember all of the other stuff that was not on the invoice I did in connection with the whole fIasco. I didn't mention all my weeks of work researching DynaShoppe, Akerman and Raj. I didn't include my time and effort writing Raj the detailed specs. I didn't include converting the code first initially from Jim Kane's data feed directly then to read from our server and new database tables. I only included the specific costs he asked about, but Steven had to realize I had done so much more than that. And he was getting to use this new data almost for free. And I stopped him from walking off the edge of a cliff with an unscrupulous, vindictive and malicious fraudster. So I waited only a short time for him to send a check. When I opened it, I saw that lie paid my invoice, to the penny. But not one cent extra. And not even a "Thank you" for providing his compan y the additional earning capability of hundreds of thousands of dollars in future profits and saving his company millions of dollars from being ruined by Akerman He paid to the specific invoice he requested to the penn y. But not one cent more.

25) So for all the other countless hours Plaintiff spent on the Akerman/DynaShoppe issue, and for the fact Plaintiff had saved his multi-million dollar company from complete ruin, in return Plaintiff got absolutely zilch. That hurt. I never mentioned anything to him about it until our diner conversation on July 3l' 2010, but I should not have ever needed to. He should have done it on his',lition way back in 2006. When Cheryl Sigman interjected at that point to the diner conversation about those un-rewarded efforts which saved AppliancesBuyPhone, she said they would have paid me an appropriate reward and compensation if they thought it was worth it to them. For that statement for be truthful, then it would mean that all of my uncompensated hours spent saving their multi-million dollar business was worth absolutely nothing to them. Because that's exactly what they gave me.

26) But facts will show this statement by Cheryl, whereby she claims that they would have paid me appropriately if they thought it was worth it to them, cannot possibly true.

27) In 2008, Plaintiff built a special CMS tool that allowed Steven the ability to upload product data and pictures much more quickly than before. Before, with the previous CMS Plaintiff built, Steven would have to load all the data for each product one at a time, even if it was diffrent versions (i.e. different colors) of the same exact item. Also with each upload, he would have to find a picture of that44né"somcwhere online, then copy it to his liar-drive, giving it a name and location he could easily find again. Then he would have to browse to that folder, select that filename, and re-upload back to the website server. That took a lot of time and effort when dealing with hundreds, if not thousands, of new products. Every few months or so, Steven will get updates for scores of new products, and will have to delete scores of discontinued items as well.

28) So the new tool Plaintiff built for him allowed him to enter the* same basic data for several versions of the same item at once (i.e. if the appliance is available in White, Black and Stainless, he would only have to type the basic information once. Then lie could enter the specific model number, color and price for each variation.

29) He could also load multiple items, each with multiple color variations, all in one shot. This was a big advantage already.

30) But this new version of my CMS tool offered even something more - the ability to load pictures directly from another site. What he could now do, instead of downloading each picture to his hardrive, saving it somewhere with a name he could remember and then having to find it again and re-upload it with the old CMS, now he could now just right click on the picture lie found on the other website and get it's location. He could then just paste that pictures location into the new CMS, and my tool would do all the work to grab the image directly from the target website. This saved Steven huge amounts of time and effort.

31) Although Steven had not authorized any specific compensation for this task. Plaintiff wound up spending over 300 hundred hours developing it for him. When I mentioned it to him, I told him just to pay me what lie thought was fair. It would later turn out, that he paid me less than a third of my already discounted price of $40/hour. At $40/hr, it would have been over $12,000. But he only paid me a total of $4,000 for it, and he paid that amount in 4 equal installments of $1,000 each per month, for a period of 4 months.

32) In 2009, Steven purchased a license from Nextopia.com , for a more robust internal search engine. Plaintiff then later investigated what Nextopia had offered. After several communications back and forth, Chris, the Nextopia sales rep, had addressed all of the technical concerns about the use of their product causing the risks of potentially having dual points of failure in serial. (I.e. where we would fail if either our server goes down or if their server goes down). However, Steven then asked me if I could develop the same functionality instead of his paving for ii. annuall y via Nextopia. I told Win could do it. He said he would pay inc to develop it, offering me a one-time fee in the same amount he was paying them annuall y , to which I agreed. Steven said he was paying them $450 per year, so if I would agree to build it for him for a one-time cost of $450, he would "rather see me get the money". I agreed to build it for him for that price. However, after Steven cancelled his agreement with Nextopia. I spoke to Chris the sales rep a few more times. During one of those discussions, the issue of costs came up. I then asked him how much was Steven paying them. Chris responded that they were charging Steven $1,000 per

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page9 of 209 PageID:of 20 PageID:9238815

year. So Steven's offer to pay me the same as what it would have cost him for a year with Nextopia was absolutely not true. Instead of offering me the true value of what it was worth, or his even his oivri stated terms, in turns Out that he had conned me and had given me less than half of what he said he was giving me. Instead of paying $1,000 a year each and every year to Nextopia, lie only paid me a one-lime fee of $450.

33) It is also relevant to note that the defendants are also paying this other company WPRMOTE. $600/month to upload their product feeds to Yahoo Shopping and a few other shopping sites. But by their own admission, the combined traffic front these shopping sites, all pale in comparison to what, the y get from The Google Products shopping site alone. Plaintiff built for the Siginans a tool which allows them to upload to Google Products whenever they wish, without limitation. And fly tool no recurring fees, they simply paid a very nominal one-time fee for inc to build it. So rhetorically speaking, if Cheryl Sigman meant what she said about that they were willing to reward me with an amount of what my work is worth to them, how after all these years 4ite I still never seen a dime extra for it?

34) This is also in addition to the countless other times when I dropped what I was doing to help Steve, all at no compensation. During the early years, we had hosted the site on different hosting companies, where frequently the flies and/or the data on the server got corrupted. Often Steven would only notice this around 11:00PM to even past midnight, but lie couldn't reach anyone at our hosting companies. So then he would call me, and I would stop what I was doing to go online, try to diagnose his problems, and either re-upload the corrupted files, find the glitches in the data, or do whatever I could to re-configure his account on the server to get it back up and running again.

35) I also made several rush changes to his website, and often didn't even get compensated for it. One time, I was driving somewhere to an important meeting, While en route, my cell phone rung - Steven had called me in panic, saying he was contacted by GE Monogram, whom threatened legal actions against him if lie didn't immediately remove the prices shown on the website for GE Monogram appliances. Without even talking to me first, he promised them that the GE monogram prices would be gone by 3:00 PM that day. I told him he shouldn't have made that promise, as I was driving somewhere important and I could not be back home by then. But Steven was all upset and told me how important it was that he not jeopardize his relationship with GE. So I then pulled over, called the other people at my important meeting and cancelled, and rushed back

home to make the changes to Steven's website, all so that he would not get in trouble with GE. I never billed him for that,

and the reward or compensation Steven offered me for it in return was

as one might have guessed

absolutely nothing.

36) Even one time when I was on vacation in Florida, when the NJ state sales tax changed from 6% to 7 1/o, Steven called me and said lie needed the change right awa y. So in the middle of my vacation, I went to the computer room in the Hotel's lobby, and

I downloaded the necessary software I needed to make the changes. I also just happened to remember Steve's login

information, so then I retrieved the necessar y files, made the changes and re-uploaded thcThen to make sure that nobody else using that computer could ever hack into Steven's account, I spent hours Irving to clean out all references in the computer's system files that may have possibly stored Steve's login information. (A hacker could easily go into a public computer and find toms of personal information). It was only after I was sufficiently convinced there was none of Steven's data still stored in that computer, did I then cease my work. And I did this all out of the loyalty and devotion I had to Steven's website.

37) All of the work I have ever done for Steven Sigman has either been done ar huge discounts, or often completely free. Never has Steven offered me a single penny extra for anything I did. But Steven doesn't just take advantage of me; he does it to anyone else lie does business with.

38) For example, there was a very successful internet marketer than was friends with his daughter Randi. named Lea Synefakis. Lea offered Steven to help him with his SIlO (Search Engine Optimization), but she needed some technical tools to be built by inc in order to allow her to do it dynamically. She sent me the software specs and even a desired GUI (Graphical User Interface), which I appreciated because it took the guess work out of my part as to how she wanted it to look and operate. So

I then built software to do what she needed, that was to let her dynamically change META tags, keywords, page titles, etc. I

completed this work in just a few weeks, and Lea responded she was amazed by that feat. Lea worked for a large company in North Jersey with their own in-house IT dept., and according to Lea, it would take her entire IT team over 10 times longer to develop something way less complicated than what I did, So then over the next several weeks. Lea performed her SEO services for Steven, which proved to be quite beneficial

39) Lea then apparently sent Steven a rather large bill for her services, and lie objected to the cost. He then wanted an itemized invoice from her, and from what l gather, he was trying to scrutinize everything she did in order to try to haggle her down on her fees. She then got upset with Steven, and called him a "Gonif' (which means thief in Hebrew). Steven then got angry with Lea, and told me that only because she was such good friends with his daughter Randi, would he ever pay her what she asked for. He said if she was anyone else, she would not have paid her anywhere near as much as what she billed him for. And Steven admits that even to this day, he still doesn't speak to her.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page10 of 2010 PageID:of 20 PageID:9238916

40) So Steven and Cheryl Sigman do not pay what things are worth, just the opposite. They try to haggle and connive and take as much as they possibly can from others with giving in return as little as they can get away with. They are not fair in their business dealings. Their decades long bad reputation amongst the entire New York and New Jersey appliances industry and buying groups only further support this.

41) After he had to pay Lea more than he wanted to, Steven then hired another lady, Laura Henr y. to do his SEQ for him, I made

a new login for Laura to use the same SEO tool I had developed for Lea, and Laura began to do SEQ work for Steven.

Although sometimes Laura and myself had different ideas on what was practical or not, Laura was ver y dedicated and put in

a lot of effort into doing the best she could to optimize Steven's SEO index ranking. She also took over setting Steven's

sponsored advertising on Google, and set his pay-pre-click budget much higher than Steven would have otherwise wanted to pay . But regardless, in the end, her efforts led to the AppliancesBuyPhone.com website to be the first search result on the first page of Google, for numerous keyword searches (i.e. if a visitor typed the keywords "discount appliances NJ" into the

Google Search, Steven's website was the very first organic search result to show). But even though her efforts paid off very well for Steven. he was unhappy about paying so much for the pay-per-clicks advertising she set up. Then he was extremely unhappy when she sent him her bill, which 1 understand he argued with her about, and after he eventually paid her, he told me to remove her login to his SEO tool, and he was not going to use her services ever again.

42) So in the summer of 2009, when Steven approached inc about learning SEO techniques to help promote his website, I knew he would object to the enormous price I would have to charge him in order to do so. He tried to convince me to learn it, saying I would improve my own marketability in the process as well, which was true. But even still, that benefit alone would not nearly justify the incredible amount of time and effort I would need to invest into this in order to do it. So I thought of an idea, what I thought was a perfect idea infact - a win-win situation.

43) Rather than Steven paying me hourly, and ratherromoting the current AppliancesBuyPhone.com site, where the benefits of my SEO efforts would be hard to measure, instead I thought of the following. That I would use one of Steven's idly parked domain names (i.e. one of the few domain names that he was still allowed to cybersquat with for the past 7 years). and I would build an entire new website, and try to promote that with purely organic (free and unpaid) SEO techniques. It would have it's own loll free, and payment processing too. But I wanted to make a percentage based solely on how well that new website did.

44) So I met with Steven and Cheryl in August 2009 at the Barnes & Nobles in Brick. I told them what I wanted to do. that I would put the website in my name, get my own CC payment processing, my own toll free number. I would build the new website, research and learn all the needed SEO techniques, then put the techniques into action to promote the site, then do all the work to keep the data and prices current, and I would pay for all expenses involved (such as the toll free number, hosting the site. etc.). It would not cost Steven and/or Cher yl a penny, and I would only make money if and when people ordered from the new website. Steven and Cheryl agreed to this, and we agreed to split the profits 5050. I also agreed to keep the prices exactly the same, and not to make m y new website look fhncy, so that the customers would not make any unfair comparisons between the 2 sites.

45) After several months, the new website was built, and I had learned enough SEQ techniques that I was ready to launch that new website. I used the domain name of Appliances4Sale.com , one of the couple dozen names that Steven was allowed to continue to cybcrsquat with from back in 2003. I launched my site in October 2009, but even though I pasted my product data immediately with Google products, I received almost no calls. By the end 2009. I had received only 2 orders for that entire 2009 year. In Januaiy, sales were still very slow, but were starting to increase. Over then next few months, my rate of sales began to climb. Also during this time, I would cheek to see how well my site was indexing on Google's organic search. At first, I could not find the website at all. Then I was on page 12, then a few weeks later, on page 10. Over the next few months, I moved up and up. and I was on pages 4,5 and 6 of the Google results pages, depending upon what keywords were typed in. Finally by June, 1 was on Google's search result page 3 for various keywords. It was during this time, when finally my sales were doing well. In the month of June 2010, I had received over $30,000 worth of orders. Some of these orders had to be refunded, either because they were for unconfirmed shipping addresses, or because we did not have certain items in stock. But even just the actual completed June 2010 sales had grossed over $12,000. And the first half of Jul y was also equally strong.

46) But then the beginning of July, Steven told me that our warehouse was cutting off all wholesale/reseller sales on air conditioners due to limited supply. Steven told inc that until further notice, we could not sell another single air conditioner. immediately changed m y website code to reflect that, where every air conditioner would indicate to the customer the following message "Out of stock until further notice". They could not order it or place it into their online shopping cart. I offered to make the same change on Steven's website, but he told me not to, that he didn't know how long the freeze would be in place for. But just a few days prior, he said we were done for the whole summer season, saying that we could not sell anymore AJCs until September.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page11 of 2011 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239017

47) 1 thought this to be very odd, and since we use the same warehouse as PC Richard does, I went to the local PC Richard store, which is only a mile from my house. I saw about 65 boxes of brand new air conditioners just sitting on their showroom floor, so it hardly seemed like there was any shortage. When I called Steven and told him this fact, he said that the shortage was based in their North Jersey and New York stores, and soon they would need to transfer their units in Brick up there to accommodate the shortage. Again he said that neither my website or his could sell any A/Cs. Again I offered to change the code on his website to say "Out of stock until further notice" like mine did, so he wouldn't be wasting mone y on all of those incoming tolifree calls for nothing. But he then said he didn't mind, claiming that he could sell them some other appliance instead. I knew that had to be pure hogwash, because I couldn't fathom how an yone could possibly talk somebody into buying a stove or a refrigerator if they were looking for an air conditioner. It then seemed obvious to me that Steven was still selling AJCs but wanted to keep all of the air conditioner sales for himself. This also fit in within something else, because previously he complained about the amount of work involved in processing air conditioner sales for the small profit that was involved. His own words were, which he said repeatedly to me throughout Ma y and June "I hate selling air conditioners, they are more hassle than they are worth".

48) So I really started to strongly suspect that Steven was depriving me of making any A/C sales on my own. Then a few days later, all remaining doubt was removed. While eating my lunch at a McDonalds in Toms River, a lady at a nearby table took up a conversation with me, noticing that I looked troubled by something. I then told her my concerns that my business partner was being unfair with me, and I asked her to do me a favor. I asked her if she would call Appliances Buy Phone on her cell phone, and to say that she was interested in buying a specific air conditioner, a Sharp AFQ I 20PX, which is unit that PC Richard had literally dozens of in stock in their Brick store, and which Steven had specifically told me a few days before that we could not get. She called the Appliances Buy Phone tolifree number and put her cellphonc on loudspeaker mode. I heard Steven answer, and she asked him about the AFQ I 20PX. Just as I had prepped her to expect. Steven asked her where it was going to, and after she replied "Freehold NJ" just as I had instructed her to say. Steven then said it could be delivered in a couple days. She then said she would ask her husband and get back to him and hung up, once again as I had previously instructed her to do.

49) Then later that same day, I called Steven and said I had a customer that wanted a Sharp AFQ I 20PX, but once again Steven

told me that we were

still blocked and still can't sell any air conditioners at all."

50) But even without my selling any air conditioners, my sales for other appliances were still very strong for the first half of July. approximately $5500 in gross sales for only a half month that did not include any of the turned-down A/C orders.

51) However, then all of the sudden may sales seemed to dr y up overnight, as the next couple weeks. I got almost no calls or orders. On July 24', I then learned that Google Products had mistakenly identified my website and the other website as duplicates. I wrote them several emails, and eventually they agreed to correct it.

52) But unfortunately, during this time Steven had tortiously interfered with this and then look my website down completely down. Because the cybersquatted domain name of Appliances4Sale.com was still registered in Steven's name, he was able to log into the registrar and put the entire domain name of Appliances4sale.com back to being in an idly parked state. This means I could not receive any traffic at all whatsoever, and I could not even receive any emails from current or former customers. Below is the chronology of those events.

53) On Sat Jul 24th, I happened to notice that I had no active items listed on Google Products. So then I tried uploading my product feed again, but then I received a "disapproved" error message. I suspected that perhaps Google mistook my site and Steven's as mirrors, but to be sure I then wrote Google an email asking for an explanation.

54) On Monday Jul 26th, Google had replied that they thought my website was a duplicate of another site, but did not specify which site they believed it to be a duplicate of. 1 immediately wrote back that my site was not a duplicate, and I explained the situation in detail on how I understood their confusion, but explained in detail how I had ownership of Applainces4 Sale. coin and paid for all the expenses.

55) After still not hearing anything from Google by Tuesday Jul 27', I was speaking about this issue with Steven, and he then claimed that Google had previously told hini that because he was around longer and spent more money, that if there was ever any conflict between another site and his, that they would give his websile preference over any conflicting site, which of course would include my site.

56) On Wed Jul 28t1, Google wrote me back, but had seemingly ignored the contents of my 7/26 email. saying they thought it was the same ownership. I then replied back with a strongly worded message, and indicated explicitly that I would commence tort litigation if this was not corrected immediately.

57) When I spoke to Steven about this later that evening, he said that Google would still prefer him over me because he has spent more money on advertising with them.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page12 of 2012 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239118

58) Then Google replied to me on Friday Jul 30', slating that my feed was re-approved. Google replied that after further review, they re-approved my account and I could just re-upload my feed. So then 1 tried throughout the day to re-upload my feed. But when I tried uploading it again, although I was no longer getting disapproved errors, instead I was getting technical error messages. (i.e. the feed was corrupted or the IJRL was invalid). I manually inspected my data feed and even manually re- uploaded it, but still I was getting the same errors. I tried several times, all with the same error messages. I then wrote Google another email, thanking them for re-approving my feed but also alerting them Clint there was still another glitch on their end because it was showing errors with my feed when there were no errors with my feed.

59) On Monday Aug 2nd, they wrote back and said they fixed the problem. I re-uploaded my feed, and this time it was successful.

I saw later that day that I was finally listed again on Google Products. So as of Aug from 2-3 weeks prior when they removed inc from their Google Products listing.

Google had corrected it's mistake

60) However during this time, Steven had thrown a proverbial monkey wrcnch into the works.

61) To rewind a bit, on Thur night Jul 29tl, Steven's Google product feed had experienced a technical glitch with uploading to Google Products, as none of his products were being accepted. (But his glitch was that no products were being processed. and more specifically, he had not received any disapproved error messages, so he had a different issue than what I had at that time.)

62) Around the same time on Friday morning when I was experiencing glitches with uploading my feed. Steven called saying his feed was down, and told me of his problems with loading his data feed into Google Products. He was under the impression that he was shut down instead of me for being disapproved. But when I learned that he had not received any error messages saying he was disapproved, I told him not to jump to any conclusions and tried to explain my own difficulties with loading my feed, which was just re-approved. I also tried to explain the difference in the error messages (and lack thereof). But regardless however, he assumed it was because of a conflict with my site. So either late morning or early afternoon on Friday. Steven jumped the gun and called Google in a panic. And in doing so, he then gave them incorrect information, claiming that he owned Appliances4Sale. Then Google was confused and didn't know what to do, and allegedly Google told Steven to take one of his 2 websites down. He told Google to shut my site down rather than his. Then, according to Steven, Google allegedly told him that even if someone else owned the Applianccs4Sale.com site, he would still have to get that owner to take that site down or else his site would be completely removed from Googles listings also. (Allegedly for both their general web search and their Google Product shopping comparison).

63) 1 spoke to Steven again on Friday evening, it was then that he asked me just to walk away from m y business of Appliances 4 Sale completely. And after much discussion, it turned out that Steven wanted to offer no compensation for my loss.

64) We also agreed to meet at a local diner the next day on Saturday Jul 3 l' s. After a lengthy discussion at the diner with the Sigmans and myself, both Steven and Cheryl admitted that Google did not sa y they would definitely take them down if my site stayed active, but instead said there was a possibility that one or both sites could be removed from all of Google's search indexes if they determined the sites were duplicates. Steven repeated what he said earlier, that it was because of what he said to Google about his owning Appliances4Sale, did they then once again consider our websites to be possible duplicates. I explained to them that Steven should not have claimed ownership of Appliances4Sale, and he only made the issues much worse. I told them their only concern was the issue of ownership, not the similarity of the data on the 2 websites. I tried to explain that most of the data in any retail site is objective and fixed, thus there will be great similarity from one website to the next, (i.e. No matter which retailer sells a product, that product will have the same features, specification, and even the title and product description will be almost the same from one retailer to the next. Even the product image often will be exactly the same, as usually it will be supplied directly by the manufacturer). We discussed these concerns in detail, but Cher yl said

even aside front

issue with that. Cheryl admitted that Google only said there was a possibility of that, but explained she did not want to take that chance and wanted me to just step aside as not to interfere with their listings on Google. Cheryl in her own estimation believed that I had invested somewhere between 1,000 to 2,000 hours of my time into this website m, not to mention my out of my pocket costs. So then I asked Cheryl and Steven how much they were offering me to step aside and forfeit the business I had worked so hard for, and all of the future income I would be forfeiting as well. Cheryl and Steven replied they wanted to offer inc nothing.

ownership issue, she still believed that if the two sites appeared to be too similar, Google would have an

65) They thought I should just walkaway with the minimal amount of sales I already made, while they continue to stuff their already overflowing pockets. I explained that this was analogous to a farmer who spends time and effort preparing and cultivating the land, plowing the fields, planting the seeds, nurturing protecting and building the crops until the y finally bloom months later. But no sooner then that crop has finall y started to yield the fruits of that farmer's months of labor, does someone else tell them to completely stop and just to keep the minimal amount of crops they have already harvested.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page13 of 2013 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239219

66) Their own estimate of the amount of time I invested over the past year was between 1,000 and 2.000 hours, which I agreed with. They also agreed that I had minimal sales up until the beginning of June, and my total profits to date for this entire existence of Appliances4Sale was only about $2,000 (i.e. One or two dollars per hour). However when I asked them if th/ thought it was fair that I did all that work for such a meager amount, they tried to sa y it was the risk I took. But they are tl(e ones whom have breached their own contract with me, and who are the ones whom are attempting to have inc stop operating. My position is that if the y want me to go away just to protect their own potential risk with Google products, then at a minimum, they should at least fairly compensate me for my time already invested, if not also for my lost future income as well.

67) 1 then explained how unfair I thought that was, and then reminded them of all the things I had done for them over the years. It was then that I mentioned about my never being rewarded a penny for saving their company from Akerman. I then mentioned how they got things from me way cheaper and way better than anyone else would have offered them. Before Cheryl had said they would always pay me fairly for what the y thought things were worth, but that obviously was not true. I then mentioned about the deal with Nextopia, and I knew that Steven had cheated me on that. Cheryl tried to tell me that AppliancesBuyPhone was their livelihood, another complete lie which was also an insult to my intelligence. They tried to say that my website was just a hobby. If anything, the reverse is true. Steven admits that he has more money than he could ever spend in his lifetime, or what his children or grandchildren could spend in their lifetimes. Cheryl admitted that they have more than enough to last ten lifetimes. Steven admits that he only does this because he enjoys the process of making money and he would be bored to death if he just retired and did nothing. So for him and Cheryl, in reality this is just a hobby. It is not their livelihood of how they pay their bills and put o'n'their table each month. Whereas with in my case, I am unemployed and currently my only other income is from teaching 4 guitar lessons a week (less than $1 00/week). I needed this Appliances4Sale website for my own livelihood.

68) On Monday Aug 2, after I was relieved to finally be listed once again in Google Products, to my horror did I see that Steven had parked the nameservers for Appliances4Sale.com back at GoDaddy. Which means my site is 100% completely down, nobody can see my site even if they were to type in the URL directly. I cannot even receive any of my email. When I called Steven that evening, he claimed he had to do it, claiming Google gave him no other choice.

69) Then Steven changed his stor y slightly, saving that they still had an issue over ownership. Then Cher yl indicated that Google didn't say they would definitely lake the sites off of their index if we both remained live, but stated rather that they might. regardless of the issue of ownership. She said if the sites were too similar, there was a chance that Googtc might still decide to take both the sites off of their general search index as well as their shopping (Google Products) index. Steven said he wanted me to change the data so it would appear different than his data, which I told him that I could do, but would take

some time. I also told him once again, that in general for any retailers selling the same item, there

very similar data for that item, as the features, specifications, title, product descriptions, etc All were objective pieces of information, rather than a subjective interpretation of what the item was. Even the product pictures often come directly from the manufacturers, rather than a person at each retailer's warehouse unpacking each item and taking their own unique picture of it. But regardless, Steven did not want to reactivate my domain name and both Steven and Cheryl wanted to offer me no compensation for it. According to Cheryl, she said she believes they own 100% of the Appliances4Sale.com domain name, and half of the Appliances4Salc website 1 developed. It was at that point where I said: "On that note, I am going to say 'goodnight."', and I then instantly ended our phone call.

would bound be to

70) A couple days later, I received a certified letter from the Sigmans. Although Steven Sigmnan signed the letter, it was clear to me that it was really Cheryl Sigman whom was the author. In that letter, Steven admitted to a large portion of the significant facts,

CAUSES OF ACTION

Due to the time factor involved and the continuing harm to Plaintiffs reputation the longer his business his inactive, is it important that this complaint is filed soon as possible. So in advance, Plaintiff requests liberal leave of court to amend complaint with additional causes of action and to refine the pleadings and/or stated causes of action below as needed.

Counts I through 10 are specific to defendants Appliances Buy Phone, Inc., Steven Sigman, and Cheryl Sigman. Counts 11 through 13 are specific to defendant Google Corporation.

Count 1 - Unjust enrichment 71. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 70 hereof as though fully set forth at length herein. 72. To the benefit of the defendants and detriment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was uncompensated for either his time or his inconvenience of making the emergency change to thwebsit's displayed prices for GE Monogram products.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page14 of 2014 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239320

73 To the benefit of the defendants and detriment of Plaintiff Plaintiff was uncompensated for over 100

hours of his time investigating Raj and DynaShoppe, identifyi ng and documenting flaws in the software, writing software requirement specs for Raj, communicating with Raj and Akerman, and ultimately savingthe defendants from the clutches of the malicious Richard Akerman character.

74. To the benefit of the defendants and detriment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was uncompensated for over $8,000 worth of his time in building the new CMS tool, which the defendants are still using to this day to create and maintain their database.

75. Additionally, to the benefit of the defendants and detriment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff was underpaid for everything else, in respect to their value offered. For example, Plaintiff offered defendants an e- commerce solution with no fee per item nor any fee to process payments. If instead Plaintiff had required just 1%, or even 0.5%, in 2003 (where the standard rate at that time for shopping cart software was around 2%), Plaintiff would have earned well over $1,000,000 in additional profits.

76. It is irrefutable that the defendants availed themselves of these benefits.

77. It was unjust for defendants to receive these benefits without proper compensation being paid to Plaintiff

78. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

79. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

a. contractual damages;

b. consequential damages;

C. compensatory damages;

d. punitive damages;

e. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

£ such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 2 - Breach of Contract Causing Damage

80. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 79 hereof as though fully set forth at length herein.

81. Plaintiff entered into contract with defendants in August of 2009. Defendants were seeking additional sales from Plaintiff's efforts. Plaintiff was the sole party whom was investing his time, efrt, skills, and money into this contract. While on the otherhand, Defendants were not investing any time, effort or monetary expenses whatsoever into this contract, Plaintiff solely spent the time to build the new website, to research the effective SEO techniques, to then implement all of the tedious tasks needed to have successful SEO, and to keep the data and prices current on the new website. Plaintiff also spent the time and money to establish the website's hosting, to establish the online Payment processing (i.e. Paypal), to establish the business bank account, to establish the toll free number, etc. Plaintiff solely paid for all operating costs of the new website.

82. The contract terms specified that both parties were to split the net profits equally, 50% each. The contract terms also provided that both websites were to sell all of the exact same products, all at the exact same prices.

83. However, in early July, the defendants breached the contract by refusing to allow Plaintiff to make sales of any air conditioners, falsely telling Plaintiff that they were both banned by the warehouse from any further A/C sales until September. All the while the defendants continued to make A/C sales from their own website, just so that could keep all of the profits for themselves. This was clearly a breach of the agreed upon contract terms.

84. Defendants then on Aug 2, 2010, one-sidedly decided to completely terminate the contract with Plaintiff, which they claimed was due to an unforeseeable issue with Google.

85. This breach of contract by the defendant occurred much earlier than would have been necessary for Plaintiff to receive proper compensation or consideration for what he had invested into the performance of the contract. However Defendants completely refused to compensate Plaintiff for his losses.

86. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

87. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

a. contractual damages;

b. consequential damages;

C. compensatory damages;

d. punitive damages;

e. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

£ such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page15 of 2015 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239421

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

88. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 87 hereof as though fully set

forth at length herein.

89. Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiff, when defendant Steven negotiated with Plaintiff to develop a substitute for Nextopia.com' s software. Steven offered Plaintiff compensation equal to one year's worth of Nextopia's annual fees in exchange for Plaintiff's development of substitute software. Steven indicated he was paying Nextopia $450/year for use of their software, which he said he would rather see the Plaintiff receive instead. Plaintiff agreed to this, but then later learned that Steven had rossly lied about the annual cost of Nextopia software. Defendant essentially had cheated Plaintiff about of more than half of the compensation offered.

90. Since a different monetary amount was agreed upon and paid, it is unclear if this constitutes a breach of contract. However, it can be undeniable that such conduct is a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with the Plaintiff.

91. The contract terms specified that both parties were to split the net profits equally, 50% each. The contract terms also provided that both websites were to sell all of the exact same products, all at the exact same prices.

92. However, in early July, the defendants breached the contract by refusing to allow Plaintiff to make sales of any air conditioners, falsely telling Plaintiff that they were both banned by the warehouse from any further A/C sales until September. All the while the defendants continued to make NC sales from their own website, just so that could keep all of the profits for themselves. This was clearly a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with the Plaintiff.

93. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

94. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

a. contractual damages;

b. consequential damages;

C. compensatory damages;

d. punitive damages;

e. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

f. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 4 -business information mispresented

95. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 —94 hereof as though fully set forth at length herein.

he had told to Google that

96. Steven admits that on more than one occasion, starting from Friday July

30th,

he owned the Appliances 4 Sale website. Everything developed on that site was built by Plaintiff and owned by Plaintiff, Plaintiff solely paid for all expenses and solely performed all the countless hours of

required tasks to build, maintain and run the daily operation of Appliances4 Sale. com . Aside from Steven's illegal cybersquatting on the domain name itself for 7 years, Defendants had no ownership interest in Appliances 4 Sale at all.

97. Defendants have admitted that they have never down anything with the Appliances 4 Sale domain name, and that they have no intentions of ever doing anything with it in the future.

98. Because the defendants provided Google with incorrect information, it caused continued confusion on Google's part, which only exacerbated the problems.

99. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

100. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

a. consequential damages;

b. compensatory damages;

C. punitive damages;

d. costs of Suit and attorneys fees; and,

e. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 5 -business injured by anothers false descrintion

101.

Plaintiff incorporates each and ever y allegation contained in paraaraphs I - 100 hereof as though fully set forth at length herein.

Steven admits that on more than one occasion, starting from Friday July 30th, he had told to Google

that he owned the Appliances 4 Sale website. Everything developed on that site was built by Plaintiff and owned by Plaintiff, Plaintiff solely paid for all expenses and solely performed all the countless hours of required tasks to build, maintain and run the daily operation of Appliances4Sale.com . Aside from n

102.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page16 of 2016 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239522

Steven's illegal cybersquatting on the domain name itself for 7 years, Defendants had no ownership interest in Appliances 4 Sale at all.

103 Defendants admitted that they have never down anything with the Appliances 4 Sale domain name, and have no intentions of ever doing anything with it in the future.

104. Regardless however, defendants have refused to transfer ownership of the Appliances4Sa!e. corn domain name to Plaintiff, and instead wish to continue to cybersquat on the domain name.

105. Because the defendants provided Google with incorrect information, it caused continued confusion on Google's part, which only exacerbated the problems.

106. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

107, WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demandsjudgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

a. consequential damages;

b. compensatory damages;

C. punitive damages;

d. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

e. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 6 -business intentionally interfered with by outsider

108. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 - 107 hereof as though

fully set forth at length herein.

109.

Steven admits that on more than one occasion, starting from Friday July 30th, he had told to Google

that he owned the Appliances 4 Sale website. Everything developed on that site was built by Plaintiff and owned by Plaintiff, Plaintiff solely paid for all expenses and solely performed all the countless hours of required tasks to build, maintain and run the daily operation of Appliances4Sale.com . Aside from tllIl Steven's illegal cybersquatting on the domain name itself for 7 years, Defendants had no ownership interest in Appliances 4 Sale at all.

110. Defendants have admitted that they have never down anything with the Appliances 4 Sale domain name, and have no intentions of ever doing anything with it in the future.

111. Regardless however, defendants have refused to transfer ownership of the Appliances4 Sale. com domain name to Plaintiff,and instead wish to continue to cybersquat on the domain name.

112. Defendants Aug 2 parking of the domain name back at GoDaddy has completely shut down

Plaintiff's website, as none of Plaintiffs visitors can see the website at all, even if they were to directly type in the URL into their web browsers. Plaintiff cannot even receive his email from the website, all because the domain name is now just sitting idly parked back at GoDaddy.com .

113. Because of the defendants' actions on Aug 2' , Plaintiff's business is now completely inactive.
114.

115. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

a. consequential damages;

b. compensatory damages;

C.

punitive damages;

d,

costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

e.

such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 7 - Cyberspuatting

116. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 - 115 hereof as though fully set forth at length herein.

117. Defendants have admitted that they have never down anything with the Appliances 4 Sale domain name, and have no intentions of ever doing anything with it in the future.

118. Regardless however, defendants have refused to transfer ownership of the Appliances4Sale.com domain name to Plaintiff, and instead wish to continue to cybersquat on the domain name.

119. Defendants' cybersquatting of the Appliances4Sale,com domain name is in violation of both

1CANN's (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) policies, and the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

120. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

121. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demandsjudgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl

Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

a.

consequential damages;

b,

compensatory damages;

C.

punitive damages;

d.

costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page17 of 2017 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239623

such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 8 - Future Earning Cajacit y

am.g d by Tort

122. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 121 hereof as though

fully set forth at length herein.

123. Plaintiff was just starting to reap the benefits of his previous months of hard work in June and July.

However by defendants' intentional acts, Plaintiff was prevented from making any additional sales.

124. Plaintiff has since lost his ranking and index on all Google search indexes

125. Google has since rejected Plaintiffs claimed URL for their products search, as the domain name is

idly parked at GoDaddy now.

126. Plaintiff's hard-earned customer base and solid reputation is now shattered with the website being

completely shut down.

127. Plaintiff had likelihood of earning substantial profits with the continued use of his website. By

interpolating Plaintiff's estimations and direct prior statements made by Defendants, Plaintiff estimates

that Defendants are currently earning net profits of approximately $750,000 per year.

128. Based upon the rate of growth and other indicators, it seemed likely that success of Plaintiff's

website would soon be comparable to that of the defendants. Even assuming arguendo that the plaintiff's

website would only become half as successful as the defendants' website, that website would still then

net approximately $375,00 per year. Splitting that $375,00 in profits equally, results in the Plaintiff's direct losses of $187,500 per year.

129. Plaintiff is currently 44 years old, and could easily perpetuate in his pursuit of this business for several decades to come.

130. However Defendants have prevented this future earning capacity by providing false information to

Google on several occasions and then parking the domain name back at GoDaddy, the latter of which has completely shut down Plaintiff's website, as none of Plaintiff's visitors can see the website at all, even if they were to directly type in the URL into their web browsers. Plaintiff cannot even receive his email from the website, all because the domain name is now just sitting idly parked back at GoDaddy.com .

131. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

132. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl

Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

a. consequential damages;

b. compensatory damages;

c. punitive damages;

d. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

e. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 9 - Tortious Interference with Piio pective Economic Advantage

133. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 132 hereof as though

fully set forth at length herein.

134. Plaintiff was just starting to reap the benefits of his previous months of hard work in June and July.

However by defendants' intentional acts, Plaintiff was prevented from making any additional sales.

135. Plaintiff has since lost his ranking and index on all Google search indexes

136. Google has since rejected his claimed URL for their products search, as the domain name is idly parked at GoDaddy now.

137. Plaintiff's hard-earned customer base and solid reputation is now shattered with the website being completely shut down.

138. Plaintiff had likelihood of earning substantial profits with the continued use of his website. By

interpolating Plaintiff's estimations and direct prior statements made by Defendants, Plaintiff estimates that Defendants are currently earning net profits of approximately $750,000 per year.

139. Based upon the rate of growth and other indicators, it seemed likely that success of Plaintiff's

website would soon be comparable to that of the defendants. Even assuming arguendo that the plaintiff's website would only become half as successful as the defendants' website, that website would still then

net approximately $375,00 per year. Splitting that $375,00 in profits equally, results in the Plaintiff's direct losses of $187,500 per year.

Plaintiff is currently 44 years old, and could easily perpetuate in his pursuit of this business for several decades to come.

140.

141. However Defendants have tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's prospective economic advantage, by

providing false information to Google on several occasions and then parking the domain name back at GoDaddy, the latter of which has completely shut down Plaintiff's website, as none of Plaintiff's visitors can see the website at all, even if they were to directly type in the URL into their web browsers. Plaintiff

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page18 of 2018 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239724

cannot even receive his email from the website, all because the domain name is now just sitting idly parked back at GoDaddy. corn.

142. Plaintiff had a significant probability of economic advantage with the continued use of his website,

and if not for said interference by defendants, Plaintiff would have received those economic benefits.

143. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

144.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

 

a.

consequential damages;

b,

compensatory damages;

C.

punitive damages;
d.

costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

e. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 10 - Punitive Dama ges due from Tortfeasor

145. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I 144 hereof as though

fully set forth at length herein.

146. Defendants' actions in misrepresentations to Plaintiff and in cheating plaintiff on work done to

develop substitute software for the Nextopia search were done completely selfishly, maliciously, and with a blatant disregard to Plaintiff.

147. Defendants' actions in misrepresentations to Plaintiff and in cheating plaintiff out of air conditioner sales were done completely selfishly, maliciously, and with a blatant disre8ard to Plaintiff.

148. Defendant's actions in terminating contract and cybersquatting were without justification and were done completely selfishly, maliciously, and with a blatant disregard to Plaintiff

149. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

150. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendants Steven Sigman, Cheryl Sigman and Appliances Buy Phone Inc., jointly, severally and in the alternative, for:

a. consequential damages;

b. compensatory damages;

punitive damages;
d.

C.

e. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

Count

gent's N gThence Causing Harm

151. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 150 hereof as though fully set forth at length herein.

152. Without asking, defendant Google assumed that Plaintiffs website was a duplicate of Steven's

website and under the same ownership. This assumption by Google would later prove to be the catalyst, which started the whole chain of events that led up to the cumulation of these damages.

153. Defendant breached their reasonable obligation and duty to investigate and make inquires first

before just taking any adverse action against either website. instead however, Goole just assumed the 2 websites were duplicates, and further made the arbitrary decision to remove Plaintiff's website's listings

on Google Products while allowing the other defendants' website's listings on Google Products to remain active.

154. Defendant gave Plaintiff no notice whatsoever. Not only was the Plaintiff's listings removed without

any prior notice, further there was no given notice to Plaintiff even after the fact. Only by Plaintiffs own research 2 weeks later, was their mistake uncovered by Plaintiff.

Even after Plaintiff revealed the mistake to Google on Sat July 24th, Defendant's further reluctance and delays to correct their mistke 2, caused further losses to plaintiff. The issue was ultimately not

corrected until Monday Aug

156. Thus for a period of approximately

155.

more than another week later.

,

3 weeks, plaintiff lost revenue due to Defendant's negligence.

157. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

158. WhEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendant Google Corporation for:

a. consequential damages;

b. compensatory damages;

C. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

d.

such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page19 of 2019 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239825

Count_L2 -_Competition_Unlawfully Restrained

159. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 158 hereof as though

fully set forth at length herein.

160. According to several statements made by defendant Steven, even after Goo gle had later learned that

their was different ownership of the 2 websites, Google indicated to Steven that his website would be given preference over Plaintiffs website.

161. According to defendant Steven, Defendant Google allegedly indicated that even if there was unique

ownership, that his website might be completely removed from all Google indexes unless Plaintiff's website was removed.

162. Although Plaintiff presumes that the initial action taken by Google was due to a mistaken

assumption, particularly that Plaintiffs website was a duplicate of Steven's website and under the same ownership, Google's subsequent giving preference to Steven's website over Plaintiffs website was an unfair discriminatory practice in clear violation of numerous federal antitrust laws and congressional acts, including but not limited to, 15 U.S.C. § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 13, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and the

Sherman, Robinson-Patman, and Clayton Acts.

163. Plaintiff has suffered damages by Defendant's unfair and unlawful restraint of Plaintiffs competition.

164. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

165. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendant Google Corporation for:

a. consequential damages;

b. compensatory damages;

C. punitive damages;

d. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

e. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count 13 - UnjLQometition

166. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I - 165 hereof as though

fully set forth at length herein.

167. According to several statements made by defendant Steven, even after Google had later learned that

their was different ownership of the 2 websites, Google indicated to Steven that his website would be

given preference over Plaintiffs website.

168. Allegedly Google had indicated that Steven's website would be given favoritism based upon the

previous amount of advertising money he had spent with Google. The preferential treatment would

include allowing Steven's website to enjoy the free services of being listed on Google Products, while disallowing Steven's competitors the use of that same free service.

169. It is unfair for Google to selectively offer free services to one merchant vs. another, based on the

amount of paid advertising that a particular merchant happens to spend.

170. it is unfair for Google to deliberately engage in conduct, which in effect would force one competitor out of the market, even after it was known to be of different ownership.

171. Google's giving preference to Steven's website over Plaintiffs website created unfair competition in

clear violation of numerous federal antitrust laws and congressional acts, including but not limited to, 15

U.S.C. § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 13, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and the Sherman, Robinson-Patman, and Clayton Acts.

172. Plaintiff has suffered damages by Defendant's actions creating unfair competition.

171 By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been damaged.

174. WHEREFORE, plaintiff hereby demands judgment against defendant Google Corporation for:

a. consequential damages;

b. compensatory damages;

C. punitive damages;

d. costs of suit and attorneys fees; and,

e. such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

/

DATE

CaseCase3:10-cv-05415-FLW2:33-av-00001

Document-DEA

Document9737-1

1-1Filed 10/19/10Filed 10/19/10Page Page20 of 2020 PageID:of 20 PageID:9239926

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all triable issues of fact raised herein.

RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to R. 4:5-1, it is hereby certified that, to the best of plaintiff's knowledge and belief,

the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or of a pending

arbitration proceeding. Also, to the best of plaintiff's knowledge and belief, no other action or arbitration

proceeding is contemplated. Further, other than the parties set forth in this pleading, at the present time

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

/ I

-

Steven D'Aostino /pro-se

L

))

)

DATE: M€4 2010