Preview
Filing # 104923796 E-Filed 03/16/2020 11:21:17 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE 19-020722 (04)
OVAIS HAIDER ALI, TRAVIS COLE,
OVAIS MAHMOOD, ADEEL ARIF,
ELIZABETH ILAWAN, and
DENIS BELIUKOV
Plaintiffs,
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
v.
VINCE ECOM EMPIRE LLC, and
YVENSON ISRAEL,
Defendants.
POSSESS EEE EEE EEE EEE Eee hier ht xX
Plaintiffs Ovais Haider Ali (hereinafter “Ali”), Travis Cole (hereinafter “Cole”), Ovais
Mahmood (hereinafter “Mahmood”), Adeel Arif (“Arif”), Elizabeth Ilawan (“Tlawan”), and
Denis Beliukov (“Beliukov”) by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby sue defendants
Vince Ecom Empire LLC (hereinafter “Vince”) and Yvenson Israel (“hereinafter Israel”) and
hereby allege as follows:
PARTIE: RISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Ali is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of California and is otherwise sui
juris.
2. Plaintiff Cole is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of California and is otherwise
sui juris.
3. Plaintiff Mahmood is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of Illinois and is otherwise
sui juris.
4. Plaintiff Arif is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of Ohio and is otherwise sui
juris.
5. Plaintiff Ilawan is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of New Jersey and is otherwise
sui juris.
6. Plaintiff Beliukov is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of Washingotn and is
otherwise sui juris.
7. Defendant Vince is a reinstated corporation that is organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Florida with its principal place of business located in Broward County, Florida.
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 03/16/2020 11:21:17 AM.****8. Defendant Israel is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of Broward County, Florida
and is otherwise sui juris.
9. Venue is appropriate in Broward County, Florida inasmuch as the defendants reside therein
and/or the cause of action took place there.
10. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys fees,
and costs.
FACTUAL ALLEGATI!
11. Vince is in the business of offering automated Amazon stores to its customers.
12. Israel is a principal in Vince. In addition, Israel made material mis-representations to
plaintiffs and others.
13. Representations made to each Plaintiff by Israel include the following:
a. Virtual Assistants do the work as this is a fully automated business,
b. As the stores exist on Amazon only, defendants have expertise of Amazon policies and
always comply with Amazon tules,
2
there is no overhead for the stores,
d._ there is no need to purchase products in advance (i.e. products are purchased only after
there is an order)
stores make significant sales almost immediately,
stores run on “autopilot”,
g. Israel had a wealth of experience in successfully establishing these automated businesses,
the expected success of these businesses, the experience and success of the promised
virtual assistants, the knowledge of working with Amazon and many others.
h. Israel guaranteed to double or triple Plaintiffs’ on line business and to build an Amazon
store to make sales every single day.
i. Israel would undertake to include full management of the Amazon store with metrics to
keep it healthy and growing
j. Israel guaranteed to scale your store up to $50,000 in monthly sales in months (not
years), all customer service needs would be taken care of by virtual assistants, ongoing
coaching as scheduled by the company via Skype and Live, and interactive Webinars to
get your questions, comments and concerns addressed in real time.
14. Representations made to each of the plaintiffs include the following.
15. Ovais Ali: Ovais Ali: Defendants utilize the services of “referrers” to increase their
business. One such referrer, Anik Biollo, in September, 2018, represented to Ali that Ai’s16.
17.
18.
19.
profit margins would be 7-10 per cent. On a subsequent phone call in or about the same time
frame, Israel made the identical representation.
Israel also told Ali that the virtual assistants run the store and that they comply with
Amazon’s rules and policies. Details were given to support this. Ali was told that the
products listed are done manually to insure that they avoid products that would violate
Amazon policies and to ensure that the products listed were big sellers.
Finally, Ali was directed to Israel’s webinar which promises a business wherein the store
owner, namely, plaintiffs, would have no overhead, no need to purchase or manufacture
products, money is made on “autopilot”, and plugs Amazon. Israel claims as follows: “I’m
the real deal”, “stores make significant sales almost immediately”, “
I am managing over 80
accounts”, “just open the account and I do the work for you”, “my team, my expertise; if I
can do it for 80 clients, I can do it for you”; then, in an updated video he claimed as follows
“our business is growing and growing, our accounts are “going crazy”, shows high volume of
sales, “almost doubled our sales in last 6 months”, doing 5 million/month now, 100-130
accounts now, “we can do it because we have over 150 VAs [virtual assistants],
“management keeps tabs on weekly basis], “doing 5 million monthly sales”, “I started the
Amazon automation business, we have back end to do this right, I will guide you and be your
mentor, actually doing 9K/daily in sales, me and my experienced team take work away from
you, I've made 7 figures profit, 100K/month”.
Travis Cole: Israel represented that the business was fully automated. He marketed himself
by sharing screenshots of his other clients accounts in saying that is what he can do for new
clients. Having conversations with Israel over the phone and posting in his private group for
his members that profit margins for his automation service clients would be 7-10% of six
figures in monthly sales which is what he advertised all over his social media for his
automation service clients. He promised a 10% return on investment, six figure monthly
sales, and full automation along with representations relating to his knowledge of Amazon
and that they fully comply with Amazon rules and policies. These representations took place
in January, 2019.
Ovais Mahmood: was directed to Israel’s marketing online by Tony Aguilera (a referrer).
Mahmood was told that his store will start increasing in sales that by November 2019 his
store would be doing 100,000 dollars in monthly revenue. These specific representations took
place on May 8, 2019. In addition, Mahmood was directed towards Israel’s social media
where Israel would share screenshots showing his clients doing over 100,000 in sales every
month. Israel also represented that his clients had 7-12% profit margins, the stores were fully
automated and fully compliant with Amazon’s policies. Further representations were made
by Richard Melgar who was part of Israel’s team and stated that the store would be doing
$40K in sales within the first 4 months and then would hit 100K in no time.20. Adeel Arif: first came across defendant's Amazon automation business through a mutual
contact, GAR Capital. GAR is a referrer and would post screenshots of the monthly sales
figures and links to Israel’s contact information and website. Arif and GAR had an initial
discussion regarding how the business operates and what to expect. Arif was told that Israel
was the best in the business. These representations took place in July, 2018. Further, Arif
had a specific conversation with Israel where he addressed the risk factors of the business.
His response was that he had been in the business for 4 years and had no issues. When asked
if it was an issue if customers were to receive items in Wal-Mart containers, his response was
that if a customer does have an issue with the item, they could return it for free. He also
mentioned, once the store achieved “buy box” the store would achieve 6 figures in sales per
month.
21. Elizabeth Ilawan: was initially referred through Andrew Murray who mentioned that Israel’s
team provides automation services. He showed his Amazon's Seller's backend website with
the statics for his earning and urged Ms. Ilawan to get onboard should do so before Israel
raised his prices. Andrew represented that he was making roughly $15,000 - 20,000 in
revenue around that time. He said profit margins would be 10-15%. This conversation with
Andrew took place in Jan. or Feb of 2018.
22. Subsequently, in or about March 16-23, 2018, Ilawan spoke to Israel directly. On that call
Israel said that this business model is very straight-forward, risk-free and that his team
would take care of everything and that all Ilawan needed to do was get registered in the
dropshipping states as a business and his team would do the rest. Israel mentioned the store
would make enough money in 2-3 months to payoff his $15,000 fee in no time and said most
of his stores were averaging 10% profit margins.
23. Denis Beliukov: was introduced by a different referrer, Logan Kulhanek, on December 11,
2018 through Facebook. Logan already had the store with Israel and briefly mentioned that it
would be an Amazon automated store. After that introduction, Beliukov communicated with
Israel directly through Facebook platform and emails. Inter alia, Israel promised that it
would be an automation service with very little effort on Beliukov’s part.
24. After the above representations were made, each of the plaintiffs decided to send money to
Defendants relying upon the above representations.
25. Plaintiffs learned very quickly after sending their money that at least some of these
representations were not true. Inter alia, during the start up phase of the business, Israel
provided videos on how to set up the store. Inter alia, one of the steps is to set up a tax
exempt entity to facilitate drop shipment of goods from WalMart. Plaintiffs followed all the
steps suggested by defendants with the understanding that this was the way to successfully
create the automated Amazon store promoted by defendants.26. Communication with Defendants’ team was extremely difficult and responses from his
Virtual assistants were very limited. Setting up the stores involved a lot of work and effort
that was never advertised; on the contrary, it was represented to be an automated store with
no overhead and no effort for the store owner.
27. It took various time periods for each plaintiff to get a Walmart exemption. After obtaining
the exemptions, defendants started listing the first batch of products, some of which turned
out to be inauthentic. That led to a suspension of the stores.
28. Inter alia, some of the stores had an unusually high order defects rate as a result of the virtual
assistants’ negligence. Defendants had no plan in place and were unable and/or unwilling to
fix this.
29. In or about the time of executing the various agreements, plaintiffs paid defendants the
agreed upon fee.
30. It became apparent quickly that Defendants were unable to operate these stores at all, let
alone properly. The entire business model employed by Defendants appear to violate
Amazon’s policies. Defendants knew this, Plaintiffs did not. Indeed, Amazon suspended
each of the Plaintiff’s stores shortly after they became operational; in some cases, after only a
month or so of being operational. In an effort to salvage at least some of these businesses,
Israel prepared phony documents to present to Amazon in what presumably was his efforts to
“save” the business. Some of these documents went as far as creating phony invoices to
falsely represent to Amazon that products were purchased from a fictitious company .
Moreover, in some of the circumstances, they were sent by Israel by improperly utilizing
Plaintiff’s email accounts in order to give the impression that it was sent by the respective
Plaintiff. Other instances took place where Defendants sold branded merchandise which they
had no right to do, again, yet another violation of Amazon’s policies.
31. None of the promised profits have been realized; on the contrary, the stores were shut down
and Plaintiffs suffered only losses and damages.
32. All conditions precedent to this suit have taken place, been waived and/or have been
satisfied.
33. Plaintiffs have agreed to pay undersigned counsel a reasonable fee for its services herein.
INT I— VIOLATI FF DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
§ 501.204 FLORIDA STAT. (2012)
34. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 -33 above as if set
forth at length herein.
35. Defendants offer certain advice to the consuming public. Inter alia, it represents itself as
being able to provide the information and the means to run an on-line automated Amazon
business.36. After receiving payments, it became clear that Defendants do not follow Amazon’s policies
and the business that Plaintiffs and other customers pay for does not really exist.
37. Defendants knowingly committed unfair or deceptive acts in the course of trade or
commerce.
38. Plaintiffs have been damaged by defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a final judgment in their favor and against defendants for all
such damages appropriate under this count, including a declaration from this Court that
defendant’s acts violate this statute, enjoining defendants from any further violations of this
statute, entering an appropriate injunction to preserve assets which rightfully belong to the
Plaintiffs, an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to FS Chapter 501 et seq, costs and all such
other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
39. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 -33 above as if set
forth at length herein.
40. Defendants made false statements regarding its intent to produce a workable online
automated Amazon store, its past successes, its knowledge of this business, its promises to
generate significant profits and its guarantees to be successful.
41. Defendants knew that the aforementioned representations were false and material.
42. Defendants made these false and material mis-representations with the intent to induce
Plaintiffs to enter into a written contract with defendants.
43. But for these representations, Plaintiffs would not have entered into the Agreement.
44. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of its reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false
representations.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a final judgment in their favor and against defendants for
damages, reserves the right to amend this complaint to seek an award of punitive damages
upon proper proffer to the Court and all other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.
INT I - BREACH OF IMPLIED )VENANT OF D FAITH AND FAIR
DEALING
45. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 -33 above as if set
forth at length herein.
46. Defendants, by conscious and deliberate acts, failed and/or refused to discharge its
contractual responsibilities.
47. Such acts unfairly frustrated the agreed upon common purpose of the contracts between the
parties, disappointed Plaintiffs, and deprived Plaintiffs of the benefits of the agreement.48. There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when a contract is entered. Asa
result of Defendants’ deliberate acts as outlined above, Plaintiffs have been damaged by
Defendants’ breach of these covenants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants for damages
and all such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR JURY TRIAL ON ALL SUCH TRIABLE ISSUES.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed and served on
gmitchell@marshallgrant.com and all other parties listed on the eportal this 16th day of March,
2020.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ALAN P. DAGEN, P.A.
746 Heritage Drive
Weston, Florida 33326
Tel.: 954-389-8605
Fax: 954-337-3250
email: alan@litigationlawyerattorney.com
By: /s/Alan Dagen
ALAN P. DAGEN, P.A.
Florida Bar No.: 456535
Preview
Filing # 104923796 E-Filed 03/16/2020 11:21:17 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 19-020722 (04) OVAIS HAIDER ALI, TRAVIS COLE, OVAIS MAHMOOD, ADEEL ARIF, ELIZABETH ILAWAN, and DENIS BELIUKOV Plaintiffs, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL v. VINCE ECOM EMPIRE LLC, and YVENSON ISRAEL, Defendants. POSSESS EEE EEE EEE EEE Eee hier ht xX Plaintiffs Ovais Haider Ali (hereinafter “Ali”), Travis Cole (hereinafter “Cole”), Ovais Mahmood (hereinafter “Mahmood”), Adeel Arif (“Arif”), Elizabeth Ilawan (“Tlawan”), and Denis Beliukov (“Beliukov”) by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby sue defendants Vince Ecom Empire LLC (hereinafter “Vince”) and Yvenson Israel (“hereinafter Israel”) and hereby allege as follows: PARTIE: RISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Ali is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of California and is otherwise sui juris. 2. Plaintiff Cole is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of California and is otherwise sui juris. 3. Plaintiff Mahmood is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of Illinois and is otherwise sui juris. 4. Plaintiff Arif is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of Ohio and is otherwise sui juris. 5. Plaintiff Ilawan is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of New Jersey and is otherwise sui juris. 6. Plaintiff Beliukov is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of Washingotn and is otherwise sui juris. 7. Defendant Vince is a reinstated corporation that is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business located in Broward County, Florida. *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 03/16/2020 11:21:17 AM.****8. Defendant Israel is an individual, over the age of 18, a resident of Broward County, Florida and is otherwise sui juris. 9. Venue is appropriate in Broward County, Florida inasmuch as the defendants reside therein and/or the cause of action took place there. 10. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorneys fees, and costs. FACTUAL ALLEGATI! 11. Vince is in the business of offering automated Amazon stores to its customers. 12. Israel is a principal in Vince. In addition, Israel made material mis-representations to plaintiffs and others. 13. Representations made to each Plaintiff by Israel include the following: a. Virtual Assistants do the work as this is a fully automated business, b. As the stores exist on Amazon only, defendants have expertise of Amazon policies and always comply with Amazon tules, 2 there is no overhead for the stores, d._ there is no need to purchase products in advance (i.e. products are purchased only after there is an order) stores make significant sales almost immediately, stores run on “autopilot”, g. Israel had a wealth of experience in successfully establishing these automated businesses, the expected success of these businesses, the experience and success of the promised virtual assistants, the knowledge of working with Amazon and many others. h. Israel guaranteed to double or triple Plaintiffs’ on line business and to build an Amazon store to make sales every single day. i. Israel would undertake to include full management of the Amazon store with metrics to keep it healthy and growing j. Israel guaranteed to scale your store up to $50,000 in monthly sales in months (not years), all customer service needs would be taken care of by virtual assistants, ongoing coaching as scheduled by the company via Skype and Live, and interactive Webinars to get your questions, comments and concerns addressed in real time. 14. Representations made to each of the plaintiffs include the following. 15. Ovais Ali: Ovais Ali: Defendants utilize the services of “referrers” to increase their business. One such referrer, Anik Biollo, in September, 2018, represented to Ali that Ai’s16. 17. 18. 19. profit margins would be 7-10 per cent. On a subsequent phone call in or about the same time frame, Israel made the identical representation. Israel also told Ali that the virtual assistants run the store and that they comply with Amazon’s rules and policies. Details were given to support this. Ali was told that the products listed are done manually to insure that they avoid products that would violate Amazon policies and to ensure that the products listed were big sellers. Finally, Ali was directed to Israel’s webinar which promises a business wherein the store owner, namely, plaintiffs, would have no overhead, no need to purchase or manufacture products, money is made on “autopilot”, and plugs Amazon. Israel claims as follows: “I’m the real deal”, “stores make significant sales almost immediately”, “ I am managing over 80 accounts”, “just open the account and I do the work for you”, “my team, my expertise; if I can do it for 80 clients, I can do it for you”; then, in an updated video he claimed as follows “our business is growing and growing, our accounts are “going crazy”, shows high volume of sales, “almost doubled our sales in last 6 months”, doing 5 million/month now, 100-130 accounts now, “we can do it because we have over 150 VAs [virtual assistants], “management keeps tabs on weekly basis], “doing 5 million monthly sales”, “I started the Amazon automation business, we have back end to do this right, I will guide you and be your mentor, actually doing 9K/daily in sales, me and my experienced team take work away from you, I've made 7 figures profit, 100K/month”. Travis Cole: Israel represented that the business was fully automated. He marketed himself by sharing screenshots of his other clients accounts in saying that is what he can do for new clients. Having conversations with Israel over the phone and posting in his private group for his members that profit margins for his automation service clients would be 7-10% of six figures in monthly sales which is what he advertised all over his social media for his automation service clients. He promised a 10% return on investment, six figure monthly sales, and full automation along with representations relating to his knowledge of Amazon and that they fully comply with Amazon rules and policies. These representations took place in January, 2019. Ovais Mahmood: was directed to Israel’s marketing online by Tony Aguilera (a referrer). Mahmood was told that his store will start increasing in sales that by November 2019 his store would be doing 100,000 dollars in monthly revenue. These specific representations took place on May 8, 2019. In addition, Mahmood was directed towards Israel’s social media where Israel would share screenshots showing his clients doing over 100,000 in sales every month. Israel also represented that his clients had 7-12% profit margins, the stores were fully automated and fully compliant with Amazon’s policies. Further representations were made by Richard Melgar who was part of Israel’s team and stated that the store would be doing $40K in sales within the first 4 months and then would hit 100K in no time.20. Adeel Arif: first came across defendant's Amazon automation business through a mutual contact, GAR Capital. GAR is a referrer and would post screenshots of the monthly sales figures and links to Israel’s contact information and website. Arif and GAR had an initial discussion regarding how the business operates and what to expect. Arif was told that Israel was the best in the business. These representations took place in July, 2018. Further, Arif had a specific conversation with Israel where he addressed the risk factors of the business. His response was that he had been in the business for 4 years and had no issues. When asked if it was an issue if customers were to receive items in Wal-Mart containers, his response was that if a customer does have an issue with the item, they could return it for free. He also mentioned, once the store achieved “buy box” the store would achieve 6 figures in sales per month. 21. Elizabeth Ilawan: was initially referred through Andrew Murray who mentioned that Israel’s team provides automation services. He showed his Amazon's Seller's backend website with the statics for his earning and urged Ms. Ilawan to get onboard should do so before Israel raised his prices. Andrew represented that he was making roughly $15,000 - 20,000 in revenue around that time. He said profit margins would be 10-15%. This conversation with Andrew took place in Jan. or Feb of 2018. 22. Subsequently, in or about March 16-23, 2018, Ilawan spoke to Israel directly. On that call Israel said that this business model is very straight-forward, risk-free and that his team would take care of everything and that all Ilawan needed to do was get registered in the dropshipping states as a business and his team would do the rest. Israel mentioned the store would make enough money in 2-3 months to payoff his $15,000 fee in no time and said most of his stores were averaging 10% profit margins. 23. Denis Beliukov: was introduced by a different referrer, Logan Kulhanek, on December 11, 2018 through Facebook. Logan already had the store with Israel and briefly mentioned that it would be an Amazon automated store. After that introduction, Beliukov communicated with Israel directly through Facebook platform and emails. Inter alia, Israel promised that it would be an automation service with very little effort on Beliukov’s part. 24. After the above representations were made, each of the plaintiffs decided to send money to Defendants relying upon the above representations. 25. Plaintiffs learned very quickly after sending their money that at least some of these representations were not true. Inter alia, during the start up phase of the business, Israel provided videos on how to set up the store. Inter alia, one of the steps is to set up a tax exempt entity to facilitate drop shipment of goods from WalMart. Plaintiffs followed all the steps suggested by defendants with the understanding that this was the way to successfully create the automated Amazon store promoted by defendants.26. Communication with Defendants’ team was extremely difficult and responses from his Virtual assistants were very limited. Setting up the stores involved a lot of work and effort that was never advertised; on the contrary, it was represented to be an automated store with no overhead and no effort for the store owner. 27. It took various time periods for each plaintiff to get a Walmart exemption. After obtaining the exemptions, defendants started listing the first batch of products, some of which turned out to be inauthentic. That led to a suspension of the stores. 28. Inter alia, some of the stores had an unusually high order defects rate as a result of the virtual assistants’ negligence. Defendants had no plan in place and were unable and/or unwilling to fix this. 29. In or about the time of executing the various agreements, plaintiffs paid defendants the agreed upon fee. 30. It became apparent quickly that Defendants were unable to operate these stores at all, let alone properly. The entire business model employed by Defendants appear to violate Amazon’s policies. Defendants knew this, Plaintiffs did not. Indeed, Amazon suspended each of the Plaintiff’s stores shortly after they became operational; in some cases, after only a month or so of being operational. In an effort to salvage at least some of these businesses, Israel prepared phony documents to present to Amazon in what presumably was his efforts to “save” the business. Some of these documents went as far as creating phony invoices to falsely represent to Amazon that products were purchased from a fictitious company . Moreover, in some of the circumstances, they were sent by Israel by improperly utilizing Plaintiff’s email accounts in order to give the impression that it was sent by the respective Plaintiff. Other instances took place where Defendants sold branded merchandise which they had no right to do, again, yet another violation of Amazon’s policies. 31. None of the promised profits have been realized; on the contrary, the stores were shut down and Plaintiffs suffered only losses and damages. 32. All conditions precedent to this suit have taken place, been waived and/or have been satisfied. 33. Plaintiffs have agreed to pay undersigned counsel a reasonable fee for its services herein. INT I— VIOLATI FF DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT § 501.204 FLORIDA STAT. (2012) 34. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 -33 above as if set forth at length herein. 35. Defendants offer certain advice to the consuming public. Inter alia, it represents itself as being able to provide the information and the means to run an on-line automated Amazon business.36. After receiving payments, it became clear that Defendants do not follow Amazon’s policies and the business that Plaintiffs and other customers pay for does not really exist. 37. Defendants knowingly committed unfair or deceptive acts in the course of trade or commerce. 38. Plaintiffs have been damaged by defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a final judgment in their favor and against defendants for all such damages appropriate under this count, including a declaration from this Court that defendant’s acts violate this statute, enjoining defendants from any further violations of this statute, entering an appropriate injunction to preserve assets which rightfully belong to the Plaintiffs, an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to FS Chapter 501 et seq, costs and all such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 39. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 -33 above as if set forth at length herein. 40. Defendants made false statements regarding its intent to produce a workable online automated Amazon store, its past successes, its knowledge of this business, its promises to generate significant profits and its guarantees to be successful. 41. Defendants knew that the aforementioned representations were false and material. 42. Defendants made these false and material mis-representations with the intent to induce Plaintiffs to enter into a written contract with defendants. 43. But for these representations, Plaintiffs would not have entered into the Agreement. 44. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of its reasonable reliance on Defendants’ false representations. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a final judgment in their favor and against defendants for damages, reserves the right to amend this complaint to seek an award of punitive damages upon proper proffer to the Court and all other such relief as this Court deems just and proper. INT I - BREACH OF IMPLIED )VENANT OF D FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 45. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 -33 above as if set forth at length herein. 46. Defendants, by conscious and deliberate acts, failed and/or refused to discharge its contractual responsibilities. 47. Such acts unfairly frustrated the agreed upon common purpose of the contracts between the parties, disappointed Plaintiffs, and deprived Plaintiffs of the benefits of the agreement.48. There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when a contract is entered. Asa result of Defendants’ deliberate acts as outlined above, Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants’ breach of these covenants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants for damages and all such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR JURY TRIAL ON ALL SUCH TRIABLE ISSUES. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed and served on gmitchell@marshallgrant.com and all other parties listed on the eportal this 16th day of March, 2020. THE LAW OFFICES OF ALAN P. DAGEN, P.A. 746 Heritage Drive Weston, Florida 33326 Tel.: 954-389-8605 Fax: 954-337-3250 email: alan@litigationlawyerattorney.com By: /s/Alan Dagen ALAN P. DAGEN, P.A. Florida Bar No.: 456535