Preview
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/20/2019 3:40 PM
State of Minnesota District Court
County Judicial District: Fourth
Hennepin Court File Number: 27-CV-l 8-19659
Case Type: Civil
(The Honorable Joseph Klein)
Ryan Lazenby, and Temaca Irrigation LLC
Plamff
Supplement to Defendant’s
VS-
Response to Plaintifi’s Verified
Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez Complaint and Supplement t0
Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. d.b.a.
Defendant’s Verified Complaint
Temaca Lawn Sprinklers,
Defendant
Defendant, Guadalupe Gomez, for his Supplement to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff‘s Verified
Complaint and Defendant’s Supplement to Defendant’s Verified Complaint, dated December 12,
201 8 alleges as follows:
1. Defendant reaffirms his statements in prior pleadings filed with the court and adds the
following:
2. Plaintiffs and Defendants participated in mediation on January 16, 20 l 9 with the Honorable
Kathleen Gearin. There was no settlement reached on any 0f the issues.
3. As of today’s date, Plaintiff has made no further payments on the contract for the purchase
of the business at issue, Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. d.b.a. Temaca Lawn Sprinklers and/or
Temaca Irrigation, LLC (hereinafier referred to as “Temaca”). Plaintifi' has continued to use the
business assets and equipment and operate the business, but has made no payments on the sales
agreement and is in default of the agreement.
4. Plaintiff does not dispute that he is in default of the terms of the purchase agreement
for Temaca. (What Plaintiff has attempted is toapply fabricated complaints against Defendant in
an attempt to circumvent or eliminate his obligations under the agreements for the purchase of
Temaca.) The details of Plaintiff‘s default are as follows, and as previously stated in Plaintiff’s
Answer and Verified Complaint, dated December 12, 201 8:
“Plaintiff did not comply with his obligations required under the Agreements, including
but not limited to payment obligations under the Agreements. The first payment by
1
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/20/2019 3:40 PM
Plaintiff to Defendant was to be $30,000 to be paid November 15, 2017. Plaintifi made
payments on that amount as follows:
January 5, 2018 $9,000.
February 2, 201 8. $1,080.44 (by giving Plaintiff a customer check that he said
Plaintiff should cash and apply to the
payment that was still owed from November 15,
2017)
February 2, 2018 $3,000
May 12, 2018 $1,750
May 18, 201 8 $2,400
June 15, 2018 $2,500.
June 27, 201 8 $2,000
The total that he paid out of the $30,000.00 was $21,730.44. Defendant has not received
any other payments. As a result, a Cure Notice was given to Plaintifi' for failure to pay the
full first installment payment due on November 15, 2018; leaving a balance of $3,602.56
and failure to pay the installment due on July 15, 2018, in the sum of $26,033.33. That
total of $29,033.33 has not been paid as of the date of this action. In addition, Plaintifi'
owes Defendant the subsequent two payments of $26,033 each for a total of
$81,099.33.” (note that amount does not include the salary that was to have been paid to
Defendant pursuant to his contracted employment.)
The purchase agreement for Plaintiff’s purchase of the business included a restraint against
Defendant competing against Plaintiff. It also included a provision requiring Plaintifi' to employ
Defendant subsequent t0 the purchase of the company. Shortly afier the purchase of the company,
and with no explanation, Plaintiffterminated Defendant’s employment in violation ofthe purchase
agreement. At 76 years old, Defendant was able to obtain some employment at a golf course but
he counted on the proceeds fi’om the sale of the business to pay his bills and provide him with
support.
5. Because of Plaintiff’s failure to pay the amounts owed to Defendant for the purchase of
Temaca, and Plaintifi’s failure to comply with his purchase agreement obligation to employ
2
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/20/2019 3:40 PM
Defendant at a set salary, Defendant has needed to borrow money to pay his bills and he will likely
be forced to sell his home to pay creditors.
6. During the short time that Plaintiff did employ Defendant, and subsequent to the purchase
agreement, Plaintiff induced Defendant to personally purchase supplies that were intended to be
used and which were subsequently used by Plaintifi during his operation of Temaca. Plaintiff did
not pay the supplier and because the supplies were purchased by Defendant, the supplier sued
Defendant and obtained ajudgment against Defendant in the amount of $1 1,529.92.
7. Plaintifi‘ continues to operate and benefit from the purchase agreement of Temaca.
8. Pursuant to the Order of the Court, Defendants were to keep the checks for payment of
services that were sent to Defendants from those clients who had been provided services by
Temaca during the time that Plaintiff was in arrears in his payments under the purchase agreement
with Defendant. Those checks are still in the possession of Defendant’s attorney. It is unknown
if Plaintiff has contacted those clients and had them reissue checks to him or if he made deposits
of those checks using the pictures that he took of them afler the hearing.
9. The terms of the purchase agreement for Temaca continue to be in dispute. Defendant’s
accountant, Gene Shavlik assisted him in finalizing the terms and agreement for the sale of the
business and will be available to testify at trial.
10. Defendant has been damaged by Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the terms of the
Agreements and his continued use, and wear and tear on the substantial equipment assets of the
Company as well as his default on a debt he agreed to assume as part of the Agreements, which is
now ajudgment against Defendant. It isunknown what the status of the equipment is and if they
arc stillin his possession and if so, if they are being maintained.
11. Plaintiff has converted the assets of Defendant for his own benefit and claims the benefit
without paying the obligation. Plaintiff should not be allowed to profit from his actions under the
circumstances.
WHEREFORE DEFENDANT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:
l. An Order denying Plaintiff’s requests for relief in their entirety; or in the
alternative, scheduling an expedited hearing date to take into account the prejudice and damages
the current scheduled hearing date of November 18, 2019, would have to harm Defendant and
benefit Plaintiff as Plaintiff continues to operate the lawn sprinkler business without payment to
Defendant for that business.
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/20/2019 3:40 PM
2. An Order requiring Plaintiffs to pay to Defendant, Lupe Gomez the amount of
$ plus interest as full payment due and owing as lost wages for the time he was
unemployed to the present;
3. An Order requiring Plaintiffs to pay to Defendant, Lupe Gomez the amount of
$81,099.33 plus interest as full payment due and owing under the sales agreement for the
purchase of Temaca within five business days of the order, or in the alternative:
3. Ordering Plaintiffs to return to Defendant Lupe Gomez, the equipment to that was
acquired from Temaca pursuant to the purchase agreement for the business and further ordering
that the equipment is to be returned clean and in good condition and working order and condition
within three business days of this Order; and
4. Restraining Plaintiff from using Temaca equipment and vehicles for Temaca or
any related business pending the return of the Temaca customer list,vehicles and equipment to
Plaintiff;
5. Ordering Plaintifi to return to Defendant the complete list of customers that he
received from Defendant as part of the purchase agreement within five business days of the
order;
6. Ordering and restraining Plaintifl‘s fiom contacting Temaca customers; operating
Temaca or any other similar or substitute in'igation company for two years or for another time
period that prevents Plaintiff from applying his previous misappropriation of Defendant
company’s assets and client lists for Plaintiff‘s own future benefit and competition against
Defendant:
7. In addition to the above orders, ordering Plaintiffs to pay to Defendant the amount
of $1 1,529.92 within three business days of the Order to provide the fimds for Defendant to
satisfy the judgnent for the supplies and materials purchased by Defendant on behalf of and used
by Plaintiff in his operation and profit from Temaca;
8. Ordering Plaintiffs to pay Defendant’s attorney fees, costs and disbursements
incurred herein.
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/20/2019 3:40 PM
Date: March 20, 2019 HALPER & JOSEPH, PLLC
w IMM
Barbara A. Halfier, ID# 202290
barbara@halperjoseph.com
300 East Frontage Road, Suite A
Waconia, MN 55387
Telephone (952) 356-0825
27-CV-18-19659
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
3/20/2019 3:40 PM
VERIFICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF CARVER )
|,Guadalupe Gomez, under penalty of perjury, state that Ihave reviewed and know the
contents ofthis Supplement to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, that the
averments thereof are true of my own knowledge, save as to such as are therein stated on
information and belief, and that as to those averments, | believe them to be true.
Dated: z 20; 3”/Z
Guadalupe Gomez
Preview
27-CV-18-19659 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/20/2019 3:40 PM State of Minnesota District Court County Judicial District: Fourth Hennepin Court File Number: 27-CV-l 8-19659 Case Type: Civil (The Honorable Joseph Klein) Ryan Lazenby, and Temaca Irrigation LLC Plamff Supplement to Defendant’s VS- Response to Plaintifi’s Verified Guadalupe Gomez, James Gomez Complaint and Supplement t0 Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. d.b.a. Defendant’s Verified Complaint Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Defendant Defendant, Guadalupe Gomez, for his Supplement to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff‘s Verified Complaint and Defendant’s Supplement to Defendant’s Verified Complaint, dated December 12, 201 8 alleges as follows: 1. Defendant reaffirms his statements in prior pleadings filed with the court and adds the following: 2. Plaintiffs and Defendants participated in mediation on January 16, 20 l 9 with the Honorable Kathleen Gearin. There was no settlement reached on any 0f the issues. 3. As of today’s date, Plaintiff has made no further payments on the contract for the purchase of the business at issue, Temaca Lawn Sprinklers, Inc. d.b.a. Temaca Lawn Sprinklers and/or Temaca Irrigation, LLC (hereinafier referred to as “Temaca”). Plaintifi' has continued to use the business assets and equipment and operate the business, but has made no payments on the sales agreement and is in default of the agreement. 4. Plaintiff does not dispute that he is in default of the terms of the purchase agreement for Temaca. (What Plaintiff has attempted is toapply fabricated complaints against Defendant in an attempt to circumvent or eliminate his obligations under the agreements for the purchase of Temaca.) The details of Plaintiff‘s default are as follows, and as previously stated in Plaintiff’s Answer and Verified Complaint, dated December 12, 201 8: “Plaintiff did not comply with his obligations required under the Agreements, including but not limited to payment obligations under the Agreements. The first payment by 1 27-CV-18-19659 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/20/2019 3:40 PM Plaintiff to Defendant was to be $30,000 to be paid November 15, 2017. Plaintifi made payments on that amount as follows: January 5, 2018 $9,000. February 2, 201 8. $1,080.44 (by giving Plaintiff a customer check that he said Plaintiff should cash and apply to the payment that was still owed from November 15, 2017) February 2, 2018 $3,000 May 12, 2018 $1,750 May 18, 201 8 $2,400 June 15, 2018 $2,500. June 27, 201 8 $2,000 The total that he paid out of the $30,000.00 was $21,730.44. Defendant has not received any other payments. As a result, a Cure Notice was given to Plaintifi' for failure to pay the full first installment payment due on November 15, 2018; leaving a balance of $3,602.56 and failure to pay the installment due on July 15, 2018, in the sum of $26,033.33. That total of $29,033.33 has not been paid as of the date of this action. In addition, Plaintifi' owes Defendant the subsequent two payments of $26,033 each for a total of $81,099.33.” (note that amount does not include the salary that was to have been paid to Defendant pursuant to his contracted employment.) The purchase agreement for Plaintiff’s purchase of the business included a restraint against Defendant competing against Plaintiff. It also included a provision requiring Plaintifi' to employ Defendant subsequent t0 the purchase of the company. Shortly afier the purchase of the company, and with no explanation, Plaintiffterminated Defendant’s employment in violation ofthe purchase agreement. At 76 years old, Defendant was able to obtain some employment at a golf course but he counted on the proceeds fi’om the sale of the business to pay his bills and provide him with support. 5. Because of Plaintiff’s failure to pay the amounts owed to Defendant for the purchase of Temaca, and Plaintifi’s failure to comply with his purchase agreement obligation to employ 2 27-CV-18-19659 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/20/2019 3:40 PM Defendant at a set salary, Defendant has needed to borrow money to pay his bills and he will likely be forced to sell his home to pay creditors. 6. During the short time that Plaintiff did employ Defendant, and subsequent to the purchase agreement, Plaintiff induced Defendant to personally purchase supplies that were intended to be used and which were subsequently used by Plaintifi during his operation of Temaca. Plaintiff did not pay the supplier and because the supplies were purchased by Defendant, the supplier sued Defendant and obtained ajudgment against Defendant in the amount of $1 1,529.92. 7. Plaintifi‘ continues to operate and benefit from the purchase agreement of Temaca. 8. Pursuant to the Order of the Court, Defendants were to keep the checks for payment of services that were sent to Defendants from those clients who had been provided services by Temaca during the time that Plaintiff was in arrears in his payments under the purchase agreement with Defendant. Those checks are still in the possession of Defendant’s attorney. It is unknown if Plaintiff has contacted those clients and had them reissue checks to him or if he made deposits of those checks using the pictures that he took of them afler the hearing. 9. The terms of the purchase agreement for Temaca continue to be in dispute. Defendant’s accountant, Gene Shavlik assisted him in finalizing the terms and agreement for the sale of the business and will be available to testify at trial. 10. Defendant has been damaged by Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the terms of the Agreements and his continued use, and wear and tear on the substantial equipment assets of the Company as well as his default on a debt he agreed to assume as part of the Agreements, which is now ajudgment against Defendant. It isunknown what the status of the equipment is and if they arc stillin his possession and if so, if they are being maintained. 11. Plaintiff has converted the assets of Defendant for his own benefit and claims the benefit without paying the obligation. Plaintiff should not be allowed to profit from his actions under the circumstances. WHEREFORE DEFENDANT REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: l. An Order denying Plaintiff’s requests for relief in their entirety; or in the alternative, scheduling an expedited hearing date to take into account the prejudice and damages the current scheduled hearing date of November 18, 2019, would have to harm Defendant and benefit Plaintiff as Plaintiff continues to operate the lawn sprinkler business without payment to Defendant for that business. 27-CV-18-19659 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/20/2019 3:40 PM 2. An Order requiring Plaintiffs to pay to Defendant, Lupe Gomez the amount of $ plus interest as full payment due and owing as lost wages for the time he was unemployed to the present; 3. An Order requiring Plaintiffs to pay to Defendant, Lupe Gomez the amount of $81,099.33 plus interest as full payment due and owing under the sales agreement for the purchase of Temaca within five business days of the order, or in the alternative: 3. Ordering Plaintiffs to return to Defendant Lupe Gomez, the equipment to that was acquired from Temaca pursuant to the purchase agreement for the business and further ordering that the equipment is to be returned clean and in good condition and working order and condition within three business days of this Order; and 4. Restraining Plaintiff from using Temaca equipment and vehicles for Temaca or any related business pending the return of the Temaca customer list,vehicles and equipment to Plaintiff; 5. Ordering Plaintifi to return to Defendant the complete list of customers that he received from Defendant as part of the purchase agreement within five business days of the order; 6. Ordering and restraining Plaintifl‘s fiom contacting Temaca customers; operating Temaca or any other similar or substitute in'igation company for two years or for another time period that prevents Plaintiff from applying his previous misappropriation of Defendant company’s assets and client lists for Plaintiff‘s own future benefit and competition against Defendant: 7. In addition to the above orders, ordering Plaintiffs to pay to Defendant the amount of $1 1,529.92 within three business days of the Order to provide the fimds for Defendant to satisfy the judgnent for the supplies and materials purchased by Defendant on behalf of and used by Plaintiff in his operation and profit from Temaca; 8. Ordering Plaintiffs to pay Defendant’s attorney fees, costs and disbursements incurred herein. 27-CV-18-19659 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/20/2019 3:40 PM Date: March 20, 2019 HALPER & JOSEPH, PLLC w IMM Barbara A. Halfier, ID# 202290 barbara@halperjoseph.com 300 East Frontage Road, Suite A Waconia, MN 55387 Telephone (952) 356-0825 27-CV-18-19659 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 3/20/2019 3:40 PM VERIFICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF CARVER ) |,Guadalupe Gomez, under penalty of perjury, state that Ihave reviewed and know the contents ofthis Supplement to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, that the averments thereof are true of my own knowledge, save as to such as are therein stated on information and belief, and that as to those averments, | believe them to be true. Dated: z 20; 3”/Z Guadalupe Gomez