Legal Document: Old Town Investments, Inc. dba Bankers Casino & Restaurant, et al. vs. Robert Martin

On January 30, 2023 a 01_30_23_Complaint was filed involving a dispute between Jimenez Autobody Parts, Inc. Dba C&J Auto Collision, Old Town Investments, Inc. Dba Bankers Casino & Restaurant, and Robert Martin, for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited (06) in the District Court of Monterey County.

Preview
1 Paul Hart, Esq., SBN 237766
PaulHart@Moncriefl-lart. corn
2 Dennis Lewis, Esq., SBN 262256
Dennis@Moncriefl-lart. corn
3 MONCRIEF & HART, PC
16 West Gabilan Street
4 Salinas, CA 93901
Telephone: (831) 759-0900
5 Facsimile: (831) 759-0902

6 Attorney for Plaintiffs,

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY

10
OLD TOWN INVESTMENTS, INC. dba ) Case No.
11 Bankers Casino & Restaurant, a California )
) [Jury Trial Demanded]
12 Corporation; and JIMENEZ AUTOBODY )
PARTS, INC., dba C&J Auto Collision, a ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
13 California Corporation, )
) 1) Breach of Oral Contract;
14 Plaintiffs, ) 2) Specific Performance;
)
3) Conversion; and
15 )
v. )
4) Injunctive Relief
16 )
ROBERT MARTIN, an individual dba )
17 Computing Solutions; and DOES 1 through 50 )
)
inclusive, )
18
)
19 Defendants. )
)
20 )

22 Plaintiffs complain and allege as follows:

23 THE PARTIES

24 1. Plaintiff OLDTOWN INVESTMENTS, INC. dba Bankers Casino & Restaurant,
25 ("Bankers") is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California and which ha

26 its principal place of business in Monterey County, California. Bankers owns and operates

27 licensed card room in Salinas, California.

28
Complain
1 Old Town Investments, Inc. et al. v. Marti
Case No.
1 2. Plaintiff JIMENEZ AUTOBODY PARTS, INC. dba C&J Auto Collision ("C&J''

2 is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California and which has its principal

3 place of business in Monterey County, California. C&J is an auto body and auto part sales shop
4 Hereafter, Plaintiffs Bankers and C&J shall be referred to collectively as the "Plaintiffs" or th
5 "Companies".
6 3. Defendant ROBERT MARTIN dba Computing Solutions ("Martin") is a
7 individual, who upon information and belief resides in Salinas, CA. Martin is an Informatio
8
and Technology ("IT") consultant..
9
4. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendant
10
denominated herein as Does 1 through 50 inclusive, and so sue said defendants under such fictitiou
11
names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of sue
12
defendants once the same have become known to them.
13
5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defendant
14
were at all relevant times the agents, servants, or employees of each of the other defendants name
15
herein and that each such defendant was acting within the course and scope of such agency, service
16
or employment relationship in engaging in the conduct alleged herein.
17
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
18
6. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 5 as
19
though fully set forth herein.
20
7. Salvador Jimenez is, and at all times relevant herein was, the Chief Executive
21
Officer, a director, and a shareholder of Plaintiffs Bankers and C&J.
22
8. One of Jimenez's responsibilities to Plaintiffs was and is to engage IT
23
24 professionals to manage the Plaintiffs' computer systems.

25 9. Jimenez has known Defendant Martin for over 40 years. The two grew up

26 together in Castroville, CA.

28
Complain
2 Old Town Investments, Inc. et al. v. Marti
Case No.
1 10. In or about 1996, C&J hired Martin to set up and maintain a computer syste

2 for C&J, pursuant to an oral agreement (the "C&J Agreement"). Pursuant to the C

3 Agreement, C&J purchased computers, servers, cameras, and
4 (collectively the "Computer System"), and Martin set up and maintained the Computer Syste
5 in exchange for an hourly fee for his labor. Martin's most recent hourly fee was $175 pe
6 hour. Martin would invoice C&J for his labor, and C&J would pay for his labor.
7 11. Similarly, in or about 2008, Bankers hired Martin to set up and
8 computer system for Bankers pursuant to an oral agreement (the "Bankers"). Pursuant to th
9
Bankers Agreement, Bankers purchased computers, servers, cameras, and surveillance system
10
(collectively the "Computer System"), and Martin set up and maintained the Computer Syste
11
in exchange for an hourly fee for his labor. Martin's most recent hourly fee was $175 pe
12
hour. Martin would invoice Bankers for his labor.
13
12. Hereafter, the C&J and Bankers Agreements shall be referred at as th
14
"Agreements" .
15
13. Under both Agreements, the Computer Systems were the Property of th
16
Companies. Indeed, both Companies purchased the Computer Systems with Company credi
17
cards.
18
14. The Computer Systems serve vital and indispensable functions for th
19
Companies including creation and maintenance of financial statements, accounts receivable an
20
payable, video surveillance for security, creation and maintenance of Company emails, etc.
21
Without access the Computer Systems, the Companies cannot function on a day-to-day basis.
22
15. It is necessary to use passwords to access the Computer Systems. Marti
23
exclusively holds the passwords to the computer systems. I do not know the passwords, nor doe
24
any other person employed or affiliated with the Companies.
25

26 16. In approximately December 2022, Jimenez determined that the Companie

27 needed to hire a different IT professional to service the Companies' computer systems. Jimene

28
Complain
3 Old Town Investments, Inc, et al. v, Marti
Case No,
1 notified Mr. Martin of that decision in or about mid-December 2022 via telephone call. Jimene

2 told Mr. Martin that the decision was nothing personal. Mr. Martin, who at that time had bee
3 C&J's IT Consultant for over 25 years and Bankers' IT consultant for about 14 years, wa
4 visibly upset and hung up on Jimenez. The last time Jimenez spoke with Martin was th
5 beginning of January 2022.
6 17. In order for another IT professional to access and service the Companies'
7 Computer Systems, it is necessary to have the passwords held by Mr. Martin. I have requeste
8
the passwords from Mr. Martin on several occasions. Mr. Martin has failed and refused t
9
provide the passwords to me and has stopped answering my calls.
10
18. On or about January 16, 2023, the Companies' attorney Paul Moncrief emaile
11
Mr. Martin requesting that the password(s) be provided. Mr. Martin never responded to tha
12
request. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated herei
13
by this reference.
14
19. A couple of weeks ago, the Companies retained another IT Consultant, wh
15
informed the Companies that the Computer Systems cannot be accessed without the passwords.
16
20. The Companies will be irreparably harmed in numerous ways unless they c
17
access the Computer Systems, including but not limited to the following: a) the Companies d
18
not have access to historical financial data and account/financial statements for 2022 and year
19
before. Thus, the Companies cannot do their 2020 taxes because they cannot accurately repo
20
financial data on tax returns without that financial data. This failure is especially harmful t
21
Bankers, a licensed cardroom, which is legally required to report to the California Department o
22
23 Justice ("DOJ") and California Bureau of Gambling Control; b) the Companies cannot acces

24 their historical video camera surveillance systems, and Bankers cannot presently access it

25 outside security surveillance system. This failure poses significant security risks, and fo

26 Bankers, the failure to significantly problematic because Bankers has a contract with the City o

27 Salinas which obligates Bankers to provide the Salinas Police Department (SPD) with access t

28
Complain
4 Old Town Investments, Inc. et al. v. Marti
Case No.
1 is video surveillance footage upon reasonable request of the SPD. Notwithstanding that contract,

2 Bankers cooperates with the SPD in granting video surveillance footage upon request and th

3 footage has actually assisted the SPD in solving crimes unrelated to Bankers over the years. Thi
4 is due to the fact that the outside security cameras have a clear view of Monterey St., a heavil
5 traversed street in Salinas. What is more, not having access to video surveillance system
6 prevents the Companies from defending potential civil lawsuits, say in the event a customer o
7 the Companies claims a slip and fall or some other injury that can be dispelled by vide
8 surveillance footage; c) Again, as a licensed cardroom, Bankers is under strict reportin
9
requirements by the California DOJ and Bureau of Gambling Control. Bankers must submi
10
yearly financial reports to the State, and Bankers is presently in the process of attempting t
11
complete its financial report for 2022, but cannot do so without access to all of its historica
12
financial statements and data; d) As a licensed cardroom, Bankers is subject to random audit
13
from the State DOJ and Bureau of Gambling Control where the auditor may review financial
14
and review security and surveillance systems to determine whether they are in good workin
15
order. On average, Bankers has been subject to at least 6 random audits per year since th
16
inception of the business. If Bankers cannot provide adequate financial documents, or proof o
17
sufficient surveillance, that may jeopardize Banker's gambling license; e) The Companies do no
18
have administrative access rights to the systems. Those are held by Martin.
19
Companies cannot create or change Company emails, and due to the Martin havin
20
administrative access rights, he has access to and may manipulate and/or delete vital compan
21
records and financial documents; and f) The Companies Computer Systems are susceptible t
22

23 being hacked if they do not have access.

24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

25 (Breach of Oral Contract by All Plaintiffs)

26 21. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 20 as

27 though fully set forth herein.

28
Complain
5 Old Town Investments, Inc. et al. v. Marti
Case No.
1 22. In or about 1996, C&J hired Martin to set up and maintain a computer syste

2 for C&J, pursuant to an oral agreement (the "C&J Agreement").
3 Agreement, C&J purchased computers, servers, cameras, and surveillance system
4 (collectively the "Computer System"), and Martin set up and maintained the Computer Syste
5 in exchange for an hourly fee for his labor. Martin's most recent hourly fee was $175 pe
6 hour. Martin would invoice C&J for his labor, and C&J would pay for his labor.
7 23. Similarly, in or about 2008, Bankers hired Martin to set up and maintain
8 computer system for Bankers pursuant to an oral agreement (the "Bankers"). Pursuant to th
9
Bankers Agreement, Bankers purchased computers, servers, cameras, and surveillance system
10
(collectively the "Computer System"), and Martin set up and maintained the Computer Syste
11
in exchange for an hourly fee for his labor. Martin's most recent hourly fee was $175 pe
12
hour. Martin would invoice Bankers for his labor.
13
24. Plaintiffs did all or substantially all of the things that the Agreements require
14
by paying Martin invoices sent to the Companies.
15
25. Defendant has materially breached the Agreements by failing to provide th
16
Companies with password(s) and other information necessary for the Companies to access th
17
Computer Systems, by failing to transfer administrative access rights to the Systems, and b
18
potentially destroying and manipulating the Companies records which are stored in th
19
Systems.
20
26. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs have bee
21
damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
22
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
23

24 (Specific Performance by All Plaintiffs)

25 27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 26 a

26 though fully set forth herein.

27 28. The Agreements were entered as set forth above.

28
Complain
6 Old Town Investments, Inc. et al. v. Marti
Case No.
1 29. The consideration paid by the Companies for Defendants' IT Consultin

2 Services, $17 5 per hour, is just and reasonable.

3 30. Plaintiffs have fully performed under the Agreements.
4 31. Defendant has breached the Agreements by failing to provide the Companie
5 with password(s) and other information necessary for the Companies to access the Compute
6 Systems, by failing to transfer administrative access rights to the Systems, and by potentiall
7 destroying and manipulating the Companies records which are stored in the Systems.
8
32. The Plaintiffs has no adequate remedy at law for reasons set forth in para. 20.
9
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
10
(Conversion by All Plaintiffs)
11
33. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 a
12
though fully set forth herein.
13
34. Plaintiffs own, and have the right to possess and access, the Companies'
14
Computer Systems.
15
35. Defendant has intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs' right to access th
16
Computer Systems by failing to give Plaintiffs the password(s) and other information necessar
17
to access the Systems.
18
36. Plaintiffs have not consented to Defendant's conduct.
19
37. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs have bee
20
damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
21
38. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein was intentional, malicious, and done wit
22

23 a wanton disregard of Plaintiffs' rights. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.

24 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25 (Injunctive Relief by All Plaintiffs)

26 39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 as

27 though fully set forth herein.

28
Complain
7 Old Town Investments, Inc. et al. v. Marti
Case No.
1 40. Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiffs with the password(s) and any othe

2 information necessary to access the Companies' Computer systems will cause the Companie
3 irreparable harm in numerous ways including but not limited to the following: a) the Companie
4 do not have access to historical financial data and account/financial statements for 2022 an
5 years before. Thus, the Companies cannot do their 2022 taxes because they cannot accurate!
6 report financial data on tax returns without that financial data. This failure is especially harmfu
7 to Bankers, a licensed cardroom, which is legally required to report to the California Departmen
8
of Justice ("DOJ'') and California Bureau of Gambling Control; b) the Companies cannot acces
9
their historical video camera surveillance systems, and Bankers cannot presently access it
10
outside security surveillance system. This failure poses significant security risks, and fo
11
Bankers, the failure is significantly problematic because Bankers has a contract with the City o
12
Salinas which obligates Bankers to provide the Salinas Police Department (SPD) with access t
13
its video surveillance footage upon reasonable request of the SPD. Notwithstanding tha
14
contract, Bankers cooperates with the SPD in granting video surveillance footage upon reques
15
and the footage has actually assisted the SPD in solving crimes unrelated to Bankers over th
16
years. This is due to the fact that the outside security cameras have a clear view of Monterey St.
17
a heavily traversed street in Salinas. What is more, not having access to video surveillanc
18
systems prevents the Companies from defending potential civil lawsuits, say in the event
19
customer of the Companies claims a slip and fall or some other injury that can be dispelled b
20
video surveillance footage; c) Again, as a licensed cardroom, Bankers is under strict reportin
21
requirements by the California DOJ and Bureau of Gambling Control. Bankers must submi
22
23 yearly financial reports to the State, and Bankers is presently in the process of attempting t

24 complete its financial report for 2022, but cannot do so without access to all of its historica

25 financial statements and data; d) As a licensed cardroom, Bankers is subject to random audit

26 from the State DOJ and Bureau of Gambling Control where the auditor may review financial

27 and review security and surveillance systems to determine whether they are in good workin

28
Complain
8 Old Town Investments, Inc. et al. v. Marti
Case No.
1 order. On average, Bankers has been subject to at least 6 random audits per year since th

2 inception of the business. If Bankers cannot provide adequate financial documents, or proof o

3 sufficient surveillance, that may jeopardize Banker's gambling license; e) The Companies do no

4 have administrative access rights to the systems. Those are held by Martin.
5 Companies cannot create or change Company emails, and due to the Martin havin
6 administrative access rights, he has access to and may manipulate and/or delete vital compan
7 records and financial documents; and f) The Companies Computer Systems are susceptible t
8 being hacked if they do not have access.
9
41. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for these injuries and it would be
10
impossible or extremely difficult to quantity the amount of any potential monetary damages. If
11
Plaintiffs cannot do their taxes because they don't have access to historical financial data, they
12
may get into trouble with the IRS, which may lead to numerous negative and devastating
13
consequences including penalties and revocation of business licenses and for Bankers' its
14
gambling license. Bankers is also under strict reporting requirements to the State DOJ and
15
Gambling Commission. Bankers cannot accurately report its finances to the State without
16
having access to itsfinancial records. Moreover, Bankers is subject to random audits from the
17
State and must have an adequate surveillance system to operate. Failure to adequately report
18
financial data with the State, and adhere with the terms of random audits, can lead to penalties,
19
suspension and possible revocation of its business licenses. What's more, not having access to
20

21 security surveillance subjects the Companies, their employees, and customers to safety risks

22 and exposes the Companies to Civil Liability. Further, Bankers cannot fulfill its duty to

23 provide access surveillance access to the Salinas PD unless Banker's itself has access to that

24 surveillance system.

25 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS PRAY FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

26 AS FOLLOWS:

27 On the First Cause of Action

28
Complain
9 Old Town Investments, Inc. et al. v. Marti
Case No.
1 1. For general damages in an amount to be determined;

2 2. For consequential damages in an amount to be determined;

3 3. For prejudgment interest at the highest legal rate;
4 4. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
5 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
6 On the Second Cause of Action
7 That Defendant be ordered to provide to Plaintiffs all password(s) and any othe
8 information needed for Plaintiffs to have full access to the Computer System and to be grante
9
full administrative rights;
10
2. That Defendant be ordered to provide to Plaintiffs access to any fileswithin th
11
Computer System that Defendant manipulated or deleted;
12
3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
13
4 For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
14
On the Third Cause of Action
15
1. For general damages in an amount to be determined;
16
2. For consequential damages in an amount to be determined;
17
3. For prejudgment interest at the highest legal rate;
18
4. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined;
19
5. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
20
6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
21
On the Fourth Cause of Action
22
For an order requiring Defendant show cause, if he has any, as to why he, hi
23

24 employees, and/or agents should (a) not be required to immediately turnover to Plaintiffs al

25 password(s) and any other information needed to grant Plaintiffs access to Plaintiffs' securit

26 systems; (b) should not be required to immediately do any and all things necessary to giv

27 Plaintiffs administrative access rights in the Computer Systems; (c) should not be required t

28
Complain
10 Old Town Investments, Inc. et al. v. Marti
Case No.
1 immediately provide Plaintiffs access to any and file, documents, and other items that wer

2 manipulate and/or destroyed by Defendant; (d) should not be temporarily, preliminarily, an

3 permanently enjoined from accessing the Computer Systems and deleting and/or manipulatin
4 any file, document, or items information contained in the Computer Systems, and sharing an
5 confidential information in or related to the Computer System with any third party;
6 2) For a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanen
7 injunction, Defendants, and each of them, and their agents, servants, and employees, and all
8 persons acting under, in concert with, or for them requiring, and prohibiting the acts identified i
9
paragraph 1 above;
10
3) Damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
11
4) For punitive damages;
12
5) For costs of suit incurred herein; and
13
6) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
14
Dated: January 27, 2023 MONCRIEF & HART, PC
15
16

17
Dennis Lewis, Esq.
18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19

22
23

25
26
27

28
Complain
11 Old Town Investments, Inc . et al. v. Marti
Case No.
EXHIBIT 1
Dennis Lewis

From: Paul Moncrief
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 4:19 PM
To: rob@computing-solutions.biz
Cc: sal@cjautoglass.com; Dennis Lewis; Sandra Divens
Subject: Sal Jimenez entities IT information

Mr. Martin,
My office represents Sal Jimenez and entities of his regarding his business matters. I understand that you are holding
information including but not limited to passwords that affect Mr. Jimenez's interests and have refused to provide them
to Mr. Jimenez. This is causing damage to his companies for which you are responsible. Demand is hereby made to
provide this information to Mr. Jimenez immediately. Failure to do so will result in my office taking legal action to
obtain this information.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Paul W. Moncrief
Moncrief & Hart
A Professional Corporation
16 West Gabilan Street
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 759-0900
Fax (831) 759-0902
Paul@moncriefha1t.com
This message may be confidential or privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual names above, and the
privileges are not waived by virtue of this communication having been sent by email. ljthe person actually receiving this
message or any other reader of the message is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it
to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Ifyou
have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and destroy the original message.
1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I am employed in the County of Monterey, State of California. I am over the age of eightee
years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 16 West Gabilan Street
3 Salinas, CA 93901.

4 On the date set forth below, I caused the following document(s) entitled:

5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
6
to be served on the party(ies) or its (their) attorney(s) of record in this action listed below by th
following means:
7

8 xx (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL). By transmitting a true copy thereof by electronic mail
from email address Sandra@MoncriefHart.com to the interested party(ies) or thei
attorneys(s) ofrecord to said action at the electronic email address(es) shown below.
9

10 addressed as follows :

11 Robert Martin
1335 San Blanco Drive
12 Salinas, CA 93901
rob@computing-solutions.biz
13

14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of CalifoJJlia-t at the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on January 30, 202 ,· S tlnas, Californii.
15

16
Sandra Lee Divens
17

26
27

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 30, 2023

Case Filing Date

January 30, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Old Town Investments, Inc. dba Bankers Casino & Restaurant, et al. vs. Robert Martin

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties