Preview
1 GARY SAUNDERS ESQ. (SBN 144385)
SAUNDERS & ASSOCIATES, APC
2
4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 600
3 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 844-8445
4 Facsimile: (949) 449-8722
5 Email: gary@saundersapc.com
6
Attorney for Plaintiff Alexander Pashigin
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
12
CASE NO:
ALEXANDER PASHIGIN, individual,
PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:
13
14
Plaintiff,
1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
15 2. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
v.
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE;
16
3. FRAUD;
SERGEY SKOLPEN, DMITRY
17 4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT;
ARTYUKHOV, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive,
5. CONVERSION;
18 6. BREACH OF IMPLIED DUTY OF GOOD
Defendants.
19
FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;
7. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS &
20 PROFESSIONAL CODE SECTION
17200 ET SEQ; AND
21 8. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
22
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
23
24
PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A JURY TRIAL
25
26
___________________________________
27
28
1
COMES NOW, ALEXANDER PASHIGIN, (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiff") by and through his
1
2 counsel files a Verified Complaint and hereby alleges as follows:
3 PARTIES
4
1. At all times, mentioned herein, Plaintiff ALEXANDER PASHIGIN (“Plaintiff”) was, and
5
now is, a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
6
7
2. Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, Defendants SERGEY SKOLPEN and
8 DMITRY ARTYUKHOV (Collectively “Defendants”) were, and now are, individuals residing in the
9 County of Los Angeles, State of California.
10
3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive
11
("DOES"), and therefore sue them by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this
12
13 complaint to allege DOES's true names and capacities when they are ascertained. Plaintiff requests that
14 when the true names and capacities of these DOE Defendants are ascertained, they may be inserted in all
15
subsequent proceedings and that this action may proceed against them under their true names.
16
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon this basis alleges that DOES are contractually,
17
strictly, negligently, intentionally, or vicariously liable, and/or otherwise legally responsible in some
18
19 manner for each and every act, omission, obligation, event, or happening set forth in this complaint, and
20 that DOES are obligated to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
21
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that any applicable statutes of limitations have been
22
tolled by the Defendants continuing, knowing, and active concealment of the facts alleged herein.
23
24
Despite exercising reasonable diligence, Plaintiff could not have discovered, did not discover, and was
25 prevented from discovering the wrongdoing complained of herein.
26
27
28
2
6. In the alternative, Defendants should be estopped from relying on any statutes of
1
2 limitations. Defendants owed Plaintiff an affirmative duty of full and fair disclosure but knowingly failed
3 to honor and discharge such duty.
4
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon this basis allege Defendants are, and at all
5
times herein, was the agents, joint ventures, officers, members, representatives, consultants, or employees
6
7
of any co-Defendants and in committing the acts herein alleged, was acting within the scope of such
8 affiliation with knowledge, permission, consent, or subsequent ratification of their co-Defendants.
9 8. At all times mentioned herein, each of these Defendants was and is the alter ego of each
10
of the remaining Defendants, so that each such Defendant was a mere shell, instrumentality, and
11
conduit through which each of the remaining Defendants carried on their personal business. Defendants
12
13 exercised such complete control and dominance over one another that any individuality or separateness
14 of any of these Defendants from one another does not, and at all times mentioned herein, did not exist.
15
9. Specifically, Plaintiff is informed and believes that all of the Defendants, or any of
16
them, owned and controlled the above Defendants to such an extent that their purported separate
17
existence must be disregarded as a mere fiction.
18
19
20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21
10. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California
22
Constitution Article VI §10 and Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 because Defendants engaged in
23
24
business in the State of California and the acts of wrongdoing alleged in this complaint occurred in
25 California. Defendant has more than "sufficient minimum contacts" within the State of California such
26 that this Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant herein "does not offend the traditional
27
notions of fair play and substantial justice."
28
3
11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 392(a) because the
1
2 promissory note was entered into in the jurisdictional region of this Court. Additionally, Defendants
3 herein purposefully directed their activities to the State of California and contracted with a Plaintiff in
4
the State of California. As a result, Defendants caused an event or events to occur in California, and more
5
particularly in the County of Los Angeles out of which this action arises and which forms the basis of
6
7
this action.
8 BACKGROUND FACTS
9
10
12. Plaintiff was the owner of a 2016 Audi S8 Plus Quattro bearing VIN
11
WUAJ5FD9GN901082 (the “Vehicle”) that he consigned to Defendant SKOLPEN to sell at the
12
13 RIVERSIDE MANHEIM AUCTION.
14 13. On or about December 10, 2021, at Defendant SKOLPEN’S residence at 27855 Alder
15
Glen Circle, Valencia, CA 91354, Defendant SKOLPEN explained to Plaintiff that in order to offer a
16
vehicle for auction, the title should be with the car dealer who sells the vehicle and, in this instance,
17
CARMIX, and a sale contract must be signed between vehicle owner, and the car dealer CARMIX.
18
19 Defendant SKOLPEN asked Plaintiff to sign his portion of the title as seller, DMV transfer form, and
20 sale contract without dates that he would insert prior to the vehicle sale. Plaintiff signed the documents s
21
requested, retained the copy and gave the originals to Defendant SKOLPEN.
22
14. On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle to RIVERSIDE MANHEIM
23
24
AUCTION and he met Defendant SKOLPEN at the gate, gave him the keys to the Vehicle and
25 SKOLPEN then drove the Vehicle through the gate and then drove Plaintiff home.
26
27
28
4
15. On January 15, 2022, the Vehicle was sold for $47,500 by Defendant DMITRY
1
2 ARTYUKHOV as seller for $47,500. After payment of the commission to Defendant SKOLPEN,
3 Plaintiff was to be paid $42,200 in cash.
4
16. On January 19, 2022, Defendant SKOLPEN gave Plaintiff the sale contract that was dated
5
January 20, 2022, and paid Plaintiff $2,200 in cash as an advance leaving a balance of $40,000 due
6
7
Plaintiff. SKOLPEN made many promises to pay Plaintiff the $40,000 but made no further payments.
8 17. On February 10, 2022, Defendant SKOLPEN executed a promissory note, that was
9 notarized, in the principal sum of $45,000 to be paid within three (3) months at $15,000 on the 10th of
10
each month, and no less than $10,000 per month until the principal and interest is paid in full on or before
11
the maturity date of May 5, 2022. A late payment was provided for in the sum of $500 if monthly
12
13 payments are late. A true and correct copy of the promissory note is attached hereto and made a part
14 hereof as Exhibit “A.”
15
18. On December 17, 2022, Plaintiff met Defendant SKOLPEN at the South Coast Plaza, who
16
explained that he had a business transaction to complete which would provide money to pay off the
17
promissory note; however, he needed $1,000 to complete the transaction. Plaintiff gave Defendant
18
19 SKOLPEN a check for $1,000 to assist hi in the transaction which Defendant SKOLPEN immediately
20 cashed.
21
19. On July 8, 2023, Plaintiff contacted Defendant SKOLPEN and Defendant ARTYUKHOV
22
and informed them of the upcoming lawsuit. Defendant ARTYUKHOV ignored Plaintiff and Defendant
23
24
SKOLPEN stated that he need three (3) more months to pay Plaintiff in full.
25 20. Plaintiff has made repeated demands between February 17, 2022 through September 1,
26 2023, for payment of the promissory note; however, Defendant SKOLPEN has made repeated excuses
27
and promises to no avail.
28
5
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1
2 BREACH OF CONTRACT
3 (Against Defendant Skolpen and Does 1-10)
4
5
21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference to the allegations made in
6
7
paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
8 22. "A cause of action for breach of contract requires proof of the following elements: (1)
9 existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse of nonperformance; (3) Defendant’s
10
breach; (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach." CDC Firefighter v. Maldonado (2008)
11
Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.
12
13 23. On February 10, 2022, Defendant SKOLPEN, borrower, executed a promissory note in
14 favor of Plaintiff, as lender, that was notarized, in the principal sum of $45,000 to be paid within three
15
(3) months at $15,000 on the 10th of each month, and no less than $10,000 per month until the principal
16
and interest is paid in full on or before the maturity date of May 5, 2022. A late payment was provided
17
for in the sum of $500 if monthly payments are late. (Exhibit “A”)
18
19 24. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached both the express and implied terms of the
20 promissory note.
21
25. Plaintiff contends that he fulfilled his obligations under the terms of the contract however
22
Defendant breached the contract by refusing to pay the promissory note on its maturity date of May 5,
23
24
2022, and up to the date of the filing this verified complaint as agreed in the promissory note.
25 26. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay the promissory note on its maturity date of
26 May 5, 2022, and up to the date of the filing this verified complaint as agreed in the promissory note.
27
28
6
27. Defendant has repeatedly falsely represented that he would pay the promissory note, but
1
2 up to the date of the filing of this complaint no payments have been made on the promissory note despite
3 repeated false promises by Defendant SKOLPEN.
4
28. Thus, Defendant SKOLPEN breached the express terms of the promissory note with
5
Plaintiff ALEXANDER PASHIGIN.
6
7
29. Therefore, Plaintiff demands payment of the promissory note with late charges, and an
8 award of damages of no less than $400,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial.
9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
10
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
12
13 (Against All Defendants and Does 1 – 10)
14
30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs as though
15
fully set forth herein.
16 31. Plaintiff had an expectancy that Defendant SKOLPEN would pay the promissory note
17
upon its maturity as agreed after being the consignee of the Vehicle who refused to pay Plaintiff upon
18
the sale of the Vehicle.
19
32. Plaintiff had an economic relationship with Defendant SKOLPEN as a consignee of the
20
21 Vehicle and that relationship contained probable present and future economic benefits to Defendants.
22 33. Given the fact that Plaintiff and Defendant SKOLPEN executed a promissory note for
23
$45,000 as described herein above which was known by Defendants SKOLPEN and ARTYUKHOV
24
who were well aware of the economic benefits which Defendants would derive from these existing and
25
prospective economic relationships.
26
27 34. Defendants SKOLPEN and ARTYUKHOV naturally knew of the above-described
28 relationships and ongoing business opportunities and SKOLPEN intentionally disrupted the economic
7
relationships by not paying the promissory note upon its maturity on May 10, 2022 as agreed in the
1
2 promissory note.
3 35. The numerous intentional measures and tactics as set forth herein are sabotaging both
4
Plaintiff’s ability to receive the $40,000 balance due under the promissory note, all to the unfair and
5
unlawful benefit of the Defendants. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants’ intentional interference
6
7
with Plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage in an amount according to proof at trial, but not less
8 than $400,000.00.
9 36. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants consisted of malice, oppression, and
10
reckless disregard for the rights of others on the part of Plaintiff.
11
37. Said acts of malice, oppression, and reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, justify
12
13 the imposition of punitive damages which should be awarded in favor of Plaintiff to punish Defendants
14 and to deter them and those similarly situated from engaging in such conduct in the future. The
15
wrongful, malicious, and oppressive acts and omissions of Defendants warrant the imposition of
16
punitive damages against them in amount sufficient to punish Defendants and to deter similar acts and
17
omissions in the future.
18
19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
20
21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
22
(Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10)
23
FRAUD
24
38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and
25
26 every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint.
27
28
8
39. In order to satisfy the elements for fraud or fraud in the inducement, a plaintiff must show
1
2 (i) there was false representation or concealment of a material fact; (ii) reasonably calculated to
3 deceive; (iii) made with the intent to deceive; (iv) which does in fact deceive; (v) and results in damage
4
to the injured party.
5
40. On February 10, 2022, Defendant SKOLPEN, borrower, executed a promissory note in favor
6
7
of Plaintiff, as lender, that was notarized, in the principal sum of $45,000 to be paid within three (3)
8 months at $15,000 on the 10th of each month, and no less than $10,000 per month until the principal and
9 interest is paid in full on or before the maturity date of May 5, 2022. (Exhibit “A”)
10
41. Defendant SKOLPEN promised Plaintiff that he would pay the principal and interest in full
11
on or before the maturity date of May 5, 2022 as provided in the promissory note.
12
13 42. Defendant did not pay the principal and interest due upon maturity of the promissory note.
14 43. When Defendant SKOLPEN made these representations, he knew them to be false, and
15
these representations were made by Defendant SKOLPEN with the intent to defraud and deceive
16
Plaintiff and with the intent to induce Plaintiff to act in the manner herein alleged.
17
44. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendant and at the time took the
18
19 actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendant’s representations and believed them to
20 be true. In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to enter into the above-described
21
promissory note. Had Plaintiff known the actual facts, he would not have taken such action. Plaintiff’s
22
reliance on Defendant’s representations was justified because he believed that the Defendants would
23
24
pay the principal and interest of the promissory note upon its maturity on May 10, 2022.
25 45. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon the representations of Defendant.
26 46. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit or
27
concealment of a material fact known to the Defendant with the intention on the part of the Defendant
28
9
of thereby causing injury and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff to a cruel and unjust
1
2 hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify and award of exemplary and
3 punitive damages.
4
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
5
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6
7
(Against All Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10)
8 UNJUST ENRICHMENT
9 47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and
10
every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint.
11
48. Defendant entered into an agreement and/or understanding, and otherwise knowingly and
12
13 willfully perpetrated a fraud on Plaintiff and induced Plaintiff into permitting Defendant to act as
14 consignee for the sale of the Vehicle for which he was supposed to be paid $42,200 in cash of which
15
Defendant paid Plaintiff only $2,200 leaving a balance due Plaintiff of $40,000 which Defendant never
16
intended to pay, all to Plaintiff's detriment and for Defendant’s own enrichment.
17
49. In furtherance of these overt acts, Defendants fraudulently misrepresented and/or concealed
18
19 from Plaintiff, material facts so as to deceive and defraud Plaintiff.
20 50. In furtherance of thereof, Defendants falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that
21
he:
22
a. would receive $40,000 to complete the sale of Plaintiff’s vehicle;
23
24
b. would pay the principal of $45,000 plus interest and late fees under the promissory note.
25 (Exhibit “A”)
26 50. Defendant perpetrated a fraud upon Plaintiff, by virtue of the fact that when Defendant made
27
these material representations, he knew them to be false and made the representation with the intent to
28
10
deprive Plaintiff of $40,000 due him upon the sale of the Vehicle which Defendant never intended to
1
2 pay, all to Plaintiff’s detriment and for Defendants' own enrichment.
3 51. As a direct and proximate result Plaintiff suffered direct monetary losses as set forth
4
hereinabove and have also incurred substantial emotional injuries. Plaintiff sustained injuries which
5
have caused, and continue to cause, extreme humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional
6
7
distress, and nervous pain and suffering in an amount according to proof. As a further direct and
8 proximate result of Defendant’s misconduct, Plaintiff has incurred psychological expenses in an
9 amount to proven at trial.
10
52. Defendant’s wrongful conduct and his wrongful goals and other wrongdoing complained of
11
herein. In acting, as particularized herein, to commit these wrongful acts and other wrongdoings
12
13 complained of, Defendant acted with an awareness of its primary wrongdoing and realized that
14 its conduct would substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and
15
wrongdoing.
16
53. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively
17
with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff and/or with reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights, and
18
19 therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
21
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
(Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10)
23
24
CONVERSION
25 54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and
26 every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint.
27
28
11
55. On or about January 31, 2022, Defendant wrongfully took, converted Plaintiff’s payment
1
2 for the sale of his vehicle of $40,000. The taking was without the consent or permission, express or
3 implied, of Plaintiff, and although Plaintiff has made demands thereof Defendant, Defendant has
4
refused to pay the $40,000 balance due upon the sale of the Vehicle as a proximate result of which
5
Plaintiff was denied the use of his money due him and the enjoyment and use of his money as he had
6
7
transferred title to the Vehicle and the auction company delivered the Vehicle to Defendant
8 ARTYUKHOV, all to the Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be established at trial.
9 56. Plaintiff has heretofore made many demands for the payment of $40,000 from Defendant,
10
but no part thereof has been paid.
11
57. Between the time of Defendants' conversion of the above-mentioned $40,000 due Plaintiff
12
13 from Defendant SKOLPEN to his own use and the filing of this action, Plaintiff spent time and money
14 in pursuit of the converted funds, all to Plaintiff's further damage in a sum to be established at the time
15
of trial.
16
58. The conduct of Defendants has been a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to be denied the
17
use and enjoyment of the $40,000 balance due him upon the sale of the Vehicle paid to Defendant, all
18
19 to the Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be established at trial.
20 59. Defendants' conduct was malicious and oppressive, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover
21
punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount which will discourage Defendants
22
from engaging in the same or similar conduct considering the net worth of each Defendant.
23
24
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
25 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 (Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10)
27
BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
28
12
60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and
1
2 every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint.
3 61. There was implied in the aforesaid promissory note a Covenant of good faith and fair
4
dealing by which the Defendant promised to in his performance under said promissory note and refrain
5
from doing any acts that would prevent or impede Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the fruits of the promissory
6
7
note. Said covenant of good faith and fair dealing required Defendants to act fairly, honestly, and
8 reasonably perform the terms and conditions of the promissory note.
9 62. Plaintiff as a lay person was in an inherently unequal bargaining position in his dealing
10
with Defendant who was in the retail car sale business. Plaintiff entrusted the knowledge of car sales to
11
the Defendant. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s vulnerability of not having expert knowledge about
12
13 retail car sales in general.
14 63. The refusal of Defendant to pay the remaining $40,000 under the sale of the Vehicle to
15
Defendant Artyukhov to Plaintiff or paying the principal and interest under the aforesaid promissory
16
note of $45,000 with Defendant, clearly shows that the Defendant’s actions was done in bad faith and
17
therefore in breach of the said covenant.
18
19 64. As a proximate result of the above-described actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continue
20 to suffer substantial losses, in an amount to be proven at trial.
21
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
22
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23
24
(Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10)
25 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, ET. SEQ.
26 65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and
27
every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint.
28
13
66. Defendant’s conduct described herein, especially the refusal to pay the principal and
1
2 interest in the promissory note upon its maturity on May 10, 2022 as agreed in the promissory note
3 constitutes Defendant’s overall scheme to act collusively in defrauding Plaintiff and others and
4
increasing profits for the Defendant at the expense of Plaintiff and others.
5
67. Defendant’s conduct as described herein constitutes illegal pattern and practice so pervasive
6
7
as to form a general business practice which is forbidden by the California Business and Professional
8 Code Section 17200, et seq.
9 68. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant’s continued violations of the above-
10
described unlawful conduct which constitutes an unfair business practice.
11
69. Plaintiff seeks restitutionary relief in the form of Defendant’s disgorgement of profits gained
12
13 through his unlawful and unfair business practices. Members of the public have been and continue to be
14 and are likely to be deceived Defendant’s unlawful practice as described herein.
15
70. Plaintiff and other members of the public who have been defrauded by Defendant through
16
Defendant’s unlawful conduct as described herein have no adequate remedy at law to protect
17
themselves from each of the Defendant’s pervasive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices.
18
19 71. A remedy at law is inadequate because Plaintiff and other members of the public must
20 initiate litigation after Defendant’s unlawful conduct has occurred. Once a remedy at law matures,
21
Defendant’s actions will have already violated California laws by compelling members of the public
22
including Plaintiff to initiate litigation to obtain the benefit of his bargain.
23
24
72. Granting injunctive relief will protect Plaintiff and other members of the public that deal
25 daily with the Defendant. Defendants, by his conducts as described therein has treated Plaintiff and
26 other members of the public unfairly and will continue to do so unless enjoined. Defendant by his
27
28
14
conduct as described herein, has engaged in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices
1
2 intended to deceive members of the public including Plaintiff.
3 73. Injunctive relief will bar Defendant and his agents from future exploitations of Plaintiff and
4
other members of the public and future violations of California Law.
5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
6
7
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10)
9 INTENTIONAL IFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
10
74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and
11
every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint.
12
13 75. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendant consisted of malice, oppression, and
14 reckless disregard for the rights of others on the part of Plaintiff.
15
76. Said acts of malice, oppression, and reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, justify the
16
imposition of punitive damages which should be awarded in favor of Plaintiff to punish Defendant and
17
to deter him and those similarly situated from engaging in such conduct in the future. The wrongful,
18
19 malicious, and oppressive acts and omissions of Defendant warrants the imposition of punitive
20 damages against him in an amount sufficient to punish Defendant and to deter similar acts and
21
omissions in the future.
22
77. By reason of Defendant’s extreme, unprivileged, and outrageous/tortious conduct as
23
24
heretofore alleged, Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress and mental anguish.
25 78. As a direct and legal result of Defendant’s intentional conduct as heretofore alleged;
26 Plaintiff has suffered actual, special, and general damages.
27
28
15
79. Defendant’s conduct heretofore alleged, was knowing, intentional, willful, malicious,
1
2 despicable, oppressive, mean, and done with full knowledge or substantial certainty of the extreme
3 mental distress which said action(s) would cause Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an
4
amount to be ascertained at the time of trial.
5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for judgment as set forth below.
6
7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendants as
9 follows:
10
1. For actual damages of no less than $400,000.00, and according to proof at the time of trial;
11
2. For interest thereon at the maximum legal rate allowed by law;
12
13 3. For punitive damages;
14 4. For an order awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees, reasonable costs of suit incurred
15
and any other relief as it may deem just and proper.
16
SAUNDERS & ASSOCIATES, APC
17
18
19 DATED: 12/1/23 By: ___________________________
GARY S. SAUNDERS, ESQ.
20 Attorney for Plaintiff
ALEXANDER PASHIGIN
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
AFFIDAVIT AND VERIFICATION
1
(Civ. Proc. Code § 2015.5)
2
I, ALEXANDER PASHIGIN, Plaintiff in the above-entitled action against Defendants,
3
SERGEY SKOLPEN, DMITRY ARTYUKHOV, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, have read the foregoing
4
5 verified complaint and know the contents thereof. I certify that the same is true to the best of my
6 knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.
7
This lawsuit is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to
8
cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
9
10
The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a
11 non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment
12
of new law.
13
The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically, so
14
identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation
15
16 or discovery.
17 The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically, so identified,
18
are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
20
true and correct.
21
22 Dated: 12/1/23 By:__________________________
ALEXANDER PASHIGIN
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
Preview
1 GARY SAUNDERS ESQ. (SBN 144385) SAUNDERS & ASSOCIATES, APC 2 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 600 3 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 844-8445 4 Facsimile: (949) 449-8722 5 Email: gary@saundersapc.com 6 Attorney for Plaintiff Alexander Pashigin 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 12 CASE NO: ALEXANDER PASHIGIN, individual, PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 13 14 Plaintiff, 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 15 2. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH v. PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; 16 3. FRAUD; SERGEY SKOLPEN, DMITRY 17 4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT; ARTYUKHOV, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, 5. CONVERSION; 18 6. BREACH OF IMPLIED DUTY OF GOOD Defendants. 19 FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; 7. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & 20 PROFESSIONAL CODE SECTION 17200 ET SEQ; AND 21 8. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 22 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. 23 24 PLAINTIFF REQUESTS A JURY TRIAL 25 26 ___________________________________ 27 28 1 COMES NOW, ALEXANDER PASHIGIN, (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiff") by and through his 1 2 counsel files a Verified Complaint and hereby alleges as follows: 3 PARTIES 4 1. At all times, mentioned herein, Plaintiff ALEXANDER PASHIGIN (“Plaintiff”) was, and 5 now is, a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 6 7 2. Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, Defendants SERGEY SKOLPEN and 8 DMITRY ARTYUKHOV (Collectively “Defendants”) were, and now are, individuals residing in the 9 County of Los Angeles, State of California. 10 3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive 11 ("DOES"), and therefore sue them by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this 12 13 complaint to allege DOES's true names and capacities when they are ascertained. Plaintiff requests that 14 when the true names and capacities of these DOE Defendants are ascertained, they may be inserted in all 15 subsequent proceedings and that this action may proceed against them under their true names. 16 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon this basis alleges that DOES are contractually, 17 strictly, negligently, intentionally, or vicariously liable, and/or otherwise legally responsible in some 18 19 manner for each and every act, omission, obligation, event, or happening set forth in this complaint, and 20 that DOES are obligated to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. 21 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes that any applicable statutes of limitations have been 22 tolled by the Defendants continuing, knowing, and active concealment of the facts alleged herein. 23 24 Despite exercising reasonable diligence, Plaintiff could not have discovered, did not discover, and was 25 prevented from discovering the wrongdoing complained of herein. 26 27 28 2 6. In the alternative, Defendants should be estopped from relying on any statutes of 1 2 limitations. Defendants owed Plaintiff an affirmative duty of full and fair disclosure but knowingly failed 3 to honor and discharge such duty. 4 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon this basis allege Defendants are, and at all 5 times herein, was the agents, joint ventures, officers, members, representatives, consultants, or employees 6 7 of any co-Defendants and in committing the acts herein alleged, was acting within the scope of such 8 affiliation with knowledge, permission, consent, or subsequent ratification of their co-Defendants. 9 8. At all times mentioned herein, each of these Defendants was and is the alter ego of each 10 of the remaining Defendants, so that each such Defendant was a mere shell, instrumentality, and 11 conduit through which each of the remaining Defendants carried on their personal business. Defendants 12 13 exercised such complete control and dominance over one another that any individuality or separateness 14 of any of these Defendants from one another does not, and at all times mentioned herein, did not exist. 15 9. Specifically, Plaintiff is informed and believes that all of the Defendants, or any of 16 them, owned and controlled the above Defendants to such an extent that their purported separate 17 existence must be disregarded as a mere fiction. 18 19 20 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 10. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California 22 Constitution Article VI §10 and Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 because Defendants engaged in 23 24 business in the State of California and the acts of wrongdoing alleged in this complaint occurred in 25 California. Defendant has more than "sufficient minimum contacts" within the State of California such 26 that this Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant herein "does not offend the traditional 27 notions of fair play and substantial justice." 28 3 11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 392(a) because the 1 2 promissory note was entered into in the jurisdictional region of this Court. Additionally, Defendants 3 herein purposefully directed their activities to the State of California and contracted with a Plaintiff in 4 the State of California. As a result, Defendants caused an event or events to occur in California, and more 5 particularly in the County of Los Angeles out of which this action arises and which forms the basis of 6 7 this action. 8 BACKGROUND FACTS 9 10 12. Plaintiff was the owner of a 2016 Audi S8 Plus Quattro bearing VIN 11 WUAJ5FD9GN901082 (the “Vehicle”) that he consigned to Defendant SKOLPEN to sell at the 12 13 RIVERSIDE MANHEIM AUCTION. 14 13. On or about December 10, 2021, at Defendant SKOLPEN’S residence at 27855 Alder 15 Glen Circle, Valencia, CA 91354, Defendant SKOLPEN explained to Plaintiff that in order to offer a 16 vehicle for auction, the title should be with the car dealer who sells the vehicle and, in this instance, 17 CARMIX, and a sale contract must be signed between vehicle owner, and the car dealer CARMIX. 18 19 Defendant SKOLPEN asked Plaintiff to sign his portion of the title as seller, DMV transfer form, and 20 sale contract without dates that he would insert prior to the vehicle sale. Plaintiff signed the documents s 21 requested, retained the copy and gave the originals to Defendant SKOLPEN. 22 14. On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle to RIVERSIDE MANHEIM 23 24 AUCTION and he met Defendant SKOLPEN at the gate, gave him the keys to the Vehicle and 25 SKOLPEN then drove the Vehicle through the gate and then drove Plaintiff home. 26 27 28 4 15. On January 15, 2022, the Vehicle was sold for $47,500 by Defendant DMITRY 1 2 ARTYUKHOV as seller for $47,500. After payment of the commission to Defendant SKOLPEN, 3 Plaintiff was to be paid $42,200 in cash. 4 16. On January 19, 2022, Defendant SKOLPEN gave Plaintiff the sale contract that was dated 5 January 20, 2022, and paid Plaintiff $2,200 in cash as an advance leaving a balance of $40,000 due 6 7 Plaintiff. SKOLPEN made many promises to pay Plaintiff the $40,000 but made no further payments. 8 17. On February 10, 2022, Defendant SKOLPEN executed a promissory note, that was 9 notarized, in the principal sum of $45,000 to be paid within three (3) months at $15,000 on the 10th of 10 each month, and no less than $10,000 per month until the principal and interest is paid in full on or before 11 the maturity date of May 5, 2022. A late payment was provided for in the sum of $500 if monthly 12 13 payments are late. A true and correct copy of the promissory note is attached hereto and made a part 14 hereof as Exhibit “A.” 15 18. On December 17, 2022, Plaintiff met Defendant SKOLPEN at the South Coast Plaza, who 16 explained that he had a business transaction to complete which would provide money to pay off the 17 promissory note; however, he needed $1,000 to complete the transaction. Plaintiff gave Defendant 18 19 SKOLPEN a check for $1,000 to assist hi in the transaction which Defendant SKOLPEN immediately 20 cashed. 21 19. On July 8, 2023, Plaintiff contacted Defendant SKOLPEN and Defendant ARTYUKHOV 22 and informed them of the upcoming lawsuit. Defendant ARTYUKHOV ignored Plaintiff and Defendant 23 24 SKOLPEN stated that he need three (3) more months to pay Plaintiff in full. 25 20. Plaintiff has made repeated demands between February 17, 2022 through September 1, 26 2023, for payment of the promissory note; however, Defendant SKOLPEN has made repeated excuses 27 and promises to no avail. 28 5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 1 2 BREACH OF CONTRACT 3 (Against Defendant Skolpen and Does 1-10) 4 5 21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference to the allegations made in 6 7 paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 8 22. "A cause of action for breach of contract requires proof of the following elements: (1) 9 existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse of nonperformance; (3) Defendant’s 10 breach; (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach." CDC Firefighter v. Maldonado (2008) 11 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239. 12 13 23. On February 10, 2022, Defendant SKOLPEN, borrower, executed a promissory note in 14 favor of Plaintiff, as lender, that was notarized, in the principal sum of $45,000 to be paid within three 15 (3) months at $15,000 on the 10th of each month, and no less than $10,000 per month until the principal 16 and interest is paid in full on or before the maturity date of May 5, 2022. A late payment was provided 17 for in the sum of $500 if monthly payments are late. (Exhibit “A”) 18 19 24. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached both the express and implied terms of the 20 promissory note. 21 25. Plaintiff contends that he fulfilled his obligations under the terms of the contract however 22 Defendant breached the contract by refusing to pay the promissory note on its maturity date of May 5, 23 24 2022, and up to the date of the filing this verified complaint as agreed in the promissory note. 25 26. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay the promissory note on its maturity date of 26 May 5, 2022, and up to the date of the filing this verified complaint as agreed in the promissory note. 27 28 6 27. Defendant has repeatedly falsely represented that he would pay the promissory note, but 1 2 up to the date of the filing of this complaint no payments have been made on the promissory note despite 3 repeated false promises by Defendant SKOLPEN. 4 28. Thus, Defendant SKOLPEN breached the express terms of the promissory note with 5 Plaintiff ALEXANDER PASHIGIN. 6 7 29. Therefore, Plaintiff demands payment of the promissory note with late charges, and an 8 award of damages of no less than $400,000.00 in an amount to be proven at trial. 9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. 10 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 11 Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 12 13 (Against All Defendants and Does 1 – 10) 14 30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all proceeding paragraphs as though 15 fully set forth herein. 16 31. Plaintiff had an expectancy that Defendant SKOLPEN would pay the promissory note 17 upon its maturity as agreed after being the consignee of the Vehicle who refused to pay Plaintiff upon 18 the sale of the Vehicle. 19 32. Plaintiff had an economic relationship with Defendant SKOLPEN as a consignee of the 20 21 Vehicle and that relationship contained probable present and future economic benefits to Defendants. 22 33. Given the fact that Plaintiff and Defendant SKOLPEN executed a promissory note for 23 $45,000 as described herein above which was known by Defendants SKOLPEN and ARTYUKHOV 24 who were well aware of the economic benefits which Defendants would derive from these existing and 25 prospective economic relationships. 26 27 34. Defendants SKOLPEN and ARTYUKHOV naturally knew of the above-described 28 relationships and ongoing business opportunities and SKOLPEN intentionally disrupted the economic 7 relationships by not paying the promissory note upon its maturity on May 10, 2022 as agreed in the 1 2 promissory note. 3 35. The numerous intentional measures and tactics as set forth herein are sabotaging both 4 Plaintiff’s ability to receive the $40,000 balance due under the promissory note, all to the unfair and 5 unlawful benefit of the Defendants. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants’ intentional interference 6 7 with Plaintiff’s prospective economic advantage in an amount according to proof at trial, but not less 8 than $400,000.00. 9 36. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants consisted of malice, oppression, and 10 reckless disregard for the rights of others on the part of Plaintiff. 11 37. Said acts of malice, oppression, and reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, justify 12 13 the imposition of punitive damages which should be awarded in favor of Plaintiff to punish Defendants 14 and to deter them and those similarly situated from engaging in such conduct in the future. The 15 wrongful, malicious, and oppressive acts and omissions of Defendants warrant the imposition of 16 punitive damages against them in amount sufficient to punish Defendants and to deter similar acts and 17 omissions in the future. 18 19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. 20 21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 22 (Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10) 23 FRAUD 24 38. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and 25 26 every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint. 27 28 8 39. In order to satisfy the elements for fraud or fraud in the inducement, a plaintiff must show 1 2 (i) there was false representation or concealment of a material fact; (ii) reasonably calculated to 3 deceive; (iii) made with the intent to deceive; (iv) which does in fact deceive; (v) and results in damage 4 to the injured party. 5 40. On February 10, 2022, Defendant SKOLPEN, borrower, executed a promissory note in favor 6 7 of Plaintiff, as lender, that was notarized, in the principal sum of $45,000 to be paid within three (3) 8 months at $15,000 on the 10th of each month, and no less than $10,000 per month until the principal and 9 interest is paid in full on or before the maturity date of May 5, 2022. (Exhibit “A”) 10 41. Defendant SKOLPEN promised Plaintiff that he would pay the principal and interest in full 11 on or before the maturity date of May 5, 2022 as provided in the promissory note. 12 13 42. Defendant did not pay the principal and interest due upon maturity of the promissory note. 14 43. When Defendant SKOLPEN made these representations, he knew them to be false, and 15 these representations were made by Defendant SKOLPEN with the intent to defraud and deceive 16 Plaintiff and with the intent to induce Plaintiff to act in the manner herein alleged. 17 44. Plaintiff, at the time these representations were made by Defendant and at the time took the 18 19 actions herein alleged, was ignorant of the falsity of Defendant’s representations and believed them to 20 be true. In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff was induced to enter into the above-described 21 promissory note. Had Plaintiff known the actual facts, he would not have taken such action. Plaintiff’s 22 reliance on Defendant’s representations was justified because he believed that the Defendants would 23 24 pay the principal and interest of the promissory note upon its maturity on May 10, 2022. 25 45. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon the representations of Defendant. 26 46. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit or 27 concealment of a material fact known to the Defendant with the intention on the part of the Defendant 28 9 of thereby causing injury and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff to a cruel and unjust 1 2 hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify and award of exemplary and 3 punitive damages. 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. 5 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6 7 (Against All Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10) 8 UNJUST ENRICHMENT 9 47. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and 10 every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint. 11 48. Defendant entered into an agreement and/or understanding, and otherwise knowingly and 12 13 willfully perpetrated a fraud on Plaintiff and induced Plaintiff into permitting Defendant to act as 14 consignee for the sale of the Vehicle for which he was supposed to be paid $42,200 in cash of which 15 Defendant paid Plaintiff only $2,200 leaving a balance due Plaintiff of $40,000 which Defendant never 16 intended to pay, all to Plaintiff's detriment and for Defendant’s own enrichment. 17 49. In furtherance of these overt acts, Defendants fraudulently misrepresented and/or concealed 18 19 from Plaintiff, material facts so as to deceive and defraud Plaintiff. 20 50. In furtherance of thereof, Defendants falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that 21 he: 22 a. would receive $40,000 to complete the sale of Plaintiff’s vehicle; 23 24 b. would pay the principal of $45,000 plus interest and late fees under the promissory note. 25 (Exhibit “A”) 26 50. Defendant perpetrated a fraud upon Plaintiff, by virtue of the fact that when Defendant made 27 these material representations, he knew them to be false and made the representation with the intent to 28 10 deprive Plaintiff of $40,000 due him upon the sale of the Vehicle which Defendant never intended to 1 2 pay, all to Plaintiff’s detriment and for Defendants' own enrichment. 3 51. As a direct and proximate result Plaintiff suffered direct monetary losses as set forth 4 hereinabove and have also incurred substantial emotional injuries. Plaintiff sustained injuries which 5 have caused, and continue to cause, extreme humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional 6 7 distress, and nervous pain and suffering in an amount according to proof. As a further direct and 8 proximate result of Defendant’s misconduct, Plaintiff has incurred psychological expenses in an 9 amount to proven at trial. 10 52. Defendant’s wrongful conduct and his wrongful goals and other wrongdoing complained of 11 herein. In acting, as particularized herein, to commit these wrongful acts and other wrongdoings 12 13 complained of, Defendant acted with an awareness of its primary wrongdoing and realized that 14 its conduct would substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and 15 wrongdoing. 16 53. Defendant committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively 17 with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff and/or with reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights, and 18 19 therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. 21 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 (Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10) 23 24 CONVERSION 25 54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and 26 every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint. 27 28 11 55. On or about January 31, 2022, Defendant wrongfully took, converted Plaintiff’s payment 1 2 for the sale of his vehicle of $40,000. The taking was without the consent or permission, express or 3 implied, of Plaintiff, and although Plaintiff has made demands thereof Defendant, Defendant has 4 refused to pay the $40,000 balance due upon the sale of the Vehicle as a proximate result of which 5 Plaintiff was denied the use of his money due him and the enjoyment and use of his money as he had 6 7 transferred title to the Vehicle and the auction company delivered the Vehicle to Defendant 8 ARTYUKHOV, all to the Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be established at trial. 9 56. Plaintiff has heretofore made many demands for the payment of $40,000 from Defendant, 10 but no part thereof has been paid. 11 57. Between the time of Defendants' conversion of the above-mentioned $40,000 due Plaintiff 12 13 from Defendant SKOLPEN to his own use and the filing of this action, Plaintiff spent time and money 14 in pursuit of the converted funds, all to Plaintiff's further damage in a sum to be established at the time 15 of trial. 16 58. The conduct of Defendants has been a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to be denied the 17 use and enjoyment of the $40,000 balance due him upon the sale of the Vehicle paid to Defendant, all 18 19 to the Plaintiff's damage in an amount to be established at trial. 20 59. Defendants' conduct was malicious and oppressive, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover 21 punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount which will discourage Defendants 22 from engaging in the same or similar conduct considering the net worth of each Defendant. 23 24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. 25 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 26 (Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10) 27 BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 28 12 60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and 1 2 every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint. 3 61. There was implied in the aforesaid promissory note a Covenant of good faith and fair 4 dealing by which the Defendant promised to in his performance under said promissory note and refrain 5 from doing any acts that would prevent or impede Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the fruits of the promissory 6 7 note. Said covenant of good faith and fair dealing required Defendants to act fairly, honestly, and 8 reasonably perform the terms and conditions of the promissory note. 9 62. Plaintiff as a lay person was in an inherently unequal bargaining position in his dealing 10 with Defendant who was in the retail car sale business. Plaintiff entrusted the knowledge of car sales to 11 the Defendant. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s vulnerability of not having expert knowledge about 12 13 retail car sales in general. 14 63. The refusal of Defendant to pay the remaining $40,000 under the sale of the Vehicle to 15 Defendant Artyukhov to Plaintiff or paying the principal and interest under the aforesaid promissory 16 note of $45,000 with Defendant, clearly shows that the Defendant’s actions was done in bad faith and 17 therefore in breach of the said covenant. 18 19 64. As a proximate result of the above-described actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continue 20 to suffer substantial losses, in an amount to be proven at trial. 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. 22 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 24 (Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10) 25 VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, ET. SEQ. 26 65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and 27 every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint. 28 13 66. Defendant’s conduct described herein, especially the refusal to pay the principal and 1 2 interest in the promissory note upon its maturity on May 10, 2022 as agreed in the promissory note 3 constitutes Defendant’s overall scheme to act collusively in defrauding Plaintiff and others and 4 increasing profits for the Defendant at the expense of Plaintiff and others. 5 67. Defendant’s conduct as described herein constitutes illegal pattern and practice so pervasive 6 7 as to form a general business practice which is forbidden by the California Business and Professional 8 Code Section 17200, et seq. 9 68. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant’s continued violations of the above- 10 described unlawful conduct which constitutes an unfair business practice. 11 69. Plaintiff seeks restitutionary relief in the form of Defendant’s disgorgement of profits gained 12 13 through his unlawful and unfair business practices. Members of the public have been and continue to be 14 and are likely to be deceived Defendant’s unlawful practice as described herein. 15 70. Plaintiff and other members of the public who have been defrauded by Defendant through 16 Defendant’s unlawful conduct as described herein have no adequate remedy at law to protect 17 themselves from each of the Defendant’s pervasive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices. 18 19 71. A remedy at law is inadequate because Plaintiff and other members of the public must 20 initiate litigation after Defendant’s unlawful conduct has occurred. Once a remedy at law matures, 21 Defendant’s actions will have already violated California laws by compelling members of the public 22 including Plaintiff to initiate litigation to obtain the benefit of his bargain. 23 24 72. Granting injunctive relief will protect Plaintiff and other members of the public that deal 25 daily with the Defendant. Defendants, by his conducts as described therein has treated Plaintiff and 26 other members of the public unfairly and will continue to do so unless enjoined. Defendant by his 27 28 14 conduct as described herein, has engaged in unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices 1 2 intended to deceive members of the public including Plaintiff. 3 73. Injunctive relief will bar Defendant and his agents from future exploitations of Plaintiff and 4 other members of the public and future violations of California Law. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below. 6 7 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 (Against Defendant Skolpen and DOES 1-10) 9 INTENTIONAL IFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 10 74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and 11 every preceding paragraph alleged in this Complaint. 12 13 75. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendant consisted of malice, oppression, and 14 reckless disregard for the rights of others on the part of Plaintiff. 15 76. Said acts of malice, oppression, and reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, justify the 16 imposition of punitive damages which should be awarded in favor of Plaintiff to punish Defendant and 17 to deter him and those similarly situated from engaging in such conduct in the future. The wrongful, 18 19 malicious, and oppressive acts and omissions of Defendant warrants the imposition of punitive 20 damages against him in an amount sufficient to punish Defendant and to deter similar acts and 21 omissions in the future. 22 77. By reason of Defendant’s extreme, unprivileged, and outrageous/tortious conduct as 23 24 heretofore alleged, Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress and mental anguish. 25 78. As a direct and legal result of Defendant’s intentional conduct as heretofore alleged; 26 Plaintiff has suffered actual, special, and general damages. 27 28 15 79. Defendant’s conduct heretofore alleged, was knowing, intentional, willful, malicious, 1 2 despicable, oppressive, mean, and done with full knowledge or substantial certainty of the extreme 3 mental distress which said action(s) would cause Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an 4 amount to be ascertained at the time of trial. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for judgment as set forth below. 6 7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendants as 9 follows: 10 1. For actual damages of no less than $400,000.00, and according to proof at the time of trial; 11 2. For interest thereon at the maximum legal rate allowed by law; 12 13 3. For punitive damages; 14 4. For an order awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees, reasonable costs of suit incurred 15 and any other relief as it may deem just and proper. 16 SAUNDERS & ASSOCIATES, APC 17 18 19 DATED: 12/1/23 By: ___________________________ GARY S. SAUNDERS, ESQ. 20 Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXANDER PASHIGIN 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 AFFIDAVIT AND VERIFICATION 1 (Civ. Proc. Code § 2015.5) 2 I, ALEXANDER PASHIGIN, Plaintiff in the above-entitled action against Defendants, 3 SERGEY SKOLPEN, DMITRY ARTYUKHOV, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive, have read the foregoing 4 5 verified complaint and know the contents thereof. I certify that the same is true to the best of my 6 knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. 7 This lawsuit is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to 8 cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. 9 10 The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a 11 non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment 12 of new law. 13 The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically, so 14 identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation 15 16 or discovery. 17 The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically, so identified, 18 are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 20 true and correct. 21 22 Dated: 12/1/23 By:__________________________ ALEXANDER PASHIGIN 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A