Preview
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 1 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
Christian V. McOmber, Esq. – NJ ID # 012292010
cvm@njlegal.com
Austin B. Tobin, Esq. – NJ ID # 002622010
abt@njlegal.com
McOMBER & McOMBER, P.C.
54 Shrewsbury Avenue
Red Bank, NJ 07701
(732) 842-6500 Phone
(732) 530-8545 Fax
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Melissa Lema
MELISSA LEMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION – ESSEX COUNTY
Plaintiff,
v. DOCKET NO. ________________
AURA HOLDINGS CORP., ATS Civil Action
MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP., METRO
VAN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., COMPLAINT
RDS CAR & VAN SERVICE CORP., RIDE
DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., CRAIG
LAX and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-5
(fictitious names describing presently
unidentified business entities),
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Melissa Lema (“Plaintiff”), complains of Defendant Aura Holdings Corp., ATS
Management Services Corp., Metro Van Transportation Services, Inc., RDS Car & Van Service
Corp., Ride Distribution Services, Inc., Craig Lax and ABC Corporations 1-5 (fictitious names
describing presently unidentified business entities) (collectively “Defendants”) as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiff is a domiciliary of the State of New Jersey residing in Belleville, New
Jersey.
2. Defendant Aura Holdings Corp. (“Defendant AHC”) is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey with a principal place of business located at
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 2 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601. Defendant AHC also lists its location as
348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 on its website www.auralimo.com.
3. Defendant ATS Management Services Corp. (“Defendant ATS”) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey with a principal place of business
located at 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601.
4. Defendant Metro Van Transportation Services Inc. (“Defendant MVT”) is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey with a principal place
of business located at 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601.
5. Defendant RDS Car & Van Service Corp. (“Defendant RDS Car”) is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey with a principal place of business
located at 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601.
6. Defendant Ride Distribution Services Inc. (“Defendant RDS Services”) is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey with a principal place
of business located at 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601.
7. Defendant Craig Lax (“Defendant Lax”) is the owner and registered agent of
Defendant AHC, Defendant ATS, Defendant MVT, Defendant RDS Car and Defendant RDS
Services (collectively “Corporate Defendants”). This claim is brought against Defendant Lax in
his individual capacity and/or as an agent or servant of Corporate Defendants acting during the
course of his employment.
8. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants are affiliates, parents,
and/or subsidiaries of each other.
2
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 3 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
9. ABC Corporations 1-5 are currently unidentified business entities who have acted
in concert with Defendants and/or currently unidentified business entities who may have liability
for the damages suffered by Plaintiff under any theory advanced herein.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. BTS Holding L.L.C. is or was a company organized and existing under the laws of
the State of New Jersey, which provided limousine and transportation services (“BTS Holding”).
BTS Holding was originally formed on April 4, 2014. Defendant Lax was the sole member and
registered agent of BTS Holding.
11. On or about October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a sexual harassment action in New
Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. ESX-L-7097-14 against BTS
Holding and Craig Lax relating to her employment with BTS Holding (“Employment Action”).
12. On or about April 12, 2017, Plaintiff obtained an order against BTS Holding from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, awarding $70,819.34 to Plaintiff in
compensatory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees and costs (“Court Order”).
13. On or about May 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate
Division of New Jersey with respect to the Court Order. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that the Trial
Court erred in (1) dismissing Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Lax; (2) dismissing
Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages; (3) denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal of the Trial
Judge, and (4) its Fee Award to Plaintiff (“Plaintiff’s Appeal”).
14. On or about September 12, 2017, Plaintiff’s Appellant Brief was filed with the
Appellate Division of New Jersey.
15. On or about November 13, 2017, BTS Holding and Defendant Lax filed an
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Appellant Brief with the Appellate Division of New Jersey.
3
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 4 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
16. On or about September 20, 2018, the Appellate Division of New Jersey held oral
argument with respect to Plaintiff’s Appeal.
17. On or about January 18, 2019, the Appellate Division of New Jersey issued a
decision upholding the decisions of the Trial Court.
18. After the decision regarding Plaintiff’s Appeal, BTS Holding did not make payment
as required by the Court Order. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in extensive post-judgment
execution efforts to collect upon the Court Order, including bank searches, all to no avail.
19. Following extensive post-judgment execution efforts, Plaintiff’s counsel later
learned that on January 1, 2018, shortly after the Court Order was entered and while the matter
was pending on appeal, Defendant Lax formed Corporate Defendants, to which he transferred all
of the assets of BTS Holding.
20. Defendant Lax is the sole member and registered agent for each of the Corporate
Defendants.
21. BTS Holding is now a defunct entity which has had its business status revoked for
failing to file an annual report for two (2) consecutive years.
22. The transfer of BTS Holding’s assets to Corporate Defendants was and is a thinly-
veiled sham by Defendant Lax to intentionally avoid liability to Plaintiff for the debts of BTS
Holding and to unlawfully and transfer and conceal the assets of BTS Holding.
23. In fact, on its business entity registration, BTS Holding listed its associated names
as “Aura Car & Limousine Service” and “Aura Car & Limo,” which names are substantially
similar to Defendant AHC and Defendant ATS.
24. Prior to ceasing its operations, BTS Holding provided limousine, taxi and medical
transportation services.
4
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 5 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
25. Like BTS Holding, Corporate Defendants provide limousine, taxi and medical
transportation services.
26. Corporate Defendants provide identical services to those that were provided by
Defendant BTS Holding.
27. Prior to ceasing its operations, BTS Holding’s physical address was located at
348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601.
28. The physical address of Corporate Defendants as listed on the business registration
report for each entity is the same address as BTS Holding - 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, NJ
07601.
29. Essentially, the transfer of assets from BTS Holding to Corporate Defendants was
orchestrated by Defendant Lax and intended to hinder and obstruct Plaintiff from collecting upon
the Court Order.
FIRST COUNT
(Successor Liability – De Facto Merger)
30. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
31. The transfer between BTS Holding and Corporate Defendants constituted a de facto
merger between BTS Holding and Corporate Defendants.
32. Defendants are liable for the liabilities and obligations for BTS Holding, including,
but not limited to, the Court Order.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-
judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyance, judgment establishing a
constructive trust over the assets of Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate Defendants are
5
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 6 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
the de facto successor of BTS Holding, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and proper in law or equity.
SECOND COUNT
(Successor Liability – Assumption of Liabilities)
33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
34. Corporate Defendants expressly or impliedly agreed to assume the debts and
liabilities of BTS Holding.
35. Corporate Defendants are liable for the liabilities and obligations for BTS Holding,
including, but not limited to, the Court Order.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-
judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyances, judgment establishing a
constructive trust over the assets of Corporate Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate
Defendants expressly or impliedly agreed to assume the debts and liabilities of BTS Holding, and
such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in law or equity.
THIRD COUNT
(Successor Liability – Mere Continuation)
36. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
37. Corporate Defendants are merely a continuation of BTS Holding.
38. Corporate Defendants are liable for the liabilities and obligations for BTS Holding,
including, but not limited to, the Court Order.
6
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 7 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-
judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyances, judgment establishing a
constructive trust over the assets of Corporate Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate
Defendants is merely a continuation of BTS Holding, and such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper in law or equity.
FOURTH COUNT
(Successor Liability – Fraudulent Conduct)
39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
40. Corporate Defendants were fraudulently created in order to escape liability for BTS
Holding’s obligations and liabilities.
41. Corporate Defendants are liable for the liabilities and obligations for BTS Holding,
including, but not limited to, the Court Order.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-
judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyances, judgment establishing a
constructive trust over the assets of Corporate Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate
Defendants was fraudulently created to escape liability, and such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper in law or equity.
FIFTH COUNT
(Fraudulent Transfer Pursuant to N.J.S.A 25:2-25(a))
42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
7
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 8 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
43. Through the aforementioned course of conduct in transferring the assets of BTS
Holding to Corporate Defendants, Defendants intended to defraud Plaintiff and put the former
assets of BTS Holding out of reach of Plaintiff as a creditor of BTS Holding.
44. As a result of the transfer and their wrongful and unlawful conduct, Defendants
have put the former assets of BTS Holding out of the reach of Plaintiff as a creditor of BTS
Holding.
45. Defendants facilitated the transfer with the intent to defraud, delay, and/or hinder
Plaintiff as a creditor of BTS Holding.
46. These actions by Defendants violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act,
N.J.S.A. 25:2-20, et seq.
47. Plaintiff will be damaged by the unlawful conduct of Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-
judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyances, judgment establishing a
constructive trust over the assets of Corporate Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate
Defendants is the actual or de facto successor of BTS Holding, and such other and further relief as
the Court deems just and proper in law or equity.
McOMBER & McOMBER, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Melissa Lema
By: /s/ Christian V. McOmber, Esq.
CHRISTIAN V. McOMBER, ESQ.
Dated: September 4, 2019
8
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 9 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, CHRISTIAN V. McOMBER, ESQUIRE, is hereby designated as
trial counsel for Plaintiff.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, it is hereby certified that, to the best of my knowledge, there are no
other civil actions or arbitration proceedings involving this matter with respect to this matter and
no other parties need to be joined at this time.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
McOMBER & McOMBER, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Melissa Lema
By: /s/ Christian V. McOmber, Esq.
CHRISTIAN V. McOMBER, ESQ.
Dated: September 4, 2019
9
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV20191579518
Civil Case Information Statement
Case Details: ESSEX | Civil Part Docket# L-006465-19
Case Caption: LEMA MELISSA VS AURA HOLDINGS Case Type: BOOK ACCOUNT (DEBT COLLECTION MATTERS
CORP. ONLY)
Case Initiation Date: 09/04/2019 Document Type: Complaint
Attorney Name: CHRISTIAN V MC OMBER Jury Demand: NONE
Firm Name: MC OMBER & MC OMBER, PC Is this a professional malpractice case? NO
Address: 54 SHREWSBURY AVENUE Related cases pending: NO
RED BANK NJ 07701 If yes, list docket numbers:
Phone: 7328426500 Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same
Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : Lema, Melissa transaction or occurrence)? NO
Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company
(if known): Unknown
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE
CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION
Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? YES
If yes, is that relationship: Employer/Employee
Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? YES
Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual
management or accelerated disposition:
Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO
If yes, please identify the requested accommodation:
Will an interpreter be needed? NO
If yes, for what language:
Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the
court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)
09/04/2019 /s/ CHRISTIAN V MC OMBER
Dated Signed
Preview
ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 1 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 Christian V. McOmber, Esq. – NJ ID # 012292010 cvm@njlegal.com Austin B. Tobin, Esq. – NJ ID # 002622010 abt@njlegal.com McOMBER & McOMBER, P.C. 54 Shrewsbury Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 (732) 842-6500 Phone (732) 530-8545 Fax Attorneys for Plaintiff, Melissa Lema MELISSA LEMA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION – ESSEX COUNTY Plaintiff, v. DOCKET NO. ________________ AURA HOLDINGS CORP., ATS Civil Action MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP., METRO VAN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., COMPLAINT RDS CAR & VAN SERVICE CORP., RIDE DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., CRAIG LAX and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-5 (fictitious names describing presently unidentified business entities), Defendants. Plaintiff, Melissa Lema (“Plaintiff”), complains of Defendant Aura Holdings Corp., ATS Management Services Corp., Metro Van Transportation Services, Inc., RDS Car & Van Service Corp., Ride Distribution Services, Inc., Craig Lax and ABC Corporations 1-5 (fictitious names describing presently unidentified business entities) (collectively “Defendants”) as follows: FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiff is a domiciliary of the State of New Jersey residing in Belleville, New Jersey. 2. Defendant Aura Holdings Corp. (“Defendant AHC”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey with a principal place of business located at ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 2 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601. Defendant AHC also lists its location as 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 on its website www.auralimo.com. 3. Defendant ATS Management Services Corp. (“Defendant ATS”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey with a principal place of business located at 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601. 4. Defendant Metro Van Transportation Services Inc. (“Defendant MVT”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey with a principal place of business located at 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601. 5. Defendant RDS Car & Van Service Corp. (“Defendant RDS Car”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey with a principal place of business located at 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601. 6. Defendant Ride Distribution Services Inc. (“Defendant RDS Services”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey with a principal place of business located at 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601. 7. Defendant Craig Lax (“Defendant Lax”) is the owner and registered agent of Defendant AHC, Defendant ATS, Defendant MVT, Defendant RDS Car and Defendant RDS Services (collectively “Corporate Defendants”). This claim is brought against Defendant Lax in his individual capacity and/or as an agent or servant of Corporate Defendants acting during the course of his employment. 8. Upon information and belief, the Corporate Defendants are affiliates, parents, and/or subsidiaries of each other. 2 ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 3 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 9. ABC Corporations 1-5 are currently unidentified business entities who have acted in concert with Defendants and/or currently unidentified business entities who may have liability for the damages suffered by Plaintiff under any theory advanced herein. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10. BTS Holding L.L.C. is or was a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, which provided limousine and transportation services (“BTS Holding”). BTS Holding was originally formed on April 4, 2014. Defendant Lax was the sole member and registered agent of BTS Holding. 11. On or about October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a sexual harassment action in New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. ESX-L-7097-14 against BTS Holding and Craig Lax relating to her employment with BTS Holding (“Employment Action”). 12. On or about April 12, 2017, Plaintiff obtained an order against BTS Holding from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, awarding $70,819.34 to Plaintiff in compensatory damages, costs and attorneys’ fees and costs (“Court Order”). 13. On or about May 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Division of New Jersey with respect to the Court Order. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that the Trial Court erred in (1) dismissing Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendant Lax; (2) dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages; (3) denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal of the Trial Judge, and (4) its Fee Award to Plaintiff (“Plaintiff’s Appeal”). 14. On or about September 12, 2017, Plaintiff’s Appellant Brief was filed with the Appellate Division of New Jersey. 15. On or about November 13, 2017, BTS Holding and Defendant Lax filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Appellant Brief with the Appellate Division of New Jersey. 3 ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 4 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 16. On or about September 20, 2018, the Appellate Division of New Jersey held oral argument with respect to Plaintiff’s Appeal. 17. On or about January 18, 2019, the Appellate Division of New Jersey issued a decision upholding the decisions of the Trial Court. 18. After the decision regarding Plaintiff’s Appeal, BTS Holding did not make payment as required by the Court Order. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in extensive post-judgment execution efforts to collect upon the Court Order, including bank searches, all to no avail. 19. Following extensive post-judgment execution efforts, Plaintiff’s counsel later learned that on January 1, 2018, shortly after the Court Order was entered and while the matter was pending on appeal, Defendant Lax formed Corporate Defendants, to which he transferred all of the assets of BTS Holding. 20. Defendant Lax is the sole member and registered agent for each of the Corporate Defendants. 21. BTS Holding is now a defunct entity which has had its business status revoked for failing to file an annual report for two (2) consecutive years. 22. The transfer of BTS Holding’s assets to Corporate Defendants was and is a thinly- veiled sham by Defendant Lax to intentionally avoid liability to Plaintiff for the debts of BTS Holding and to unlawfully and transfer and conceal the assets of BTS Holding. 23. In fact, on its business entity registration, BTS Holding listed its associated names as “Aura Car & Limousine Service” and “Aura Car & Limo,” which names are substantially similar to Defendant AHC and Defendant ATS. 24. Prior to ceasing its operations, BTS Holding provided limousine, taxi and medical transportation services. 4 ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 5 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 25. Like BTS Holding, Corporate Defendants provide limousine, taxi and medical transportation services. 26. Corporate Defendants provide identical services to those that were provided by Defendant BTS Holding. 27. Prior to ceasing its operations, BTS Holding’s physical address was located at 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601. 28. The physical address of Corporate Defendants as listed on the business registration report for each entity is the same address as BTS Holding - 348 Railroad Avenue, Hackensack, NJ 07601. 29. Essentially, the transfer of assets from BTS Holding to Corporate Defendants was orchestrated by Defendant Lax and intended to hinder and obstruct Plaintiff from collecting upon the Court Order. FIRST COUNT (Successor Liability – De Facto Merger) 30. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 31. The transfer between BTS Holding and Corporate Defendants constituted a de facto merger between BTS Holding and Corporate Defendants. 32. Defendants are liable for the liabilities and obligations for BTS Holding, including, but not limited to, the Court Order. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post- judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyance, judgment establishing a constructive trust over the assets of Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate Defendants are 5 ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 6 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 the de facto successor of BTS Holding, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in law or equity. SECOND COUNT (Successor Liability – Assumption of Liabilities) 33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 34. Corporate Defendants expressly or impliedly agreed to assume the debts and liabilities of BTS Holding. 35. Corporate Defendants are liable for the liabilities and obligations for BTS Holding, including, but not limited to, the Court Order. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post- judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyances, judgment establishing a constructive trust over the assets of Corporate Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate Defendants expressly or impliedly agreed to assume the debts and liabilities of BTS Holding, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in law or equity. THIRD COUNT (Successor Liability – Mere Continuation) 36. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 37. Corporate Defendants are merely a continuation of BTS Holding. 38. Corporate Defendants are liable for the liabilities and obligations for BTS Holding, including, but not limited to, the Court Order. 6 ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 7 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post- judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyances, judgment establishing a constructive trust over the assets of Corporate Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate Defendants is merely a continuation of BTS Holding, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in law or equity. FOURTH COUNT (Successor Liability – Fraudulent Conduct) 39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 40. Corporate Defendants were fraudulently created in order to escape liability for BTS Holding’s obligations and liabilities. 41. Corporate Defendants are liable for the liabilities and obligations for BTS Holding, including, but not limited to, the Court Order. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post- judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyances, judgment establishing a constructive trust over the assets of Corporate Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate Defendants was fraudulently created to escape liability, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in law or equity. FIFTH COUNT (Fraudulent Transfer Pursuant to N.J.S.A 25:2-25(a)) 42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 7 ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 8 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 43. Through the aforementioned course of conduct in transferring the assets of BTS Holding to Corporate Defendants, Defendants intended to defraud Plaintiff and put the former assets of BTS Holding out of reach of Plaintiff as a creditor of BTS Holding. 44. As a result of the transfer and their wrongful and unlawful conduct, Defendants have put the former assets of BTS Holding out of the reach of Plaintiff as a creditor of BTS Holding. 45. Defendants facilitated the transfer with the intent to defraud, delay, and/or hinder Plaintiff as a creditor of BTS Holding. 46. These actions by Defendants violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, N.J.S.A. 25:2-20, et seq. 47. Plaintiff will be damaged by the unlawful conduct of Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pre- and post- judgment interest, equitable relief voiding the fraudulent conveyances, judgment establishing a constructive trust over the assets of Corporate Defendants, judgment declaring that Corporate Defendants is the actual or de facto successor of BTS Holding, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in law or equity. McOMBER & McOMBER, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Melissa Lema By: /s/ Christian V. McOmber, Esq. CHRISTIAN V. McOMBER, ESQ. Dated: September 4, 2019 8 ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 9 of 9 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, CHRISTIAN V. McOMBER, ESQUIRE, is hereby designated as trial counsel for Plaintiff. CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Rule 4:5-1, it is hereby certified that, to the best of my knowledge, there are no other civil actions or arbitration proceedings involving this matter with respect to this matter and no other parties need to be joined at this time. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. McOMBER & McOMBER, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Melissa Lema By: /s/ Christian V. McOmber, Esq. CHRISTIAN V. McOMBER, ESQ. Dated: September 4, 2019 9 ESX-L-006465-19 09/04/2019 3:23:56 PM Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV20191579518 Civil Case Information Statement Case Details: ESSEX | Civil Part Docket# L-006465-19 Case Caption: LEMA MELISSA VS AURA HOLDINGS Case Type: BOOK ACCOUNT (DEBT COLLECTION MATTERS CORP. ONLY) Case Initiation Date: 09/04/2019 Document Type: Complaint Attorney Name: CHRISTIAN V MC OMBER Jury Demand: NONE Firm Name: MC OMBER & MC OMBER, PC Is this a professional malpractice case? NO Address: 54 SHREWSBURY AVENUE Related cases pending: NO RED BANK NJ 07701 If yes, list docket numbers: Phone: 7328426500 Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : Lema, Melissa transaction or occurrence)? NO Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company (if known): Unknown THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? YES If yes, is that relationship: Employer/Employee Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? YES Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual management or accelerated disposition: Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO If yes, please identify the requested accommodation: Will an interpreter be needed? NO If yes, for what language: Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b) 09/04/2019 /s/ CHRISTIAN V MC OMBER Dated Signed