North Central District
melbe zepeda, Plaintiff, v. gustavo rodriguez, Defendant.
Case No.: 20BBCV00283
Hearing Date: November 20, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
motion for leave to file first amended complaint
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations
Plaintiff Melbe Zepeda (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she and Defendant Gustavo Rodriguez (“Defendant”) began discussing opening Novum Commerce & Technology (“Novum CT”) in April 2019. She alleges that from March 20, 2019 to April 3, 2019, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that he would design, create, and provide a back-office platform for the Novum CT business, and in exchange Plaintiff paid Defendant $40,000 in bitcoin and $25,000 in USD. She alleges that Defendant provided the back office to her in May 2019, but it was defective, did not accurately keep track of distributors’ earnings, and was being used to personally benefit Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that the back office grossly inflated sales volumes from Defendant, which benefited him and his
Hearing Date
November 20, 2020
Type
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
North Central District
melbe zepeda, Plaintiff, v. gustavo rodriguez, Defendant.
Case No.: 20BBCV00283
Hearing Date: November 20, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
motion for leave to file first amended complaint
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations
Plaintiff Melbe Zepeda (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she and Defendant Gustavo Rodriguez (“Defendant”) began discussing opening Novum Commerce & Technology (“Novum CT”) in April 2019. She alleges that from March 20, 2019 to April 3, 2019, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that he would design, create, and provide a back-office platform for the Novum CT business, and in exchange Plaintiff paid Defendant $40,000 in bitcoin and $25,000 in USD. She alleges that Defendant provided the back office to her in May 2019, but it was defective, did not accurately keep track of distributors’ earnings, and was being used to personally benefit Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that the back office grossly inflated sales volumes from Defendant, which benefited him and his