Amended Complaint
|
Amended Complaint
|
|
|
Cynthia Coulter Mulvihill
SBN 171909
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
COMES NOW PLAINTIFFS and alleges against Defendants as follows: THE PLAINTIFFS
1. LORELLE POUNCEY. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff LORELLE POUNCEY, an individual is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. MS. POUNCEY owns Milo, a dog.
2. RACHEL ARMSTRONG. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff RACHEL ARMSTRONG, an individual is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Riverside. MS. ARMSTRONG owns Goliath, a dog.
3. HEIDI ASLETT. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff HEIDI ASLETT, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Orange. MS. ASLETT owns Delta, a dog.
4. KYREN BECKER. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff KYREN BECKER, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. MS. BECKER owns Dollar, a dog.
5. CHRISTINE BOYD. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff CHRISTINE BOYD, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. MS. BOYD owns Rusty, a dog.
6. JOYCE BUSTRAM. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff JOYCE BUSTRAM, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Orange. MS. BUSTRAM owns Lola, a dog.
7. STEPHANIE R. DAVIS. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff STEPHANIE R. DAVIS, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. MS. DAVIS owns Romeo, a dog.
8. FAY GAUTHIER. At all time alleged herein, Plaintiff FAY GAUTHIER, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. MS. GAUTHIER owns Brizo, a dog.
9. JUNE HILL. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff JUNE HILL, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of California. MS. HILL owns Sophie, a dog.
10. MARY LOU HENSLEY. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff MARY LOU HENSLEY, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Alameda. MS. HENSLEY owns Andy, a dog.
11. ERIC S. KURZ. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff ERIC S. KURZ, an individual, is and was resident of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz. Mr. Kurz owns Tundra, a dog.
12. JON LACOURCIERE. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff JON LACOURCIERE, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Orange. MR. LACOURCIERE owns Wallace, a dog.
13. RITA LIU. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff RITA LIU, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Orange. MS. LIU owns Poopie, a dog.
14. KAREN PIERCE. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff KAREN PIERCE, , an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Alameda. MS. PIERCE owns Princess Talia, a cream-point Himalayan cat.
15. PAT SAMMONS. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff PAT SAMMONS an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. PAT SAMMONS owns Pepper, a dog.
16. SHELLEY SMITH. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff SHELLEY SMITH, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Orange. MS. SMITH owns Katie, a dog.
17. DAVID BRYANT SPAHN. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff DAVID BRYANT SPAHN, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Mr. Spahn owns Bolder Damn Champagne and Pebble Bitch Champagne, both dogs.
18. PATTY STAFFORD. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff PATTY STAFFORD, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Marin. MS. STAFFORD owns Marley, a dog.
19. ASHLEY WHITE. At all times alleged herein, Plaintiff ASHLEY WHITE, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Riverside. MS. WHITE owns Peanut, a dog. THE DEFENDANTS
20. HOLLYWOOD PAWS LLC. At all times alleged herein, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LLC (HOLLYWOOD PAWS) is and was a Limited Liability Company, incorporated in the State of California. HOLLYWOOD PAWS is authorized to do business in the County of Los Angeles, and doing business therein. LARRY LIONETTI incorporated HOLLYWOOD as a Limited Liability Company on January 27, 2005. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that HOLLYWOOD PAWS acquired the assets of PETS ON CAMERA when HOLLYWOOD PAWS incorporated in 2005.
21. HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC. At all times alleged herein, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC is and was a Limited Liability Company, incorporated in the State of California. LARRY LIONETTI incorporated HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC as a Limited Liability Company on June 16, 2005.
22. BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC. At all times alleged herein, BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC. (BARBIZON) is and was a California corporation. BARBIZON was incorporated on August 1, 1977.
23. PETS ON CAMERA. At all times alleged herein, PETS ON CAMERA is and was, a business form unknown, doing business in the State of California, County of San Francisco. In 2004, BARBIZON formed PETS ON CAMERA. Contracts show the organization was called “PETS ON CAMERA a Division of International Performing Arts Academy”, with a business address of 369 Sutter Street, San Francisco CA 94108 and a phone number of 415-391-4254. That address and phone number were also used by BARBIZON.
24. LARRY LIONETTI. At all times alleged herein, LARRY LIONETTI, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Marin. LARRY LIONETTI is married to LENA LIONETTI. Their daughter is LENA MARIE LIONETTI. LARRY LIONETTI is the President of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and owns it, in whole or in part. LARRY LIONETTI is the president and owner of BARBIZON. LARRY LIONETTI is the president and owner of HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC.
25. LENA LIONETTI. At all times alleged herein, LENA LIONETTI, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Marin. LENA LIONETTI is the married to LARRY LIONETTI. Their daughter is LENA MARIE LIONETTI. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LENA LIONETTI is a corporate officer of both HOLLYWOOD PAWS and BARBIZON. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that LENA LIONETTI owns both HOLLYWOOD PAWS and BARBIZON, in whole or in part. LENA LIONETTI was an employee of PETS ON CAMERA and is an employee of HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
26. LENA MARIE LIONETTI. At all times alleged herein, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Marin. LENA MARIE LIONETTI is the daughter of LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI. LENA MARIE LIONETTI is also an employee of HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
27. TAMMY BOWERS. At all times alleged herein, TAMMY BOWERS (BOWERS), an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that TAMMY BOWERS is sometimes also known as TAMMI BOWERS. Plaintiffs do not know the county in which she resides. BOWERS is or was an employee of HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
28. KIMBERLY KLEINMAN. At all times alleged herein, KIMBERLY KLEINMAN (KLEINMAN), an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California. Plaintiffs do not know the county in which she resides. KLEINMAN or was is an employee of HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
29. RAQUELLE VALLEJO. At all times alleged herein, RAQUELLE VALLEJO (VALLEJO), an individual, is and was a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. VALLEJO was an employee of HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
30. Plaintiffs are informed and believes that HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, BARBIZON, PETS ON CAMERA, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, BOWERS, KLEINMAN and VALLEJO and each of them, were the agents, trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers, contractors, and/or employees of each other, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each other, and/or were thereafter ratified by each other, and that each of them are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further alleges that as between certain corporate Defendants, including but not limited to HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, BARBIZON, PETS ON CAMERA there exists, and at all times mentioned existed, a unity of interest and ownership between such Defendants such that any individuality and separateness between Defendants ceased, and that each Defendant is the alter ego of each other such Defendant for reasons to be proven at trial so that adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of these corporate Defendants as entities distinct from other Defendants would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege, sanction fraud, and promote injustice.
31. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, trustees, partners, servants, joint venturers, contractors, and/or employees of their co-Defendants, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of their co-Defendants and/or were ratified by each of the co-Defendants, and that each of them are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs.
32. In 2004, LARRY LIONETTI and BARBIZON created a business form unknown called PETS ON CAMERA. PETS ON CAMERA used the facilities, personnel, contracts, advertising, phone number and address of BARBIZON.
33. In 2005, when BARBIZON and LARRY LIONETTI incorporated HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS then assumed the obligations of PETS ON CAMERA.
34. Even after the purported incorporation of HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI continued to use the facilities, bank account, checks, credit card processing facilities and other assets of BARBIZON in the operation of HOLLYWOOD PAWS, commingling the assets of both so that there is a commonality and unity of interest.
35. HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC uses the corporate facilities of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and BARBIZON.
OTHER INDIVIDUALS REFERENCED IN THE COMPLAINT
36. AA. AA, an individual, is and was an individual specializing in Public Relations. AA is not a party to this action and is referred to by her initials to protect her privacy.
37. SB. SB, an individual, worked as an Animal Trainer at HOLLYWOOD PAWS for a short time. SB is not party to this action and is referred to by her initials to protect her privacy.
38. BD. BD, an individual, is a well-known animal trainer. BD is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by his initials to protect his privacy. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, PETS ON CAMERA and BARBIZON represented to the general public as a whole and to the Plaintiffs that contracted for services with defendants in 2004 that BD was a trainer employed by PETS ON CAMERA. BD denies that he was ever an Animal Trainer for PETS ON CAMERA or its successor-in-interest, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. BD denies that he was otherwise affiliated with PETS ON CAMERA, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, or BARBIZON.
39. CC. CC, an individual, is a former employee of HOLLYWOOD PAWS. CC is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by her initials to protect her privacy.
40. PF. PF, an individual, is a former employee of PETS ON CAMERA and BARBIZON. PF is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by her initials to protect her privacy.
41. AG. AG, an individual, is a well-known animal trainer. AG is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by her initials to protect her privacy. AG is a member of International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”) Local No. 399. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI and LENA MARIE LIONETTI represented to the general public and the Plaintiffs who took classes at both Los Angeles Studios and Ft. Mason locations that AG was a HOLLYWOOD PAWS Trainer. However, AG did not instruct classes at PETS ON CAMERA or HOLLYWOOD PAWS until about September 2006. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that until 2005 or 2006, AG owned an company of her own which is referred to herein for privacy reasons as “AG’S Animals.”
42. MK. MK, an individual, is a member of IBT Local No. 399, and she is a Studio Animal Trainer. MK is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by her initials to protect her privacy. MK was a trainer at HOLLYWOOD PAWS from October 1 2005, to May 1, 2006. MK was qualified to instruct A Class/Level, B Class/Level, and C Class/Level classes.
43. MN. MN, an individual, is a Studio Animal Trainer who provided some animal training services at HOLLYWOOD PAWS. MN is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by her initials to protect her privacy.
44. KS. KS, an individual, is a Studio Animal Trainer with numerous previous movie and television credits. KS is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by her initials to protect her privacy. KS is a member of IBT Local No. 399. KS trained animals for PETS ON CAMERA from September 2004 to December 2004. KS trained animals for HOLLYWOOD PAWS from January 2005 to December 2005. KS’ title was “Executive Director.” Upon leaving HOLLYWOOD PAWS, KS received a final paycheck from BARBIZON. HOLLYWOOD PAWS used KS’ credits on its websites without her permission and without compensating her. HOLLYWOOD PAWS used KS’ credits to qualify for listing in LA 411, the most influential and important directory of “below the line” entertainment companies and individuals. KS owns a company of her own. referred to herein for privacy reasons, as “KS’ Animals.”
45. PT. PT, an individual, was an Education Director and Studio Trainer at HOLLYWOOD PAWS in beginning in 2005 and continuing to February 2006. PT is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by his initials to protect his privacy. PT is a member of IBT Local No. 399. PT’s movie and television show credits were used on the HOLLYWOOD PAWS websites without his permission, and without the permission of IBT Local No. 399.
46. GLW. GLW, an individual, is a professor of Animal Science/Exotic Animal Training and Management at Moorpark College. GLW is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by his initials to protect his privacy. Moorpark College has a well-known and highly respected animal training program.
47. JC. JC, an individual, is a Studio Animal Trainer that HOLLYWOOD PAWS may have approached to provide animal training services. JC is not a party to this matter, and is referred to by JC to protect his privacy. REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE GENERAL PUBLICADVERTISING
48. HOLLYWOOD PAWS has a website called www.hollywoodpaws.com. It also owns and operates a website called www.celebritydog.net, which is similar in trade dress to www.hollywoodpaws.com. Up until September 2006, the two websites contained substantially different advertisements and representations.
49. In addition to its websites, www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net, HOLLYWOOD PAWS has advertised animal auditions in print media including but not limited to the Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, www.craigslist.com and www.myspace.com. HOLLYWOOD PAWS has also advertised on the Animal Planet Network and the TV Guide Network.
50. An August 11, 2004, press release written by AA for PETS ON CAMERA’S August 15, 2004 audition at the Cow Palace in San Francisco stated, “Potential four-legged stars will be screened and evaluated, not only for performing abilities, but also for temperament and charisma. Those who make it through the screening process will undergo preparation in those exacting techniques that transform your pet into a performing professional.”
51. As late as July 14, 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS websites stated, “With its top-flight talent agency, highly selective casting service, spacious in-house production resources and rigorous, socially responsible education program for owners, HOLLYWOOD PAWS is uniquely situated to connecte exceptional animals (and their companions) with the entertainment industry.” REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT SCREEN CREDITS PURPORTEDLY EARNED BY HOLLYWOOD PAWS TRAINED ANIMALS
52. Air Bud (1997). In marketing HOLLYWOOD PAWS to the public and to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LARRY LIONETTI, KLEINMAN, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had trained the animals that appeared in Air Bud (1997). This misrepresentation was made by LARRY LIONETTI and KLEINMAN to the Plaintiffs and occurred in the years 2005 and 2006. The physical location of the misrepresentation was the Los Angeles Studios location of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and on HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites, www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net. Neither PETS ON CAMERA, formed in 2004, nor HOLLYWOOD PAWS, formed in 2005, could have trained animals that appeared in a movie released in 1993.
53. Bounce (2000). In marketing HOLLYWOOD PAWS to the public and to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, KLEINMAN, VALLEJO and HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had trained the animals that appeared in Bounce (2000). This misrepresentation was made by LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, VALLEJO and KLEINMAN to the Plaintiffs and occurred in the years 2005 and 2006. The physical location of the misrepresentation was the Los Angeles Studios location of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and on HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites, www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net. Neither PETS ON CAMERA, formed in 2004, nor HOLLYWOOD PAWS, formed in 2005, could have trained animals that appeared in a movie released in 2000. A true and correct copy of a hand out HOLLYWOOD PAWS and LARRY LIONETTI provided to Plaintiffs at the time of enrollment shows a movie poster for Bounce, describes the animal training for that movie, printed on paper prominently displaying the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Logo, is attached in Exhibit “A”. This hand out was intended to mislead, and did mislead, Plaintiffs into believing that HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ services were used in the making of this movie.
54. Home for the Holidays (1995). In marketing HOLLYWOOD PAWS to the public and to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, KLEINMAN, VALLEJO and HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had trained the animals that appeared in Home for the Holiday (1995). This misrepresentation was made by LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, VALLEJO, and KLEINMAN to the Plaintiffs and occurred in the years 2005 and 2006. The physical location of the misrepresentation was the Los Angeles Studios location of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and on HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites, www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net. Neither PETS ON CAMERA, formed in 2004, nor HOLLYWOOD PAWS, formed in 2005, could have trained animals that appeared in a movie released in 1995. A true and correct copy of a hand out HOLLYWOOD PAWS and LARRY LIONETTI provided to Plaintiffs at the time of enrollment shows a movie poster for Man of the House, describes the animal training for that movie, printed on paper prominently displaying the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Logo, is attached in Exhibit “A”. This hand out was intended to mislead, and did mislead, Plaintiffs into believing that HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ services were used in the making of this movie.
55. Indecent Proposal (1993). In marketing HOLLYWOOD PAWS to the public and to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LARRY LIONETTI, KLEINMAN, VALLEJO, BOWERS and HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had trained the animals that appeared in Indecent Proposal (1993). This misrepresentation was made by LARRY LIONETTI, KLEINMAN, VALLEJO and BOWERS to the Plaintiffs and occurred in the years 2005 and 2006. The physical location of the misrepresentation was the Los Angeles Studios location of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and on HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites, www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net. Neither PETS ON CAMERA, formed in 2004, nor HOLLYWOOD PAWS, formed in 2005, could have trained animals that appeared in a movie released in 1993. A true and correct copy of a hand out HOLLYWOOD PAWS and LARRY LIONETTI provided to Plaintiffs at the time of enrollment shows a movie poster for Indecent Proposal, describes the animal training for that movie, printed on paper prominently displaying the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Logo, is attached in Exhibit “A”. This hand out was intended to mislead, and did mislead, Plaintiffs into believing that HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ services were used in the making of this movie.
56. Man of the House (1995). In marketing HOLLYWOOD PAWS to the public and to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, KLEINMAN, VALLEJO and HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had trained the animals that appeared in Man of the House (1995). This misrepresentation was made by LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, VALLEJO, and KLEINMAN to the Plaintiffs and occurred in the years 2005 and 2006. The physical location of the misrepresentation was the Los Angeles Studios location of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and on HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites, www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net. Neither PETS ON CAMERA, formed in 2004 nor HOLLYWOOD PAWS, formed in 2005, could have trained animals that appeared in a movie released in 1995. A true and correct copy of a hand out HOLLYWOOD PAWS and LARRY LIONETTI provided to Plaintiffs at the time of enrollment shows a movie poster for Man of the House, describes the animal training for that movie, printed on paper prominently displaying the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Logo, is attached in Exhibit “A”. This hand out was intended to mislead, and did mislead, Plaintiffs into believing that HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ services were used in the making of this movie.
57. The Good Son (1993). In marketing HOLLYWOOD PAWS to the public and to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, KLEINMAN, VALLEJO and HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had trained the animals that appeared in The Good Son (1993). This misrepresentation was made by LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, VALLEJO and KLEINMAN to the Plaintiffs and occurred in the years 2005 and 2006. The physical location of the misrepresentation was the Los Angeles Studios location of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and on HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites, www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net. Neither PETS ON CAMERA, formed in 2004, nor HOLLYWOOD PAWS, formed in 2005, could have trained animals that appeared in a movie released in 1993. A true and correct copy of a hand out HOLLYWOOD PAWS and LARRY LIONETTI provided to Plaintiffs at the time of enrollment shows a movie poster for The Good Son, describes the animal training for that movie, printed on paper prominently displaying the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Logo, is attached in Exhibit “A”. This hand out was intended to mislead, and did mislead, Plaintiffs into believing that HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ services were used in the making of this movie.
58. There’s Something About Mary (1998). In marketing HOLLYWOOD PAWS to the public and to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LARRY LIONETTI, KLEINMAN, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had trained the animals that appeared in There’s Something About Mary (1998). This misrepresentation was made by LARRY LIONETTI and KLEINMAN to the Plaintiffs and occurred in the years 2005 and 2006. The physical location of the misrepresentation was the Los Angeles Studios location of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and on HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites, www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net. In fact, until September 2006, a movie poster for There’s Something About Mary appeared prominently on the home page of www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net. www Neither PETS ON CAMERA, formed in 2004, nor HOLLYWOOD PAWS, formed in 2005, could have trained animals that appeared in a movie released in 1998. A true and correct copy of a hand out HOLLYWOOD PAWS and LARRY LIONETTI provided to Plaintiffs at the time of enrollment shows a movie poster for There’s Something About Mary, describes the animal training for that movie, printed on paper prominently displaying the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Logo, is attached in Exhibit “A”. This hand out was intended to mislead, and did mislead, Plaintiffs into believing that HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ services were used in the making of this movie.
59. Vanilla Sky (2001). In marketing HOLLYWOOD PAWS to the public and to the Plaintiffs, Defendant LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, KLEINMAN, VALLEJO and HOLLYWOOD PAWS Vanilla Sky (2001). This misrepresentation was made by LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, VALLEJO and KLEINMAN to the Plaintiffs and occurred in the years 2005 and 2006. The physical location of the misrepresentation was the Los Angeles Studios location of HOLLYWOOD PAWS and on HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites, www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydog.net. Neither PETS ON CAMERA, formed in 2004, nor HOLLYWOOD PAWS, formed in 2005, could have trained animals that appeared in a movie released in 2000. A true and correct copy of a hand out HOLLYWOOD PAWS and LARRY LIONETTI provided to Plaintiffs at the time of enrollment shows a movie poster for Vanilla Sky, describes the animal training for that movie, printed on paper prominently displaying the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Logo, is attached in Exhibit “A”. This hand out was intended to mislead, and did mislead, Plaintiffs into believing that HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ services were used in the making of this movie. MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT HOLLYWOOD PAWS AS A TALENT AGENCY
60. As late as July 14, 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS stated unequivocally that it was a Talent Agency. In the Frequently Asked Questions portion of www.hollywoodpaws.com, the following appeared, “Is Hollywood Paws a talent agency? Yes. Please visit our Agency.”
61. Talent Agents and Agencies must be licensed and registered with the Labor Commissioner for the State of California Among other things, Talent Agents and Agencies undergo a background investigation by the State of California; pay a licensing fee; maintain a bond; enter into written agreements for their services with those they represent; report the fees charged and collected to the Labor Commissioner; and pay those they represent within thirty days of work. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement maintains a database of all Talent Agents and Agencies. HOLLYWOOD PAWS is not and never has been registered as a Talent Agency with the State of California. Furthermore, neither LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, PETS ON CAMERA, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, BARBIZON, KLEINMAN, BOWERS nor VALLEJO are licensed Talent Agents. PETS ON CAMERA, HOLLYWOOD PAWS and BARBIZON never gave the Plaintiffs a contact that complied with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement requirements for Talent Agent contracts.
62. Air Buddies (2006). KLEINMAN told all HOLLYWOOD PAWS enrollees, and each Plaintiff that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was “the agent” for the animal actors on Air Buddies (2006). KLEINMAN made these representations in writing, by e-mail, in 2006. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the producer that made Air Buddies (2006) did not limit his search for animal talent to one agency. In actuality, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that AG and may have provided services for this movie, but that those services were billed through and paid to either AG’S Animals or KS’ Animals. HOLLYWOOD PAWS earned no Talent Agency commission for placing any animal actor on Air Buddies (2006).
63. Jackass Number Two (2006). KLEINMAN told all HOLLYWOOD PAWS enrollees, and each Plaintiff that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was “the agent” for animal actors on Jackass Number Two (2006). KLEINMAN made these representations in writing, by e-mail, in 2006. The producer that made Jackass Number Two (2006) did not limit his search for animal talent to one agency. HOLLYWOOD PAWS earned no Talent Agency commission for placing any animal actor on Jackass Number Two (2006).
64. Scout/Air Bud (1997). From the inception of its websites until at least March 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites specifically claimed that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was the Animal Talent Agent for Scout, the Golden Retriever who appeared in Air Bud. However, Air Bud was released in 1997; and HOLLYWOOD PAWS was not formed until 2005. PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON and HOLLYWOOD PAWS earned no Talent Agency commission for placing any animal actor on Air Bud (1997).
65. HOLLYWOOD PAWS told Plaintiffs that it had “talent scouts” who were prepared to help cast their animals as soon as their animals completed training.
66. Representatives of BARBIZON and PETS ON CAMERA told the Plaintiffs who had signed up for services in 2004 that BARBIZON and PETS ON CAMERA worked with 42 agencies throughout the United States to place animals in acting jobs.
67. LARRY LIONETTI assured Plaintiffs in Northern California that there were many acting opportunities for their animals in the Bay area. However, when the Plaintiffs contacted LARRY LIONETTI in 2006 about acting opportunities, he told the owners that “Unlike Brittany Spears mother who just sits back as a manager it is very different for a dog owner” and that dog owners would need to travel to Los Angeles for “look-sees.”
68. HOLLYWOOD PAWS has listed numerous canine and feline actors on its website. The website makes it appear that those actors have appeared in television and movies as a result of HOLLYWOOD PAWS training, or through HOLLYWOOD PAWS as an agency. That representation is false. With the exception of one canine actor that worked in one movie; and two canine actors that worked in a different movie, as of September 11, 2006, no animal with HOLLYWOOD PAWS has accumulated acting credits since being affiliated with HOLLYWOOD PAWS. In fact, the acting credits were accumulated before the actors came to HOLLYWOOD PAWS and the visual representations are being made without the consent of the ownership of copyright of the images.
MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT ANIMALS AND THEIR OWNERS NEEDED HOLLYWOOD PAWS TRAINING TO WORK AS ANIMAL ACTORS AND ANIMAL TRAINERS
69. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, VALLEJO, KLEINMAN, HOLLYWOOD PAWS and PETS ON CAMERA represented to both the general public on its website www.hollywoodpaws.com and www.celebritydogs.net and to the Plaintiffs that “working in the industry is virtually impossible” without completing the courses offered by HOLLYWOOD PAWS. These representations were made both orally and in writing. These representations were made beginning on or about August 2004 and up to and including July 2006.
70. PETS ON CAMERA and HOLLYWOOD PAWS offered various levels of classes. The most basic Class/Level was called “Introduction to the Foundation of Animal Acting” and was referred to as an A Class/Level. The intermediate PETS ON CAMERA and HOLLYWOOD PAWS Class/Level was called “Professional Animal – Acting Workshops” and was referred to as a B Class/Level. The advanced PETS ON CAMERA and HOLLYWOOD PAWS Class/Level was called “Advanced Professional Animal – Acting & Trainer Workshops” and was referred to as a C Class/Level.
71. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, VALLEJO, KLEINMAN, BOWERS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS and PETS ON CAMERA promised the general public as a whole and to the Plaintiffs, that PETS ON CAMERA and HOLLYWOOD PAWS provided vocational training for an individual owner, separate and apart from what their pet did, to become a “Professional Dog and Cat Trainer”. The training course materials promised that the Plaintiffs would be trained in: Basic Care and Husbandry for Dogs & Cats; Veterinary Care; Grooming and Animal Makeup for the Film Industry; training Therapy Pets; the Boarding Business; the Business of Pets; training Performing Pets; Pet Sitting and Dog Day Care; and Nutrition.
72. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised, as part of its services, that it would give graduates of its B Class/Level classes 100 photo cards upon completion of the B Class/Level. Owners use those photo cars in the same way that human actors use “headshots.” However, HOLLYWOOD PAWS did not give many people photo cards for its graduates. In some cases, the animals never received a professional photo shoot. In other cases, the animals had photos taken but were given the photos on CD-ROM. Many, or all photos, on discs were in unusable formats. Some individuals were given photo cards, but those photo cards have the HOLLYWOOD PAWS logo prominently on the front. These are not the equivalent of headshots that the Plaintiffs were promised.
PURPORTED VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
73. HOLLYWOOD PAWS sold at least four individuals an alleged “Vocational Program” which HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented would enable the students to become training professionals, qualified to train other individuals to give classes and to work on movie and television sets. HOLLYWOOD PAWS, however, was not certified as a Vocational Program with California’s Board of Education. In actuality, students signing up for this program were given the A Class/Level, B Class/Level and C Class/Level classes, and it was called a “Professional Studies Program”. The program was to be seven months long, including several seminars. The purported vocational students were charged $10,000 for the training.
74. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS is not a vocational institute as defined by Federal statutes, California statutes, or the California Department of Consumer Affairs. As such, HOLLYWOOD PAWS cannot offer vocational education. Its students cannot obtain educational assistance from the federal government or the State of California. A “diploma” or “certification” means nothing.
75. HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, KLEINMAN and VALLEJO promised “vocational students” that upon completion of HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ “vocational education”, the students would be eligible to join IBT Local No. 399. This representation was false.
REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT AFFILIATIONS WITH ORGANIZATIONS AMERICAN HUMANE™ ASSOCIATION
76. The American Humane ™ Association was founded in 1877 as an animal rescue organization. It alone has the authority to authorize films and sets to use the phrase No Animals Were Harmed® in its credits. As late as March 14, 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented itself on its websites as being a member of the American Humane™ Association and used the American Humane™ Association logo on its website. This representation was, in fact, false. HOLLYWOOD PAWS was never a member of the American Humane™ Association. HOLLYWOOD PAWS was never authorized to use its logo on its website. AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB®
77. Plaintiffs that signed up for training with PETS ON CAMERA in 2004 were told the PETS ON CAMERA was authorized to give training in the American Kennel Club®’s Canine Good Cizizen® (CGC) program. Plaintiffs were told by LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI that PETS ON CAMERA was authorized to administer the AKC’S CGC test. PETS ON CAMERA is and was not affiliated with the American Kennel Club® and it is and was not authorized to administer the test.
INTERNATIONAL PERFORMING ARTS ACADEMY (IPAA)
78. International Performing Arts Academy (IPAA) is a Los Angeles county based non-profit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1999 by a music producer. IPAA provides musical education and training to underprivileged children. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that the true “International Performing Arts Academy” and “PETS ON CAMERA a Division of International Performing Arts Academy (IPAA)” are in no way affiliated or connected with each other. LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS
79. HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented to the public as a whole that is was part of “Los Angeles Center Studios”, which HOLLYWOOD PAWS has represented as a viable, ongoing studio. In or around July 2006, LARRY LIONETTI told Plaintiffs that Los Angeles Center Studios could and did decide who could and could not attend HOLLYWOOD PAWS training classes. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Los Angeles Center Studios, LLC, is actually a property management company that owns and leases studio space to various entities. HOLLYWOOD PAWS leases or subleases space from Los Angeles Center Studios. MOORPARK COLLEGE
80. Until September 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ listing of GLW made it appear that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was affiliated with Moorpark College. HOLLYWOOD PAWS is not affiliated with Moorpark College.
81. LARRY LIONETTI and HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented to certain Plaintiffs that upon completion of HOLLYWOOD PAWS training, they would receive college credit from Moorpark College.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS (IBT) LOCAL NO. 399
82. Most television and movie sets in the State of California employee unionized workers. In order for animals to work on these sets, the animals and their trainers must be members of IBT Local No. 399.
83. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI and HOLLYWOOD PAWS posted on the HOLLYWOOD PAWS website and represented to the public and to the Plaintiffs that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”) Local No. 399. HOLLYWOOD PAWS posted the IBT Local No. 399 trademark on its website. On or around March 2, 2006, IBT Local No. 399 told LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI and HOLLYWOOD PAWS that the use of the logo was a false representation to the public that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was a member of IBT Local No. 399.
84. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, KLEINMAN, BOWERS, VALLEJO and HOLLYWOOD PAWS and its employees are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement with IBT Local No. 399.
85. On or around March 2, 2006, IBT Local No. 399 told LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI and HOLLYWOOD PAWS that its unauthorized use of the IBT Local No. 399 logo implied that persons taking classes at HOLLYWOOD PAWS would be guaranteed entry into the entertainment and commercial industries where dog handlers and trainers are represented by IBT Local No. 399.
86. After IBT Local No. 399 demanded HOLLYWOOD PAWS cease use of its logo on their website, HOLLYWOOD PAWS stopped using the logo on www.hollywoodpaws.com. However, it continued to use the logo on www.celebritydog.net until August or September 2006.
87. Because of HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ misuse of IBT Local No. 399 logo, any student has taken courses with HOLLYWOOD PAWS and is then employed on a unionized show or commercial, the production company who hires the unfortunate HOLLYWOOD PAWS student could be subject to a grievance filed by actual members of IBT Local No. 399.
88. HOLLYWOOD PAWS used the image of KS, a member of IBT Local No. 399, along with the animals she trained. On or about March 2006, IBT Local No. 399 told LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI and HOLLYWOOD PAWS to stop using KS’ images in its advertising and promotional materials. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI and HOLLYWOOD PAWS continued to use KS’ image and credits without her consent, and against the demand of her union, up to and including October 2006.
89. HOLLYWOOD PAWS used the image of PT, a member of IBT Local No. 399, along with the animals he trained. On or about March 2006, IBT Local No. 399 told LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI and HOLLYWOOD PAWS to stop using PT’s images in its advertising and promotional materials. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI and HOLLYWOOD PAWS continued to use PT’s image and credits without his consent, and against the demand of his union, up to and including September 2006.
THERAPY DOGS INTERNATIONAL©, INC.
90. Therapy Dogs International©, Inc. is a volunteer organization dedicated to regulating, testing and registration of therapy dogs and their volunteer handlers for the purpose of visiting nursing homes, hospitals, other institutions and wherever else therapy dogs are needed. Therapy Dogs International©, Inc. was founded in 1975 and is a non-profit organization supported through annual membership dues. On July 26, 2006, KLEINMAN told Plaintiffs that dogs were eligible to obtain a Therapy Dog Certificate as part of B Class/Level Training. HOLLYWOOD PAWS is not authorized, licensed or otherwise allowed to train dogs as Therapy Dogs by Therapy Dogs International©, Inc., nor is it authorized to certify dogs as Therapy Dogs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
91. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires that any company representing animals that appear in public be licensed as an exhibitor. HOLLYWOOD PAWS has represented that animals it trained would be USDA licensed. However, HOLLYWOOD PAWS does not have a USDA exhibitor license, and the USDA does not issue licenses to individual animals.
GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS/BREACH OF CONTRACT
92. Plaintiffs’ contracts are in Exhibit “B” of this Complaint. The written contracts do not contain an integration clause. The contracts, therefore, are and were subject to oral and written representations and terms negotiated before signatures on the contract; and oral and written modifications written after execution of the contract.
93. Most of the Plaintiffs involved in this litigation enrolled their pets for training at the Los Angeles Center Studios. Beginning in the fall or winter of 2005 and continuing through August of 2006, the qualified trainers with actual screen credits described herein left HOLLYWOOD PAWS. Defendants cancelled class after class. Sometimes the reason given for cancellation was because the training location did not have basic utility services, such as electricity. Sometimes the reason given for cancellation was that there was no access to the training facility. Yet at other times, the reason given for cancellation was that there were not qualified trainers. Classes were sometimes rescheduled, but at times that enrollees could not attend. Other times, different levels of classes were combined, which resulted in pets enrolled in C Class/Level Training in the same classes as A Class/Level and B Class/Level pets.
94. The HOLLYWOOD PAWS “Participation Agreement” has the following cancellation policy: “CANCELLATION AND REFUND POLICIES. All cancellations must be made in person with the return of all Hollywood Paws material at the Hollywood Paws office within three (3) business days of the signature on this contract. Provided the participant has not attended orientation or classes and the cancellation is completed on time, the participant shall be refunded all monies paid. If termination occurs more than 3 days after the agreement is signed and up until the date that the workshop in which the participant has enrolled is scheduled to start, the participant shall be refunded all monies paid to “Hollywood Paws” except the registration fee equivalent to 10% of the program fee. If cancellation occurs more than 3 days after the agreement is signed and the student has begun classes, “Hollywood Paws” shall retain the registration fee equivalent to 10% of the program fee and an additional percentage of the “workshop” fee.
95. HOLLYWOOD PAWS has a purported refund policy that states that once students reach the halfway point of total scheduled classes, there is no refund. In several instances, because qualified trainers had left and classes were repeatedly cancelled, Plaintiffs decided not to continue taking classes from HOLLYWOOD PAWS. Plaintiffs requested refunds, but their requests for refunds were intentionally delayed until past the halfway point of classes. Thereafter, HOLLYWOOD PAWS refused to pay refunds.
96. Several Plaintiff animal owners put the training classes on credit cards. Those owners asked that HOLLYWOOD PAWS refund their payments, but HOLLYWOOD PAWS refused to do so. Thereafter, those individuals contacted their credit card companies to assist in the payment dispute. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS refused to refund payments through the credit card companies, causing those individuals to incur interest charges.
97. At least one animal owner arranged to have monthly payments for the classes taken from her credit account. The owner stopped taking her dog to training classes, but HOLLYWOOD continued to debit her account on a monthly basis even after being instructed to stop.
98. In at least one instance, HOLLYWOOD PAWS continued to charge a Plaintiff for services, even though the Plaintiff and paid for, and completed, all training received.
99. The HOLLYWOOD PAWS “Participation Agreement” has the following PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE provision: “Upon satisfactory completion of the “workshops,” “Hollywood Paws” will provide the “animal” with an introduction and composite cards (for participants in Levels B, C). All participants will have their animal’s picture on the “Hollywood Paws” website. Each signatory and “animal” will be given a certificate of completion. Each signatory recognizes that “Hollywood Paws” does not guarantee, promise or provide work upon completion of the workshops.
100. HOLLYWOOD PAWS, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LENA LIONETTI, LARRY LIONETTI and VALLEJO promised that PETS ON CAMERA, and then HOLLYWOOD PAWS would try to find acting work for Plaintiffs’ pets, and Plaintiffs themselves.
101. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised each and every Plaintiff named herein that there would be no more than three dogs per C Class/Level training class.
102. HOLLYWOOD PAWS; HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC; BARBIZON; PETS ON CAMERA; LARRY LIONETTI; LENA LIONETTI; LENA MARIE LIONETTI; BOWERS, KLEINMAN and VALLEJO represented to the Plaintiffs that enrolled their animals for training that their animals could and would be used in television and movie productions immediately, without additional training. Beginning in or about late 2005, HOLLYWOOD PAWS adopted a policy of requiring all HOLLYWOOD PAWS animals to have completed the expensive C Class/Level training to be “recommended for dogs” or to be listed on the HOLLYWOOD PAWS website so that the animals could be considered for television and movie productions.
REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT QUALIFICATIONS OF TRAINERS
103. Although he was listed on the website as an Animal Trainer, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LARRY LIONETTI has no animal training experience whatsoever.
104. HOLLYWOOD PAWS and KLEINMAN held KLEINMAN out and represented herself as an individual experienced in both the film and television industries, capable of training owners and their pets to work on sets as actors. KLEINMAN is an Animal Trainer whose credits HOLLYWOOD PAWS lists as an animal trainer on the 2000 Charlie’s Angels and the 2004 Garfield movies. However, she is not one of the three credited animal trainers on either movie. HOLLYWOOD PAWS also lists her as an animal trainer on Daddy Day Care, Princess Diaries II, and Terminator III, although she is not given credit on any of these movies. KLEINMAN’S one actual movie credit is MGM Pictures 2003’s Legally Blonde II.
105. HOLLYWOOD PAWS and BOWERS held BOWERS out and represented herself as an individual experienced in both the film and television industries, capable of training owners and their pets to work on sets as actors. BOWERS, in fact, has one movie credit as an animal trainer, Mr. Destiny (1990). ALLEGATIONS OF PARTICULAR PLAINTIFFSLORELLE POUNCEY AND MILO
106. LORELLE POUNCEY owns Milo. On October 1, 2005, MS. POUNCEY contracted with Defendant HOLLYWOOD PAWS, for twenty weeks training for her Basenji dog, Milo. The contract called for two ten-week classes, a “B” Class/Level and a “C” Class/Level. MS. POUNCEY prepaid HOLLYWOOD PAWS, $3695 for both classes.
107. A true and correct copy of MS. POUNCEY’S Contract of October 1, 2005, with personal account information redacted, is attached hereto in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference. True and correct copies of all of the copies of contracts available to Plaintiffs at the time of filing of this First Amended Complaint are attached in Exhibit “B”.
108. Prior to signing up with HOLLYWOOD PAWS, MS. POUNCEY and Milo had undergone training and certification so Milo could work as a Therapy Dog with Skeeter Rx Team. MS. POUNCEY and Milo currently volunteer at Pacific Coast Hospice. MS. POUNCEY is also certified by the Humane Society of the United States, through its Disaster Animal Response Training (D.A.R.T.) program, to train communities to set up emergency animal facilities needed as a result of various disasters.
109. MS. POUNCEY and Milo sought additional training from HOLLYWOOD PAWS so that they would be better volunteers, not because MS. POUNCEY wanted Milo to work for compensation.
110. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. POUNCEY that there would be no more than three dogs per class.
111. MS. POUNCEY and Milo started the B Class/Level training on October 1, 2005. However, even though the classes were to be weekly, MS. POUNCEY and Milo did not finish the B Class/Level until March 4, 2006, because the B Class/Level was not offered as scheduled.
112. MS. POUNCEY and Milo started a C Class/Level, but the C Class/Level had more than three dogs. One of the dogs in the class was extremely aggressive and vicious. Therefore, MS. POUNCEY asked to be moved to a different class. KLEINMAN agreed to move MS. POUNCEY and Milo to a class whose instructor was MK.
113. On April 29, 2006, MS. POUNCEY learned that the C Class/Level Instructor she had signed up with, MK, had resigned from HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
114. MS. POUNCEY and Milo were assigned to a new trainer, KIM KLEINMAN. On April 29, 2006, during the training session, KLEINMAN choked Milo, using his chain. MS. POUNCEY immediately stopped KLEINMAN. KLEINMAN told MS. POUNCEY that all animals in the television and movie industry were handled by choking. MS. POUNCEY told KLEINMAN that Milo was a therapy dog that needed to be able to trust his handlers.
115. On April 29, 2006, after attending a session that was supposed to be a C Class/Level MS. POUNCEY and Milo attended, KLEINMAN admitted that she was not qualified to instruct a C Class/Level.
116. On May 6, 2006, MS. POUNCEY and Milo went to a different Class/Level at HOLLYWOOD PAWS. The animals were at various levels of experience, and the trainer, SB, was not qualified to instruct at any level beyond A Class/Level.
117. MS. POUNCEY went to a session on May 13, 2006, with BOWERS introduced herself as the Educational Director of HOLLYWOOD PAWS. BOWERS tried to convince MS. POUNCEY that she and Milo needed to repeat the B Class/Level that they had completed on March 4, 2006. BOWERS then admitted that HOLLYWOOD PAWS did not have a trainer qualified to instruct a C Class/Level. BOWERS promised to contact MS. POUNCEY when HOLLYWOOD PAWS did have an instructor qualified to instruct C Class/Level classes.
118. On May 17, 2006, in an e-mail, LARRY LIONETTI told MS. POUNCEY that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was located at “Los Angeles Center Studios”, and “Active Studio”. LARRY LIONETTI told MS. POUNCEY that that Los Angeles Center Studios had control over who attended HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
119. LARRY LIONETTI told MS. POUNCEY “At this time we are discontinuing services to you.” MS. POUNCEY requested a refund for the C Class/Level. LIONETTI sent her an e-mail telling her she had behaved inappropriately. LIONETTI informed MS. POUNCEY that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was “discontinuing services” because she had been “disruptive”.
120. On April 29, 2006, KLEINMAN promised MS. POUNCEY a complete refund of the money for the C Class/Level. MS. POUNCEY is informed and believes that KLEINMAN told MK that HOLLYWOOD PAWS would fully refund MS. POUNCEY’S fee for the C Class/Level.
121. When HOLLYWOOD PAWS refused to refund the money for the C Class/Level classes, MS. POUNCEY asked her credit card company to assist her in obtaining a refund. As of the date of filing of the Complaint, LARRY LIONETTI, KLEINMAN and HOLLYWOOD PAWS refused to refund MS. POUNCEY’S money.
122. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised that B Class/Level training included “work your way toward Therapy Certification.” However, nothing taught in the B Class/Level training was related to, or in furtherance of Therapy Dog Training.
123. As part of the B Class/Level, HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised Ms. POUNCEY that Milo would be professionally photographed; and that she would receive 100 photo cards. MS. POUNCEY has never received Milo’s photo cards.
124. On July 12, 2006, LARRY LIONETTI told MS. POUNCEY that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had provided animal actors for a national Toyota advertising campaign; for the television program Beauty and the Geek, Jackass Number Two, and Air Buddies. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, however, that the company that actually provided animal actors for these jobs was either AG’S Animals or KS’ Animals. LARRY LIONETTI also referenced a Television Guide Channel Special, but this was a program advertising HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
125. On July 12, 2006, LARRY LIONETTI sent MS. POUNCEY a threatening letter demanding that she stop contacting anyone of her fellow students and referring her to his attorney. MS. POUNCEY reasonably inferred from LARRY LIONETTI’S correspondence that he intended to chill her right to free speech by instituting a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) against her, to stop her from complaining that she had been defrauded by Defendants and to intimidate her into giving up on obtaining a refund for the C Class/Level training.
126. In or around July 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS used Milo’s image, without MS. POUNCEY’S permission, in an advertisement that appeared on www.craigslist.com that linked an advertisement in www.myspace.com\hollywoodpaws. MS. POUNCEY was not compensated for the use of Milo’s image. RACHEL ARMSTRONG AND GOLIATH
127. RACHEL ARMSTRONG owns Goliath, a Rottweiler. On July 2, 2005, MS. ARMSTRONG entered into a contract with HOLLYWOOD PAWS for training for Goliath. MS. ARMSTRONG, concerned about costs, registered Goliath for A Class/Level and B Class/Level. Goliath completed these classes. Plaintiffs do not have a copy of MS. ARMSTRONG’S contract, but are informed and believe that the contract is on the same form of the other Plaintiffs’ contracts in Exhibit “B”.
128. On January 20, 2006, MS. ARMSTRONG was told that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had obtained an acting job for Goliath. The assignment was for The Tyra Banks Show. On Sunday, January 22, 2006, MS. ARMSTRONG took Goliath for crash training on certain behaviors that she was told Goliath would need. At the January 22, 2006, training LENA MARIE LIONETTI told MS. ARMSTRONG to be sure to take a digital camera so that MS. ARMSTRONG could obtain a photo of Goliath with Tyra Banks.
129. On January 24, 2006, MS. ARMSTRONG took Goliath to The Tyra Banks Show for rehearsal. On January 26, 2006, The Tyra Banks Show was taped.
130. On January 27, 2006, MS. ARMSTRONG called HOLLYWOOD PAWS about payment for her services. After contacting them several times, LENA MARIE LIONETTI told her that she would be paid $200. MS. ARMSTRONG was not given a written contract in advance. Although she drove a total of 900 miles in the three trips she made associated with the appearance, she was not reimbursed for mileage and travel time.
131. Thereafter, HOLLYWOOD PAWS demanded that she enter into a contract for C Class/Level training for Goliath. LENA LIONETTI told MS. ARMSTRONG that the reason was that MS. ARMSTRONG was being “unprofessional” because she took the photo of Goliath with Tyra Banks, as instructed by LENA MARIE LIONETTI. LARRY LIONETTI told her that because of the “Tyra Banks incident” that HOLLYWOOD PAWS would not list Goliath on its website unless MS. ARMSTRONG paid for additional training.
132. HOLLYWOOD PAWS never paid MS. ARMSTRONG for Goliath’s appearance on the Tyra Banks Show. Instead, it claimed that Goliath had damaged training equipment at HOLLYWOOD PAWS and that it was entitled to keep Goliath’s appearance fees.
133. MS. ASLETT owns Delta. In 2005, MS. ASLETT entered into a contract for training for A Class/Level, B Class/Level and C Class/Level training for Delta with HOLLYWOOD PAWS. At the time MS. ASLETT signed up for the classes, she was told that for a year after Delta completed his training, they could return to HOLLYWOOD PAWS for refresher training. Plaintiffs do not have a copy of MS. ASLETT’S contract, but are informed and believe that the contract is on the same form of the other Plaintiffs’ contracts in Exhibit “B”.
134. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. ASLETT that when Delta completed the B Class/Level training, Delta would be a Certified Therapy Dog. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS is not authorized to train dogs as Therapy Dogs, nor is it authorized to issue certificates certifying dogs as Therapy Dogs.
135. MS. ASLETT and Delta completed A Class/Level and B Class/Level training. MS. ASLETT and Delta then took a leave of absence.
136. On or about May 2006, MS. ASLETT contacted HOLLYWOOD PAWS to arrange for Delta to take the C Class/Level classes she had already paid for.
137. In June 2006, KLEINMAN told MS. ASLETT that she was trying to start a C Class/Level class by July 1, 2006. At the time MS. ASLETT spoke with KLEINMAN, HOLLYWOOD PAWS did not have any trainers on staff qualified to teach C Class/Level.
138. Several days after MS. ASLETT spoke with KLEINMAN, BOWERS called and claimed that HOLLYWOOD PAWS needed to “evaluate” Delta, even though Delta had completed his B Class/Level training at HOLLYWOOD PAWS. BOWERS told MS. ASLETT that she would evaluate Delta as a “favor”.
139. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that from June to August 2006, there were no C Class/Level sessions available for MS. ASLETT and Delta to attend.
140. BOWERS then told MS. ASLETT that she and Delta could not take the C Class/Level training because they had not completed the training within a year of signing the contract for training.
KYREN BECKER AND DOLLAR
141. MS. BECKER owns Dollar, a nine-year-old terrier mix. On July 28, 2005, MS. BECKER entered into a contract with HOLLYWOOD PAWS to provide classes for Dollar. The total cost of classes was $1,995. A true and correct copy of MS. BECKER’S contract is in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.
142. Because of HOLLYWOOD PAWS scheduling issues, MS. BECKER was never able to complete training with Dollar.
143. Although VALLEJO and HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised that Dollar would be professionally photographed as part of their services, Dollar was not photographed by HOLLYWOOD PAWS. MS. BECKER was not given the composite cards HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised her.
CHRISTINE BOYD AND RUSTY
144. MS. BOYD owns Rusty, a pit bull. MS. BOYD met VALLEJO in April 2005 at a charity event called “Nutts for Mutts”, where HOLLYWOOD PAWS had a booth.
145. At that event, VALLEJO told MS. BOYD that the animals in There’s Something About Mary and The Good Son were HOLLYWOOD PAWS animals. VALLEJO told MS. BOYD that all of the trainers at HOLLYWOOD PAWS were top studio animal trainers with set experience.
146. Several weeks later, MS. BOYD auditioned Rusty, and Rusty “passed” the audition. HOLLYWOOD PAWS then sold her B Class/Level and C Class/Level training for Rusty. MS. Boyd put payment for the classes on her credit card. Plaintiffs do not have a copy of MS. BOYD’S contract, but are informed and believe that the contract is on the same form of the other Plaintiffs’ contracts in Exhibit “B”.
147. As part of the B Class/Level package, Rusty was professional photographed in June 2005. However, the information on the Rusty’s headshot cards was incorrect.
148. As part of the package, VALLEJO promised that Rusty would act in a mock television commercial. MS. BOYD was supposed to receive a DVD of Rusty’s performance. However, RUSTY never acted in a Mock T.V. Commercial.
149. HOLLYWOOD PAWS and VALLEJO promised MS. BOYD that Rusty would receive a certificate of completion for completing the B Class/Level.
150. After Rusty completed the B Class/Level, trainers at HOLLYWOOD PAWS started to leave. KS and PT left. A non-professional animal trainer, Ch., also left in March 2006. Every few weeks, HOLLYWOOD PAWS reformatted the C Class/Level training. Classes were cancelled repeatedly.
151. As part of the C Class/Level Training, VALLEJO and HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised that Rusty was to receive additional photographs. Rusty was photographed, but MS. BOYD only received a CD-ROM. If photos were actually on the CD-ROM MS. BOYD was never able to access them.
152. In January 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS told MS. BOYD that it had obtained movie work for Rusty. However, MS. BOYD and Rusty never heard anything else about this purported job.
153. In February 2006 and March 2006, KLEINMAN told MS. BOYD that there were possible casting calls for Rusty. MS. BOYD never heard any further information abut this. It turned out that the casting call was allegedly for an automobile ad. MS. BOYD later learned that although the casting call was an “open” call, where the advertiser was looking for a variety of kinds of dogs, she and Rusty were never notified of the casting call or given an opportunity to audition.
154. After numerous cancellations of classes that made it impossible for MS. BOYD and Rusty to continue with C Class/Level Training, on April 7, 2006, MS. BOYD requested a full refund of her money from HOLLYWOOD PAWS. HOLLYWOOD PAWS never responded to the request.
JOYCE BUSTRAM AND LOLA
155. MS. BUSTRAM owns Lola. MS. BUSTRAM called HOLLYWOOD PAWS after seeing an ad that it was looking for animals to train for work in movies, sitcoms and print ads.
156. Shortly thereafter, MS. BUSTRAM and Lola went to HOLLYWOOD PAWS and met with VALLEJO. VALLEJO immediately assured MS. BUSTRAM that Lola was beautiful and talented, but that Lola needed to be enrolled immediately because there were only a few training spots open. Also, as VALLEJO reminded MS. BUSTRAM, sitcoms would be casing in the spring. VALLEJO’S representations made MS. BUSTRAM believe that Lola would be auditioned for work on sitcoms.
157. VALLEJO told MS. BUSTRAM that Lola did need to complete HOLLYWOOD PAWS training – A Level/Class, B Level/Class and C Level/Class. VALLEJO convinced MS. BUSTRAM to sign up for $3,695 in classes altogether. A true and correct copy of MS. BUSTRAM’S contract is in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.
158. MS. BUSTRAM and Lola successfully completed A Level/Class and B Level/Class training. MS. BUSTRAM and Lola began C Level/Class, but classes were frequently cancelled. MK had been an instructor, but stopped working for HOLLYWOOD PAWS. HOLLYWOOD PAWS then bought in a man whose name MS. BUSTRAM does not remember to conduct the training, but never provided MS. BUSTRAM with the individuals qualifications to conduct the training.
159. After numerous cancellations by HOLLYWOOD PAWS, MS. BUSTRAM decided not to continue with training at HOLLYWOOD PAWS. She wrote to LARRY LIONETTI and asked for a refund. However, LARRY LIONETTI and HOLLYWOOD PAWS provided only a partial refund.
STEPHANIE DAVIS AND ROMEO
160. STEPHANIE DAVIS owned Romeo, a four-year old Briard. In March 2005, MS. DAVIS responded to an ad for HOLLYWOOD PAWS in the Los Angeles Times, looking for dogs to train to be in commercials and movies.
161. MS. DAVIS met with a female representative at HOLLYWOOD PAWS Los Angeles Studio location, who purportedly evaluated Romeo. MS. DAVIS does not remember the name of the individual she met with, but MS. DAVIS believes that her name will appear on the contract that she signed with HOLLYWOOD PAWS. The female HOLLYWOOD PAWS representative found Romeo to be a “perfect candidate” for training for movies and commercials. HOLLYWOOD PAWS also told MS. DAVIS would make a great back-up for a Briard named Steve that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had already trained.
162. At the March 2005 meeting, HOLLYWOOD PAWS convinced MS. DAVIS to sign Romeo up for all three class levels available at a total cost of $3,995. Plaintiffs do not have a copy of MS. DAVIS’ contract, but are informed and believe that the contract is on the same form of the other Plaintiffs’ contracts in Exhibit “B”.
163. HOLLYWOOD PAWS assured MS. DAVIS that she and Romeo would make this money up, plus earn more, once training was finished.
164. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. DAVIS that Romeo would be professionally photographed as part of the package. ROMEO’S photograph was taken, but HOLLYWOOD PAWS never provided the photographs to MS. DAVIS in any form.
165. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. DAVIS that when Romeo was cast as an actor, she could accompany him on set and that she would earn credits toward a Screen Actors Guild (SAG) card. This representation was false. Humans, not animals, are entitled to become members of the Screen Actors Guild.
166. Halfway through Romeo’s training, MS. DAVIS had to give Romeo away. However, HOLLYWOOD PAWS assured MS. DAVIS that if she got a new dog, she could come back with the puppy for training at no additional cost, under the same agreement that Romeo had trained under. MS. DAVIS did return with her puppy, but found that the trainers she and Romeo had worked with were gone; class schedules were chaotic; many owners and their dogs had dropped out of training; and that no one in any of the classes had been cast in any acting jobs. FAY GAUTHIER AND BRIZO
167. FAY GAUTHIER, an individual, is and was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. MS. GAUTHIER owns a yellow Labrador Retriever dog, BRIZO.
168. On or about June 21, 2005, MS. GAUTHIER and BRIZO auditioned at HOLLYWOOD PAWS. The representative of HOLLYWOOD PAWS MS. GAUTHIER met with is CC. CC told MS. GAUTHIER that HOLLYWOOD PAWS animals had been used on The Sopranos and Indecent Proposal. As described above,
169. CC and HOLLYWOOD PAWS interviewed MS. GAUTHIER to determine how dedicated and flexible she would be as an owner/trainer, telling her that she would need to have a flexible work schedule so that she could be on television and film sets with Brizo all day on sets.
170. CC and HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. GAUTHIER that Brizo would be displayed on its website.
171. CC and HOLLYWOOD PAWS sold MS. GAUTHIER the A Level/Class, B Level/Class and C/Level Class for BRIZO. The total cost of the training was $5,995.00. MS. GAUTHIER made a $500 down payment on September 21, 2005. She agreed to pay $495 on October 1, 2005. Thereafter, $500 a month was to be billed to her credit card until the amount was paid in full. MS. GAUTHIER’S contract is attached in Exhibit “B”.
172. A portion of the charges were incurred by HOLLYWOOD PAWS. However, the most recent charges were made by BARBIZON, using the name Barbizon Modeling on the charge slip.
173. On June 21, 2005, CC and HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. GAUTHIER that professional photographs would be taken of Brizo, and that she would receive photo cards of Brizo. Brizo was photographed, but MS. GAUTHIER was never given photo cards. Instead, she was given a CD-ROM with photos of Brizo. MS. GAUTHIER is unable to access a great deal of these electronic photos. MS. GAUTHIER complained but was told that the only person at HOLLYWOOD PAWS who could fix the problem was in Eastern Europe and could not help her.
174. MS. GAUTHIER and Brizo successfully completed the A Level/Class. However, during the B Level/Class, trainers started to leave HOLLYWOOD PAWS. KLEINMAN, a salesperson, taught MS. GAUTHIER and Brizo the last four B Level/Class.
175. After completing the A Level/Class and B Level/Class, KLEINMAN told MS. GAUTHIER that Brizo had been submitted for a MasterCard job requiring Brizo to pay tug-of-war. However, nothing came of this.
176. As of September 2006, MS. GAUTHIER and Brizo had not started C Level/Class training. Furthermore, Brizo has not worked as an animal actor. MARY LOU HENSLEY AND ANDY
177. MARY LOU HENSLEY owns Andy, a dog. Sometime in 2004, MS. HENSLEY signed Andy up for training with BARBIZON. The cost of Andy’s training with BARBIZON was more than $1,700. Plaintiffs do not have a copy of MS HENSLEY’S contract, but are informed and believe that the contract is on the same form of the other Plaintiffs’ contracts in Exhibit “B”.
178. During the audition process, BD promised that BARBIZON and PETS ON CAMERA would audition and carefully select only animals and owners that had the talent, skill and potential to act for training with BARBIZON and PETS ON CAMERA. However, MS. HENSLEY and Andy attended classes with a dog whose sole capability was spinning on its hind legs. The dog could not be trained. The dog’s owner was loud, overbearing and monopolized class time. During one class session, a different dog attacked Andy. That dog was still given a certificate of completion and apparently listed as a qualified actor, despite the fact that the dog did not meet the standards of professionalism that BARBIZON and PETS ON CAMERA claimed was required of its graduates.
179. In one of the first classes MS. HENSLEY took, she was interviewed about Andy’s talents. MS. HENSLEY was promised that BARBIZON was writing a pet profile describing Andy and his talents. MS. HENSLEY was never provided with a copy of Andy’s profile and does not know what happened to it. MS. HENSLEY does not know who the person writing the profile was, except that it was a man.
180. MS. HENSLEY was promised that Andy’s picture, profile and talents would be submitted to forty different agencies and people “in the industry” for the acting job. MS. HENSLEY requested the names of those agencies and people, but was never provided those names.
181. BARBIZON assured MS. HENSLEY that it was attempting to set a “new standard” in the Animal Training industry. Among other things, BARBIZON told MS. HENSLEY that it was working with airlines to allow pets to travel inside the cabin of an airplane, rather than stowed in cargo while the animals and their owners traveled. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that neither BARBIZON, PETS ON CAMERA, or HOLLYWOOD PAWS has any connection with any airlines, or the Transportation Security Administration/
JUNE HILL AND SOPHIE
182. JUNE HILL owns Sophie, a dog. On June 25, 2005, VALLEJO approached MS. HILL and Sophie in a public place. VALLEJO told MS. HILL she was a representative of HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and suggested that MS. HILL audition Sophie.
183. On June 30, 2005, MS. HILL met with VALLEJO. VALLEJO told MS. HILL that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had trained the dogs used in There’s Something About Mary and Air Bud.
184. Based on those representations, MS. HILL agreed to buy training classes for Sophie. MS. HILL and her dog, Sophie, signed up for training with HOLLYWOOD PAWS on or about June 30, 2005. MS. HILL paid HOLLYWOOD PAWS $3,995 for A Class/Level and B Class/Level training. A true and correct copy of MS. HILL’S contract is in Exhibit “B”.
185. Thereafter, JUNE HILL began driving three hundred miles round trip for training classes at HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
186. Although VALLEJO assured MS. HILL that classes would be small sized, many of the training session MS. HILL and Sophie attended were large, crowded group classes. Those were similar to group sessions available at Petco®. However, Petco’s classes cost a fraction of HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ classes.
187. MS. HILL was especially interested in having MK, a highly qualified trainer, train Sophie. HOLLYWOOD PAWS and VALLEJO promised MS. HILL that MK would be Sophie’s trainer. However, MK stopped working at HOLLYWOOD PAWS several months after MS. HILL started.
188. VALLEJO and HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised her that her Sophie would be on the HOLLYWOOD PAWS roster of available canine actors. HOLLYWOOD PAWS delayed placing Sophie’s picture on its website for several months. Sophie was eventually listed on the website, but not in a gallery. In order for anyone looking for animal talent to find Sophie, they had to click through thirteen screens.
189. The only acting opportunities HOLLYWOOD PAWS offered to Sophie were unpaid opportunities to appear at marketing events for HOLLYWOOD PAWS itself, and to appear, unpaid, for an aspiring director creating a portfolio.
190. HOLLYWOOD PAWS once booked Sophie for a director who needed a dog to sit on a chair and bark. Sophie was not paid for this acting assignment. ERIC KURZ AND TUNDRA
191. ERIC KURZ owns Tundra, a dog. In 2004, MR. KURZ responded to an ad in the San Francisco Chronicle for auditions at the Cow Palace on August 15, 2004.
192. At the audition, MR. KURZ was given a press release written by AA that referenced “furry friends” receiving “up to six-figures” for acting in movies. MR. KURZ was given a copy of a People® Animals article called Baby, Take a Bowwow. The article was a profile for BD, and stated that BD was looking for dogs throughout the country to train for “TV, print and movie careers that can earn up to $1,500 a day.”
193. During the audition, MR. KURZ met with BD, LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI. BD, LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI convinced him to enroll Tundra in PETS ON CAMERA. The training MR. KURZ signed up for was around $4000. Plaintiffs do not have a copy of MR. KURZ’ contract, but are informed and believe that the contract is on the same form of the other Plaintiffs’ contracts in Exhibit “B”.
194. At the audition, BD, LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI initially promised MR. KURZ that training would be conducted in the Santa Cruz area, near their home. Several weeks after MR. KURZ signed the Contract, when training was to begin in September, he learned that all of the training would be in San Francisco, an hour and a half away from their home.
195. As part of the training, LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI promised that BD would instruct the courses. However, BD never instructed any of the courses that Tundra took.
196. The purported “training” Tundra received consisted mostly of “social sessions”. Tundra received to little, or no, training at all during the six months of training that he attended. He did not receive the training that PETS ON CAMERA promised was required to become an acting animal.
197. MR. KURZ and his wife took Tundra to the training on the weekends, which often required that they take time off from their jobs.
198. LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI arranged for Tundra to be put in a video, which they assured MR. KURZ would be put on the website. MR. KURZ purchased $1,300 in “props” for the movie. MR. KURZ has never seen the video.
199. At the recommendation of LENA LIONETTI and LARRY LIONETTI, MR. KURZ and his wife took several trips to Los Angeles to the Los Angeles Studios location. During one of those tips, a woman who worked for HOLLYWOOD PAWS assured MR. KURZ that HOLLYWOOD PAWS/PETS ON CAMERA had been the animal agent for Air Bud.
200. MR. KURZ was promised photographs of Tundra as part of the training. However, he never received any photographs. Tundra’s photograph was supposed to be put on the HOLLYWOOD PAWS website, but was not put on the website until 2006.
201. LENA LIONETTI arranged for a representative to film Tundra in early 2005. MR. KURZ was never compensated for this filming, and he never learned what happened to the footage.
202. LENA LIONETTI promised MR. KURZ that he and his wife would receive a list of contacts to follow up with for work. LENA LIONETTI also promised that Tundra would be given an agent, which never happened.
JON LACOURCIERE AND WALLACE
203. MR. LACOURCIERE owns Wallace. On August 28, 2005, MR. LACOURCIERE entered into a contract with HOLLYWOOD PAWS for training for Wallace. The total cost of the training was either $3,895 or $4,525 for A Class/Level and B Class/Level. MR. LACOURCIERE paid for the training on his credit card. MR. LACOURCIERE made a down payment of $495 and thereafter, was to make three equal payments on the 15th of each subsequent month until the contract amount was paid. A true and correct copy of MR. LACOURCIERE’S contract is in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.
204. CC and HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MR. LACOURCIERE that Wallace would work enough to recoup the cost of his training.
205. MR. LACOURCIERE and Wallace began training on August 31, 2005.
206. On September 15, 2005, MR. LACOURCIERE received his credit card statement. HOLLYWOOD PAWS had billed him twice for the down payment. HOLLYWOOD PAWS had also pre-billed the first monthly installment, which was not to have been made until September 15, 2005. Thereafter, HOLLYWOOD PAWS allegedly fixed the problem with billing the credit card, but did so verbally. MR. LACOURCIERE repeatedly requested information about his account balance with HOLLYWOOD PAWS, but was never given it. HOLLYWOOD PAWS claimed it did not have “access” to his account. MR. LACOURCIERE was unable to stop HOLLYWOOD PAWS from charging his credit card account. Eventually, MR. LACOURCIERE cancelled that particular credit card to stop HOLLYWOOD PAWS from making unauthorized charges.
207. Wallace was photographed by a professional photographer. However, HOLLYWOOD PAWS never provided the 100 prints as it was contractually obligated to do. RITA LIU AND POOPIE
208. RITA LIU owns Poopie. In 2005, MS. LIU paid HOLLYWOOD PAWS $4,590 in advance for A Class/Level and B Class/Level training her and her Lhasa Apso, Poopie. CC and HOLLYWOOD PAWS told MS. LIU that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was a member of “the Union”, and a member of the American Humane™ Association’s Film and Television Union.
209. MS. LIU and Poopie completed their A Class/Level with Instructor MN. MS. LIU and Poopie began completed their B Class/Level class on March 6, 2006. MS. LIU and Poopie’s B Class/Level classes were frequently cancelled in December 2005 and January 2006.
210. In 2006, MS. LIU then paid HOLLYWOOD PAWS $1,995 in advance for a C Class/Level. A true and correct copy of MS. LIU’S contract is in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.
211. On March 29, 2006, KLEINMAN guaranteed MS. LIU that MK was going to be MS. LIU’S and Poopie’s the instructor. KLEINMAN also told MS. LIU that she and Poopie would be in a class with 3 or 4 dogs, not five.
212. On April 8, 2006, MS. LIU contacted BOWERS at HOLLYWOOD PAWS requesting information about when her and Poopie’s C Class/Level would begin, since they had completed the B Class/Level. On April 8, 2006, BOWERS told MS. LIU that HOLLYWOOD PAWS probably would not advance MS. LIU and Poopie to the C Class/Level because of MS. LIU’S “attitude.” BOWERS told MS. LIU that she would not guarantee the class size. BOWERS told MS. LIU that she was making the representations on behalf of KLEINMAN.
213. On April 10, 2006, MS. LIU contacted HOLLYWOOD PAWS by e-mail, requesting information about the C Class/Level she and Poopie were to take. BOWERS told MS. LIU that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had “red-flagged” her and Poopie. BOWERS told her that HOLLYWOOD PAWS would prevent her and Poopie from working on movie sets. BOWERS told her that this was happening because MS. LIU had repeatedly contacted HOLLYWOOD PAWS to begin the C Class/Level Training.
214. As part of the C Class/Level, Poopie was supposed to have been photographed by a professional photographer on May 14, 2006. KLEINMAN told Ms. LIU that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was interviewing photographers. Poopie was eventually was eventually photographed. However, despite MS. LIU’S repeated requests to BROWER, as of the date of filing of the Complaint, MS. LIU had not received the promised photographs.
215. Although the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Agreement stated that Poopie would be listed as an animal actor on its website, Poopie has never appeared on the HOLLYWOOD PAWS website KAREN PIERCE AND PRINCESS TALIA
216. KAREN PIERCE owns Princess Talia, a cat. On August 16, 2004, MS. PIERCE entered into a contract with PETS ON CAMERA to train Princess Talia. The total amount of the contract was $1,745. A true and correct copy of MS. PIERCE’S contract is attached in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.
217. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at the time KAREN PIERCE signed the contract with PETS ON CAMERA, it was a “doing business as” or “also known as” of BARBIZON. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that BARBIZON and/or LARRY LIONETTI subsequently incorporated HOLLYWOOD PAWS. Plaintiffs are also informed and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS assumed the rights and obligations of PETS ON CAMERA.
218. In 2004, MS. PIERCE entered into the contract with PETS ON CAMERA. At that time, a representative of PETS ON CAMERA promised her that Princess Talia would be represented and promoted by PETS ON CAMERA. The representative promised MS. PIERCE that Princess Talia would be posted on its website. MS. PIERCE does not remember the name of the representative.
219. The PETS ON CAMERA representative promised MS. PIERCE that at the completion of the training program, Princess Talia would be a certified USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) performing animal. This is not possible. Animal exhibitors can be licensed by the USDA, but live performing animals are not USDA certified.
220. At an August 15, 2006 audition, MS. PIERCE was given a press release written by AA that referenced “furry friends” receiving “up to six-figures” for acting in movies. MS. PIERCE was given a copy of a People® Animals article called Baby, Take a Bowwow. The article was a profile for BD, and stated that BD was looking for dogs throughout the country to train for “TV, print and movie careers that can earn up to $1,500 a day.”
221. The PETS ON CAMERA representative promised MS. PIERCE that she would be trained as Princess Talia’s “trainer and handler” on sets and shoots. PETS ON CAMERA further promised MS. PIERCE that as a trainer and handler, she would be eligible to join the union set trainers are required to be members of.
222. The PETS ON CAMERA representative promised MS. PIERCE that Princess Talia’s photograph and résumé would be sent to 40 animal talent agencies.
223. The PETS ON CAMERA representative promised MS. PIERCE that she would receive college credit from Moorpark College. PAT SAMMONS AND PEPPER
224. PAT SAMMONS owns Pepper, a dog. MS. SAMMONS met VALLEJO in April 2005 at a charity event called “Nutts for Mutts” at Pierce College where HOLLYWOOD PAWS had a booth.
225. At that event, VALLEJO told MS. SAMMONS that Pepper “needed to be in pictures” because Pepper was so unique. VALLEJO told MS. SAMMONS that Pepper would be a “star” because of her looks and personality.
226. MS. SAMMONS told VALLEJO that she was on Social Security Disability and had very little savings. VALLEJO suggested that MS. SAMMONS make monthly payments. MS. SAMMONS began doing so on or around June 28, 2005. . Plaintiffs do not have a copy of MS. SAMMONS’ contract, but are informed and believe that the contract is on the same form of the other Plaintiffs’ contracts in Exhibit “B”.
227. Shortly after MS. SAMMONS enrolled Pepper, the class sizes began growing quite large. Pepper’s trainer, KS, left without explanation after Pepper had been in training about a month. Pepper then received training from MN. HOLLYWOOD PAWS apparently fired MN after several weeks. PT then provided some training, but he left too. After all of the changes and cancellations, MS. SAMMONS cancelled Pepper’s training classes with HOLLYWOOD PAWS. HOLLYWOOD PAWS has not refunded MS. SAMMONS’ money.
228. While Pepper was at HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS photographed and taped him. However, MS. SAMMONS never received copies of the photographs or video.
SHELLEY SMITH AND KATIE
229. SHELLEY SMITH has owned her dog, Katie, for six years. Katie is a Golden Retriever. Katie, had been enrolled in obedience classes her entire life; agility classes for more than five years, a freestyling (dance move) class; and a therapy dog class. Katie is an award-winning dog, receiving advanced titles in agility. Katie is certified with three organizations; Delta (Pet Partners of Orange County), Skeeter Rx Team, and the HOPE Animal Assisted Crisis Response Team (specifically targeting emotional support to first responders, agency members, and those effected in a crisis situation). Katie volunteered to help Katrina victims in New Orleans.
230. MS. SMITH learned that AG was looking for a Golden Retriever to play Air Bud’s girlfriend in Air Buddies. MS. SMITH sent photos of Katie to AG. MS. SMITH asked AG how Katie could get into the movies. AG referred her to HOLLYWOOD PAWS, but AG never said she was an employee of HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
231. On September 25, 2005, when MS. SMITH first met with HOLLYWOOD PAWS, it promised to immediately put Katie up for a job in the Los Angeles area that MS. SMITH would be paid for.
232. On September 25, 2005, HOLLYWOOD PAWS told MS. SMITH that Katie did not need to take the A Class/Level, because Katie already knew the behaviors that would be taught at that level.
233. On September 25, 2005, HOLLYWOOD PAWS described an agency relationship where MS. SMITH would receive 70% of the money for any jobs Katie had, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS would receive 30%.
234. On September 25, 2005, HOLLYWOOD PAWS told MS. SMITH that studios preferred to cast animals that were people’s pets, rather than studio-trained animals.
235. MS. SMITH therefore entered into a Contract for training for Katie, with the costs of lessons around $4000. Plaintiffs do not have a copy of MS. SMITH’S contract, but are informed and believe that the contract is on the same form as the other Plaintiffs’ contracts which are in Exhibit “B”.
236. In October 2005, a trainer for HOLLYWOOD PAWS again told MS. SMITH that Katie was being considered for a job. However, HOLLYWOOD PAWS did not give MS. SMITH any information about the job, including a storyboard; travel arrangements; preparation time; and information about the behaviors Katie needed to know. The only information HOLLYWOOD PAWS gave MS. SMITH was the reimbursement rate. MS. SMITH now believes that the purported October 2005 job did not actually exist.
237. On November 3, 2005, HOLLYWOOD PAWS convinced MS. SMITH and Katie to attend a party, promising that there would be producers and directors that would want to see Katie in attendance. That was the same day MS. SMITH was the guest of honor at a retirement party. MS. SMITH left her own retirement party half an hour early to attend the HOLLYWOOD PAWS party. The HOLLYWOOD PAWS party was not, in fact, a “party.” It was an announcement that HOLLYWOOD PAWS franchises were available for purchase. MS. SMITH is informed and believes that no directors or producers were in attendance.
238. MS. SMITH began training, but in December 2005 and January 2006, numerous classes were cancelled. The reasons for cancellation included: no air conditioning; no working toilets; and no one available to open the studio. Occasionally, classes were cancelled because there was no one qualified to instruct them. MS. SMITH and Katie were supposed to have completed their C Class/Level in March 2006, but as of June 2006, had not completed classes because of HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ problems.
239. In May 2006, KIM KLEINMAN instructed MS. SMITH and Katie in a class. KIM KLEINMAN discussed the movie Jackass Number Two, and said that she had submitted several HOLLYWOOD PAWS animals to be considered for roles. However, KLEINMAN said that she also had a trained studio dog considered for work in Jackass Number Two.
240. During this training session, KLEINMAN decided to teach Katie a behavior called “leg up”. A “leg up” is a natural behavior for male dogs; it is the way that they urinate. However, Plaintiffs are informed that a “leg up” is an unnatural behavior in female dogs; and, for balance reasons, may not be possible for most female dogs to perform. In attempting to teach the behavior, KLEINMAN instructed MS. SMITH to have Katie “back up” (walk backwards). KLEINMAN waited, holding a box, until an unaware Katie was close to her, and then physically grabbed Katie’s leg and placed it on a box, frightening Katie badly. MS. SMITH had to reteach Katie “back up”. For several weeks after KLEINMAN grabbed Katie, Katie looked behind her nervously, as if expecting to be grabbed again. Katie also needed physical therapy and acupuncture on her back leg.
241. In the spring of 2006, numerous classes were cancelled and qualified trainers such as MK and KS left HOLLYWOOD PAWS. HOLLYWOOD PAWS continued to promise MS. SMITH that they would retain qualified trainers, but never did so.
242. On or around May 7, 2006, KLEINMAN told MS. SMITH they did not have a trainer qualified to train Katie in a C Class/Level. KLEINMAN asked MS. SMITH to “work with her” while she found a new trainer. MS. SMITH sent her dates that she and Katie were available to take C Class/Level classes. KLEINMAN never responded.
243. In May and June 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS claimed to have retained a JC who was highly qualified to train animal actors. KLEINMAN and LARRY LIONETTI promised to send MS. SMITH a copy of JC’S qualifications, but never did. On June 5, 2006, KLEINMAN promised to send MS. SMITH JC’S résumé.
244. Katie was used in the TV Guide Special advertisement for HOLLYWOOD PAWS, but MS. SMITH was not paid.
245. HOLLYWOOD PAWS claimed to have gotten Katie an acting job. However, when MS. SMITH and Katie arrived, there was no director.
246. The date Katie was to be photographed as part of the B Class/Level package, there was no electricity at HOLLYWOOD PAWS. Katie was never professionally photographed.
247. On June 9, 2006, MS. SMITH asked LARRY LIONETTI for a refund for the C Class/Level class.
248. On June 18, 2006, LARRY LIONETTI told MS. SMITH that HOLLYWOOD PAWS had not breached its contract to provide training for Katie. LARRY LIONETTI told MS. SMITH that any problems she had were because of “personality conflicts”.
249. On June 18, 2006, LARRY LIONETTI told MS. SMITH that while Katie was qualified to act on movie sets, MS. SMITH herself was not.
250. On June 1, 2006, LARRY LIONETTI told MS. SMITH that KLEINMAN had two degrees in the “industry” and was a qualified instructor. Plaintiff are informed and believe that KLEINMAN does not have degrees in animal training.
251. MS. SMITH was promised photo cards for Katie. Instead, she was given a CD-ROM of photos of Katie. The CD-ROM was copy-protected so that MS. SMITH could not use Katie’s photos. PATTY STAFFORD AND MARLEY
252. PATTY STAFFORD owns Marley. On August 19, 2004, MS. STAFFORD signed Marley up for training with PETS ON CAMERA. The training cost $1,745. A true and correct copy of MS. STAFFORD’S contract is attached hereto in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.
253. At an August 15, 2004 audition, MS. STAFFORD was given a press release written by AA that referenced “furry friends” receiving “up to six-figures” for acting in movies. MS. STAFFORD was given a copy of a People® Animals article called Baby, Take a Bowwow. The article was a profile for BD, and stated that BD was looking for dogs throughout the country to train for “TV, print and movie careers that can earn up to $1,500 a day.”
254. When MS. STAFFORD enrolled Marley, PETS ON CAMERA and its representative, PF, assured her that it would act as an agent for Marley as an animal actor.
255. PETS ON CAMERA and PF assured MS. STAFFORD that it would act as her agent so that she could obtain work as a Studio Animal Trainer. PETS ON CAMERA and PF assured MS. STAFFORD that she could work as an animal trainer or animal handler (aside from her work with Marley) in the movie and television industry after she completed training.
256. PETS ON CAMERA and PF told MS. STAFFORD that she and Marley would more than earn the cost of the training back once Marley had been trained and started working.
257. PETS ON CAMERA and PF told MS. STAFFORD that after Marley completed his training, his bio would be submitted to more than 40 agents who would be looking for work for him.
258. PETS ON CAMERA, LARRY LIONETTI, and LENA LIONETTI promised MS. STAFFORD that Marley’s trainer would be BD. However, BD never trained Marley. DAVID BRYANT SPAHN AND BOLDER DAMN CHAMPAGNE AND PEBBLE BITCH CHAMPAGNE
259. DAVID BRYANT SPAHN owns Bolder Damn Champagne and Pebble Bitch Champagne, dogs.
260. MR. SPAHN is a retired commercial photographer. While working as a photographer, MR. SPAHN became familiar with BARBIZON and Barbizon International as an agency and school for models and modeling. When MR. SPAHN saw an announcement that “BARBIZON talent scouts and BD, celebrity pet trainer will audition owners and their pets throughout the Bay Area for training and development to appear on TV, film and in magazine advertising,” he justifiably believed that the service being advertised was legitimate.
261. MR. SPAHN took Bolder and Pebble to audition at the Cow Palace in San Francisco on August 15, 2004. At the time, PETS ON CAMERA, LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI implied that BD would be providing some of the training. BD never provided any training to Bolder or Pebble.
262. At the audition, MR. SPAHN was given a press release written by AA that referenced “furry friends” receiving “up to six-figures” for acting in movies. MR. SPAHN was given a copy of a People® Animals article called Baby, Take a Bowwow. The article was a profile for BD, and stated that BD was looking for dogs throughout the country to train for “TV, print and movie careers that can earn up to $1,500 a day.”
263. On August 16, 2004, MR. SPAHN entered into a contract for training for Bolder and Pebble. The cost of the training was $1,745. MR. SPAHN’S contract, with personal identifying information redacted, is in Exhibit “B”.
264. The purported “training” Pebble and Bolder received consisted mostly of “social sessions”. Pebble and Bolder received to little, or no, training at all during the six months of training that they attended. They did not receive the training that PETS ON CAMERA said was required to become acting animals.
265. At the time MR. SPAHN entered into the contract with PETS ON CAMERA, a representative promised him that Pebble and Bolder would be represented and promoted by the organization. It promised MR. SPAHN that Pebble and Bolder would be posted on its website.
266. PETS ON CAMERA promised MR. SPAHN that at the completion of the training program, Pebble and Bolder would be certified USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) performing animals.
267. PETS ON CAMERA promised MR. SPAHN that he would be trained as Bolder and Pebble’s “trainer and handler” on sets and shoots. PETS ON CAMERA further promised MR. SPAHN that as a trainer and handler, he would be eligible to join the union set trainers are required to be members of.
268. PETS ON CAMERA promised MR. SPAHN that Pebble and Bolder’s photograph and résumé would be sent to 40 animal talent agencies. PETS ON CAMERA promised MR. SPAHN that it would act as an agent for Pebble and Bolder as animal actors.
269. PETS ON CAMERA also told MR. SPAHN that it would act as his agent as an Studio Animal Trainer. PETS ON CAMERA promised MR. SPAHN that upon completion of the training, he could work as an Animal Trainer or Animal Handler (aside from his work with Pebble and Bolder) in the movie and television industry after he completed training.
270. PETS ON CAMERA promised MR. SPAHN that he would more than earn the cost of the training back once Pebble and Bolder had been trained and started working. ASHLEY WHITE AND PEANUT
271. ASHLEY WHITE owns Peanut, a dog. MS. WHITE was twenty years old at the time of the events described herein. MS. WHITE’S mother had died about two years earlier. MS. WHITE’S grandmother died several months before the incidents alleged herein, after MS. WHITE nursed her through her final illness. MS. WHITE has only a high school education.
272. In late December 2005 or early January 2006 MS. WHITE saw a commercial on the Animal Planet network, advertising for those people who thought that their pet had potential to be in movies and television call a number. The advertisement promised training by “qualified studio trainers.”
273. MS. WHITE and Peanut audition on January 4, 2006. At the audition, HOLLYWOOD PAWS and CC complemented MS. WHITE on Peanut’s training, and asked who had trained Peanuts. MS. WHITE told HOLLYWOOD PAWS she had done so, and that some day, MS. WHITE hoped to be an animal trainer.
274. HOLLYWOOD PAWS and CC claimed to have a program only open to a few select individuals. HOLLYWOOD PAWS and CC promised that as a vocational program participant, Peanut would be a working actor and MS. WHITE would be a working studio trainer. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. WHITE that upon completing this training, she would be qualified to be a Unionized Animal Trainer.
275. HOLLYWOOD PAWS said that the program was $9,995, an amount MS. WHITE promptly paid from a small inheritance she had received from her grandmother. A true and correct copy of MS. WHITE’S contract is in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.
276. A day or two later, MS. WHITE had second thoughts, and went back to HOLLYWOOD PAWS for more information. HOLLYWOOD PAWS and CC told MS. WHITE it was not a “scam” and that MS. WHITE was being given an opportunity few, if any people, ever got. HOLLYWOOD PAWS and CC promised MS. WHITE that by the end of her training with HOLLYWOOD PAWS, she would be working on movie and television sets as a trainer and a member of IBT Local No. 399. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised her that she would be invited to attend parties at celebrities houses, and that she would be able to travel the world.
277. The vocational program allegedly offered by HOLLYWOOD PAWS included observing instructors training animals at A Class/Level; B Class/Level; and C Class/Level, over a period of seven months; and two additional months of special seminars.
278. MS. WHITE decided to stay in the program. She purchased the extensive supplies that participating in the program allegedly required. MS. WHITE quit her job as a veterinary assistant so that she could attend the vocational training at HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
279. Beginning on January 11, 2006 HOLLYWOOD PAWS instructed MS. WHITE to attend animal training sessions three times a week to observe training sessions conducted by MK and PT.
280. MS. WHITE was not given a course schedule, syllabus, or the name of her course instructors. On February 25, 2006, MS. WHITE asked LENA LIONETTI and KLEINMAN why she did not have a course schedule for the three days a week she attended classes. At that time, LENA LIONETTI and KLEINMAN said that MS. WHITE only should have been attending classes once a week.
281. Shortly after MS. WHITE began attending classes at HOLLYWOOD PAWS, she became homeless. Since she had quit her job, MS. WHITE did not have any income..
282. On February 15, 2006, after becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the lack of training that she was receiving, MS. WHITE came to the conclusion that she should withdrawal from the HOLLYWOOD PAWS vocational program. She sent a certified letter withdrawing from the program, which HOLLYWOOD PAWS received on February 17, 2006.
283. Thereafter, LENA LIONETTI HOLLYWOOD PAWS urged her to stay in the program, stating that any problems MS. WHITE had with HOLLYWOOD PAWS were the result of a personality conflict between LARRY LIONETTI and PT.
284. On February 25, 2006, LENA LIONETTI and KLEINMAN met with MS. WHITE personally and urged her not to withdrawal from the vocational program. KLEINMAN and LIONETTI provided MS. WHITE a document called “HOLLYWOOD PAWS Professional Program (9 Months)” which purported to be a syllabus for the vocational training. On February 25, 2006, LENA LIONETTI told MS. WHITE that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was working on union certification.
285. MS. WHITE has not received any additional training from HOLLYWOOD PAWS since February 2006. MS. WHITE has not been refunded any of the money she spent for the purported vocational training.
286. After signing up for the “training” and quitting her job to attend HOLLYWOOD PAWS, MS. WHITE became homeless for a period of time, and lived out of her car. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONBREACH OF CONTRACT (ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT HOLLYWOOD PAWS LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, AND BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC. AND DOES 1-20)
287. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 286 as though set forth fully herein.
288. As described more fully above and reflected in the Contract attached in Exhibit “B”, Plaintiffs, and each of them, entered into a Contract with either HOLLYWOOD PAWS, PETS ON CAMERA, or BARBIZON for training for their pets and for training for the Plaintiffs themselves, and to become Animal Trainers themselves.
289. The contracts do not contain integration clauses, and therefore, also consist of the oral and written representations made by PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, LARRY LIONETTI, BOWERS, VALLEJO AND KLEINMAN before the contracts were executed. The contracts are also subject to the oral and written modifications made by PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, LARRY LIONETTI, BOWERS, VALLEJO AND KLEINMAN after the contracts were executed.
290. Plaintiffs, and each of them, paid anywhere from $1,745 to $9,995 either to PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON or HOLLYWOOD PAWS for the contracted training.
291. Plaintiffs attended the training contracted for when scheduled. In many cases, Plaintiffs attempted to attend training that had been cancelled without adequate notice to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs paid their fees under the contract, except when excused from doing so because HOLLYWOOD PAWS, PETS ON CAMERA and BARBIZON failed to provide the classes and services it promised.
292. As described more fully above, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, PETS ON CAMERA, and BARBIZON breached those contracts in the following manner, as more fully detained above, and including but not limited to:
(a) Failing to provide the training classes as scheduled, by canceling classes because it did not have qualified trainers; canceling classes purportedly because of a lack of utilities, such as electricity; canceling classes because doors were locked; and canceling classes because they were during a downtime for the industry;
(b) Failing to reschedule the cancelled classes in a timely manner;
(c) Rescheduling cancelled classes on dates and at times that Plaintiffs could not attend;
(d) Failing to conduct the training classes with the highly qualified Studio Trainers it advertised and promised to the Plaintiffs;
(e) Allowing more than three or four animals at a time to attend training sessions, although Plaintiffs were promised training would be limited to three or four animals;
(f) Conducting training of A Class/Level, B Class/Level and C Class/Level animals all at the same time, despite the vastly differing skill levels of the animals;
(g) Failing to provide physical (paper) composite shots of most of the Plaintiffs’ animal actors, as promised as part of the contract;
(h) Providing some of the Plaintiffs purported photographs of their pets on CD-ROM, in a computer format that was not viewable or usable;
(i) Failing to provide a video of the animal actors, as promised to those Plaintiffs who entered into contracts in 2004;
(j) Failing to act as an agent for most of the Plaintiffs’ pets, although HOLLYWOOD PAWS, PETS ON CAMERA, and BARBIZON promised to do so;
(k) Failing to submit the animal actors’ names, skills and photographs to the forty (or forty-two) different agencies that Plaintiffs who entered into contracts in 2004 and 2005 were promised;
(l) Failing to certify any animal actor owned by Plaintiffs as a USDA performing animals, as it promised those Plaintiffs who entered into contracts in 2004;
(m) Failing to put most of the Plaintiffs animal actors on its website for months, and sometimes more than a year, after the animal actors were enrolled with PETS ON CAMERA or HOLLYWOOD PAWS
(n) Placing the animal actors on a website that cannot be searched by weight, breed, or name, although Defendants websites promise that its animal actors are searchable in this manner;
(o) Failing to refund money for classes as required by the contracts and requested by the Plaintiffs;
(p) Continuing to charge the Plaintiffs’ credit cards after Plaintiffs cancelled classes; and
(q) Refusing to refund unauthorized credit card charges.
293. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all damages arising from Defendants’ breach of contract, including but not limited to:
(a) General damages;
(b) Special damages, including loss of earnings;
(c) Interest on monies paid;
(d) Attorneys’ fees and costs, as may be permitted by common law;
(e) And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONFRAUD (ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL HOLLYWOOD PAWS LLC, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC., LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, RAQUEL VALLEJO, TAMMY BOWERS, KIMBERLY KLEINMAN, AND DOES 1 - 100)
294. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 293 as though set forth fully herein.
295. As described more fully above, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS, and KLEINMAN, and each of them, intentionally misrepresented material facts; concealed materials facts, and acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
296. The following are among the numerous fraudulent misrepresentations made by the Defendants which are more fully described above:
(a) HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS, and KLEINMAN told Plaintiffs and the general public that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was affiliated with IBT Local No. 399. In truth, neither HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA or BARBIZON has never been affiliated with IBT Local No. 399. LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI, as owners and principals of PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC must have known that the representation of union affiliation was false when it was originally made. LENA LIONETTI and LARRY LIONETTI received a letter from IBT Local No. 399 instructing them to remove the IBT Local No. 399 logo in March 2006 because use of the logo was deceptive. The logo was removed from www.hollywoodpaws.com. However, The logo was not removed from www.celebritydog.net until September 2006. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC induced the Plaintiffs to rely on that representation. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the false representation. As a result, Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
(b) HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS, and KLEINMAN told Plaintiffs and the general public that Plaintiffs would be eligible to become members of IBT Local No. 399 upon completion of the training. In truth, training by HOLLYWOOD PAWS, PETS ON CAMERA or BARBIZON was never a criteria for admission to IBT Local No. 399.
LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI, as owners and principals of PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC must have known that the representation of union affiliation was false. LENA LIONETTI and LARRY LIONETTI received a letter from IBT Local No. 399 instructing them to remove the IBT Local No. 399 logo in March 2006, because it did mislead the public into believing that the training would entitle them to become union members. The logo was removed from www.hollywoodpaws.com. However, the logo was not removed from www.celebritydog.net until September 2006. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC maliciously and oppressively induced the Plaintiffs to rely on that representation, as union membership is a valuable and necessary part of working on unionized entertainment projects. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the false representation. As a result, Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
(c) HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS, and KLEINMAN told Plaintiffs and the general public that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was affiliated with the American Humane™ Association. In truth, neither HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA nor BARBIZON has never been affiliated with the American Humane™ Association. The AHA certifies sets as “cruelty free” and publishes strict guidelines for the training and use of animals on sets. LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI, as owners and principals of PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC must have known that the representation of membership in the AHA was false. Nonetheless, the AHA logo appeared on HOLLYWOOD PAWS websites until at least March 2006. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC intended to maliciously and oppressively induce the Plaintiffs to rely on that representation. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the false representation. As a result, Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
(d) PETS ON CAMERA, LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI told Plaintiffs who enrolled in 2004 that PETS ON CAMERA was affiliated with the American Kennel Club (AKC) and authorized to train and test animals for certification as a Canine Good Citizen LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI, as owners and principals of PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, must have known that the representation was false. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC maliciously and oppressively intended induce the Plaintiffs to rely on that representation. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the false representation. As a result, Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
(e) HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN told Plaintiffs who enrolled in 2005 and 2006 that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was affiliated with Therapy Dogs International©, Inc. and authorized to train and test animals for certification as Therapy Dogs. LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI, as owners and principals of PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, must have known that the representation was false. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC maliciously and oppressively intended induce the Plaintiffs to rely on that representation. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the false representation. As a result, Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
(f) PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, and LENA MARIE LIONETTI told Plaintiffs and the general public told Plaintiffs who enrolled in 2004 BD, who had numerous credits and had published a book an animal training, would train their animals. In fact, BD was never an Animal Trainer at PETS ON CAMERA, or, for that matter, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, and LENA MARIE LIONETTI had no reasonable belief that BD, who lived in New York, would be training animals for PETS ON CAMERA or BARBIZON. Nonetheless, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, and LENA MARIE LIONETTI made those representations with reckless disregard for the truth to induce Plaintiffs to pay thousands of dollars for training for their pets. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the false representation. As a result, Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
(g) HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN promised Plaintiffs that their pets would be personally trained, in classes of three or four animals only, by JC, MN, MK, KS, and PT. However, JC, MN, MK, KS and PT, upon learning of the numerous misrepresentations that HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN were making to Plaintiffs, resigned from HOLLYWOOD PAWS. HOLLYWOOD PAWS replaced JC, MN, MK, KS and PT with KLEINMAN, with one movie credit; and BOWERS, with one movie credit to her name. LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN, who physically worked at the HOLLYWOOD PAWS locations in Northern and Southern California, knew from their own observations that JC, MN, MK, KS and PT were not working for HOLLYWOOD PAWS. Nonetheless, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN willfully, maliciously and oppressively made those misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs to induce them to sign up for classes; or not to cancel classes until it was too late to obtain a refund. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the false representation. As a result, Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
(h) HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN told Plaintiffs and the general public that, among other things, they had provided the animals for There’s Something About Mary, Home for the Holidays, The Good Son, Air Bud, Bounce, Man of the House, Vanilla Sky, Indecent Proposal. PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, and LENA MARIE LIONETTI knew that PETS ON CAMERA was not formed until 2004 and HOLLYWOOD PAWS was not formed until 2005. Indecent Proposal was released in 1993; Vanilla Sky, the most recently released movie on this list, was released in 2001. PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, and LENA MARIE LIONETTI knew that the representations that either PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON or HOLLYWOOD PAWS had provided the training for animal actors on these movies, or acted as an animal agent on these movies, was false. With respect to VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN, the representations they made with respect to these movies was made with reckless disregard for the truth. VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN were working at an obviously new organization; but telling Plaintiffs that the organization had worked on popular, well publicized and award winning movies that were more than ten years old. VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN could have had no reasonable belief what they were telling the Plaintiffs was true. They were working at an obviously new organization, without standardized procedures or even a permanent location. These representations were made by HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN with the intent to induce Plaintiffs to sign their animals up for expensive training. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the representations. Those representations were made with the intent to induce Plaintiffs to sign up for expensive training. Plaintiffs were damaged, in sums ranging from $1,745 to $9,995.
(i) HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN told Plaintiffs that upon executing the contract for training, their animals were “represented” by PETS ON CAMERA or HOLLYWOOD PAWS. HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN knew that his representation was not true. Neither PETS ON CAMERA nor HOLLYWOOD PAWS ever had any intention of acting as an agent for Plaintiffs. Instead, Defendants intended to rely on the “no promises” provision of the contracts. As soon as Plaintiffs signed the contract and began training – but after the time Plaintiffs could cancel the contract -- HOLLYWOOD PAWS, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN told Plaintiffs that HOLLYWOOD PAWS and PETS ON CAMERA would not act as an agent for their pets unless and until Plaintiffs and their pets had completed the costly C Class/Level Training. The representations that pets would immediately be eligible for acting jobs was made willfully and maliciously by LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI, and made with reckless disregard for the truth by LENA MARIE LIONETTI, VALLEJO, BOWERS and KLEINMAN. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the misrepresentations, and as a result were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
(j) LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, BARBIZON and PETS ON CAMERA represented that PETS ON CAMERA was a division of a well-known, highly respected Los Angeles area charity, when in fact, it was in no way connected with that organization, International Performing Arts Academy (IPAA). LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI, as owners and principals of PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, knew that their organization was in no way connected with IPAA, a Southern California charitable institution providing music lessons to inner city children. Nonetheless, LARRY LIONETTI and LENA LIONETTI made those misrepresentations to induce the Plaintiffs who enrolled in classes in 2004 to believe that they were enrolling their pets in a reputable institution that had been in existence since 1998. Plaintiffs had no reason to know of the falsity of the misrepresentation, and therefore, their reliance was justified. Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
(k) LARRY LIONETTI and VALLEJO told one Plaintiff, ASHLEY WHITE, that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was an accredited vocational institute. It is not, and never has been. MS. WHITE was twenty years old at the time that she signed up for the purported vocational training. In a period of less than two years, MS. WHITE lost her mother and her grandmother. In fact, MS. WHITE cared for her grandmother before she died. MS. WHITE completed high school, but that was the extent of her education. Although she had no one to advise her on making a $9,995 investment in her education, MS. WHITE was concerned enough to question the classes within the three day cancellation period. MS. WHITE was assured by VALLEJO and LARRY LIONETTI that the training was legitimate, when in fact, it was not. LARRY LIONETTI and VALLEJO made the misrepresentations to MS. WHITE to induce her not to cancel her classes so that she would not receive a refund. MS. WHITE did cancel her classes. However, HOLLYWOOD PAWS and HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC never refunded MS. WHITE any portion of the $9,995 she paid. MS. WHITE’S reliance on the representations was justified. MS. WHITE was damaged in an amount exceeding $9,995.
297. These misrepresentations, and the other allegations of fraud more fully detailed in the preliminary allegations, were made intentionally, repeatedly and knowingly by the Defendants. The combined use of advertising of movies without the consent of the company holding the copyright; the impermissible use of the logos of IBT Local No. 399 and the AHA; the representation of affiliation with the reputable organizations AKC and TDI; the use and abuse of qualified Studio Trainers JC, MN, BD, KS and MK; and the threats and intimidation to any Plaintiff with the temerity to insist upon a refund shows the malicious and willful intent of Defendants to commit fraud, and a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights.
298. As further evidence of malice and oppression, in September 2006, LARRY LIONETTI began repeatedly contacting some Plaintiffs. In fact, in October 2006, LARRY LIONETTI attempted to learn the physical location of one Plaintiff, MS. STAFFORD by calling up MS. STAFFORD’S mother and telling her mother that he was a former coworker who had lost touch with her.
299. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all damages arising from Defendants’ fraud, including but not limited to:
(a) General damages;
(b) Special damages, including but not limited to loss of income and earnings potential.
(c) Punitive damages, to set an example of Defendants, and each of them, and dissuade them from ever engaging in a similar course of conduct.
(d) Injunctive relief, to prevents LARRY LIONETTI from continuing his attempts to locate and contact MS. STAFFORD
(e) Interest on money paid;
(f) Attorneys’ fees and costs, as may be permitted by common law.
(g) And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONNEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL HOLLYWOOD PAWS LLC, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC., LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, RAQUEL VALLEJO, TAMMY BOWERS, KIMBERLY KLEINMAN, AND DOES 1 - 100)
300. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 299 as though set forth fully herein.
301. As described more fully above, Defendants, and each of them, to the extent that the misrepresentations were not intentional, negligently misrepresented material facts.
302. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on those misrepresentations.
303. Plaintiffs were damaged as a result of those misrepresentations.
304. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all damages arising from Defendants’ misrepresentations, including but not limited to:
(a) General damages;
(b) Special damages, including but not limited to, loss of income and expenses;
(c) Interest on money paid;
(d) Attorneys’ fees and costs, if permitted by common law or statute;
(e) And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
(ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST
HOLLYWOOD PAWS LLC, HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC, PETS ON CAMERA, AND
305. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 304 as though set forth fully herein.
306. Civil Code §1770 states, “The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful: (1) Passing off goods or services as those of another.
Defendants did this by, among other things as more fully detailed above, claiming that:
(a) Animals that appeared in Air Bud (1997) were trained by, and represented by, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. In fact, those animals must have been trained by and represented by an entity other than HOLLYWOOD PAWS or its predecessor, PETS ON CAMERA.
(b) Animals that appeared in Bounce (2000) were trained by, and represented by, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. In fact, those animals must have been trained by and represented by an entity other than HOLLYWOOD PAWS or its predecessor, PETS ON CAMERA.
(c) Animals that appeared in Home for the Holidays (1995) were trained by, and represented by, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. In fact, those animals must have been trained by and represented by an entity other than HOLLYWOOD PAWS or its predecessor, PETS ON CAMERA.
(d) Animals that appeared in Indecent Proposal (1993) were trained by, and represented by, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. In fact, those animals must have been trained by and represented by an entity other than HOLLYWOOD PAWS or its predecessor, PETS ON CAMERA.
(e) Animals that appeared in Man of the House (1995) were trained by, and represented by, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. In fact, those animals must have been trained by and represented by an entity other than HOLLYWOOD PAWS or its predecessor, PETS ON CAMERA.
(f) Animals that appeared in The Good Son (1993) were trained by, and represented by, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. In fact, those animals must have been trained by and represented by an entity other than HOLLYWOOD PAWS or its predecessor, PETS ON CAMERA.
(g) Animals that appeared in There’s Something About Mary (1998) were trained by, and represented by, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. In fact, those animals must have been trained by and represented by an entity other than HOLLYWOOD PAWS or its predecessor, PETS ON CAMERA.
(h) Animals that appeared in Vanilla Sky (2001) were trained by, and represented by, HOLLYWOOD PAWS. In fact, those animals must have been trained by and represented by an entity other than HOLLYWOOD PAWS or its predecessor, PETS ON CAMERA.
(i) HOLLYWOOD PAWS was the only agent for Scout in Air Bud (1997), when in fact, it was not, nor could it have been.
(j) HOLLYWOOD PAWS was the only agent for animals cast in Air Buddies (2006), when in fact, it was not.
(k) HOLLYWOOD PAWS was the only agent for animals cast in Jackass Number Two (2006), when in fact, it was not.
(2) Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.
(a) Defendants claimed to be members of IBT Local No. 399. They were not, and never had been.
(b) Defendants claimed to be members of the American Humane™ Association. They were not, and never had been.
(c) Defendants claimed to be authorized by the AKC to provide Canine Good Citizen training and testing. They were not, and never had been.
(d) Defendants claimed to be authorized by TDI to provide Therapy Dog training and testing. They were not, and never had been.
(e) Defendants claimed that their animal training would result in USDA Certification for Plaintiffs’ pets. Defendants training did not have USDA approval, and would not result in USDA certification.
(3) Misrepresenting the affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another.
(a) Defendants claimed to be members of IBT Local No. 399. They were not, and never had been.
(b) Defendants claimed to be members of the American Humane™ Association. They were not, and never had been.
(c) Defendants claimed to be authorized by the AKC to provide Canine Good Citizen training and testing. They were not, and never had been.
(d) Defendants claimed to be authorized by TDI to provide Therapy Dog training and testing. They were not, and never had been.
(e) Defendants claimed that their animal training would result in USDA Certification for Plaintiffs’ pets. Defendants training did not have USDA approval, and would not result in USDA certification.
(4) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.
(a) Defendants advertised that they were an Animal Talent Agency. Defendants are not a licensed Talent Agency, and have never paid Plaintiffs for the work that their animals have performed.
(b) Defendants advertised and promised that they would act as a Talent Agent for animals. In fact, Defendants represented that they were a talent agent with the intent to lure Plaintiffs into taking expensive and unnecessary training.
307. Defendants are therefore entitled to all damages arising therefrom, including but not limited to:
(a) General damages;
(b) Special damages;
(c) Punitive damages;
(d) Interest on money paid;
(e) Attorneys’ fees and costs, as permitted by Civil Code §1770 and by common law;
(f) And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable. Dated: November 8, 2006 HYDE MULVIHILL APC
_________________________________ Cynthia Coulter Mulvihill Attorney for Plaintiffs
EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT “B” |
|
Send mail to
hollywooodpaws@cmsynergy.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
