COMES NOW PLAINTIFFS
and alleges against Defendants as follows:
THE PLAINTIFFS
1.
LORELLE
POUNCEY. At
all times alleged herein, Plaintiff LORELLE POUNCEY 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 County of San Diego, State of California. MS. HILL owns
Sophie, a dog.
10.
DEB
HURDLE. At
all times alleged herein, Plaintiff DEB HURDLE, an individual, is and was a
resident of the State of California, County of Ventura. MS. HURDLE owns
Rocky, a dog.
11.
JON
LACOURCIERE.
At all times mentioned
herein, Plaintiff JON LACOURCIERE is and was a resident of the State of
California, County of Orange. MR. LACOURCIERE owns Wallace, a dog.
12.
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.
13.
KAREN
PIERCE. At
all times alleged herein, Plaintiff KAREN PIERCE, is and was a resident of
the State of California, County of Alameda. MS. PIERCE owns Princess Talia,
a cream-point Himalayan cat.
14.
SHELLEY
SMITH. At
all times alleged herein, Plaintiff SHELLEY SMITH, is and was a resident of
the State of California, County of Orange. MS. SMITH owns Katie, a dog.
15.
PATTY
STAFFORD. At
all times alleged herein, Plaintiff PATTY STAFFORD, is and was a resident of
the State of California, County of Marin. MS. STAFFORD owns Marley, a dog.
16.
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
17.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LLC.
At all times alleged herein, HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LLC; is and was a Limited
Liability Company, incorporated in the State of California. HOLLYWOOD PAWS
LLC is authorized to do business in the County of Los Angeles, and doing
business therein. HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LLC was incorporated as a Limited
Liability Company on January 27, 2005.
18.
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.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS LLC is authorized to do business in the County of Los
Angeles, and doing business therein. HOLLYWOOD PAWS FRANCHISING LLC was
incorporated as a Limited Liability Company on June 16, 2005.
19.
BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.
At all times alleged
herein, BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.; is and was a California
corporation. BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC. was incorporated on
August 1, 1977.
20.
PETS ON
CAMERA. At
all times alleged herein, “PETS ON CAMERA” is and was a business form
unknown, but doing business in the State of California, County of San
Francisco. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in August 2004,
BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.; formed “PETS ON CAMERA.” Contracts
showed the organization was called “PETS ON CAMERA a Division of
International Performing Arts Academy”, which had a business address of 369
Sutter Street, San Francisco CA 94108 and a phone number of 415-391-4254.
369 Sutter Street and 415-391-4254 is actually the street address and
telephone number of BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC. Plaintiffs
further are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
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.
21.
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.
22.
LENA
LIONETTI. At
all times alleged herein, LENA LIONETTI, an individual, is and as a resident
of the State of California, County of Marin. LENA LIONETTI is the married
to LARRY LIONETTI. Their daughter is LENA MARIE LIONETTI.
23.
LENA
MARIE LIONETTI.
At all times alleged
herein, LENA MARIE LIONETTI, an individual, is and as a resident of the
State of California. Plaintiffs do not know the county in which she
resides. LENA MARIE LIONETTI is the daughter of LARRY LIONETTI and LENA
LIONETTI.
24.
TAMMY
BOWERS. At
all times alleged herein, TAMMY BOWERS, an individual, is and as 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.
25.
KIMBERLY KLEINMAN.
At all times alleged
herein, KIMBERLY KLEINMAN, an individual, is and as a resident of the State
of California. Plaintiffs do not know the county in which she resides.
26.
RAQUELLE VALLEJO.
At all times alleged
herein, RAQUELLE VALLEJO, an individual, is and as a resident of the State
of California. Plaintiffs do not know the county in which she resides.
27.
Plaintiffs are informed and believes that Defendants, 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 corporation Defendants 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.
28.
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.
OTHER INDIVIDUALS
REFERENCED IN THE COMPLAINT
29.
BD.
BD 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. Defendants represented
to the general public that BD was a trainer employed by PETS ON CAMERA.
However, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that BD never instructed
animals at PETS ON CAMERA or at its successor-in-interest, HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
30.
AG.
AG is a
well-known animal trainer who owns an animal training company. AG is not a
party to this matter, and is referred to by her initials to protect her
privacy. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that AG is a member of
Teamsters Local No. 399. Defendants represented to the general public that
AG was a trainer employed by HOLLYWOOD PAWS. However, Plaintiffs are
informed and believe that AG never instructed classes at HOLLYWOOD PAWS or
at its predecessor, PETS ON CAMERA.
31.
MK.
MK is a member of Teamsters Local Union 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. She 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 animal trainer.
32.
KS.
KS is an
Studio Animal Trainer with previous movie and television credits. KS is not
a party to this matter, and is referred to by her initials to protect her
privacy. She has been a member of Teamsters Local No. 399. KS trained
animals for PETS ON CAMERA from September to December 2004. Her title was
an “Executive Director.” In 2005, KS helped open the Los Angeles operation
that became HOLLYWOOD PAWS. She worked as a trainer until December 2005 or
January 2006. Upon leaving HOLLYWOOD PAWS, KS received a final paycheck
from BARBIZON. HOLLYWOOD PAWS used KS’s credits on its websites without her
permission and without compensating her. Plaintiffs are further informed
and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS used KS’s credits to qualify for listing in
LA 411, the most influential important directory of “below the line”
companies and individuals.
33.
PT.
PT was an
Education Director and Studio Trainer at HOLLYWOOD PAWS in during 2005 until
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 Teamsters Local No.
399. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
PT’s movie and television show credits were used on the HOLLYWOOD PAWS
websites without his permission, and without the permission of Teamsters
Local No. 399.
34.
GLW.
GLW 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. GLW is listed as being a member
of the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Advisory Board on both HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ websites.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS’ listing makes it appear that HOLLYWOOD PAWS is affiliated
with Moorpark College. However, it is not.
REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE
PUBLIC
ADVERTISING
35.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS owns operates 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 but which contains substantially different
advertisements and representations than
www.hollywoodpaws.com.
36.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS has advertised animal auditions in the Los Angeles
Times and The San Francisco Chronicle. HOLLYWOOD PAWS has also
advertised on the Animal Planet Network.
37.
In marketing HOLLYWOOD PAWS to the public, HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented
that it had trained the animals that had appeared in There’s Something
About Mary, Air Bud, and Indecent Proposal. This
representation cannot have been true, as HOLLYWOOD PAWS did not come into
existence until 2005. There’s Something About Mary was released in
1998. Indecent Proposal was released in 1993. Air Bud was
released in 1997. At the time these representations made, Air Bud
had the following sequels: 1998’s Air Bud: Golden Receiver, 2000’s
Air Bud: World Pup; 2002’s Air Bud: Seventh Inning Fetch; and
2003’s Air Bud: Spikes Back.
38.
AG was an animal trainer on the 2003’s Air Bud: Spikes Back,
as well as the 2006 sequel Air Buddies. KS also provided animal
training services for Air Buddies. Plaintiffs are informed and
believe that the training services provided by AG and KS for those movies
were through a different company, the animal training company owned by AG.
However, on July 26, 2006, KLEINMAN told HOLLYWOOD PAWS enrollees that
HOLLYWOOD PAWS was the agent for the animal actors on Air Buddies
39.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised the general public as a whole, that it would
could provide vocational training for an individual to become a
“Professional Dog and Cat Trainer”. The training course materials promised:
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. A true and correct copy of the HOLLYWOOD PAWS
Dog and Cat Trainer curriculum is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by reference.
40.
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. A true and correct copy of a
description of the HOLLYWOOD PAWS A Class/Level is attached hereto as
Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.
41.
The intermediate HOLLYWOOD PAWS Class/Level was called “Professional
Animal – Acting Workshops” and was referred to as a B Class/Level. A true
and correct copy of a description of the HOLLYWOOD PAWS B Class/Level is in
the attached Exhibit “B”.
42.
The advanced HOLLYWOOD PAWS Class/Level was called “Advanced
Professional Animal – Acting & Trainer Workshops” and was referred to as a C
Class/Level. . A true and correct copy of a description of the HOLLYWOOD
PAWS C Class/Level is in the attached Exhibit “B”. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised
each and every Plaintiff named herein that there would be no more than three
dogs per C Class/Level training class.
43.
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. However, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
Los Angeles Center Studios, LLC, is a property management company that owns
and leases studio space to various entities. Plaintiffs are further
informed and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS leases or subleases space from Los
Angeles Center Studios.
44.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS told its potential students that talent scouts were
prepared to help cast animals as soon as the animals completed their
training. In June 2004, representatives of PETS ON CAMERA claimed that PETS
ON CAMERA/HOLLYWOOD PAWS worked with 42 agencies throughout the United
States to place animals in acting jobs.
45.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented to the people that signed their animals up
for training that their animals could be used in television and movie
productions immediately. However, 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.
46.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS assured individuals training in Northern California
that there were many acting opportunities for their animals in the Bay
area. However, when owners contacted LARRY LIONETTI 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.”
47.
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
48.
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.
49.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS is not a
vocational institute as defined by California statutes and the California
Department of Consumer Affairs.
REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT
THERAPY DOG CERTIFICATION
50.
On July 26, 2006, KLEINMAN told HOLLYWOOD PAWS enrollees that dogs
were eligible to obtain a Therapy Dog Certificate as part of B Class/Level
Training. However, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS
are not authorized and sanctioned to train dogs as Therapy Dogs by Therapy
Dogs International, nor are they authorized to certify dogs as Therapy Dogs.
REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT
UNION AFFILIATION
51.
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 the Teamsters’ Union.
52.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS posted on its website and represented to the public
that it was a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”)
Local No. 399. In fact, HOLLYWOOD PAWS posted IBT Local No. 399’S trademark
on its website. The effect, according to Teamsters Local No. 399, was a
false representation to the public that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was a member of
Teamsters Local No. 399.
53.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS employees are not covered by a collective bargaining
agreement with Teamsters Local No. 399.
54.
By using the Teamsters Local No. 399 logo, HOLLYWOOD PAWS advertising
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 Teamsters Local No. 399. In fact, because
of HOLLYWOOD PAWS misuse of Teamsters Local No. 399 logo, any student who
had taken courses with HOLLYWOOD PAWS and was then subsequently employed on
a unionized show or commercial, the production company that hired the
HOLLYWOOD PAWS student could be subject to a grievance filed by Teamsters
Local No. 399.
55.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS used the
image of KS, a member of Teamsters Local No. 399, along with the animals she
trained. HOLLYWOOD PAWS was not authorized to use KS or her animal’s
likeness. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that KS had to retain
an Attorney to demand that HOLLYWOOD PAWS and LARRY LIONETTI stop using her
background information on the website
www.hollywoodpaws.com and
www.celetritydogs.org.
56.
On March 2, 2006, Teamsters Local No. 399 revoked the permission of
its member, PT, to use his likeness and the likeness of his animal on the
HOLLYWOOD PAWS website. However, as of the date of filing of this Complaint
HOLLYWOOD PAWS was still using PT’s image without his consent, or the
consent of Teamsters Local No. 399.
57.
Teamsters Local No. 399 instructed HOLLYWOOD PAWS not to use its logo
on their website. HOLLYWOOD PAWS did stop using the logo on the website
www.hollywoodpaws.com, but continued to use the logo on a shadow, or
second website it runs,
www.celebritydog.net.
58.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS does not pay the standard union compensation rate to
animal trainers required by Teamsters Local No. 399.
REPRESENTATIONS OF
AFFILIATION WITH
AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION AND USDA
59.
As late as March 14, 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented itself as being
a member of the American Humane Association (AHA), using the AHA logo on its
website. This representation was, in fact, false. HOLLYWOOD PAWS was never
a member of the AHA.
60.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires that any
company representing animals that appear in public be licensed as an
exhibitor. HOLLYWOOD PAWS does not have a USDA exhibitor license.
TALENT AGENCY
REPRESENTATIONS AND VIOLATIONS
61.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS represented that it was an Animal Agency, when in
fact, it was not. HOLLYWOOD PAWS did not obtain payment for the animal work
that the animals it trained did on television and movies.
62.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at least on one occasion,
LIONETTI requested that an owner and her dog come into the HOLLYWOOD PAWS
offices, bringing portfolio shots of the dog with her. LIONETTI told the
student that her dog was being considered for a television or film
assignment. In truth, there was no television or film assignment and the
purpose that LIONETTI had the student come to HOLLYWOOD PAWS was to convince
the student that she and her dog needed to sign up for C Class/Level
training.
63.
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, 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.
REFUSAL TO REFUND MONEY,
TO STOP CHARGING CREDIT CARDS, AND TO REFUND CREDIT CARD CHARGES
64.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS has a refund policy that states that once students
reach the halfway point of total scheduled classes, there is no refund.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that students requesting a refund were
intentionally delayed until past the halfway point, so that HOLLYWOOD PAYS
would not half to pay refunds.
65.
Numerous animal owners, upon learning that HOLLYWOOD PAWS did not
have qualified trainers, stopped taking classes. Those owners requested
that HOLLYWOOD PAYMENT refund their payments. However, HOLLYWOOD PAWS
refused to do so.
66.
Several 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.
67.
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.
68.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS continued to charge owners for services, even though
the owners had completed and paid for all training received.
69.
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.
70.
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.
REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT
TRAINERS
71.
Although he is listed on the website as a trainer, Plaintiffs are
informed and believe that LARRY LIONETTI has no animal training experience
whatsoever.
72.
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 or Princess Diaries II, or 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.
73.
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 – 1990’s Mr.
Destiny.
COMMINGLING OF VARIOUS
CORPORATIONS AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES
74.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in 2004, PETS ON CAMERA, was
a “doing business as” or “also known as” of BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN
FRANCISCO, INC. Contracts showed the organization was called “PETS ON
CAMERA a Division of International Performing Arts Academy”, which had a
business address of 369 Sutter Street, San Francisco CA 94108 and a phone
number of 415-391-4254. 369 Sutter Street and 415-391-4254 is actually the
street address and telephone number of BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO,
INC. Plaintiffs further are informed and believe, and based thereon allege,
that 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.
75.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe that BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN
FRANCISCO, INC. and/or LARRY LIONETTI subsequently incorporated HOLLYWOOD
PAWS, LLC as a limited liability company. Plaintiffs are also informed and
believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LLC assumed the rights and obligations of PETS
ON CAMERA.
76.
However, even after the purported incorporation of HOLLYWOOD PAWS,
LLC, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI and LENA MARIE LIONETTI continued to use
the facilities, banking account and other assets of BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN
FRANCISCO, INC., commingling the assets of both so that there is a
commonality and unity of interest.
ALLEGATIONS OF PARTICULAR
PLAINTIFFS
LORELLE POUNCEY AND MILO
77.
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.
78.
A true and correct copy of MS. POUNCEY’S Contract of October 1, 2005,
with personal account information redacted, is attached hereto in Exhibit
“C” and incorporated herein by reference. All contracts referenced herein
are included in Exhibit “C”.
79.
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.
80.
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.
81.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. POUNCEY that there would be no more than
three dogs per class.
82.
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.
83.
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 viscous. 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.
84.
On April 29, 2006, MS. POUNCEY learned that the C Class/Level
Instructor she had signed up with, MK, had resigned from HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
85.
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.
86.
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.
87.
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, Sue Benedon, was not qualified to instruct at any level beyond
A Class/Level.
88.
MS. POUNCEY went to a session on May 13, 2006, with BOWERS introduced
herself as the Educational Director of HOLLYWOOD PAYS. 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.
89.
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.
90.
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”.
91.
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.
92.
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.
93.
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.
94.
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.
95.
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 II, and Air
Buddies. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, however, that the agency
credit for the animals cast in these acting jobs went to the animal training
company, a company owned by animal trainer AG. LARRY LIONETTI also
referenced a Television Guide Channel Special, but this was a program
advertising HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
96.
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 purported 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.
97.
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
98.
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 it is the contract is on the same form for the other Plaintiffs’
contracts which are in Exhibit “C”.
99.
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.
100.
On January 24, 2006, MS. ARMSTRONG took Goliath to The Tyra Banks
Show for rehearsal.
101.
On January 26, 2006, The Tyra Banks Show was taped.
102.
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.
103.
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.
HEIDI ASLETT AND DELTA
104.
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
it is the contract is on the same form for the other Plaintiffs’ contracts
which are in Exhibit “C”.
105.
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.
106.
MS. ASLETT and Delta completed A Class/Level and B Class/Level
training. MS. ASLETT and Delta then took a leave of absence.
107.
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.
108.
In June 2006, KLEINMAN told MS. ASLETT that she was trying to start a
C Class/Level class by July 1, 2006.
109.
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”.
110.
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.
111.
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
112.
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 “C” and incorporated
herein by reference.
113.
MS. BECKER was never given the opportunity to complete the training
with Dollar. Although HOLLYWOOD PAWS had promised that Dollar would be
professionally photographed, Dollar was not photographed by HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
CHRISTINE BOYD AND RUSTY
114.
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.
115.
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.
116.
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.
117.
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.
118.
As part of the package, Rusty was to act in a mock television
commercial. MS. BOYD was supposed to received a DVD of Rusty’s
performance. However, RUSTY never acted in a Mock T.V. Commercial.
119.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS Promised MS. BOYD that Rusty would receive a
certificate of completion for completing the B Class/Level.
120.
After Rusty completed the B Class/Level, trainers at HOLLYWOOD PAWS
started to leave. PT left, and KS left. A non-professional animal trainer,
Chiara, also left in March 2006. Every few weeks, HOLLYWOOD PAWS
reformatted the C Class/Level training. Classes were cancelled repeatedly.
121.
As part of the C Class/Level Training, Rusty was to receive
additional photographs. Rusty was photographed, but MS. BOYD only received
a CD-ROM with the photos. If the photos were actually on the CD-ROM,
however, MS. BOYD was never able to access them.
122.
In January 2006, HOLLYWOOD PAWS told MS. BOYD that she would be
working on a set. However, this never occurred.
123.
In February 2006 and March 2006, KLEINMAN told MS. BOYD that there
were possible casting calls for Rusty. MS. BOYD never heard an 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.
124.
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
125.
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.
126.
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.
127.
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 “C” and
incorporated herein by reference.
128.
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 to conduct the
training, but never provided MS. BUSTRAM with the individuals qualifications
to conduct the training.
129.
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
130.
STEPHANIE DAVIS owns 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.
131.
MS. DAVIS met with a representative of HOLLYWOOD PAWS, who
purportedly evaluated Romeo and found him 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.
132.
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 it is the contract is on the same form for the other
Plaintiffs’ contracts which are in Exhibit “C”.
133.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS assured MS. DAVIS that she and Romeo would make this
money up, plus earn more, once training was finished.
134.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. DAVIS that Romeo would be professional
photographed as part of the package. ROMEO’S photograph was taken, but
HOLLYWOOD PAWS never provided the photographs to MS. DAVIS in any form.
135.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. DAVIS that Romeo’s photograph would be
placed on its website. However, at the time that this Complaint was
drafted, Romeo still had not been placed on the website.
136.
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.
137.
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. MS. DAVIS did so, 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
138.
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.
139.
On or about June 21, 2005, MS. GAUTHIER and BRIZO auditioned at
HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
140.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS told MS. GAUTHIER that HOLLYWOOD PAWS animals had been
used on The Sopranos and Indecent Proposal.
141.
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.
142.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. GAUTHIER that Brizo would be displayed on
its’ website.
143.
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. Plaintiffs do not have a
copy of MS. GATHIER’S contract, but are informed and believe that it is the
contract is on the same form for the other Plaintiffs’ contracts which are
in Exhibit “C”.
144.
A portion of the charges were incurred by HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LLC.
However, the most recent charges have been through BARBIZON MODELING.
145.
On June 21, 2005, 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.
146.
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.
147.
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.
148.
At the time of filing of this complaint, MS. GAUTHIER and Brizo had
not started C Level/Class training. Furthermore, Brizo has not worked as an
animal actor.
JUNE HILL AND SOPHIE
149.
JUNE owns Sophie, a dog. On June 25, 2005, RAQUEL 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.
150.
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.
151.
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 “C” and incorporated herein by
reference.
152.
Thereafter, JUNE HILL began driving three hundred miles round trip
for training classes at HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
153.
Although MS. HILL was assured 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.
154.
MS. HILL was especially interested in having MK, a highly qualified
trainer, train Sophie. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised JUNE HILL that MK would be
Sophie’s trainer. However, MK stopped working at HOLLYWOOD PAWS after
several months.
155.
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.
156.
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.
157.
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.
DEB HURDLE AND ROCKY
158.
DEB HURDLE, owns Rocky, a Pomeranian. On or about November 12, 2005,
HOLLYWOOD PAWS sold MS. HURDLE a training package consisting of A
Class/Level, B Class/Level and C Class/Level training. The total cost of
the training was $3,695.
159.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS also told MS. HURDLE that during Rocky’s classes, MS.
HURDLE would be trained to be a studio trainer. A “studio trainer” is a
person who works on set to train animals specific behaviors for a specific
job.
160.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS assured MS. HURDLE that because Rocky was “advanced”,
Rocky would be sent on animal talent auditions immediately. However, Rocky
was never sent on any animal talent audition at all.
161.
The total amount MS. HURDLE agreed to pay was $3,695. HOLLYWOOD PAWS
indicated that the A Class/Level was free because Rocky had advanced
training. For reasons not provided, MS. HURDLE received a $350 discount.
MS. HURDLE gave HOLLYWOOD PAWS a down payment of $1000, and HOLLYWOOD PAWS
financed $2,695. MS. HURDLE paid the entire amount contracted in full. A
true and correct copy of MS. HURDLE’S contract is attached in Exhibit “C”
and incorporated herein by reference.
162.
As part of the A Class, HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. HURDLE that Rocky
would be professionally photographed. However, Rocky was never
professionally photographed.
163.
MS. HURDLE and Rocky attended abbreviated A Class/Level classes,
because Rocky already had some of the training that would have been part of
that curriculum. MS. HURDLE and Rocky started A Class/Level classes on
December 3, 2005 and finished on March 4, 2006.
164.
MS. HURDLE’S husband became quite ill, and MS. HURDLE attempted to
withdrawal herself and Rocky from the B Class/Level and C Class/Level. MS.
HURDLE requested a refund. However, LARRY LIONETTI refused to refund MS.
HURDLE any of the money she had paid for the B Class/Level and C
Class/Level.
165.
According to undated, correspondence that MS. HURDLE received
sometime after March 18, 2006, the reason that LARRY LIONETTI refused to
refund MS. HURDLE was that MS. HURDLE had paid tuition for the B Class/Level
and C Class/Level in advance, and therefore, too much time had elapsed for
her to be entitled to a refund. A true and correct copy of this letter is
attached as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by reference.
166.
MS. HURDLE pursued the refund with KLEINMAN, who told her to contact
accounting. KLEINMAN told MS. HURDLE that LENA LIONETTI was the
accountant. MS. HURDLE contacted LENA LIONETTI, who, like LARRY LIONETTI,
refused to refund MS. HURDLE’S money. MS. HURDLE eventually received a
partial refund.
167.
Although the HOLLYWOOD PAWS Agreement stated that Rocky would be
listed as an animal actor on its website, at the time of filing of the
Complaint, Rocky had never appeared on the HOLLYWOOD PAWS website.
JON LACOURCIERE AND
WALLACE
168.
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. LACOURCIER’S
contract is in Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference.
169.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MR. LACOURCIERE that Wallace would work
enough to recoup the cost of his training.
170.
MR. LACOURCIERE and Wallace began training on August 31, 2005.
171.
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.
172.
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
173.
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. HOLLYWOOD PAWS told MS. LIU that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was a member of
“the Union”, and a member of the American Humane Society’s Film and
Television Union.
174.
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.
175.
In 2006, MS. LIU then paid HOLLYWOOD PAWS $1,995 in advance for a C
Class/Level. A true and correct copy of LIU’S contract is in Exhibit “C”
and incorporated herein by reference.
176.
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.
177.
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.
178.
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.
179.
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.
180.
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
181.
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 “C” and incorporated herein by
reference.
182.
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 SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC. Plaintiffs are
further informed and believe that BARBIZON SCHOOL OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.
and/or LARRY LIONETTI subsequently incorporated HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LLC.
Plaintiffs are also informed and believe that HOLLYWOOD PAWS, LLC assumed
the rights and obligations of PETS ON CAMERA.
183.
At the time MS. PIERCE entered into the contract with PETS ON CAMERA,
a representative promised her that Princess Talia would be represented and
promoted by the organization. It promised MS. PIERCE that Princess Talia
would be posted on its website.
184.
PETS ON CAMERA 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.
185.
PETS ON CAMERA 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.
186.
PETS ON CAMERA promised MS. PIERCE that Princess Talia’s photograph
and résumé would be sent to 40 animal talent agencies.
187.
PETS ON CAMERA promised MS. PIERCE that she would receive college
credit from Moorpark College.
PATTY STAFFORD AND MARLEY
188.
PATTY STAFFORD owns Marley. On August 19, 2004 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 “C” and incorporated herein by reference.
189.
When MS. STAFFORD enrolled Marley, PETS ON CAMERA assured her that it
would act as an agent for Marley as an animal actor.
190.
PETS ON CAMERA also assured MS. STAFFORD that it would act as her
agent as an Studio Animal Trainer. PETS ON CAMERA 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.
191.
PETS ON CAMERA assured MS. STAFFORD that she and Marley would more
than earn the cost of the training back once Marley had been trained and
started working. PETS ON CAMERA 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.
192.
PETS ON CAMERA promised MS. STAFFORD that Marley’s trainer would be
BD. However, BD never trained Marley.
SHELLEY SMITH AND KATIE
193.
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.
194.
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.
195.
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.
196.
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.
197.
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%.
198.
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.
199.
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 it is the contract
is on the same form for the other Plaintiffs’ contracts which are in Exhibit
“C”.
200.
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.
201.
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.
202.
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.
203.
In May 2006, KIM KLEINMAN instructed MS. SMITH and Katie in a class.
KIM KLEINMAN discussed the movie Jackass II, 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 II.
204.
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.
205.
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.
206.
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.
207.
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 résumé.
208.
Katie was used in the TV Guide Special advertisement for
HOLLYWOOD PAWS, but MS. SMITH was not paid.
209.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS claimed to have gotten Katie an acting job. However,
when MS. SMITH and Katie arrived, there was no director.
210.
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.
211.
On June 9, 2006, MS. SMITH asked LARRY LIONETTI for a refund for the
C Class/Level class.
212.
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”.
213.
On June 18, 2006, LARRY LIONETTI told MS. SMITH that while Katie was
qualified to act on movie sets, MS. SMITH herself was not.
214.
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.
215.
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.
ASHLEY WHITE AND PEANUT
216.
ASHLEY WHITE, an individual, is and was a resident of the State of
California, County of Riverside. MS. WHITE is a certified Veterinary
Technician. She owns Peanut.
217.
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.”
218.
MS. WHITE and Peanut audition on January 4, 2006. At the audition,
HOLLYWOOD PAWS 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.
219.
HOLLYWOOD PAWS claimed to have a program only open to a few select
individuals. HOLLYWOOD PAWS 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.
220.
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
“C” and incorporated herein by reference.
221.
A day or two later, MS. WHITE had second thoughts, and went back to
HOLLYWOOD PAWS for more information. HOLLYWOOD PAWS claimed not to be a
“scam” and that MS. WHITE was being given an opportunity few, if any people,
ever got. HOLLYWOOD PAWS promised MS. WHITE that by the end of her training
with HOLLYWOOD PAWS, she would be working on set as a trainer and a member
of Teamsters 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.
222.
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.
223.
MS. WHITE decided to stay in the program. She purchase 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.
224.
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.
225.
MS. WHITE was not given a course schedule; or the name of course
instructors.
226.
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; and she had used her limited resources to pay tuition to HOLLYWOOD
PAWS.
227.
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.
228.
Thereafter, 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, a trainer.
229.
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).” A copy of this document is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”. This, with the supplies list, was the extent of
written instructional material that HOLLYWOOD PAWS provided to MS. WHITE.
230.
After signing up for the alleged vocational training, MS. WHITE had
been attending HOLLYWOOD PAWS three times a week. On February 25, 2006, MS.
WHITE asked LENA LIONETTI and KLEINMAN why she did not have a course
schedule. At that time, LENA LIONETTI and KLEINMAN said that she was only
should have been attending class once a week.
231.
On February 25, 2006, LENA LIONETTI told MS. WHITE that HOLLYWOOD
PAWS was working on union certification.
232.
MS. WHITE has not received any additional training from HOLLYWOOD
PAWS since February, 2006.
233.
MS. WHITE has not been refunded any of the money she spent for the
purported vocational training.
234.
MS. WHITE was offered a purported job at HOLLYWOOD PAWS upon
completion of the expensive training.
235.
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 ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS)
236.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 235 as though set
forth fully herein.
237.
As described more fully above and in the contracts attached in
Exhibit “C”, Plaintiffs, and each of them, entered into a Contract with
Defendants for Animal Training Services.
238.
As described more fully above, Defendants breached those contracts by
failing to provide the services provided for in the Contract.
239.
Plaintiffs have fully performed to the terms of the contracts, except
for those terms which they are excused from performing.
240.
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all damages arising from
Defendants’ breach of contract, including but not limited to:
(a)
General damages;
(b)
Special damages;
(c)
Rescission and restitution;
(d)
Specific performance;
(e)
Injunctive relief;
(f)
Interest;
(g)
Attorneys’ fees and costs;
(h)
And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable.
SECOND CAUSE
OF ACTION
FRAUD
(ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS)
241.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 400 as though set
forth fully herein.
242.
As described more fully above, Defendants, and each of them,
intentionally misrepresented material facts; and concealed other materials
facts. Among the numerous misrepresentations more fully described above:
(a)
Defendants told Plaintiffs and the general public that they were
affiliated with Teamsters Local No. 399, but they were not.
(b)
Defendants told Plaintiffs and the general public that they were
affiliated with the American Humane Society, but they were not.
(c)
Defendants told Plaintiffs that AG and BD would train their animals,
when they were not in fact animal trainers at HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
(d)
Defendants told Plaintiffs and the general public that they had
provided the animals for There’s Something About Mary, when neither
HOLLYWOOD PAWS nor PETS ON CAMERA had been formed and was in operation when
that movie was made.
(e)
Defendants told Plaintiffs and the general public that they had
provided the animals for Air Bud, when neither HOLLYWOOD PAWS nor
PETS ON CAMERA had been formed and was in operation when that movie was
made.
(f)
Defendants told Plaintiffs and the general public that they had
provided the animals for There’s Something About Mary, when neither
HOLLYWOOD PAWS nor PETS ON CAMERA had been formed and was in operation when
that movie was made.
(g)
Defendants told Plaintiffs that once their animals had been trained,
Plaintiffs were eligible to join the Teamsters Union required to work on
set. This was not true.
(h)
Defendants told Plaintiffs that once their animals were “represented”
by PETS ON CAMERA or HOLLYWOOD PAWS that they would be placed on the
HOLLYWOOD PAWS website. For most Plaintiffs, this did not happen.
(i)
Defendants 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.
(j)
Defendants told at least one individual, ASHELY WHITE, that HOLLYWOOD
PAWS was an accredited vocational institute. It is not.
243.
These misrepresentations, and those set forth in the preliminary
allegations, were made intentionally, repeatedly and knowingly by the
Defendants. In fact, Defendants continue to make the misrepresentations –
including those about There’s Something About Mary – on its shadow
website,
www.celebritydogs.org even after being warned by Teamsters Union Local
No. 399 to stop using the advertising materials for that movie.
244.
Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on the representations
made by Defendants. For example, Plaintiffs had no reason to know that
HOLLYWOOD PAWS had only recently been incorporated, because it posted
licensed and copyrighted materials from movies that had been released years
before its incorporation. Plaintiffs did not know AG or BD personally, and
had no reason to believe that they were not trainers for HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
Plaintiffs further relied on the association of PETS ON CAMERA and HOLLYWOOD
PAWS with BARBIZON, a long established modeling school with a good national
reputation.
245.
As a result of this reasonable and justifiable reliance, Plaintiffs
entered into expensive, lengthy contracts with Defendants.
246.
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all damages arising from
Defendants’ fraud, including but not limited to:
(a)
General damages;
(b)
Special damages;
(c)
Punitive damages
(d)
Injunctive relief;
(e)
Interest on money paid;
(f)
Attorneys’ fees and costs;
(g)
And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable.
THIRD CAUSE
OF ACTION
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
FRAUD
(ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS)
247.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 246 as though set
forth fully herein.
248.
As described more fully above, Defendants, and each of them, entered
into an agreement to make material misrepresentations of fact to the
Plaintiffs to induce them to enter into contracts for expensive animal
training.
249.
PETS ON CAMERA worked with BARBIZON; which, in turn, worked with
HOLLYWOOD PAWS to induce clients into agreements for training.
250.
Their agents and sales people, KLEINMAN, BOWERS and RAQUEL VALLEJO
made the misrepresentations to Plaintiffs. KLEINMAN, BOWERS and VALLEJO,
who were hired by HOLLYWOOD PAWS shortly after it was formed, could not have
reasonably believed the representations they were making to Plaintiffs.
Among other things, these individuals claimed that Plaintiffs could earn the
money that they had paid in training with acting jobs for their animals, but
at the time the representations were made, HOLLYWOOD PAWS had yet to
represent an animal actor as an agent in a paid job. They represented that
HOLLYWOOD PAWS had animals in the cast of various movies and television
shows dating into the 1990s, which was not possible – because HOLLYWOOD PAWS
was formed in 2005; and PETS ON CAMERA only began operation in 2004.
251.
In a classic “bait-and-switch”, Defendants promised Plaintiffs that
once their pets were with HOLLYWOOD PAWS, they would be placed on the
website and submitted for acting jobs. However, once Plaintiffs signed on,
KLEINMAN, LARRY LIONETTI LENA LIONETTI, and LENA MARIE LIONETTI told them
that the animals had to actually complete all three levels of training.
252.
Among other things, KLEINMAN participated in a scheme to make sure
that those Plaintiffs who complained about HOLLYWOOD PAWS would not be
refunded their money. When KLEINMAN was asked for refunds, she delayed
responding to the request or strung the person along until it was too late
contractually for the person to receive a refund. At one point, KLEINMAN
told one Plaintiff that she and her dog were required to complete all three
levels of classes within a year of signing a contract. Because the
Plaintiff and her dog had not done so, KLEINMAN told her that she could not
get a refund – even though the reason that Plaintiff could not complete the
training with her dog was that HOLLYWOOD PAWS did not have C Class/Level
classes available for her to take.
253.
When Plaintiffs complained that HOLLYWOOD PAWS was not providing the
services it promised, LARRY LIONETTI, LENA LIONETTI, and LENA MARIE LIONETTI
refused to provide refunds. Instead, they blamed the persons who had signed
up for the training, accusing them of creating “personality conflicts” that
caused the problems with the availability of training.
254.
If an owner complained that they had not paid for their animals’
acting services, LARRY LIONETTI threatened to make sure that the animal and
its owner would never act again.
255.
If an owner persisted in asking for her money back, LARRY LIONETTI
had his purported attorney send threatening letters.
256.
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all damages arising from
Defendants’ conspiracy to commit fraud, including but not limited to:
(a)
General damages;
(b)
Special damages;
(c)
Punitive damages
(d)
Injunctive relief;
(e)
Interest on money paid;
(f)
Attorneys’ fees and costs;
(g)
And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable.
FOURTH CAUSE
OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION
(ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS)
257.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 256 as though set
forth fully herein.
258.
As described more fully above, Defendants, and each of them,
negligently misrepresented material facts.
259.
Plaintiffs reasonably relied on those misrepresentations.
260.
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to all damages arising from
Defendants’ fraud, including but not limited to:
(a)
General damages;
(b)
Special damages;
(c)
Interest on money paid;
(d)
Attorneys’ fees and costs;
(e)
And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable.
FIFTH CAUSE
OF ACTION
CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES
ACT
(ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS)
261.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 253 as though set
forth fully herein.
262.
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 detained above, claiming that animals
represented by the animal training company owned by AG were represented by
HOLLYWOOD PAWS.
(2)
Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification
of goods or services.
Defendants did this by,
among other things as more fully detailed above, by stating that it was
affiliated with Teamsters Local No. 399 and a part of the American Humane
Association.
(3)
Misrepresenting the affiliation, connection, or association with, or
certification by, another.
Defendants did this by,
among other things as more fully detailed above, stating that it was
affiliated with Teamsters Local No. 399 and a part of the American Humane
Association.
(4)
Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
advertised.
Defendants did this by,
among other things as more fully detailed above, advertising classes it
could not provide; and advertising that it a Talent Agency (which requires
licensing) when it was not.
263.
Defendants are therefore entitled to all damages arising therefrom,
including but not limited to:
(a)
General damages;
(b)
Special damages;
(c)
Interest on money paid;
(d)
Attorneys’ fees and costs;
(e)
And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable.
SIXTH CAUSE
OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE
§1700 ET. SEQ.
(ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS)
264.
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate paragraphs 1 through 263 as though set
forth fully herein.
265.
California Labor Code §1700 et. seq., requires that Talent
Agents and Agencies be licensed and registered with the State of
California
266.
This code section applies to this action because HOLLYWOOD PAWS
promised that it would act as an agent for the human owners that it trained
to act as Studio Animal Trainers and Handlers, separate and aside from the
training it gave their animals. HOLLYWOOD PAWS agreed to do this for, among
other people, PATTY STAFFORD and ASHLEY WHITE.
267.
This section also applies to this action because any studios,
directors or producers desiring to have a HOLLYWOOD PAWS animal actor act on
set or in shoots would need to negotiate the contract with its owner; and
the owner would need to appear on set to work with the animal.
268.
Defendants are therefore entitled to all damages arising therefrom,
including but not limited to:
(a)
General damages;
(b)
Special damages;
(c)
Interest on money paid;
(d)
Attorneys’ fees and costs;
(e)
And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
(1)
General damages;
(2)
Special damages;
(3)
Compensatory damages;
(4)
Rescission and restitution;
(5)
Specific performance;
(6)
Injunctive relief;
(7)
Interest upon all sums paid;
(8)
Punitive damages;
(9)
Attorneys’ fees and costs, as permitted by contract, by statute and
by law;
(10)
And such other remedies as this court deems fair, just and equitable.
Dated: September 8,
2006 HYDE MULVIHILL APC
/s/
Cynthia Coulter Mulvihill
Attorney for Plaintiffs
EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT “B”
EXHIBIT “C”
