Full complaint from lawsuit against Serhat Gumrukcu related to fraudulent house-flipping opportunity.

1. --J
1
~~
z
- 2
C!J
a.: 3
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• FILED
Jeffrey B. Valle (State Bar No. 110060) ~
jvalle@vallemakoff.com
Ilan Wisnia (State Bar No. 249137)
- Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
JUL 31 2015
iwisnia@vallemakoff.com Sherri rter, Execu,~ 9fficer/Clerk
VALLE MAK.OFF LLP BY-..-..-;....,~::--r-":...,_.!,
__ 0eputy
11911 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 324 Da tta Smith
Los Angeles, California 90049
Telephone: (310) 476-0300
Facsimile: (310) 476-0333
Attorneys for PlaintiffERSIN AKYUZ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WEST DISTRICT
ERSIN AK.YUZ, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
SERHAT GUMRUKCU, an individual;
ERMES LLC, a Californiajoint venture;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
SCJ.24544
Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR:
I) FRAUD;
2) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
3) CONVERSION;
4) BREACH OF CO-OWNERSHIP
AGREEMENT;
5) BREACH OF JOINT VENTURE
AGREEMENT;
6) BREACH OF PROMISSORY NOTE; and
7) ACCOUNTING
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
NOV 18 ,,,n; Richard A. Stone
DBW~~
COMPLAINT

2. PlaintiffErsin Akyuz, by and through his attorneys ofrecord, allege, upon personal
2 knowledge with respect to himselfand to his actions and upon information and beliefas to all
3 other matters, as follows:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OVERVIEW
I. This case arises from the fraud, conversion, breach offiduciary duty, breach of
contract, and complete abuse oftrust by Defendant Serhat Gumrukcu, a purported "business
partner" ofPlaintiffErsin Akyuz. Plaintiffis a successful businessman and executive living in
Istanbul, Turkey. Under the pretext offorming ajoint venture to purchase, remodel, and sell a
run-down house in West Hollywood, California, Gumrukcu stole over $930,000 from Akyuz.
2. Gumrukcu managed to commit these tortious acts, in part, by (I) falsely claiming
to Akyuz to have entered into escrow for a house located in West Hollywood, when he had not;
(2) providing Akyuz with forged escrow documents showing that the purchase ofthe West
Hollywood property had closed, when it had not; (3) assuming the identify ofan attorney
purportedly hired to represent both him and Akyuz, and then communicating with Akyuz via e-
mail as if he was this attorney (via a fictitiously created e-mail address purportedly belonging to
this attorney); (4) providing Akyuz with joint venture related corporate formation documents, so
as to induce Akyuz to contribute $500,000 towards the purchase ofthe West Hollywood property;
and (5) after the purchase ofthe West Hollywood property purportedly closed, periodically
requesting Akyuz to supply additional funds (totaling over $430,000) to be used to pay for
various remodeling costs - all ofwhich were fictitious costs as the property had never been
purchased.
3. Gumrukcu's fraud went so far as to fake an eventual sale ofthe property, with
repeated statements to Akyuz that he would be paid his money shortly. Gumrukcu furthermore
faked a phantom profit on this alleged sale, claiming that Akyuz was entitled to an additional
$186,000 on top ofthe return ofhis investment (for $I.116 million in total). When this did not
occur, and presumably to stall for even more time, Gumrukcu executed a promissory note in favor
ofAkyuz in the amount of $1.2 million. Perhaps unsurprisingly, neither the $I.I 16 million due
from the sale, nor the $1.2 million due under the promissory note, was ever paid.
COMPLAINT

3. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
• THE PARTIES
4. PlaintiffErsin Akyuz ("Plaintiff' or "Akyuz") is a resident of Istanbul, Turkey
who, during relevant periods set forth in the Complaint, conducted business in Los Angeles,
California.
5. Defendant Serhat Gumrukcu ("Gumrukcu") is an individual who resided in Los
Angeles, California, at all material times.
6. Defendant Ermes LLC ("Ermes") is a California joint venture whose principal
place ofbusiness is located in Los Angeles, California. Akyuz and Gumrukcu are both members
ofErmes.
7. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times
relevant Gumrukcu and Ermes are, and have been, the alter egos ofone another as they have
commingled their assets; Ermes is owned, dominated, influenced, controlled and directed by
Gumrukcu in furtherance ofa single business operation; there exists a unity ofinterest between
and among Gumrukcu and Ermes; there was and is no separateness or individuality ofGumrukcu
and Ermes; Gumrukcu and Ermes are one and the same and Gumrukcu has utilized Ermes as a
conduit for the conduct ofhis own business and affairs; adherence to the fiction ofa separate
existence ofGumrukcu and Ermes would, under the circumstances, sanction fraud and promote
injustice, unfairness and inequity ifPlaintiffwas permitted to satisfy its claims herein only out of
the assets ofonly one ofthese two defendants and not those ofthe remaining defendant, whose
assets may not be sufficient to meet the obligations ofthe defendants to Plaintiff, particularly in
light ofthe fact that assets have been fraudulently transferred by, between and among Gumrukcu
22 and Ermes.
23 8. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the fictitiously
24 named defendants identified herein as Does 1 through 10, and each ofthem, are in some manner
25 responsible or legally liable for the actions, events, transactions and circumstances alleged herein.
26 The true names and capacities ofthe fictitiously named defendants, whether individual, corporate,
27 associate, or otherwise, are presently unknown to Plaintiff, and Plaintiffwill seek to amend this
28
COMPLAINT

4. 1 complaint to assert the true names and capacities ofsuch fictitiously named defendants when they
2 have been ascertained. For convenience, each reference herein to a defendant will also refer to
3 Does 1 through 10.
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 9. PlaintiffErsin Akyuz is the ChiefExecutive Officer ofthe Turkish subsidiary of
6 Deutsche Bank (aka "Deutsche Bank A.S."). Professionally and personally, Akyuz overseas
7 investments all over the world.
8 10. In early June of2014, Defendant Serhat Gumrukcu approached Akyuz about
9 investing in a property located at 8940 Dicks St., West Hollywood, California 90069 (the "West
10 Hollywood Property"). Gumrukcu told Akyuz that the West Hollywood Property was
11 undervalued, and with some renovation, could be sold for a profit. Gumrucku further explained
12 that he was already in escrow to purchase the West Hollywood Property, so that ifAkyuz was
13 interested in investing in this deal alongside him, he had to decide immediately so that the
14 appropriate legal documentation could be drafted. Akyuz agreed to proceed along these lines.
15 11. Later in the month, Gumrukcu communicated to Akyuz that he had retained the
16 legal services ofan attorney, Benjamin Kacev, to prepare the necessary legal paperwork.
17 12. On July 2, 2014, Kacev purported to e-mail to Akyuz and Gumrukcu a Co-
18 Ownership Agreement and a Joint Venture Agreement. This e-mail was sent from Kacev's
19 alleged gmail account address, "benkacev@gmail.com." In Kacev's cover e-mail to Akyuz and
20 Gumrukcu, Kacev indicated that he had purposely backdated the Co-Ownership Agreement to
21 June 25, so to make it "easier for us to add Ersin as 50% owner during the title recording..."
22 Akyuz thereafter signed and returned both agreements. Gumrukcu did the same.
23 13. Under the terms of the June 25, 2014 Co-Ownership Agreement, Akyuz and
24 Gumrukcu each agreed to contribute $500,000 towards the purchase ofthe West Hollywood
25 Property (for $1 million in total). Akyuz agreed to pay his $500,000 by depositing it in a bank
26 account held in the name ofErmes LLC, an account held at Boston Private Bank & Trust
27 Company in Santa Monica, California ("Boston Private Bank"). In exchange for Akyuz making
28
COMPLAINT

5. 1 this $500,000 investment, Gumrukcu agreed to "amend the purchase agreement and add
2 [Akyuz] as the 50% owner of the property upon closing." In tum, upon sale ofthe property,
3 Akyuz was to be repaid his $500,000 before any profit were to be divided. A true and correct
4 copy ofthe Co-Ownership Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated
5 herein by reference.
6 14. Under the terms ofthe July 2, 2014 Joint Venture Agreement, Akyuz and
7 Gwnrukcu agreed to form a joint venture in the name ofErmes LLC. The stated purpose ofthe
8 venture was to "participate in the redevelopment and the sale of the [West Hollywood
9 Property]." Akyuz's sole responsibility was to contribute $500,000, while Gumrakcu's
10 responsibilities included not only contributing $500,000, but overseeing all legal, financial, and
11 operational aspects ofthe redevelopment. Upon the sale ofthe West Hollywood property, Akyuz
12 was to be repaid his original $500,000, as well as 40% ofany net profits that might arise.
13 Importantly, this repayment was to occur "immediately" upon the sale ofthe property. Section
14 5(a) to the Joint Venture Agreement states, "[i]mmediately upon completion of the sale of
15 redeveloped [West Hollywood property], the capital investors will be fully paid their initial
16 investments back ..." A true and correct copy ofthe Joint Venture Agreement is attached hereto
17 . as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein by reference.
18 15. On or about July 8, 2014, Gumrukcu delivered to Akyuz escrow documents,
19 purporting to show that the purchase ofthe West Hollywood Property had closed. The
20 documents were written on the letterhead of"Beverly Hills Escrow," and were directed to "Ermes
21 LLC and Mr. Ersin Akyuz." A true and correct copy ofthese escrow documents are attached
22 hereto as Exhibit "C" and are incorporated herein by reference.
23 16. Between August and December of2014, Gumrukcu periodically requested that
24 Akyuz provide additional funds to help pay for redevelopment costs associated with the West
25 Hollywood Property. Akyuz acceded to these requests, and provided $150,000 in August of
26 2014, $170,000 in October of2014, and $110,000 in December of2014 (for a total of$430,000).
27 17. In December of2014, Gumrukcu told Akyuz that a friend ofhis had agreed to
28
COMPLAINT

6. purchase the West Hollywood Property when the redevelopment was complete. In March of
2 2015, Gumrukcu told Akyuz that that redevelopment had finally been completed, and that he was
3 in the process ofselling the West Hollywood Property to his friend.
4 18. On April 15 and 16, 2015, Kacev e-mailed Akyuz and Gumrukcu confirming that
5 the sale had closed (for a total of$2.35 million), and that Akyuz was entitled to a total of$1.116
6 million ofthe sales proceeds (which included the repayment ofhis initial investment, additional
7 capital contributions, and 40% ofthe profits). Kacev indicated that the proceeds would be wired
8 to Akyuz shortly.
9 19. After a month ofno money being received, Akyuz repeatedly demanded an
10 explanation from Gumrukcu. Instead ofproviding a legitimate or credible response, Gumrukcu
11 simply provided one excuse after another. To try to buy more time, Gumrukcu provided Akyuz
12 with a promissory note dated June 1, 2015. This promissory note promised to pay Akyuz $1.2
13 million, plus interest, on or before July 30, 2015. A true and correct copy ofthis promissory note
14 is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and is incorporated herein by reference.
15 20. Through an independent investigation since May of2015, Akyuz has come to find
16 that he has been the victim ofa massive fraud.
17 21. Akyuz is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the West
18 Hollywood Property was never in fact purchased by Gumruku or Ermes. Instead, public records
19 show that the property was purchased by "8135 Norton Avenue Inc." on August 18, 2014. Akyuz
20 is informed and believes, and on this basis alleges, that 8135 Norton Avenue Inc. has no
21 relationship with Gumrukcu or Ermes.
22 22. Akyuz is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the escrow
23 documents transmitted by Gumrukcu are in fact forgeries. Beverly Hills Escrow has confirmed
24 that they have no record ofthe West Hollywood Property in their records, and that they have
25 never even heard of Gurnrukcu or Ermes.
26 23. Akyuz is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Kacev was never
27 engaged by either Gumrukcu to provide legal services to him and/or Akyuz. Kacev, as identified
28
COMPLAINT

7. ··--
1 on the California Bar website, has confirmed that that while he once met with Gumrukcu, he
2 never was engaged by him to perform any legal work for him and/or Akyuz. Further, Kacev has
3 confirmed that the benkacev@gmail.com account is not his.
4 24. Akyuz is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the West
5 Hollywood Property was never in fact sold by Gumruku or Ennes. Instead, public records show
6 that "8135 Norton Avenue Inc." has yet to sell the property at all.
7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (For Fraud Against Gumrukcu and Does 1 through 10)
9 25. Plaintiffincorporates by reference each ofthe allegations in paragraphs I through
10 24 above, as though fully set forth herein.
11 26. In June of2014, Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiffthat he was in escrow
12 on the West Hollywood Property, and that ifPlaintiffwould invest $500,000 in its purchase and
13 redevelopment, Plaintiff would obtain a 50% interest in the property. Further, Defendant falsely
14 represented that upon sale ofthe property, he would be immediately paid back his initial
15 investment. Towards this end, Defendant made these same exact representations in both the Co-
16 Ownership Agreement and Joint Venture Agreement that he caused to be drafted and transmitted
17 to Plaintiff. The Co-Ownership Agreement specifically stated that "[Defendant] has entered
18 into a purchase agreement and escrow to buy the [West Hollywood Property]." See Exhibit
19 A at first recital. In turn, the Co-Ownership Agreement stated that in exchange for paying
20 $500,000, Defendant would ."amend the purchase agreement and add [Plaintiff] as the 50%
21 owner ofthe property upon closing." See Exhibit A at Sec. 3. Finally, the Joint Venture
22 Agreement expressly stated, "[i]mmediately upon completion of the sale ofthe [West
23 Hollywood Property], the capital investors will be fully repaid their initial investments
24 back..." See Exhibit Bat Sec. 5(a).
25 27. These representations were false because Defendant was never in escrow on the
26 West Hollywood Property, therefore there was nothing to become a 50% investor in, let alone any
27 purchase agreement to be amended. Also, as sale could and would never be completed (as there
28
COMPLAINT

8. 1 had been no predicate purchase), there was no event that could trigger repayment to Plaintiffof
2 his initial investment. Defendant had no intent to comply with his representations and promises
3 whenmade.
4 28. Defendant knew his representations to be false when made.
5 29. Defendant, in making these misrepresentations, intended to induce reliance by
6 Plaintiffby, among other things, to pay $500,000 into the Ermes' bank account at Boston Private
7 Bank.
8 30. Plaintiffdid, in fact, justifiably rely upon Defendant's representations by
9 transferring $500,000 into the Ermes' bank account at Boston Private Bank.
10 31 . As a result, Plaintiffwas damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
11 32. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein is oppressive, fraudulent and malicious.
12 Accordingly, Plaintiffseeks an award ofexemplary damages against Defendant.
13 33. Further, in June of2014, Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiffthat he had
14 engaged an attorney named Benjamin Kacev to formalize the $500,000 investment then
15 contemplated by Plaintiff. Further, and towards this end, Defendant assumed the identity of
16 Benjamin Kacev, and caused a Co-Ownership Agreement and Joint Venture Agreement to be
17 transmitted to Plaintiffthrough a fraudulent email account associated with this assumed identity.
18 34. These representations were false because Defendant had never engaged Benjamin
19 Kacev to render any legal services to him, Plaintiff, or Ermes. Defendant had no intent to comply ,
20 with his representations and promises when made.
21 35. Defendant knew his representations to be false when made.
22 36. Defendant, in making these misrepresentations, intended to induce reliance by
23 Plaintiffby, among other things, to believe that the purchase ofthe West Hollywood Property was
24 being legitimately processed and that his interests were being adequately protected, so that
25 Plaintiffwould pay $500,000 towards this purchase.
26 37. Plaintiffdid, in fact, justifiably rely upon Defendant's representations by paying
27 $500,000 into the Ermes' bank account at Boston Private Bank.
28
COMPLAINT

9. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38. As a result, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
39. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein is oppressive, fraudulent and malicious.
Accordingly, Plaintiffseeks an award ofexemplary damages against Defendant.
40. Further, at various times in 2014, Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiffthat
additional funds were needed to complete the redevelopment ofthe West Hollywood Property,
and that ifPlaintiffwould invest these funds, they would be paid back upon the sale ofthe
property and on the same terms as his originally invested $500,000.
41. These representations were false because the West Hollywood Property had never
in fact been purchased, and thus, no redevelopment funds were necessary. Defendant had no
intent to comply with his representations and promises when made.
42. Defendant knew his representations to be false when made.
43. Defendant, in making these misrepresentations, intended to induce reliance by
Plaintiffby, among other things, to pay a total of$430,000 to the Ermes' bank account at Boston
Private Bank.
44. Plaintiffdid, in fact, justifiably rely upon Defendant's representations by
transferring $430,000 into the Ermes' bank account at Boston Private Bank.
45. As a result, Plaintiffwas damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
46. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein is oppressive, fraudulent and malicious.
Accordingly, Plaintiffseeks an award ofexemplary damages against Defendant.
47. Further, in July of2014, Defendant falsely caused forged escrow documents to be
transmitted to Plaintiff, which showed the purchase ofthe West Hollywood Property to have
closed.
48. These representations were false because Defendant had never caused escrow to be
opened, let alone closed, as he had made no efforts to purchase the West Hollywood Property.
49. Defendant knew his representations to be false when made.
50. Defendant, in making these misrepresentations, intended to induce reliance by
Plaintiff by, among other things, to believe that the purchase ofthe West Hollywood Property had
COMPLAINT

10. 1 closed, and that the $500,000 he had transferred towards this purchase had in fact been used for
2 this purchase.
3 51. Plaintiffdid, in fact, justifiably rely upon Defendant's representations by not
4 immediately seeking for his $500,000 to be transferred back to his possession.
5 52. As a result, Plaintiffwas damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
6 53. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein is oppressive, fraudulent and malicious.
7 Accordingly, Plaintiffseeks an award ofexemplary damages against Defendant.
8 54, Finally, on April 15 and 16 of2014, Defendant falsely assumed the identity of
9 K.acev, and represented to Plaintiffthat the West Hollywood Property had been sold, and that
10 Plaintiffwould shortly be receiving $1.116 million.
11 55. These representations were false because (i) Kacev had never been retained by
12 Gumrukcu, (ii) it was in fact Gumrukcu, and not Kacev making these representations, (iii) the
13 sale ofthe West Hollywood Property had never in fact occurred, and (iv) no money was going to
14 be sent to Plaintiff. Defendant had no intent to comply with his representations and promises
15 when made.
16
17
56.
57.
Defendant knew his representations to be false when made.
Defendant, in making these misrepresentations, intended to induce reliance by
18 Plaintiffby, among other things, refrain from taking immediate legal action to recoup the moneys
19 he had transferred to Defendant, in the hopes that he simply would be repaid.
20 58. Plaintiffdid, in fact, justifiably rely upon Defendant's representations by
21 refraining from taking legal action until the filing of this Complaint months later.
22 59. As a result, Plaintiffwas damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
23 60. Defendant's conduct as alleged herein is oppressive, fraudulent and malicious.
24 Accordingly, Plaintiffseeks an award ofexemplary damages against Defendant.
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT

11. 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (For Breach ofFiduciary Duty Against Gumrukcu and Does 1 through 10)
3 61. Plaintiffincorporates by reference each ofthe allegations in paragraphs 1 through
4 24 above, as though fully set forth herein.
5 62. Defendant, as a member in the Ermes joint venture with Plaintiff, owed fiduciary
6 duties to Plaintiff.
7 63. Defendant breached said fiduciary duties by, among other things, representing that
8 Defendant would cause the moneys received from Plaintiffto be used to purchase and redevelop
9 the West Hollywood Property, but instead converting such funds to Defendant's own personal
10 use. Further, Defendant breached his fiduciary duty by fraudulently presenting forged escrow
11 documents to Plaintiff, as well as fraudulently assuming the identity of Kacev when interacting
12 with Plaintiff.
13
14
64.
65.
As a result, Plaintiffwas damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
Defendant's conduct as alleged herein is oppressive, fraudulent and malicious.
15 Accordingly, Plaintiffseeks an award ofexemplary damages against Defendants.
16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
17 (For Conversion Against all Defendants and Does 1 through 10)
18 66. Plaintiffincorporates by reference each ofthe allegations in paragraphs 1 through
19 24 above, as though fully set forth herein.
20 67. On or about July 2, 2014, Plaintifftransferred $500,000 from his own bank
21 account to Ermes' bank account at Boston Private Bank for the purposes ofpurchasing the West
22 Hollywood Property. Separately, between August and December of2014, Plaintifftransferred an
23 additional $430,000 to Ennes' bank account at Boston Private Bank for purposes of paying for
24 redevelopment costs associated with the West Hollywood Property.
25 68. However, instead ofusing said funds to purchase and/or redevelop the West
26 Hollywood Property, Defendants took said funds and converted said funds to their own use.
27
28
69. As a result, Plaintiffwas damaged in an amount believed to be in excess of
COMPLAINT

12. 1 $930,000.
2 70. Defendants' conduct as alleged herein is oppressive, fraudulent and malicious.
3 Accordingly, Plaintiffseeks an award ofexemplary damages against Defendants.
4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (For Breach of Co-Ownership Agreement Against Gumrukcu and Does 1 through 10)
6 71. Plaintiffincorporates by reference each ofthe allegations in paragraphs 1 through
7 24 above, as though fully set forth herein.
8 72. On or about June 25, 2014, the parties entered into a valid contract for Plaintiff to
9 become a 50% co-owner in the West Hollywood Property.
10 73. Plaintiffperformed all conditions, covenants and promises on his part required to
11 be performed pursuant to the terms ofthe agreement.
12 74. Defendant breached the agreement by, among other things, (1) failing to enter into
13 escrow on the West Hollywood Property, so as to preclude the possibility ofPlaintiffbecoming a
14 50% owner in it, (2) failing to amend the purportedly existing purchase agreement to add Plaintiff
15 as a 50% owner in the West Hollywood Property, and (3) failing to return "the capital amount of
16 $500,000" to Plaintiffupon the purported sale ofthe property that Defendant claims occurred in
17 April of2014.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
75. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffhas been damaged in an amount to be
proven at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Breach of Joint Venture Agreement Against Gumrukcu and Does 1 through 10)
76. Plaintiffincorporates by reference each ofthe allegations in paragraphs 1 through
24 above, as though fully set forth herein.
77. On or about July 2, 2014, the parties entered into a valid contract for Plaintiffto
become a member in a joint venture with Defendant, for purposes of redeveloping and selling the
West Hollywood Property.
78. Plaintiffperformed all conditions, covenants and promises on his part required to
COMPLAINT

13. 1 be performed pursuant to the terms ofthe agreement.
2 79. Defendant breached the agreement by, among other things, (1) failing to
3 "immediately" pay Plaintiffhis "initial investment" of$930,000 upon the purported sale ofthe
4 property that Defendant claims occurred in April of2014, and (2) failing to "immediately" pay
5 Plaintiffhis 40% net profit due upon the purported sale ofthe property that Defendant claims
6 occurred in April of2014.
7 80. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffhas been damaged in an amount to be
8 proven at trial.
9 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (For Breach of Promissory Note Against Gumrukcu and Does 1 through 10)
11 81. Plaintiffincorporates by reference each ofthe allegations in paragraphs I through
12 24 above, as though fully set forth herein.
13 82. On or about June 1, 2015, Defendant exe·cuted a promissory note in favor of
14 Plaintiff, agreeing to pay Plaintiff$1.2 million, plus interest, by July 30, 2015.
15 83. Plaintiffperformed all conditions, covenants and promises on his part required to
16 be performed pursuant to the terms ofthe promissory note.
17 84. Defendant breached the promissory note by, among other things, failing to pay
18 Plaintiffthe $1.2 million, plus interest, on or before July 30, 2015.
19 85. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffhas been damaged in an amount to be
20 proven at trial.
21 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 (For Accounting Against All Defendants)
23 86. Plaintiffincorporates by reference each ofthe allegations in paragraphs 1 through
24 24 above, as though fully set forth herein.
25 87. The exact amount ofmoney due to Plaintiffby Defendants is unknown to Plaintiff
26 and cannot be ascertained without an accounting ofthe books and records ofErmes.
27
28
88. Plaintifftherefore request an accounting ofErmes to determine the amounts owed
COMPLAINT

14. . -
1 to them.
2 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffseek an award against Defendants as follows:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
For compensatory damages according to proof;
For an award ofexemplary damages;
For pre- and post-judgment interest according to law;
I
For an accounting;
For costs and expenses ofsuit herein, including reasonable attorney's fees; and
For such other and further reliefas the Court deems just and equitable.
DATED: July 31, 2015 VALLE MAKOFF LLP
By: ..:z=~ Mf,,71~
- Jeffrey B. Valle
Ilan Wisnia
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COMPLAINT