Re: 2/8/00 - AZNT Complaint vs. Shell et al (part 1 of 2)
NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
TO: JANICE SHELL, DEAN DUMONT, D. TOD PAULY, JEFFREY MITCHELL, CYNTHIA DEMONTE, DEMONTE & ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation, SILICON INVESTOR, a Delaware corporation, RAGING BULL, a Delaware corporation, JOHN DOE NO. 1 A/K/A/ CARLW DOES I through CXIII, and BLACK CORPORATIONS I through XX, Inclusive
A lawsuit has commenced against JANICE SHELL, DEAN DUMONT, D. TOD PAULY, JEFFREY MITCHELL, CYNTHIA DEMONTE, DEMONTE & ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation, SILICON INVESTOR, a Delaware corporation, RAGING BULL, a Delaware corporation, JOHN DOE NO. 1 A/K/A/ CARLW DOES I through CXIII, and BLACK CORPORATIONS I through XX, Inclusive. A copy of the complaint is incorporated herein. It has been filed in the United States District Court for the State of Nevada and has been assigned Case No. CV-S-00-0158-PMP-RLH.
JASON AWAD & ASSOCIATES
ROBERT S. QUALEY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 3570
4386 S. Eastern Avenue
Telephone (702) 732 4141
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Attorney for Plaintiff
=====
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
AMAZON NATURAL TREASURES, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff vs. JANICE SHELL, DEAN DUMONT, D. TOD PAULY, JEFFREY MITCHELL, CYNTHIA DEMONTE, DEMONTE & ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation, SILICON INVESTOR, a Delaware corporation, RAGING BULL, a Delaware corporation, JOHN DOE NO. 1 A/K/A/ CARLW DOES I through CXIII, and BLACK CORPORATIONS I through XX, Inclusive, Defendants
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION,LIBEL, AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION
COMES NOW, Plaintiff AMAZON NATURAL TREASURES, INC. ("AMAZON", the "Company" or the "Plaintiff"), a Nevada Corporation, by and through its Attorney ROBERT S.QUALEY, ESQ. and brings its COMPLAINT and causes of action, as more fully set forth herein, against the Defendants above-named JANICE SHELL, DEAN DUMONT, D. TOD PAULY, JEFFREY MITCHELL, CYNTHIA DEMONTE, DEMONTE & ASSOCIATES, a New York corporation, SILICON INVESTOR, a Delaware corporation, RAGING BULL, a Delaware corporation, JOHN DOE NO. 1 A/K/A/ CARLW DOES, I through CXIII, and BLACK CORPORATIONS I through X, Inclusive, (collectively the Defendants) and alleges:
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
TO: JANICE SHELL, Defendant
DEAN DUMONT, Defendant
D.TOD PAULY, Defendant
JEFFREY MITCHELL, Defendant
CYNTHIA DEMONTE, Defendant
DEMONTE & ASSOCIATES, Defendant
SILICON INVESTOR, Defendant
RAGING BULL, Defendant
JOHN DOE NO. 1, a/k/a CARLW, Defendant
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, the undersigned will bring the foregoing MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, hereinafter contained, before the above-entitled court, on for hearing on the __________ day of___________, 2000, at the hour of_________ m., in Courtroom No.__________ of the United states District Courthouse,
Of as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.
DATED this ______ day of January, 2000.
LAW OFFICES OF JASON AWAD & ASSOCIATES
_______________________
ROBERT S. QUALEY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 3570
4386 S. Eastern Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Telephone (702) 732 4141
Attorney For Plaintiff
=====
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Comes Now, Plantiff AMAZON NATUREAL TREASURES, INC., by and through its attorney, Robert S. Qualey, ESQ., and moves this Honorable Court for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, restraining and enjoining Defendants, above-names, from engaging the malicious and unlawful acts, as will be set forth more fully herein and hereafter, in the application for temporary injunction, motion for preliminary injection, and the complaint.:
This Motion is made and based upon the points and authorities, files, papers, and pleadings herein, as well as the testimony to be adduced at the time of heading hereof.
DATED this _________day of January, 2000
By: ROBERT S. QUALEY, ESQ.
4386 S. Eastern Ave
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Attorney for Plaintiff
I.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
This Motion for Preliminary Injunction is brought pursuant to Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure (FRCP), Rule 65, which provides in relevant part, as follows:
(a) Preliminary Injunction.
(1) Notice. No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party.
(2) ?any evidence received upon an application for a preliminary injunction which would be admissible upon the trial on the merits becomes part of the record on the trial?
(d) Form and Scope of Injunction or Restraining Order.
Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in its terms; shall describe in reasonable detail?the act or acts sought to be restrained; and is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them?"
II.
Plaintiff asks this honorable Court for injunctive relief from the injurious and malicious acts of Defendants, each and all of them, as more fully set forth in Plaintiff?s Complaint herein and hereafter. More specifically, Plaintiff prays that the Court will grant to Plaintiff a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, each and all of them, as well as their agents, employees, servants, officers, attorneys, successors, assigns, and all persons who participate with them and/or are in active concert with them, from:
(1) publishing, by any means, to third parties, including, but not limited to the public in general, defamatory and libelous statements against Plaintiff and Plaintiff?s interests,
(2) publishing via the Internet, and other electronic media, defamatory and libelous statements against Plaintiff and Plaintiff?s interests,
(3) performing any act, including, but not limited to the publication of false and misleading and defamatory statements, which are designed to and/or have the effect of damaging Plaintiff?s business reputation, financial reputation, reputation of its products and services, ethical reputation, good name, good will, reputation of its common stock as an investment for consumers and, every and any other aspect of Plaintiff?s operations, business production techniques, officers, products, services, common stock, and shareholders,
(4) publishing, by any means, to third parties including, but not limited to the general public, defamatory statements against the quality and content of Plaintiff?s products,
(5) acting individually, or in concert with any other person(s), so as to cause harm and loss to the value of Plaintiff?s common stock, by any means including, but not limited to "bashing", publishing libelous statements, and other acts intended to or having the effect of wrongfully persuading investors or potential investors away from purchasing Plaintiff?s common stock, or wrongfully persuading current shareholders of Plaintiff?s common stock to sell or otherwise dispose of their shares,
(6) publishing, by any means, to third parties including, but not limited to the general public, defamatory and libelous statements against Plaintiff, Plaintiff?s business relationships, and business partners, including, but not limited to retail merchants who offer Plaintiff?s products for sale, and the end users of Plaintiff?s products,
(7) harassing, interfering with, or communicating with purchasers and/or potential purchasers of Amazon common stock, Nature?s Taste sugar substitute, or any other product of Plaintiff; whether such harassment, interference or communication occurs in person or by Internet or by other electronic media or by telephone or by the mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce; whenever and however such harassment, interference, or communication may occur.
(8) Any act of commission or omission in addition to defamatory and libelous statements which may have a negative effect upon Plaintiff, its current or former officers, employees, agents, business contacts, market(s) for its products and common stock, as well as the unfair destruction diminution of Plaintiff?s business, and
(9) conspiring, acting in concert with, and/or communicating with other Defendants, each and all of them, or with any other person, so as to plan, facilitate, allow, or enact any word or deed as described in sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6),(7) and (8) herein above.
III.
Plaintiff asserts that it is within its legal rights to bring this motion for preliminary injunction, because Plaintiff meets all of the requirements thereof:
(a) Unless a preliminary injunction is granted, enjoining Defendants from their malicious acts described herein, Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable harm as a result. Such immediate and irreparable harm includes: the wrongful driving down of the trading price of Plaintiff?s stock by approximately ninety-five percent; alienation of current shareholders of Plaintiff?s stock; alienation of potential investors in Plaintiff?s stock; loss of business capital for operations; loss of business reputation; loss of credit reputation; loss of profits; loss of business opportunity and destruction of business; loss of product reputation; as well as other forms of loss for which monetary damages cannot suffice or restore;
(b) None of Defendants would be harmed excessively if the injunction is granted;
(d) Public interest is only served by the granting of the injunction. Consumers and retail establishments that use or would use Amazon?s Nature?s Taste sugar substitute or other products desire and deserve accurate product knowledge and information, without the falsehoods, defamations, and libelous statements of Defendants. Owners of retail establishments who distribute Amazon products, including Nature?s Taste, wish to be free from the harassment, interference, and libels committed by Defendants;
(d) Plaintiff Amazon can clearly demonstrate to the Court that Defendants, each and all of them, have committed the malicious and grievous unlawful acts alleged herein and within this complaint. Plaintiff can demonstrate to the Court that Defendants? acts aforementioned have caused Plaintiff monetary loss well in excess of $75,000.00. Therefore, at trial, Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits.
Therefore, pursuant to FRCP, Rule 65, the Court ought to grant the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff. S&R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int?l., Inc., U.S.C.A., 3rd Cir., 968 F.2d 371 (1992).
IV.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Pursuant to FRCP, Rule 65(b), Plaintiff makes application herein to this honorable Court, for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff seeks such a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants, each and all of them, from their unlawful, malicious, and damaging acts against Plaintiff, as described herein, and hereafter. Unless such temporary restraining order is granted, Plaintiff?s situation will radically deteriorate and Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable harm. A temporary restraining order will allow this honorable Court to conduct a fair and thorough inquiry into the facts of the case, and apply applicable law. Hospital Resource Personnel, Inc., U.S.D.C., S.D.Ga., 860 F.Supp. 1554, at 1556 (1994). |
