R & J PIZZA CORP vs. STEVEN MENEXAS Complaint

Case 1-16-01071-cec Doc 1 Filed 03/30/16 Entered 03/30/16 11:19:31
LaMonica Herbst & Maniscalco, LLP

3305 Jerusalem Avenue, Suite 201
Wantagh, New York 11793
(516) 826-6500
Gary F. Herbst, Esq.
Nicholas C. Rigano, Esq.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
In re:
Chapter 7
R & J PIZZA CORP., Case No. 14-43066 (CEC)
Debtor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------x
SALVATORE LaMONICA, as Chapter 7 Trustee of
the estate of R & J PIZZA CORP.,
Plaintiff,
-against- Adv. Pro. No.
ROBERT CASCARINO, COMPLAINT

STEVEN MENEXAS a/k/a STEVEN MENEXES,
SGM FOODS, LLC d/b/a MAMA CASCARINOS BRICK
OVEN PIZZERIA & KITCHEN, 14-55 121ST STREET
REALTY, LLC, ATLAS FENCE & RAILING CO. INC.,
JOHN DOE 1 THROUGH 100, JANE DOE 1
THROUGH 100, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1
THROUGH 100, and OTHER JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1
THROUGH 100,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff, Salvatore LaMonica, as Chapter 7 Trustee (the Plaintiff or Trustee) of the
estate of R&J Pizza Corp. (the Debtor), by his counsel, LaMonica Herbst & Maniscalco, LLP
(LH&M), as and for his Complaint against Robert Cascarino (Robert), Steven Menexas a/k/a
Steven Menexes (Steven), SGM Foods, LLC d/b/a Mama Cascarinos Brick Oven Pizzeria &
Kitchen (SGM), 14-55 121st Street Realty, LLC (Landlord), Atlas Fence & Railing Co. Inc.
(Atlas, and together with Robert, Steven, SGM and the Landlord, the Defendants), as well as
John Doe 1 through 100, Jane Doe 1 through 100, John Doe Corporations 1 through
100 and Other John Doe Entities 1 through 100 (collectively, the Unnamed Defendants),
alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 157 and 1334, and Rule 7001
of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the Bankruptcy Rules).
2. The predicates for the relief sought herein include 28 U.S.C. 2201, 11 U.S.C.
105(a), 323, 362, 541, 542, 543, Rules 6009 and 7001 of the Bankruptcy Rules, Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as made applicable to this adversary proceeding by Rule 7065
of the Bankruptcy Rules, and applicable state law.
3. This Court is the proper venue for this proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
1409(a).
4. This action is a core proceeding pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(1),
(b)(2)(A), (E), and (O).
PARTIES
5. The Debtor is an entity that has operated a pizzeria and restaurant under the name
Cascarinos Brick Oven Pizzeria & Ristorante with a principal place of business at 14-60
College Point Boulevard, College Point, New York 11356.
6. By Notice dated January 7, 2016, the United States Trustee appointed Salvatore
LaMonica as the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Debtors estate.
7. The Trustee has duly qualified and is serving as the permanent Trustee of the
Debtors estate.
2
8. The Trustee is authorized to file this action under 323 of the Bankruptcy Code
and Bankruptcy Rule 6009.
9. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert Cascarino is an individual who
maintains an address at 146-30 22nd Avenue, Apartment 1, Whitestone, New York 11357-3553.
10. Upon information and belief, defendant Steven Menexas a/k/a Steven Menexes is
an individual who maintains an address at 301 Vanderbilt Parkway, Dix Hills, New York 11746
and/or 20844 15th Drive, Bayside, New York 11360.
11. Upon information and belief, defendant SGM Foods, LLC d/b/a Mama Cascarinos
is a New York limited liability company with a principal place of business at 15-11 College Point
Boulevard, College Point, New York 11356.
12. Upon information and belief, defendant 14-55 121st Street Realty, LLC is a New
York limited liability company with a principal place of business at 344 Faile Street, Bronx, New
York 10474.
13. Upon information and belief, defendant Atlas Fence & Railing Co. Inc. is a New
York corporation with a principal place of business at 151-49 7th Avenue, Whitestone, New York
11357.
14. The Unnamed Defendants are those individuals and entities who have assisted
and/or conspired with Defendants to commit the Tortious Post-Petition Acts (as defined below).
ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
A. The Debtors Bankruptcy Filing
15. On June 16, 2014 (the Filing Date), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of New York (the Court).
3
16. By Order dated and entered April 8, 2015, the Office of the United States Trustee
was directed to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee in the Debtors case.
17. By Notice of Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee filed and entered April 8, 2015,
Salvatore LaMonica was appointed as the Chapter 11 Trustee in this case.
18. By Order dated and entered April 9, 2015, this Court approved the appointment of
Salvatore LaMonica as the Chapter 11 Trustee.
19. By Order dated January 6, 2016, the Debtors case was converted from a case under
Chapter 11 to a case under Chapter 7 (the Conversion Order).
20. By the Conversion Order, the Trustee was authorized to operate the Debtors
restaurant.
21. By Notice dated January 7, 2016, the United States Trustee appointed Salvatore
LaMonica as the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Debtors estate and the Trustee has duly qualified and
is the permanent Trustee of this estate.
B. The Debtors Operations
22. From 1989 through the present, the Debtor has operated a pizzeria and restaurant
at 14-60 College Point Boulevard, College Point, New York 11356 (the Debtors Premises).
23. During all relevant times, the Debtor has operated under the name Cascarinos
Brick Oven Pizzeria & Ristorante.
24. During all relevant times, defendant Robert was, and has been, the President, sole
shareholder and sole principal (other than the Trustee) of the Debtor.
25. During all relevant times, defendant Robert has conducted the Debtors day-to-day
operations.
4
C. The Terminated Sale
26. In furtherance of his fiduciary duty to the Debtors estate, the Trustee commenced
a sale process to liquidate substantially all of the Debtors assets.
27. The Debtors assets include, but are not limited to, the Debtors trademarked trade
name: Cascarinos Brick Oven Pizzeria & Ristorante, furniture, fixtures, equipment, inventory,
a 2003 Chevy S-10, the Lot 30 Lease (defined below), phone numbers, fax numbers, alarm codes,
goodwill, customer lists, and computers (collectively, the Assets).
28. On November 30, 2015, the Trustee, as seller, and Gary Gullo, as buyer (the
Buyer), entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (the APA), whereby the Trustee was to sell
substantially all of the Debtors assets to the Buyer for the purchase price of $600,000.00.
29. On February 12, 2016, the Court entered the Order Confirming the Sale of the
Debtors Assets to Gary Gullo, Free and Clear of all Liens, Claims, Encumbrances and Security
Interests, with Such Liens, Claims, Encumbrances and Security Interests to Attach to the Net
Proceeds of Sale (the Sale Order).
30. By the Sale Order, the Court, inter alia, authorized and directed the Trustee to sell
substantially all of the Debtors Assets to the Buyer for the purchase price of $600,000.00 in
accordance with the APA (the Pending Sale).
31. On or around March 13, 2016, the Buyer advised the Trustee that he no longer
intends to consummate the APA and Pending Sale due to Defendants Tortious Post-Petition Acts
(as defined below).
D. The Debtors Premises
32. The Debtors Premises is comprised of two tax lots designated by Queens County
as Block 4077, Lots 30 and 33.
5
33. Lot 30 is a parcel of real property of approximately 10,000 square feet (Lot 30).
34. The Debtor, as tenant and through the Trustee, leases Lot 30 according to the terms
of a lease (the Lot 30 Lease) from E & E Enterprises of NY, Inc., as landlord.
35. The current term of the Lot 30 Lease extends to December 2020.
36. The Lot 30 Lease provides the Debtor with the option to renew the Lease for an
additional five (5) year period to December 2025.
37. The Debtors currently operating restaurant, named Cascarinos Brick Oven
Pizzeria & Ristorante, occupies approximately 7,000 of Lot 30s 10,000 square feet.
38. The Debtor utilizes the remaining 3,000 square feet of Lot 30 as a parking lot for
its restaurant.
39. The Debtors estate, through the Trustee, is current and has paid rent in full through
March 2016 under the Lot 30 Lease.
40. Lot 33 is a parcel of real property of approximately 3,000 square feet (Lot 33).
41. The Debtor, as tenant and through the Trustee, leases Lot 33 by month-to-month
tenancy (the Lot 33 Tenancy).
42. Defendant Landlord is the landlord for the Lot 33 Tenancy.
43. The Debtor has maintained the Lot 33 Tenancy with defendant Landlord for more
than six (6) years.
44. The Debtor utilizes Lot 33 as an additional parking lot for its restaurant.
45. The parking lots set forth on Lot 30 and Lot 33 are adjacent and contiguous such
that they appear to be one parking lot and vehicles may freely drive and park between the lots.
46. The Debtors Premises is located in Queens where space for vehicle parking is at a
premium.
6
47. The Debtors estate, through the Trustee is current and has paid rent in full through
March 2016, to maintain the Lot 33 Tenancy.
48. The Lot 30 Lease and the Lot 33 Tenancy are in existence and have not been
terminated.
E. Mama Cascarinos: Defendant Roberts New Italian Restaurant Located 190 Feet
From the Debtors Premises______________________________________________
49. During all relevant times, defendant Robert gained proprietary knowledge of the
Debtors affairs as he was the sole principal of the Debtor and principal operator of the Debtors
business.
50. Through defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM gained
proprietary knowledge of the Debtors affairs.
51. According to the website for the New York Secretary of State, defendant SGM was
formed on December 16, 2015.
52. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert is a member of SGM.
53. Upon information and belief, defendant Steven is a member of SGM.
54. Upon information and belief defendant SGM is doing business, or will do business
in the immediate future, as Mama Cascarinos Brick Oven Pizzeria & Kitchen (Mama
Cascarinos).
55. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert and defendant Steven are the
principal operators of Mama Cascarinos.
56. Mama Cascarinos is similar in name to that of the Debtors restaurant Cascarinos
Brick Oven Pizzeria & Ristorante.
7
57. According to its Facebook page, Mama Cascarinos address is 15-11 College Point
Boulevard, College Point, New York (the Mama Cascarinos Premises), which is approximately
190 feet from the Debtors Premises.
58. On March 4, 2016, pictures were posted on Mama Cascarinos Facebook page
revealing that Mama Cascarinos is operating, or shortly will initiate operations of, a brick oven
pizzeria and restaurant, which is the type of restaurant that the Debtor operates.
F. Defendants Unauthorized Installation of a Fence on the Debtors Premises
59. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding the fact that the Debtors Lot 33
Tenancy remains in existence and ongoing, defendant Robert and/or defendant Steven, on behalf
of defendant SGM, entered into a lease for Lot 33 with defendant Landlord in February or March
of 2016 (the SGM Lot 33 Lease).
60. Upon information and belief, at the time they entered into the SGM Lot 33 Lease,
defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM knew that the Lot 33 Tenancy was in full
force and effect.
61. On or about March 15, 2016, defendant Robert and defendant Steven on behalf of
defendant SGM, hired defendant Atlas to construct and install a fence to divide the Debtors
parking lot along the property line of Lot 30 and Lot 33.
62. In or about the morning of March 15, 2016, defendant Atlas, at the instruction of
defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM, began installing the fence along the
property line of Lot 30 and Lot 33 to divide the Debtors parking lot.
63. On March 15, 2016, while the fence was in the process of being installed, the
Trustee, both personally and through his professionals, contacted representatives for defendant
Robert, defendant Steven, defendant SGM and defendant Atlas via correspondence, telephone call
8
and/or in person communication demanding that such Defendants cease and desist installing the
fence.
64. On March 15, 2016, while the fence was in the process of being installed, the
Trustee contacted the New York City Police Department to request police assistance to compel
Defendants to (i) cease and desist installing the fence, and (ii) vacate the property.
65. On March 15, 2016, defendant Robert, defendant Steven, defendant SGM and
defendant Atlas either ignored and/or affirmatively refused to comply with the Trustees demands
and police intervention.
66. By the end of the day on March 15, 2016, defendant Atlas completed the installation
of the fence thereby dividing the Debtors parking lot along the property line for Lot 30 and Lot
33.
67. By the end of the day on March 15, 2016, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and
defendant SGM wrongfully took possession of Lot 33 to facilitate the operations of Mama
Cascarinos to the detriment of the Debtor.
G. Defendants Improper and Unauthorized Use of the Debtors Trademark
68. Due to the location and nature of the Debtors restaurant and Mama Cascarinos,
the Debtor and Mama Cascarinos are competitors.
69. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Debtors name
CASCARINO'S THE ORIGINAL BRICK OVEN PIZZERIA & RISTORANTE WHERE
EVERY DAY IS A SUNDAY! EST. 1989 constitutes a valid and active trademark (the
Trademark).
70. Upon information and belief, as of the Filing Date, the Debtor owned the
Trademark.
9
71. Upon information and belief, the Trademark is property of the Debtors estate.
72. Mama Cascarinos uses the Cascarinos name.
73. Due to the closeness in name, duplicative business, and proximity of location, the
operation of Mama Cascarinos will cause confusion in the mind of the public with the Debtors
operations.
74. The use of the Mama Cascarinos name to sell and serve Italian food within
approximately 190 feet of the Debtors location will cause, and is already causing, the public to
confuse the Debtors operations with Mama Cascarinos operations.
75. The use of Mama Cascarinos name to sell Italian food within approximately 190
feet of the Debtors location infringes on the Trademark.
H. Defendants Improper and Unauthorized Use of the Debtors Goodwill and Likeness
to Solicit the Debtors Own Customers_______________________________________
76. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and/or defendant SGM caused a sign to be
displayed on the fence dividing Lot 30 and Lot 33 stating within an arrow pointing in the direction
of the Mama Cascarinos location: Robert Cascarino & Family Has Moved to New Location 15-
11 With New Telephone Number 718-445-MAMA (6262) (the Parking Lot Sign).
77. The Parking Lot Sign is displayed on the Lot 30 side of the fence such that the
Parking Lot Sign is displayed in the Debtors parking lot.
78. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and/or defendant
SGM trespassed on the Debtors property to affix the Parking Lot Sign to the fence.
79. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and/or defendant SGM caused an identical
sign to the Parking Lot Sign to be displayed immediately outside the Lot 30 parking lot.
80. On March 4, 2016, Mama Cascarinos posted the following on its Facebook page:
Rob Cascarino and Family have moved to a new location and have a new number. Other
10
information down below. Look out for our grand opening!!! We will have Cido the clown, and
free pizza for kids all day long!
81. The Instagram page for Mama Cascarinos states *WE ARE MOVING *NEW
PHONE: (718 445-6262) www.mamacascarinos.com.
82. Posts on the Facebook and Instagram pages for Mama Cascarinos date back to
2014 and relate to the Debtors business operations.
83. Upon information and belief, defendant SGM and Mama Cascarinos was not
formed, and did not operate, until December 2015.
84. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant
SGM have misappropriated the Debtors Facebook and Instagram pages for the purposes of using
the Debtors Trademark, goodwill and likeness to solicit the Debtors customers and advertise
Mama Cascarinos business.
85. In March 2016, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and/or defendant SGM, on
behalf of Mama Cascarinos, caused an advertisement to be placed both on the cover of, and on a
full page within, The Village Shopper, a local pennysaver circulated in Queens, New York (the
Mama Cascarinos Advertisement).
86. According to the cover of the pennysaver containing the Mama Cascarinos
Advertisement, The Village Shopper is Delivered to Every Home in College Point!
87. The Mama Cascarinos Advertisement displays Mama Cascarinos slogan as
Where everyday is a Sunday!
88. During all times relevant, the Debtors slogan has been Where every day is a
Sunday! (the Slogan).
11
89. The Mama Cascarinos Advertisement boasts:
Continuing A 25 Year Tradition Serving

College Point And Whitestone With
Fine Italian Food, Great Service And
Family Style Values
Same MenuSame Recipes

Same Fine Ingredients
Same Delicious Taste!
90. The Mama Cascarinos Advertisement states New Number: 718.445-MAMA
(6262).
91. By the Mama Cascarinos Advertisement, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and
defendant SGM have affirmatively solicited the Debtors customers through the Mama
Cascarinos Advertisement.
92. The Mama Cascarinos Advertisement states Valet Parking & Curb Side Pick-
Up.
SGM intend to use Lot 33 as a valet parking lot solely for Mama Cascarinos benefit.
94. Upon information and belief, in January 2016, February 2016 and/or March 2016,
defendant Robert, defendant Steven and/or defendant SGM solicited the Debtors customers by,
among other things, distributing Mama Cascarinos business cards and flyers to the Debtors
customers in the Debtors dining room that state Weve Moved. New home of Rob Cascarino &
Family. We have a New number.
I. Defendants Diversion of the Debtors Sales
95. Upon information and belief, from December 16, 2015 through the present,
defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM diverted sales from the Debtor.
12
96. Prior to December 16, 2015, customers called the Debtors landline to submit
catering orders.
97. Upon information and belief, from December 16, 2015, the date defendant SGM
was formed, through the present, defendant Robert instructed customers to submit catering orders
by calling a cell phone number (718) 541-9832 registered to Cascarinos (the Cell Phone
Number), as opposed to the Debtors landline.
98. During all relevant times, defendant Robert was in possession of the cell phone
assigned to the Cell Phone Number.
99. The Verizon Wireless bill for defendant Roberts cell phone was paid by the Trustee
during all relevant times through December 2016.
100. Upon information and belief, in or about December 2016, defendant Robert
directed Verizon Wireless to send all future bills relating to the Cell Phone Number to an
undisclosed address.
101. Upon information and belief, since December 2016, defendant Robert has used the
Cell Phone Number to continue to accept orders from the Debtors customers.
102. Upon information and belief, since December 2016, defendant Robert has used the
Debtors resources to complete customer orders placed via the Cell Phone Number.
defendant Robert, accepted cash payments from customers for orders placed via the Cell Phone
Number or otherwise.
defendant Robert misappropriated cash payments made by customers for orders completed by the
13
Debtor for defendant Roberts own benefit and/or the benefit of defendant Steven and/or defendant
SGM.
J. Defendants Influence over, Solicitation of and Threats Made to the Debtors

Employees Caused the Trustee to Shut Down the Debtors Operations______
105. From December 16, 2015 through the present, defendant Robert, defendant Steven
and defendant SGM have affirmatively influenced certain of the Debtors employees to stop
working for the Debtor.
SGM have affirmatively solicited the Debtors employees to work at Mama Cascarinos.
107. On March 29, 2016, defendant Robert affirmatively threatened the Debtors
employees by notifying them that they would not be hired to work at Mama Cascarinos if they
continued to work for the Debtor.
108. Upon information and belief, defendant Roberts threats were made on behalf of
defendant Steven and defendant SGM.
109. On March 29, 2016, all of the Debtors employees failed to report to and/or left the
Debtors Premises due to defendant Roberts threats.
110. On March 29, 2016, the Trustee was forced to shut down the Debtors operations
because none of the Debtors employees were willing to work under a new manager due to
defendant Roberts threats.
111. Upon information and belief, certain of the Debtors employees will no longer work
for the Debtor and will work at Mama Cascarinos as a result of defendant Robert, defendant
Steven and defendant SGMs influence over, solicitation of and threats on those employees.
14
K. Defendants Appropriation of the Debtors Assets and Wrongful Use of

Those Assets to Facilitate the Opening and Operations of Mama Cascarinos
112. During all relevant times through approximately February 2016, the Debtor
displayed a sign inside the dining room for the Debtors restaurant stating The Original
Cascarinos Brick Oven Pizzeria & Ristorante (the Dining Room Sign).
113. In February 2016 or March 2016, the Dining Room Sign was removed from the
Debtors dining room.
114. Upon information and belief, in February 2016 or March 2016, defendant Robert,
defendant Steven and/or defendant SGM caused the Dining Room Sign to be removed from the
dining room of the Debtors restaurant.
115. Upon information and belief, in January 2016, February 2016 and/or March 2016,
defendant Robert, defendant Steven and/or defendant SGM destroyed and/or appropriated the
menus the Debtor would provide to its dining room customers.
116. Upon information and belief, during the period from the Filing Date through the
present, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM, retained and paid an individual
named Danny, a former employee of the Debtors software provider, to download and appropriate
the Debtors computer database containing, among other things, the Debtors customer list and
other proprietary information.
117. Upon information and belief, during the period from the Filing Date through the
present, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM, with assistance of Danny
downloaded and appropriated the Debtors computer database containing, among other things, the
Debtors customer list and other proprietary information.
118. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and/or defendant
SGM diverted other tangible and/or intangible assets of the Debtor not specifically discussed above
15
for the purpose of diminishing the value of the Debtors assets, sabotaging the Pending Sale,
increasing the value of defendant SGM and/or facilitating the operation of Mama Cascarinos.
L. The Damage Caused by the Debtors Tortious Post-Petition Acts
119. The acts discussed and referenced in paragraphs 32 through 118 of this Complaint,
shall hereinafter be referred to as the Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
120. By the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and
defendant SGM used their proprietary knowledge of the Debtors affairs to illegally use the
Debtors Trademark, goodwill and likeness to compete with the Debtors ongoing business and
sabotage the Pending Sale.
121. By the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, Defendants caused, and will continue to cause,
a reduction in the Debtors revenue.
122. By the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, Defendants have caused a reduction in the value
of the Debtors assets.
123. Upon information and belief, by the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, Defendants have
caused the Buyer to terminate the Pending Sale and as a result have damaged the Debtors estate
and its creditors.
124. By the Unauthorized Post-Petition Act, Defendants have chilled potential bidding
for the Debtors assets.
125. By the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, Defendants unlawfully trespassed on the
Debtors property.
126. By the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, Defendants caused damage to the Debtors
tangible property.
16
M. Defendants Knowledge and Malicious Intent When Committing the Tortious Acts
127. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert, defendant Steven, and defendant
SGM, used their proprietary knowledge of the Debtors affairs to spearhead, direct and
consummate the Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
128. Upon information and belief, Defendants engaged in the Tortious Post-Petition
Acts for their own personal gain at the expense of the Debtors estate and its creditors.
129. Upon information and belief, at the time of each Tortious Post-Petition Act,
Defendants knew or should have known that the Debtor was the subject of an ongoing bankruptcy
proceeding.
130. Upon information and belief, at the time of each Tortious Post-Petition Act,
Defendants knew or should have known the Assets and the Lot 33 Tenancy were property of the
Debtors estate.
131. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew that they unlawfully trespassed on
the Debtors property.
132. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew that the Tortious Post-Petition Acts
caused or would cause damage to the Debtors property.
SGM, knew that they were improperly using their proprietary knowledge of the Debtors affairs
to illegally compete with the Debtors ongoing business.
SGM, knew that they were improperly using the Debtors Trademark, goodwill and likeness to
illegally compete with the Debtors ongoing business.
17
135. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known that each
Tortious Post-Petition Act would cause a reduction in the Debtors revenue.
136. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew, or should have known, that the
Tortious Post-Petition Acts would cause a reduction in value of the Debtors Assets.
137. Upon information and belief, at the time of the Tortious Post-Petition Acts,
Defendants knew, or should have known, of the Pending Sale.
Tortious Post-Petition Acts would cause the Buyer to terminate the Pending Sale.
Tortious Post-Petition Acts would chill bidding for the Debtors Assets.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Injunctive Relief)
140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
139 as if set forth fully herein.
141. The estate will suffer irreparable injury if Defendants are permitted to continue the
Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
142. Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of his claims against the Defendants based
upon the allegations set forth herein and the facts of this case.
143. The balance of hardships weighs decidedly in favor of the granting of injunctive
relief.
144. Consequently, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction
preventing Defendants from continuing the Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
145. Pursuant to 105 of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rule 7065, and Rule 65 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may enjoin a party from proceeding or continuing
18
with, a course of conduct or practice which depletes, diminishes and/or effects property and/or
diminishes the value of those assets or impairs the Plaintiffs recovery efforts.
146. The Defendants will not be harmed by the issuance of a temporary injunction
because the requested injunctive relief is a necessary step to return the parties to their position as
of the Filing Date.
147. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to an order and judgment granting a
preliminary and permanent injunction, plus costs and other fees, or such other amounts as to be
proven at trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Declaratory Judgment)
149. The Debtor has maintained the Lot 33 Tenancy for approximately (6) years.
150. The Trustee, on behalf of the Debtor, paid rent to defendant Landlord to maintain
the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy through March 2016.
151. The Debtor and the Trustee are current for all rent owed with respect to the Lot 33
Tenancy.
152. Neither the Trustee nor the Debtor, by an individual with authority, served a notice
on defendant Landlord attempting to terminate the Lot 33 Tenancy.
153. The Trustee has not received a notice whereby defendant Landlord attempted or
sought to terminate the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy.
154. Upon information and belief, the Debtor has not received a notice whereby
defendant Landlord attempted or sought to terminate the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy.
19
155. Upon information and belief, defendant Landlord has not issued a notice
terminating the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy.
156. The Lot 33 Tenancy is in full force and effect.
157. Upon information and belief, during all relevant times, defendant Robert, defendant
Steven, defendant SGM and defendant Landlord knew, or should have known, that the Debtors
Lot 33 Tenancy is, and has been, in full force and effect.
158. The Lot 33 Tenancy is property of the Debtors estate.
159. Upon information and belief, during all relevant times, defendant Robert, defendant
Steven, defendant SGM and defendant Landlord knew, or should have known, that the Debtors
Lot 33 Tenancy is, and has been, property of the Debtors estate.
160. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding the knowledge of defendant Robert,
defendant Steven, defendant SGM and defendant Landlord that the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy is,
and has been, in full force and effect, defendant Robert and/or defendant Steven, on behalf of
defendant SGM, on the one hand, and defendant Landlord, on the other hand, entered into the
SGM Lot 33 Lease.
161. Upon information and belief, the SGM Lot 33 Lease improperly authorizes
defendant SGM to permit customers of Mama Cascarinos to park their vehicles or have their
vehicles parked in Lot 33 and prohibit non-customers of Mama Cascarinos, including customers
of the Debtor, from accessing the parking lot on Lot 33.
162. The SGM Lot 33 Lease constitutes a violation of the automatic stay codified by
section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code.
163. The SGM Lot 33 Lease is void.
20
164. On March 15, 2016, defendant Atlas, at the direction of defendant Robert and
defendant Steven, on behalf of defendant SGM, installed a fence along the property line for Lot
30 and Lot 33.
165. Defendant Robert and defendant Steven, on behalf of defendant SGM, directed
defendant Atlas to install the fence in an attempt to preclude customers of the Debtors restaurant
from accessing the parking lot on Lot 33.
166. As the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy, which pre-exists the SGM Lot 33 Lease, is in full
force and effect and has not been terminated, the Debtor maintains a right to possession and quiet
enjoyment of Lot 33.
167. As the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy, which pre-exists the SGM Lot 33 Lease, is in full
force and effect and has not been terminated, the SGM Lot 33 Lease is unenforceable and null and
void.
168. As the SGM Lot 33 Lease is void, defendants Robert, Steven and SGM have no
right to possession or quiet enjoyment of Lot 33.
169. Accordingly, the Trustee is entitled to a judgment against Defendants declaring,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), that: (i) the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy is valid, in full force and
effect and not terminated; (ii) the SGM Lot 33 Lease, and/or any other means by which the Lot 33
tenancy of defendant SGM is purportedly in effect, is invalid and unenforceable; (iii) the Debtors
estate is and shall be entitled to the exclusive right to possession and quiet enjoyment of Lot 33;
(iv) the Debtor may, in the Trustees sole discretion, exclude any individual or entity from parking,
or otherwise using, Lot 33; and (iv) defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM have
been, and until they vacate the property, remove the installed fence and repair any damage caused,
continue to trespass on the Debtors property.
21
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT ROBERT

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
171. Defendant Robert owed the Debtor, the Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors
a fiduciary duty, which required defendant Robert to act in good faith and with care with respect
to the Debtor and the Debtors financial affairs.
172. Defendant Robert breached his fiduciary duty to the Debtor, the Debtors estate and
the Debtors creditors by committing each of the Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
173. Defendant Robert was and has been unjustly enriched by his breach of fiduciary
duty to the Debtor, the Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors
174. Defendant Roberts actions have damaged the Debtor, the Debtors estate and the
Debtors creditors.
175. As a result of defendant Roberts breach of fiduciary duty and obligations to the
Debtor, the Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from
defendant Robert a judgment in an amount as yet undetermined, but in no event is less than
$600,000.00 plus punitive damages, interest thereon, attorneys fees, and costs, and such other
amounts as may be determined by the Court.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT ROBERT

(Breach of Duty of Loyalty)
22
a duty of loyalty, which duty required defendant Robert to promote the interests of the Debtor
rather than his own interests.
178. By committing the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, defendant Robert breached his duty
of loyalty to the Debtor, the Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors by promoting his own
interests at the expense of the interests of the Debtor, the Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors.
179. By committing the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, defendant Robert breached his duty
of loyalty to the Debtor, the Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors by engaging in self-dealing,
and by utilizing his position with the Debtor to obtain personal profit or advantage.
180. Defendant Robert was and has been unjustly enriched by his breach of duty of
loyalty to the Debtor, the Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors.
Debtors creditors.
182. As a result of defendant Roberts breach of duty of loyalty to the Debtor, the
Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendant Robert
a judgment in an amount as yet undetermined, but in no event less than $600,000.00 plus punitive
damages, interest thereon, attorneys fees, and costs, and such other amounts as may be determined
by the Court..
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT ROBERT

(Corporate Waste and Diminution of Value)
a fiduciary duty of care which required defendant Robert to discharge his duty to the Debtor, the
23
Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors with the same diligence, care, and skill which ordinary
prudent persons exercise in their personal affairs.
185. Defendant Robert breached his fiduciary duty of care to the Debtor, the Debtors
estate and the Debtors creditors by committing each of the Tortious Post-Petition Acts which
wasted and/or diminished the value of the Debtors Assets.
Debtors creditors.
187. As a result of defendant Roberts breach of fiduciary duty to the Debtor and
resulting waste and/or diminution in value of the Debtors Assets, the Trustee is entitled to recover
from defendant Robert a judgment in an amount as yet undetermined, but in no event less than
amounts as may be determined by the Court.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS STEVEN AND SGM

(Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
189. Defendant Robert breached his fiduciary duty to the Debtor, the Debtors estate and
the Trustee.
190. During all relevant times, defendant Steven and defendant SGM had knowledge of
defendant Roberts breaches.
191. Defendant Steven and defendant SGM provided substantial assistance to defendant
Robert to facilitate defendant Roberts breaches of fiduciary duty or allow defendant Robert breach
his fiduciary duty.
24
192. Defendant Steven and defendant SGMs actions have caused damage to the Debtor,
the Debtors estate and the Trustee.
193. As a result of defendant Stevens and SGMs actions, the Trustee is entitled to
recover from defendant Steven and SGM a judgment in an amount as yet undetermined, but in no
event less than $600,000.00 plus punitive damages, interest thereon, attorneys fees, and costs, and
such other amounts as may be determined by the Court.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT ROBERT, DEFENDANT

STEVEN AND DEFENDANT SGM
(Tortious Interference with Economic Opportunity)
195. The Trustee, on behalf of the Debtors estate, and the Buyer entered into the APA
whereby the Debtors estate would realize $600,000.00 in cash upon the consummation of the
APA and Pending Sale.
SGM had knowledge of the existence of the APA and the Pending Sale during all relevant times.
197. By committing the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, defendant Robert, defendant Steven
and defendant SGM caused the breach of the APA and Pending Sale by the Buyer.
198. Upon information and belief, by committing the Tortious Post-Petition Acts,
defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM intentionally caused the breach of the
APA and Pending Sale by the Buyer.
199. As a result of the Tortious Post-Petition Acts, defendant Robert, defendant Steven
and defendant SGM tortuously interfered with the economic opportunity presented to the Debtors
estate by the APA and the Pending Sale.
25
200. As a result of the foregoing, the Trustee is entitled to recover from defendant
Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM a judgment in an amount as yet undetermined, but
in no event less than $600,000.00, jointly and severally plus punitive damages, interest thereon,
attorneys fees, and costs, and such other amounts as may be determined by the Court.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT ROBERT, DEFENDANT

(Conversion)
200 as if set forth fully herein
202. The Debtor has a legal and equitable interest in the Cascarinos name, as well as
the Debtors proprietary data, computer database, customer lists, menus, Dining Room Sign and
cash.
203. The Debtors legal and equitable interest in the Cascarinos name, as well as the
Debtors proprietary data, computer database, customer lists, menus, Dining Room Sign and cash
is property of the Debtors estate.
204. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM appropriated and/or used
the Cascarinos name, the Debtors proprietary data, the Debtors computer database, the
Debtors customer lists, menus Dining Room Sign and/or the Debtors cash.
205. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM had no right to
appropriate and/or use the Cascarinos name, the Debtors proprietary data, the Debtors
computer database, the Debtors customer lists, menus, Dining Room Sign and/or the Debtors
cash.
206. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM exceeded their authority
by appropriating and/or using the Cascarinos name, the Debtors proprietary data, the Debtors
26
computer database, the Debtors customer lists, the Debtors menus, the Debtors Dining Room
Sign and/or the Debtors cash.
207. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM appropriated and/or used
the Cascarinos name, the Debtors proprietary data, the Debtors computer database, the
Debtors customer lists, the Debtors menus, the Debtors Dining Room Sign and/or the Debtors
cash in derogation of the Debtors rights in and to those Assets.
208. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM has dominion over the
Cascarinos name, the Debtors proprietary data, the Debtors computer database, the Debtors
customer lists, the Debtors menus, the Debtors Dining Room Sign and/or the Debtors cash.
209. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM has interfered with the
Debtors rights with respect to the Cascarinos name, the Debtors proprietary data, the Debtors
computer database, the Debtors customer lists, the Debtors menus, the Debtors Dining Room
Sign and/or the Debtors cash.
210. Despite demand, defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM
continues to use and/or failed to return to the Trustee the Cascarinos name, the Debtors
proprietary data, the Debtors computer database, the Debtors customer lists, the Debtors menus,
the Debtors Dining Room Sign and the Debtors cash.
211. By reason of the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to an Order and Judgment against
Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM in an amount as yet undetermined, but
in no event believed to be less than $600,000.00 plus punitive damages, interest thereon, attorneys
fees and costs, or such other amount as may be determined by the Court.
27
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT ROBERT, DEFENDANT

(Unfair Competition)
213. As sole principal and manager of the day-to-day operations of the Debtor, defendant
Robert gained proprietary knowledge of the Debtors affairs and Debtors operations as pizzeria
and restaurant.
214. As principal and manager of the day-to-day operations of the Debtor, defendant
Robert, upon information and belief, knew of the Pending Sale in February and March of 2016.
a fiduciary duty of care which required defendant Robert to discharge his duty to the Debtor, the
Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors with the same diligence, care, and skill which ordinary
prudent persons exercise in their personal affairs.
216. Notwithstanding his proprietary knowledge and fiduciary duties owed to the
Debtor, the Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors, defendant Robert, with assistance from
defendant Steven and defendant SGM, used defendant Roberts proprietary knowledge of the
Debtors affairs to commit the Tortious Post-Petition Acts and open, or be in the process of
opening, Mama Cascarinos, a new pizzeria and restaurant located approximately 190 feet from
the Debtors Premises, while the Pending Sale was outstanding.
217. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM committed the Post-
Petition Tortious Acts for their own commercial advantage and primarily to facilitate the opening
and operations of Mama Cascarinos.
28
SGM have opened, or are in the process of opening, Mama Cascarinos knowing that Mama
Cascarinos is or will be a direct competitor of the Debtor.
Cascarinos is or will cause a reduction in the value of the Debtors assets.
Cascarinos is or will cause a reduction in the Debtors revenue.
SGM have opened, or are in the process of opening, Mama Cascarinos knowing that the opening
of Mama Cascarinos would cause the Buyer to terminate the Pending Sale and/or will chill future
bidding for the Debtors assets.
222. The name, nature and location of Mama Cascarinos will cause, or is likely to cause,
confusion with, or be mistaken for, the Debtors restaurant in the mind of the public.
223. Defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM have failed to act in good
faith.
224. As a result of defendant Roberts, defendant Stevens and defendant SGMs
actions, the Trustee is entitled to: (i) recover from defendant Robert, defendant Steven and
defendant SGM, a judgment in an amount as yet undetermined, but in no event less than
amounts as may be determined by the Court; and (ii) a preliminary and permanent injunction.
29
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Civil Trespass)
226. During all relevant times, the Debtors Lot 30 Lease has been in full force and
effect.
227. Upon information and belief, during all relevant times, Defendants knew the
Debtors Lot 30 Lease was in full force and effect.
228. During all relevant times, the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy has been in full force and
effect.
229. Upon information and belief, during all relevant times, Defendants knew the
Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy was in full force and effect.
230. During all relevant times, by the Debtors Lot 30 Lease and Lot 33 Tenancy, the
Debtor has been entitled to possession and quiet enjoyment of Lot 30 and Lot 33 during all relevant
times.
231. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew the Debtor has been entitled to
possession and quiet enjoyment of Lot 30 and Lot 33 during all relevant times.
232. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding the Debtors Lot 30 Lease and Lot
33 Tenancy and Defendants knowledge of the same, on or about March 15, 2016, Defendants
directed the installation of, agreed to the installation of and/or facilitated the installation of, a fence
to be installed on or about the property line for Lot 30 and Lot 33 dividing the Debtors parking
lot without authorization of the Trustee.
30
233. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding the Debtors Lot 30 Lease, Lot 33
Tenancy and Defendants knowledge of the same, on March 15, 2016, Defendants intentionally
entered Lot 30 and 33 without authorization of the Trustee.
234. Upon learning of the Defendants unauthorized and intentional trespass on Lot 30
and Lot 33 and prior to the installation of the fence being complete, the Trustee, both personally
and through his professionals, contacted Defendants, or attempted to contact Defendants,
personally or through their counsel if known to: (i) inform each Defendant that their actions
amounted to intentional trespass on the Debtors property in violation of the automatic stay, and
(ii) direct each Defendant to cease installing the fence, remove the fence, repair any damage to the
Debtors Premises caused by the installation of the fence or otherwise, and immediately vacate the
Debtors Premises.
235. Defendants ignored and/or affirmatively refused to comply with the Trustees
request and continued to install the fence.
236. By the end of the day on March 15, 2016, Defendants completed the installation of
the fence notwithstanding their lack of authority to do so and the Trustees demands to cease and
desist.
237. From March 15, 2016 through the present, the fence has divided the Debtors
parking lot.
238. On or about March 23, 2016, defendants Robert, Steven and/or SGM entered Lot
33 without authority to affix the Parking Lot Sign to the fence such that the Parking Lot Sign was
displayed in the Debtors parking lot.
239. By entering the Debtors premises without authority, Defendants actions amount
to intentional trespass.
31
240. By refusing to comply with the Trustees requests to, among other things, cease
installing the fence, remove the fence, repair any damage to the Debtors Premises caused by the
installation of the fence or otherwise, remove the Parking Lot Sign and vacate the Debtors
Premises, Defendants actions amount to intentional trespass.
241. By, among other things, failing to remove the fence, failing to remove the Parking
Lot Sign and failing to repair any damage to the Debtors Premises, Defendants intentional
trespass is continuing.
242. By Defendants intentional trespass, Defendants have interfered with the Debtors
right to possession and quiet enjoyment of the Debtors own parking lot.
243. Defendants intentional trespass has caused significant damage to the Debtors
estate.
244. By reason of the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to the entry of an Order and
Judgment against Defendants for actual damages in the amount of not less than $600,000.00 plus
punitive damages, interest thereon, attorneys fees, and costs, as well as such other amounts as
may be determined by the Court.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Willful Violation of the Automatic Stay - 11 U.S.C. 362(k))
246. The Defendants committed the Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
247. Upon information and belief, on and prior to the date of each Tortious Post-Petition
Act, Defendants had actual knowledge of the Debtors bankruptcy filing.
Act, Defendants had actual knowledge that the Debtors bankruptcy case was ongoing.
32
Act, Defendants had actual knowledge that the APA and Pending Sale were outstanding.
Act, Defendants had actual knowledge that the automatic stay applied to all property of the
Debtors estate.
Act, Defendants knew, or should have known, that the Tortious Post-Petition Acts damaged
property of the estate.
Act, Defendants did not maintain a good faith belief that section 362(h) of the Bankruptcy Code
applied.
253. By committing each Tortious Post-Petition Act, each Defendant willfully violated
the automatic stay.
254. Defendants willful violations of the automatic stay have injured the Trustee, on
behalf of the Debtors estate, in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event is less than
$600,000.00, plus attorneys fees and costs.
255. By reason of the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to the entry of an Order and
Judgment, under 362(k) of the Bankruptcy Code, against Defendants for actual damages in the
amount of not less than $600,000.00 plus punitive damages, interest thereon, attorneys fees, and
costs, as well as such other amounts as may be determined by the Court.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Civil Conspiracy)
256. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
33
257. Defendants committed the Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
258. Upon information and belief, Defendants conspired together and intentionally
participated in this course of action to commit the Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
259. Upon information and belief, the Tortious Post-Petition Acts were overt and
furthered the Defendants conspiracy to, among other things, diminish the value of the Debtors
assets, tortuously interfere with the APA and Pending Sale, unfairly compete with the Debtor, and
willfully violate the automatic stay.
260. Upon information and belief, Defendants intended to participate in this conspiracy
by committing the Tortious Post-Petition Acts for their own personal gain and at the expense of
the Debtors creditors.
261. Creditors of the Debtor were harmed as a result of Defendants participation in this
course of action.
262. As a result of Defendants conspiracy, the value and liquidity of the Debtors assets
have been diminished to the detriment of the Debtors creditors.
263. By reason of the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to an Order and Judgment against
Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial, but in an amount of no less than $600,000.00 plus
punitive damages, interest thereon, attorneys fees, and costs, and such other amounts as may be
determined by the Court.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

(Unjust Enrichment)
263 as if fully set forth herein.
265. Defendants committed the Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
34
266. By the Tortious Post-Petition acts, Defendants have been enriched to the detriment
of the Debtors estate and the Debtors creditors.
267. Equity and good conscience militate in favor of requiring Defendants to
compensate the Debtors estate for the Tortious Post-Petition Acts.
268. By reason of the foregoing, the Plaintiff is entitled to an award against Defendants
in an amount to be determined at trial, which amount is not less than $600,000.00 plus punitive
by the Court.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
35
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment on his claims for relief in his favor as
follows:
i. On his first claim for relief, granting a preliminary injunction and permanent
injunction, plus costs and expenses, including attorneys fees, or such other amounts as to be
proven at trial;
ii. On his second claim for relief, against the Defendants declaring pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2201(a) that: (i) the Debtors Lot 33 Tenancy is valid, in full force and effect and not
terminated; (ii) the SGM Lot 33 Lease, and/or any other means by which the Lot 33 tenancy of
defendant SGM is purportedly in effect, is invalid and unenforceable; (iii) the Debtors estate is
and shall be entitled to the exclusive right to possession and quiet enjoyment of Lot 33; (iv) the
Debtor may, in the Trustees sole discretion, exclude any individual or entity from parking, or
otherwise using, Lot 33; and (iv) defendant Robert, defendant Steven and defendant SGM have
been, and until they vacate the property, remove the installed fence and repair any damage caused,
continue to trespass on the Debtors property;
iii. On his third, fourth and fifth claims for relief, against defendant Robert for actual
damages in an amount as yet undetermined, but in no event is less than $600,000.00 plus punitive
by the Court and directing that a money judgment be entered for that amount, and attaching the
assets of defendant Robert to prevent transfers therefrom in the foregoing amounts;
iv. On his sixth claim for relief, against defendant Steven and defendant SGM for
actual damages in an amount as yet undetermined, but in no event is less than $600,000.00 plus
punitive damages, interest thereon, attorneys fees, and costs, and such other amounts as may be
determined by the Court and directing that a money judgment be entered for that amount, and
36
attaching the assets of defendant Steven and defendant SGM to prevent transfers therefrom in the
foregoing amounts;
v. On his seventh and eighth claims for relief, against defendant Robert, defendant
Steven and defendant SGM, jointly and severally, for actual damages in an amount as yet
undetermined, but in no event is less than $600,000.00 plus punitive damages, interest thereon,
attorneys fees, and costs, and such other amounts as may be determined by the Court and directing
that a money judgment be entered for that amount, and attaching the assets of defendant Robert,
defendant Steven and defendant SGM to prevent transfers therefrom in the foregoing amounts;
vi. On his ninth claim for relief, against defendant Robert, defendant Steven and
defendant SGM, jointly and severally: (i) for actual damages in an amount as yet undetermined,
but in no event is less than $600,000.00 plus punitive damages, interest thereon, attorneys fees,
and costs, and such other amounts as may be determined by the Court and directing that a money
judgment be entered for that amount, and attaching the assets of defendant Robert, defendant
Steven and defendant SGM to prevent transfers therefrom in the foregoing amounts; and (ii) a
preliminary and permanent injunction;
vii. On his tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth claims for relief, against all
Defendants, jointly and severally, for actual damages in an amount as yet undetermined, but in no
event is less than $600,000.00 plus punitive damages, interest thereon, attorneys fees, and costs,
and such other amounts as may be determined by the Court and directing that a money judgment
be entered for that amount, and attaching the assets of Defendants to prevent transfers therefrom
in the foregoing amounts;
37
viii. Any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Wantagh, New York

March 30, 2016
LAMONICA HERBST & MANISCALCO, LLP
Counsel to Salvatore LaMonica,
the Chapter 7 Trustee
By: s/ Gary F. Herbst

Gary F. Herbst, Esq.
A Member of the Firm
3305 Jerusalem Avenue, Suite 201
Wantagh, New York 11793
(516) 826-6500
38

R & J PIZZA CORP vs. STEVEN MENEXAS Complaint

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

R & J PIZZA CORP vs. STEVEN MENEXAS Complaint

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 1-16-01071-cec Doc 1 Filed 03/30/16 Entered 03/30/16 11:19:31

LaMonica Herbst & Maniscalco, LLP

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

-against- Adv. Pro. No.

ROBERT CASCARINO, COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Salvatore LaMonica, as Chapter 7 Trustee (the Plaintiff or Trustee) of the

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the Bankruptcy Rules).

of the Bankruptcy Rules, and applicable state law.

(b)(2)(A), (E), and (O).

College Point Boulevard, College Point, New York 11356.

LaMonica as the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Debtors estate.

and Bankruptcy Rule 6009.

9. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert Cascarino is an individual who

and/or 20844 15th Drive, Bayside, New York 11360.

Boulevard, College Point, New York 11356.

ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A. The Debtors Bankruptcy Filing

for the Eastern District of New York (the Court).

was directed to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee in the Debtors case.

Salvatore LaMonica was appointed as the Chapter 11 Trustee in this case.

Salvatore LaMonica as the Chapter 11 Trustee.

Chapter 11 to a case under Chapter 7 (the Conversion Order).

is the permanent Trustee of this estate.

B. The Debtors Operations

Brick Oven Pizzeria & Ristorante.

C. The Terminated Sale

a sale process to liquidate substantially all of the Debtors assets.

goodwill, customer lists, and computers (collectively, the Assets).

Proceeds of Sale (the Sale Order).

accordance with the APA (the Pending Sale).

(as defined below).

D. The Debtors Premises

as Block 4077, Lots 30 and 33.

additional five (5) year period to December 2025.

March 2016 under the Lot 30 Lease.

tenancy (the Lot 33 Tenancy).

42. Defendant Landlord is the landlord for the Lot 33 Tenancy.

than six (6) years.

March 2016, to maintain the Lot 33 Tenancy.

proprietary knowledge of the Debtors affairs.

formed on December 16, 2015.

52. Upon information and belief, defendant Robert is a member of SGM.

53. Upon information and belief, defendant Steven is a member of SGM.

principal operators of Mama Cascarinos.

Brick Oven Pizzeria & Ristorante.

190 feet from the Debtors Premises.

F. Defendants Unauthorized Installation of a Fence on the Debtors Premises

of 2016 (the SGM Lot 33 Lease).

force and effect.

and police intervention.

Cascarinos to the detriment of the Debtor.

G. Defendants Improper and Unauthorized Use of the Debtors Trademark

the Debtor and Mama Cascarinos are competitors.

CASCARINO'S THE ORIGINAL BRICK OVEN PIZZERIA & RISTORANTE WHERE

72. Mama Cascarinos uses the Cascarinos name.

confuse the Debtors operations with Mama Cascarinos operations.

feet of the Debtors location infringes on the Trademark.

Parking Lot Sign is displayed in the Debtors parking lot.

free pizza for kids all day long!

PHONE: (718 445-6262) www.mamacascarinos.com.

2014 and relate to the Debtors business operations.

formed, and did not operate, until December 2015.