1 2 3 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

James Alexander Kim, SBN 220763 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES ALEXANDER KIM 3660 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 212 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 386-7566 Attorneys for Plaintiff, GREGORY S. KIM

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GREGORY S. KIM, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. VAN TON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: [LIMITED CIVIL] COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Breach of Contract (Lease);

Plaintiff DOUBLE ZERO, INC., an individual (Plaintiff) alleges as against defendants; FASHION LIFE, INC., a California corporation doing business as "FANG FASHION" and "DESIGN BY NATURE" and "ITEX"; ITEX, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, as follows:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

Page 1 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 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

1.

Plaintiff, DOUBLE ZERO, INC., hereinafter Plaintiff, is and at all times herein

mentioned was, a California corporation duly authorized and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that defendant FASHION

LIFE, INC. (Fashion) is and was at all relevant times herein a California corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, State of California under the fictitious business name of "FANG FASHION" and "DESIGN BY NATURE" and "ITEX." 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that defendant ITEX

(ITEX) is an entity of form unknown and Plaintiff shall seek leave to amend the complaint to show the true nature of Defendant ITEX once such information is obtained or ascertained. 4. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate,

associate or otherwise, of defendants Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants, and each of them, by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the defendants named herein as Does 1 through 20, inclusive, when those names and capacities have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is liable and responsible in some manner for the claims, demands, losses, acts and damages alleged herein. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that in doing the acts

alleged herein, each of the defendants was acting for himself, herself or itself and was acting as the agent, employee, and/or representative of each of the other defendants within the course and scope of such agency, employment and/or representation. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the acts and conduct of each of the defendants as alleged herein were known to, authorized and ratified by each of the other defendants. 6. The obligation, which is the subject matter of this action, occurred and to be performed

within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court, and this Court is the proper court for the trial of this action.

Page 2 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 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

UNDERLYING FACTS 9. Plaintiff is a seller of clothing goods and Defendants Fashion and ITEX sell fabric.

Sometime in August of 2008, individual, Andrew Kim ("Kim"), on behalf of his alleged employer ITEX, offered to sell certain fabric to Plaintiff to be used in Plaintiff's manufactured goods. As an inducement for the Plaintiff to purchase the fabric, Defendant, through agent Kim, represented that the fabric was lawful to sell and use for the intended purpose and that Defendant ITEX in fact owned the copyright for the fabric design. 10. Based on the representations made by Kim, Plaintiff did in fact order certain fabric from After Plaintiff had spent money in

ITEX and began manufacturing dresses using the fabric.

production and in selling some of the dresses, Plaintiff was served with a "Cease and Desist" letter by STAR FABRICS, INC., claiming that the fabric design infringed its rights under United States Copyright Law. 11. In response to the cease and desist, Plaintiff stopped all production using the infringing

fabric and demanded ITEX to show proof of copyright. At all times, in response to Plaintiff's demands and inquiries, ITEX, through its representative Kim, claimed that the fabric sold was registered in the United States Copyright Office. 12. On January of 2009, Plaintiff met with Kim to discuss the copyright issue and Kim

promised to forward copies of applications and registrations with the United States Copyright Office. No such proof or copies were forwarded. 13. Instead of providing the proof of ownership as originally claimed and promised, Plaintiff

was served with a demand from a collection company demanding the balance owed on the infringing fabric on behalf of Fashion, the purported "true owner of ITEX." 14. Plaintiff has in its possession the infringing fabric and is unable to sell it. Plaintiff has

incurred over $16,000.00 in production costs for the goods containing the infringing fabric. 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes that ITEX is either a fictitious name of Fashion, or an

entity wholly owned and controlled by Fashion.

Page 3 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 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

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Breach of Contract Against All Defendants) 16. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation set forth

in Paragraphs 1 through 15, inclusive. 17. On or about August 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement for the sale

of Defendant's fabric. The agreement was evidenced by a purchase order, invoice and packing list. 18. A true and correct copy of the purchase order, invoice and packing list, are attached

hereto and marked as Exhibit "A." 19. Defendants, expressly and implicitly, represented, warranted and promised that they had

the legal right to sell the goods and that they had ownership of the rights to sell, including the rights of authorship to the design, rights distribution, and rights of reproduction. 20. Defendant breached the terms of the agreement when they sold goods they had no legal

right to sell. 21. Plaintiff is excused from any performance under the terms of the agreement, because

Plaintiff was sold goods that could not be used for the intended purpose. 22. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has been damaged in an

amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $16,000.00.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Fraud and Deceit Against All Defendants) 23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation set forth

in Paragraphs 1 through 16, inclusive. 24. Defendants, each of them, knowingly made certain false representations to the

Plaintiff and Plaintiff reasonably relied on the representations, all to his detriment. 25. Defendants represented that they had legal title to the fabric design and that their

rights were registered with the Unites States Copyright Office.

Page 4 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 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

26.

Defendants represented that their product was legal and in compliance with the

laws of the United States of America and the State of California, when in fact they were engaged in infringing activities under the United States Copyright Act. 27. Defendants represented that they had lawful right to reproduce and distribute

certain copyrighted materials sold to Plaintiff when in fact Defendants had no such right. 28. Defendants claimed that they were entitled to reproduce and distribute certain

copyrighted materials sold to Plaintiff when in fact Defendants had no such entitlement. 29. Defendants, each of them, made the aforementioned representations to induce

Plaintiff to pay a certain sum of money, in an amount to be proven at trial. 30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' fraud and deceit, Plaintiff has

been injured in an amount to be proven at trial. 31. Plaintiff further alleges, that Defendants' conduct was willful, malicious, and done with

complete disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, and thus, punitive damages are appropriate.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Negligence Against All Defendants) 32. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation set forth

in Paragraphs 1 through 31, inclusive. 33. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, each of them, had a duty to exercise reasonable

care to prevent harm to foreseeable plaintiffs, and that Defendants, each of them, breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff. 34. The aforementioned acts and omissions were actual and proximate cause of

Plaintiff's injuries. 35. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Negligent Misrepresentation Against All Defendants) 36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation set forth

Page 5 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 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

in Paragraphs 1 through 31, inclusive. 37. Defendants, each of them, owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care to

prevent injury caused by Plaintiff's reasonable reliance on false representations that Defendants knew or should have known, with the exercise of care, to be false. 38. Notwithstanding the duty of care owed to Plaintiff by Defendants, Defendants, by their

acts and omissions, caused Plaintiff injury when Plaintiff reasonably relied on the false representations made. 39. Defendants knew or should have known that the aforementioned representations were

false, but failed to inform Plaintiff of the falsity. 40. Plaintiff's reasonable reliance on the false representations were the actual and proximate

cause of Plaintiff's injuries. 41. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (For Unfair Competition and Deceptive Business Practices Against All Defendants) 42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation set forth

in Paragraphs 1 through 31, inclusive. 43. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, each of them, by doing the act alleged herein, engaged

in unfair and deceptive practices in selling and advertising their services, in competing with others for their services, and in marketing their business, all to the injury of the public and the Plaintiff. 44. 45. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff further alleges, that Defendants' conduct was willful, malicious, and done with

complete disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, and thus, punitive damages are appropriate.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

Page 6 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 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

ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial; For punitive damages; Restitution; Attorneys' fees and costs; For other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: June 23, 2009

Law Office of James Alexander Kim

By:

____________________________ James Alexander Kim Attorneys for Plaintiff, DOUBLE ZERO, INC.

Page 7 COMPLAINT