"Reply to: Kaching Information Services
A Nevada “L” Series LLC dba
Kaching Kollectibles
3841 Daisy St., Ste. #17
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Brand Partner ID: LG6316776367315648
(hereafter referred to as: “Claimant”)
To:
ALEXY PITT
REGISTERED AGENT FOR: LUCRAZON GLOBAL, LLC
8855 RESEARCH DRIVE
IRVINE CA 92618
USPS CERTIFIED MAIL, ARTICLE #: 7011 3500 0002 0490 2552
ALEXY PITT, CEO
c/o LUCRAZON GLOBAL, LLC
8855 RESEARCH DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92618
HECTOR BARRETO, PRESIDENT
c/o LUCRAZON GLOBAL, INC.
8855 RESEARCH DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92618
OSCAR GARCIA, VICE PRESIDENT SALES
c/o LUCRAZON GLOBAL, LLC
8855 RESEARCH DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92618
LEGAL DEPT. LUCRAZON GLOBAL, LLC
c/o LUCRAZON GLOBAL, LLC
8855 RESEARCH DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92618
(hereafter referred to collectively as: “Respondent(s)”)
Re: OFFER OF PRESUIT MEDIATION
Dear Respondent(s):
On August 1, 2014 at approximately 3:04 pm., via USPS Certified Mail, Article Number: 7011 3500 0002 0490 2552, pursuant to the authority provided under: Cal. Civ. Code. 1782(a)(2), Claimant served Alexy Pitt, Registered Agent for Lucrazon Global, Claimant’s PRESUIT NOTICE by USPS Certified Mail. See Exhibit No. 1. Copy of: PRESUIT NOTICE; No. 2. Copy of: USPS Certified Mail; No. 3. Copy of: USPS Proof of Delivery.
I. CAVEAT
In such event Respondent(s) do not understand the nature and purpose of the Presuit Notice Serviced upon them, Claimant strongly urges and suggests Respondent(s) seek legal counsel and advice immediately without delay. The purpose of said Presuit Notice is to give Respondent(s) NOTICE that an action is about to be filed against Respondent(s) unless Respondent(s) take such measures or steps necessary to resolve said claim(s). Respondent(s) failure to timely act shall result with an action being brought against Respondent(s).
II. INTRODUCTION
In compliance with California Civil Code § 1750 and, specifically § 1782(a)(2), in a good faith effort to resolve the claim(s) Claimant has against Respondent(s) as a direct and proximate result of, including, but not limited to, Claimant’s belief, Claims and allegations Respondent(s) have engaged in false, misleading and deceptive advertising and marketing practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17500 et seq. Specifically Sections 17500,17500.5 and 17505 prohibiting false advertising, (a misdemeanor if found guilty) prior to commencing any action against Respondent(s) under this statute and any such other statute, code, etc., Claimant finds applicable under the circumstances. Claimant is offering Respondent(s) this one time mediation opportunity to resolve Claimant’s claims against Respondent(s) through a non-involved non interested third party prior to filing any lawsuit or undertaking any other form of legal action which may be available concerning Claimant’s grievances.
Respondent(s) failure to participate in said mediation and resolve this matter within said thirty (30) day time period shall result with Claimant amending Claimant’s claims to include other parties to this matter, specifically Merrick Bank NA, VISA and MASTERCARD to redress their errors and omissions as well as any negligence as it may relate to their roll and involvement with Respondent(s) in this Lucra-Scam Global Ponzi styled scheme.
Claimant wants Respondent(s) to clearly and fully understand the gravity of Respondent(s) actions and Claimant’s seriousness, that in such event the claims herein are not resolved satisfactorily prior to expiration of said thirty (30) day period, in addition to any and all actions taken by said mediation company in reporting Claimant’s unresolved claims to the: Securities Exchange Commission; Federal Trade Commission; California Attorney General Consumer Fraud Division; Secretary of State; US Department of Justice; Orange County District Attorney’s Office; United States Attorney’s Office; Better Business Bureau; Homeland Security, plus posting on Rip Off Report.com, MLM Watch Dog and all other internet MLM monitoring and reporting services; copies will also go out to the Associated Press; 60 Minutes; 20/20; Dateline; and many Local and National Consumer News Investigating Reporting companies and services. Claimant has already prepared an action for filing against Respondent(s) pursuant to the authority provided under: Cal Bus & Prof Code § 17203, which holds:
Actions for injunction under this section may be prosecuted by the Attorney General or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this state in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of any board, officer, person, corporation or association or by any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of a violation of this chapter. Any person may pursue representative claims or relief on behalf of others only if the Claimant meets the standing requirements of this section and complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but these limitations do not apply to claims brought under this chapter by the Attorney General, or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this state.
Cal Bus & Prof Code § 17203 (Emphasis added mine.)
The purpose of said injunctive relief is to protect the public and consumers. Claimant shall pursue all such other avenues of relief against Respondent(s) for redress of Claimant’s damages and injuries as necessary.
III. FACTS IN SUPPORT
On or about November 25th, 2013 Claimant in conjunction with an account of Claimants with the BlackNet Group, LLC, Claimant attended a presentation of Lucrazon Global put on by Respondent’s Founding Father, Danny Pacheco in Las Vegas, Nevada on or about November 25th, 2013, and then attended subsequent presentations by Lucrazon Global Vice President, Oscar Garcia on November 26, & 27, 2013 in Irvine, Orange County, California.
Respondent(s) Founding Father, Danny Pacheco, on November 26th, 2014 extended a personal invitation to Claimant to come to Lucrazon Global Corporate Headquarters in Irvine, California for more presentations and to view what was going on. Both presentations by Respondent(s) were videotaped. Conversations between Claimant and Respondent(s) were recorded. Claimant further found additional video presentations by both Daniel Pacheco and Oscar Garcia posted on You-Tube. Claimant also received a Power Point Presentation to review. Claimant has copies of all video and audio recordings including presentations and conversations, copies of conference calls, audio recordings from trainings, audios and videos from trainings, emails, and other forms of documentation including but not limited to weekly screen shots of Claimant’s administrative back office and Claimant’s bank statements evidencing a 100% failure of Respondent’s product to function and operate as advertised, marketed and sold.
Claimant, as a result of marketing representations made to Claimant by Respondent(s) which were false and misleading, Claimant on December 6, 2013 joined Lucrazon Global as a brand partner by paying $1,000.00 from a Claimant’s Citi Bank Business Bank Card. Claimant ultimately went to the bank and deposited an additional $14,000.00 into Lucrazon Global’s bank account, purchasing a total of 15 Business Unit(s) from Lucrazon Global for the total sum of $15,000.00.
The numbers illustrated to Claimant by Respondent(s) that Claimant could earn $14.50 per day per Business Unit, owning 15 business units paying $217.50 per day, every day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year wrongfully induced Claimant to spend $15,000.00 with Respondent(s) to purchase 15 Business Unit(s). The failure of Respondent(s) to pay the daily marketing bonus of $14.50 per Business Unit as promised has caused a damage and financial injury to Claimant.
At the time Claimant joined Lucrazon Global it was in prelaunch stage. It had been announced that Lucrazon Global planned to officially launch in early January 2014. That launch date was then subsequently moved to February, then to March and finally it was settled April 12, 2014 would be the official launch date at the LA Convention Center in Los Angeles, California. Each time the launch date was extended, so was the start date of the daily marketing bonus.
A call to action was put out by Respondent(s) to recruit as many new brand partners as possible before the launch so they could benefit from the daily marketing bonus. It was further promised those brand partners who had already signed up before the launch that we would get paid retroactive to the date of our enrollment with Lucrazon Global.
During this period of time before the official Launch of Lucrazon Global, Claimant recruited business contacts. One by the name of Leitha J. Wiggins Jr. a Senior Citizen over the age of 75 and shared the Lucrazon Global videos and power point presentation with Leitha J. Wiggins Jr. The purpose was to recruit Mr. Wiggins due to Mr. Wiggins expertise in the retail Grocery Industry.
The Second to Jan Winters, DOB 6-4-1938, who is over 67 years of age, an Agent for an Investment Banker and Mortgage Broker currently engaged in business funding projects with Claimant. Jan Winter introduced Claimant to Sinforosa “Rose” Haugland and H. Phillip Holland. Jan Winter originally signed up in January of 2014, but did not activate her purchase with Lucrazon Global until June 5th, 2014.
Upon Leitha J. Wiggins Jr., DOB 2-26-1940, who is over the age of 74 years of age. Leitha J. Wiggins accompanied Claimant to an appointment Claimant had secured with Sinforosa “Rose” Haugland and Harrison Phillip Holland to present Lucrazon Global. Sinforosa “Rose” Haugland DOB 3-21-1940 who is over the age of: 74 and Harrison Phillip Holland DOB 11-27-1933 who is over the age of: 80 years of age, after viewing the false, deceptive and misleading advertising and marketing materials provided by Respondent(s), both Rose and Phillip signed up under Leitha J. Wiggins.
As applicable herein, the review of the development and final adoption of Senate Bill No. 1157 makes plain, the legislation was the product of the Department of Consumer Affairs' effort to strengthen the role of the Attorney General and other public prosecutors in protecting senior citizens and disabled persons from unfair business practices and the fully complementary, but nonetheless distinct, preference of the Attorney General's office to create greater private remedies for senior citizens who have been targeted as victims of consumer fraud. As finally enacted the legislation effected three major changes to California's consumer protection laws relating to senior citizens and disabled persons. First, it amended the unfair competition law by adding Business and Professions Code section 17206.1,8 which authorizes the Attorney General and prosecutors in civil enforcement proceedings to recover an added civil penalty up to $2,500 (in addition to the $2,500 civil penalty available under Business and Professions Code section 17206) when the unfair practice is perpetrated against a senior citizen or disabled person. (See Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17206.1; Stats.1988, ch. 823, § 1, pp. 2665-2666.) 9
Second, it amended the CLRA to authorize private litigants to recover, in addition to other remedies available under the act, including compensatory and punitive damages, an additional monetary award-up to $5,000-when the unfair practice prohibited by the act is perpetrated against a senior citizen or disabled person. (Civ.Code, § 1780, subd. (b)(1)(A)-(C); Stats.1988, ch. 823, § 3, pp. 2667-2668.)
Third, it added section 3345 to the Civil Code, authorizing an enhanced remedy in actions brought by or on behalf of senior citizens seeking redress for “unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition.” (§ 3345, subd. (a).) Section 3345, subdivision (a), limits the new provision to actions “brought by, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of senior citizens or disabled persons, as those terms are defined in subdivisions (f) and (g) of [Civil Code] Section 1761 [10 ] to redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition.” Section 3345, subdivision (b), provides the enhanced remedy: “Whenever a trier of fact is authorized by a statute to impose either a fine, or a civil penalty or other penalty, or any other remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter, and the amount of the fine, penalty, or other remedy is subject to the trier of fact's discretion, the trier of fact shall consider all of the following factors,[11 ] in addition to other appropriate factors, in determining the amount of fine, civil penalty or other penalty, or other remedy to impose. Whenever the trier of fact makes an affirmative finding in regard to one or more of the following factors, it may impose a fine, civil penalty or other penalty, or other remedy in an amount up to three times greater than authorized by the statute, or, where the statute does not authorize a specific amount, up to three times greater than the amount the trier of fact would impose in the absence of that affirmative finding.”
3. Section 3345 May Be Used To Enhance a Restitution Award
Upon using the split funding system marketed and sold to Leitha J. Wiggins, Lucrazon Global first deducted $1,600.00 from Leitha J. Wiggins bank account and then days later deposited the $2,000.00, thereby doing the transaction in reverse. Leitha J. Wiggins was penalized $35.00 for an overdraft fee by his bank as a result of Lucrazon Global’s split funding software system malfunction. This was not what or how Respondent marketed and advertised this split funding software system would work. Although Customer Service Representatives with Lucrazon Global who were notified over ten times of the incident, and each time promised time and again that Lucrazon Global would refund Leitha J. Wiggins the overdraft fee caused him by the failure of Respondent(s) split funding software system short comings and would fix the problem. To this day has not been resolved. Leitha J. Wiggins has never received the $35.00 refund as promised.
Claimant utilized personal resources to market Lucrazon Global’s services to Affinity Gaming. At the Launch and first official corporate training held in Anaheim, it was announced that any time a brand partner brought an account to the table whose processing was in excess of $250,000.00 a month to $1,000,000.00 per month, that Lucrazon Global had just hired a new Merchant Account Manager/Director/Supervisor who had previously worked with Wells Fargo, who committed that she would personally assist and help close any major account in excess of $250,000.00 per month in processing.
Claimant, upon discovering Affinity Gaming’s merchant account system had been breached in December 2013 and again in March of 2014. Claimant secured an appointment with the decision maker of Affinity Gaming to offer a solution to the problem, believing that Lucrazon Global was the solution.
Three days prior to the meeting Claimant contacted Customer Service at Lucrazon Global to secure technical support and assistance for the meeting to be held with Affinity Gaming. Claimant was told to call in and support would be provided. At the appointment time, Lucrazon Global failed to answer Claimant’s phone calls.
Upon meeting with the decision maker at Affinity Gaming, questions were asked which were recorded and a commitment made that we would get back to them with the answers in 72 hours so we could then discuss switching Affinity Gaming over to Lucrazon Global. After the meeting, I immediately sent the information off to Lucrazon Global. Claimant forwarded the information to Lucrazon Global on a daily basis by phone call and emails over a three week period of time requesting help and that they reach out to the decision maker and answer his questions. No action was taken by Lucrazon Global. Over four weeks elapsed before anyone in Lucrazon Global reached out to the decision maker. By that time the customer had already found another company to resolve his problem and refused to take Lucrazon Global’s calls. Nor is that particular decision maker taking any more calls from Claimant as well.
Similarly, Rose Haugland and Phillip Holland are business partners involved in joint projects together. Phillip owns and operates a multi-million dollar electrical supply company out of Guam and both he and Rose were highly interested in the representations made by Respondent(s) in their videos and power point presentations pertaining to e commerce. Rose and Phillip are involved in a major project here in Las Vegas known as the “Pinnacle Hotel and Casino Resort” which will be located across the street from the Orleans Hotel and Casino on Tropicana Avenue, as well as many other ventures.
Upon being recruited, both Rose and Phillip listened to the recording where Respondent(s) stated that pertaining to e commerce, that it was easy to build a website using the Lucrazon Global website builder and because you were already a brand partner with an approved merchant account that when you did the e commerce, you would not have to requalify. That because both Rose and Phil had joined pre-launch that they were entitled to a free e commerce website from Lucrazon Global for the total amount of $1.
Rose elected to activate her free e commerce website and discovered that the representations made by Respondent were misleading, deceptive, false and not an accurate statement. Rose discovered that the website builder was difficult to navigate. The website builder was so complicated that she had to hire someone with web building experience to figure out how to use the website builder to build the website. The assistant discovered that many features with the website builder were “unavailable and still being developed” at the time. Upon completing the website, Rose contrary to Respondent(s) statement, was subjected to re-qualifying and subsequently declined.
Claimant’s business relationship with Sinforosa “Rose” Haugland and H. Phillip Holland has been compromised, damaged and injured as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Respondent(s) and Respondent(s) misrepresentations and false claims in its advertising and marketing, and the future of Claimant’s involvement in the Pinnacle Hotel and Casino Resort project as a result has been placed in serious jeopardy. Claimant’s financial interest in the Pinnacle Hotel Casino & Resort project is: $32,000,000.00.
Claimant spent time, energy, money and resources to market Respondent(s services and products. Respondent(s) made commitments that it would provide and take care of Brand Partners who marketed and promoted their products and services with a daily marketing bonus. That was Claimant’s complete understanding at the time Claimant purchased 15 Business Unit’s. Claimant was further told that by purchasing the 14 additional Business Units, that Claimant would be able to resell them in the future for many times what we purchased them for.
IV. CLAIMANT’S INITITAL STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
Whereas, Claimant contends that Claimant is owed $14.50 per each BU per day retroactive to the date of enrollment. December 6, 2013 is 231 days of overdue unpaid daily marketing bonus of $217.50 per day times 231 days, equals $50,242.50. Likewise Claimant contends Respondent(s) shall purchase Claimant’s 15 Business Unit’s back at two times the price Claimant paid for them, or $30,000.00.
The total amount owed and due Claimant is: $80,242.50.
Claimant further contends because Respondent’s sold Claimant products that have never operated or functioned in the manner which it was represented and marketed how the produc"