Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 3941 E. CHANDLER BLVD., #106-243 PHOENIX, AZ 85048

David S. Gingras, #021097 Gingras Law Office, PLLC 3941 E. Chandler Blvd., #106-243 Phoenix, AZ 85048 Tel.: (480) 668-3623 Fax: (480) 248-3196 David@GingrasLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff Xcentric Ventures, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Xcentric Ventures, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. Lisa Jean Borodkin, et al., Defendants. Raymond Mobrez, Counterclaimant, v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, and Edward Magedson, Counterdefendants. Case No.: 11-CV-1426-GMS AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF/ COUNTERDEFENDANT XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLCS REPLY RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: COUNTERCLAIM

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, David S. Gingras declare as follows: 1. My name is David Gingras. I am a United States citizen, a resident of the State of Arizona, am over the age of 18 years, and if called to testify in court or other proceeding I could and would give the following testimony which is based upon my own personal knowledge unless otherwise stated.
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 2 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 3941 E. CHANDLER BLVD., #106-243 PHOENIX, AZ 85048

2.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Arizona and

California, I am an active member in good standing with the State Bars of Arizona and California and I am admitted to practice and in good standing with the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and the United States District Court for the Northern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California. 3. I represented Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in the lawsuit filed against them in California entitled Asia Economic Institute, LLC, et al. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-1360 (the California Litigation). 4. I am aware that in this matter, Mr. Mobrez claims that his wiretapping cause of action based on an alleged violation of Cal. Pen. Code 632 was raised in the prior California Litigation and that such claim was never resolved by the district court. Both of these assertions are incorrect. 5. The original Complaint filed by Mr. Mobrez in the California Litigation on January 27, 2010 is attached to Xcentrics First Amended Complaint (Doc. #55) in this matter as Exhibit A. This pleading did not raise any cause of action under Cal. Pen. Code 632. The failure to include such a claim is understandable because at that time, Mr. Mobrez was not aware that his calls to Xcentric were recorded. Mr. Mobrez was not informed that his phone calls to Xcentric were recorded until I took his deposition on May 7, 2010 and revealed that fact to him by playing the recordings of each call. 6. After I deposed Mr. Mobrez on May 7, 2010, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Xcentric as to the claim of RICO/extortion in a ruling dated July 19, 2010. In that same ruling, the district court also dismissed Mr. Mobrezs RICO/wire fraud claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) based on a finding that the claim was not pleaded with particularity. In the same ruling, the court granted Mr. Mobrez leave to amend his RICO/wire fraud claim within 10 days. 7. On July 27, 2010, Mr. Mobrez filed an 84-page First Amended Complaint in the California case. As reflected by the caption of the pleading, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, the FAC did not contain a cause of action for wiretapping. 2
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 3 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 3941 E. CHANDLER BLVD., #106-243 PHOENIX, AZ 85048

However, in paragraph 14 of the FAC, also included in Exhibit A, Mr. Mobrez made the following reference to Xcentrics practice of recording phone calls: 14. The Ripoff Report enterprise until approximately May or June 2010 had a regular business practice of secretly recording or causing to be recorded all telephone conversations to its business telephone number, in association with an unidentified vendor, without disclosure to or consent of all parties to the telephone conversations, in violation of, inter alia, the wiretapping laws of the State of California. The Ripoff Report has used or attempted to use the contents of such secret recordings as a surprise litigation tactic in actions in, inter alia, California and Arizona. Defendants used instrumentalities of interstate commerce, specifically wire, to record such telephone calls. 8. Other than this single reference, the First Amended Complaint in the

California action did not specifically refer to California Penal Code 632, nor did it request damages relating to the recorded phone calls from Mr. Mobrez to Mr. Magedson. 9. On August 6, 2010, Xcentric filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint based on Rule 9(b) and 12(b)(6). In addition, Xcentric served Ms. Borodkin and Mr. Blackert with a proposed Motion for Rule 11 sanctions relating to certain allegations in the FAC and Xcentric also moved to strike certain allegations in the FAC. 10. In response, on August 17, 2010, Mr. Mobrez filed a Motion for Leave to Amend and a proposed 72-page Second Amended Complaint. As reflected in the caption of the proposed SAC, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, the Second Amended Complaint did not contain a cause of action for wiretapping. However, the proposed SAC did contain the exact same factual allegations as paragraph 14 of the FAC as quoted above relating to Xcentrics practice of recording phone calls. 11. On September 20, 2010, a hearing was held in the California Litigation to discuss numerous pending motions including Xcentrics Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Mr. Mobrezs Motion for Leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint. As reflected in the courts minute order from this hearing, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, the district judge ordered that Mr. Mobrezs 3
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 4 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 3941 E. CHANDLER BLVD., #106-243 PHOENIX, AZ 85048

first amended complaint is the operative document, and the court further ordered Xcentric to file a Motion for Summary Judgment within seven days. 12. As ordered, on September 27, 2010, Xcentric filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking the disposition of each and every claim set forth in the First Amended Complaint. Xcentrics motion was granted in its entirety on May 4, 2011. See Asia Economic Institute, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2011 WL 2469822 (C.D.Cal. 2011). 13. Following the summary judgment ruling, on June 15, 2011, the California district court entered final judgment in favor of Xcentric as to all claims and relief requested by Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are ordered to take nothing thereby. A copy of the district courts final judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED ON: November 7, 2012. /S/David S. Gingras David S. Gingras

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 5 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 3941 E. CHANDLER BLVD., #106-243 PHOENIX, AZ 85048

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 7, 2012 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerks Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following: John S. Craiger, Esq. David E. Funkhouser III, Esq. Quarles & Brady LLP One Renaissance Square Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391 Attorneys for Defendant Lisa J. Borodkin Raymond Mobrez Iliana Llaneras PO BOX 3663 Santa Monica, CA 90408 Defendants Pro Se And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to: HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW United States District Court Sandra Day OConnor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 622 401 West Washington Street, SPC 80 Phoenix, AZ 85003-215 /s/David S. Gingras

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID GINGRAS

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 6 of 16

Exhibit A

Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document Document 96 145-1 Filed 07/27/10 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 Page of 84 7 Page of 16 ID #:2322

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

Daniel F. Blackert, (SBN 255021) blackertesq@yahoo.com Lisa J. Borodkin, (SBN 196412) lisa_borodkin@post.harvard.edu ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone (310) 806-3000 Facsimile (310) 826-4448 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, LLC, Raymond Mobrez, and Iliana Llaneras UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) Case No.: 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: ) ) ) (1) VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) -) CIVIL RICO ) Plaintiffs, ) (2) VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) -) vs. RICO CONSPIRACY ) (3) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES -) XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, ) CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200 et ) an Arizona LLC, doing business seq. ) as BADBUSINESS BUREAU, ) (4) DEFAMATION ) (5) DEFAMATION PER SE RIPOFF REPORT, and ) (6) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE RIPOFFREPORT.COM, ) BAD BUSINESS BUREAU, ) WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ) LLC, organized and existing RELATIONS ) under the laws of St. Kitts and ) (7) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE Nevis, West Indies; EDWARD ) WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ) MAGEDSON an individual, also ) RELATIONS ) (8) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE known as EDWARD MAGIDSON also known as the ) WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS ) Editor, and DOES 1 through ) (9) DECEIT ) (10) FRAUD 100, inclusive, ) )) (11) INJUNCTION ) Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, a California LLC; RAYMOND MOBREZ an individual; and ILIANA LLANERAS, an individual,

First Amended Complaint - 1

Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document Document 96 145-1 Filed 07/27/10 Filed 11/07/12 Page 6 Page of 84 8 Page of 16 ID #:2327

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

the contents of certain reports; writing and publishing findings; collaborating with the subjects of paid testimonials and endorsements in writing original content about them and publishing it through the ROR Website; communicating with individual subjects of reports by electronic mail, particularly to urge them to file rebuttals or comments to existing Reports; supervising or acting in association with a currently unknown individual identified only by the electronic mail address Karen@ripoffreport.com at certain times relevant herein, whose duties included responding to complaints that rebuttals were not posting or were being posted to the wrong reports; engaging, supervising and collaborating with counsel to draft significant and influential portions of the ROR Website and otherwise. Magedson uses instrumentalities of interstate commerce to conduct these activities, specifically wire. 13. Xcentric and its associates in the Ripoff Report enterprise use extremely aggressive litigation strategies to, inter alia, protect and perpetuate its business model, and silence and retaliate against their critics, including by affirmatively initiating an Arizona state court action against Washington Statebased attorney and search engine optimization consultant and blogger Sarah L. Bird, Xcentric Ventures LLC v. Bird, (D. Ariz. 09-cv-1033) which action was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (10-1546); initiating an Arizona state court defamation action against Phoenix New Times reporter Sarah Fenske, her husband, a source for an article, the sources spouse and the publishers, Xcentric v. Village Voice Media, CV2008-2416 (Arizona Sup. Ct. for Maricopa County); and is currently opposing an appeal to the Seventh Circuit (10-1167) in Blockowicz v. Williams, 675 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (09-cv-3955) regarding its purported right to defy compliance with a permanent injunction ordering it to remove defamatory content. 14. The Ripoff Report enterprise until approximately May or June 2010 had a regular business practice of secretly recording or causing to be recorded all telephone conversations to its business telephone number, in association with an
First Amended Complaint - 6

Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document Document 96 145-1 Filed 07/27/10 Filed 11/07/12 Page 7 Page of 84 9 Page of 16 ID #:2328

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

unidentified vendor, without disclosure to or consent of all parties to the telephone conversations, in violation of, inter alia, the wiretapping laws of the State of California. The Ripoff Report has used or attempted to use the contents of such secret recordings as a surprise litigation tactic in actions in, inter alia, California and Arizona. Defendants used instrumentalities of interstate commerce, specifically wire, to record such telephone calls. 15. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 100 are unknown to Plaintiffs at the present time, who therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names, and will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defendants assigned as a DOE is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and thereby proximately caused injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to add as defendants in this action those individuals and entities who have assisted Defendants in perpetrating the acts and omissions complained of herein, including additional individuals and entities complicit in managing and operating the affairs of the Ripoff Report enterprise. III. SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGATIONS 16. The Ripoff Report enterprise takes advantage of the average persons

lack of sophistication in technology, reliance on Internet search engines, and general lack of time. It misrepresents its true nature to the public and places its victims in desperate positions through elaborate technological and legal traps and artifices. It then intimidates and defrauds its victims into believing that the only practical way of saving their good names is to defend them on its home turf, the ROR Website, where it makes the rules, it decides who gets heard, and most of all,

First Amended Complaint - 7

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 10 of 16

Exhibit B

Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS -PJW Document Document122 145-1Filed Filed 08/17/10 11/07/12Page Page 1 of 1172 of 16 Page ID #:3561
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

Daniel F. Blackert, (SBN 255021) blackertesq@yahoo.com Lisa J. Borodkin, (SBN 196412) lisa_borodkin@post.harvard.edu ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone (310) 806-3000 Facsimile (310) 826-4448 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, LLC, Raymond Mobrez, and Iliana Llaneras UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) Case No.: 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW ) ) ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: ) ) ) (1) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES -) CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200 et ) Plaintiffs, seq. ) ) (2) DEFAMATION vs. ) (3) DEFAMATION PER SE ) XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, ) (4) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE an Arizona LLC, doing business ) WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ) as BADBUSINESS BUREAU, ) RELATIONS ) RIPOFF REPORT, and (5) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE ) RIPOFFREPORT.COM, WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ) BAD BUSINESS BUREAU, ) RELATIONS ) LLC, organized and existing ) (6) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE under the laws of St. Kitts and ) WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS ) Nevis, West Indies; EDWARD (7) DECEIT ) MAGEDSON an individual, also ) (8) FRAUD ) (9) INJUNCTION known as EDWARD MAGIDSON also known as the ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Editor, and DOES 1 through ) ) 100, inclusive, ) )) ) Defendants. ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, a California LLC; RAYMOND MOBREZ an individual; and ILIANA LLANERAS, an individual,

Amended Complaint - 1

Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS -PJW Document Document122 145-1Filed Filed 08/17/10 11/07/12Page Page 7 of 1272 of 16 Page ID #:3567
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

Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (09-cv-3955) regarding its purported right to defy compliance with a permanent injunction ordering it to remove defamatory content. 9. The Ripoff Report enterprise until approximately May or June 2010 had a regular business practice of secretly recording or causing to be recorded all telephone conversations to its business telephone number, in association with an unidentified vendor, without disclosure to or consent of all parties to the telephone conversations, in violation of, inter alia, the wiretapping laws of the State of California. The Ripoff Report has used or attempted to use the contents of such secret recordings as a surprise litigation tactic in actions in, inter alia, California and Arizona. Defendants used instrumentalities of interstate commerce, specifically wire, to record such telephone calls. 10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 100 are unknown to Plaintiffs at the present time, which therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names, and will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defendants assigned as a DOE is responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and thereby proximately caused injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to add as defendants in this action those individuals and entities who have assisted Defendants in perpetrating the acts and omissions complained of herein, including additional individuals and entities complicit in managing and operating the affairs of the Ripoff Report enterprise. III. SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGATIONS 11. The Ripoff Report enterprise takes advantage of the average persons

lack of sophistication in technology, reliance on Internet search engines, and general lack of time. It misrepresents its true nature to the public and places its
Amended Complaint - 7

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 13 of 16

Exhibit C

Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS -PJW Document 144 145-1 Filed Filed 09/20/10 11/07/12 Page Page 1 14 of 1 of 16 Page ID #:4196

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV10-1360-SVW-PJWx Asia Economic Institute et al v. Xcentric Ventures LLC et al Date September 20, 2010

Present: The Honorable Paul M. Cruz Deputy Clerk

STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Deborah Gackle Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Lisa Boradkin Proceedings:

Attorneys Present for Defendants: David S. Gingras Maria C. Speth

1. MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY DEFENDANTS [110] (fld 08/06/10) 2. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFFS [115] (fld 8/16/10) 3. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFFS [116] (fld 8/16/10) 4. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE ORDER #94 FILED BY PLAINTIFFS [118) (fld 8/16/10) 5. MOTION TO STRIKE MATERIAL FROM DOCUMENTS 118 AND 121 AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [124]

Hearing held. The motion reconsideration [118] is denied. Order to issue. The RICO claims are stricken. The first amended complaint is the operative document. The Court sets the following schedule: Filing of Motion for Summary Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 27, 2010 Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 4, 2010 Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 12, 2010 Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

: Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

20

PMC
Page 1 of 1

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 145-1 Filed 11/07/12 Page 15 of 16

Exhibit D

Case 2:10-cv-01360-SVW Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS -PJW Document 186 145-1 Filed Filed 06/15/11 11/07/12 Page Page 1 16 of 1 of 16 Page ID #:5106