Bradley Wm.

Bowen, #5042
bbowen@strongandhanni.com
Alan Houston, #14206
ahouston@strongandhanni.com
STRONG & HANNI
102 South 200 East, Suite 800
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-7080
Facsimile: (801) 596-1508
Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,

IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

RYAN COON, an individual,

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

v.
(JURY DEMANDED)
PROTECH COATINGS, INC., CHAD
DIAMOND, an individual; and JENNIFER
DIAMOND, an individual,
Case No.: __________________
Defendants.
Judge: _____________________

Plaintiff Ryan Coon complains of Defendants Protech Coatings, Inc., Chad Diamond, and

Jennifer Diamond, and for cause of action alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff, Ryan Coon, is an individual residing in Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

2. Defendant Protech Coatings, Inc. (sometimes referred to herein as “Protech”) is a

Utah corporation having its principal place of business at 1949 West 2300 South, Salt Lake City,

Utah 84119.

1
 3. Defendant Chad Diamond is an individual who resides at 8018 Hidden Park Lane,

Sandy, Utah 84093. Additionally, Chad Diamond is named the corporate secretary of Protech

Coatings, Inc. in documents filed with the Utah Department of Commerce and is the individual

who runs the day-to-day business operations of Protech Coatings, Inc.

4. Defendant Jennifer Diamond is an individual who resides at 8018 Hidden Park

Lane, Sandy, Utah 84093. Additionally, Jennifer Diamond is named the president and a director

of Protech Coatings, Inc. in documents filed with the Utah Department of Commerce.

5. The acts complained of herein occurred in Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

6. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the above court pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN.

§ 78A-5-102(1) and § 78B-3-307(1) and (2).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On or about May 9, 2013, plaintiff loaned defendants Two Hundred Ninety

Thousand Dollars ($290,000.00) herein referred to as the “$290,000 Loan” to purchase 2 trailers,

2 saws, and 2 water trucks (herein collectively referred to as the “Equipment”) for use by Protech

in its business operations.

8. The trailers and water trucks were registered in Protech’s name.

9. Protech has been using the Equipment in its business since shortly after its

purchase.

10. Protech has been maintaining the Equipment

11. Upon information and belief, the licenses to operate the Equipment are in

Protech’s name.

12. Defendants have only made three payments on the $290,000 Loan.

2
 13. Plaintiff and defendants originally agreed that Protech would re-pay the loan and

pay plaintiff a royalty based on saw cuts made.

14. Plaintiff and defendants later agreed to change the terms of the loan to repayment

of the principal balance of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($290,000.00) together with

interest at the rate of ten percent per annum, compounded monthly.

15. In addition to the $290,000 Loan, on several occasions and at Protech’s request,

plaintiff spent between $120,000 and $175,000 to purchase directly from the manufacturer in

Germany shipping containers containing many drums of “Plastifloor,” drums of resin, drums of

epoxy, and bridge deck membranes (herein referred to as the “Construction Materials”).

16. Contemporaneous with purchasing the Construction Materials, plaintiff sold all of

the Construction Materials to Protech at the same cost for which plaintiff had purchased the

Construction Materials.

17. Protech agreed to repay the loan, plus ten percent of the cost of the Construction

Materials, to plaintiff such that plaintiff would earn a ten percent return on his loan.

18. Plaintiff agreed to purchase the Construction Materials and to re-sell them to

defendants with at no increased price and for a flat ten percent return based upon the fact that

Chad Diamond and Jennifer Diamond were “best friends” and next door neighbors of plaintiff

and his wife for many years.

19. Contemporaneous with plaintiff’s sale of the Construction Materials to Protech,

all of the defendants agreed to pay plaintiff the cost of the Construction Materials.

20. Plaintiff financed the sale of the Construction Materials to defendants without

requiring a down payment.

3
 21. Defendants represented to plaintiff that they would pay plaintiff.

22. Plaintiff trusted defendants based on the parties long standing friendship.

23. Plaintiff reasonably relied on defendants representations that they would pay him

based on the parties long standing friendship.

24. Defendants directed the manufacturer in Germany to ship the Construction

Materials to addresses and locations provided to the manufacturer by defendants.

25. Plaintiff consented to defendants directing the Construction Materials be shipped

to addresses designated by defendants.

26. Plaintiff has never taken possession of any of the Construction Materials.

27. Defendants represented to plaintiff that its contracts with customers required

defendants to pay plaintiff shortly after receiving payment from owners or contractors for whom

Protech was providing services.

28. Defendants represented to plaintiff that statutes, rules, regulations, and other laws

pertinent to its business required defendants to pay plaintiff shortly after receiving payment from

owners or contractors for whom Protech was providing services.

29. Defendants have represented to plaintiff that there is “retention” on projects for

which plaintiff financed the purchase of Construction Materials, and that plaintiff will be paid

from the funds being held in retention.

30. Defendants represented to plaintiff that his purchase of the Construction Materials

enabled Protech to purchase shipping containers containing drums of Plastifloor, resin, epoxy,

and bridge deck membranes from the manufacturer at one-half the cost Protech would have

4
incurred if it had purchased those materials in the United States, resulting in huge cost savings

for Protech.

31. Defendants represented to plaintiff that it was a violation of Protech’s contracts

with customers to be both the contractor and the materials supplier on jobs because it provided

Protech with an unfair advantage in bidding the job, and for that reason defendants needed

plaintiff to be the materials supplier.

32. A loan to purchase Construction Materials was made by plaintiff to defendants on

or about November 27, 2013 on which defendants still owed the sum of Thirty-five Thousand

Eight Hundred Ninety-two Dollars and Seventy-two Cents ($35,892.72).

33. A loan to purchase Construction Materials was made by plaintiff to defendants on

or about December 27, 2013 on which defendants still owe the sum of One Hundred Thirty-eight

Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-eight Dollars and Forty Cents ($138,748.40).

34. A loan to purchase Construction Materials was made by plaintiff to defendants for

a job being performed by Protech for Kobalt and DSW (herein the “Kobalt/DSW Loan”) in the

original principal amount of $309,948.40.

35. The amount still owed on the Kobalt/DSW Loan is $174,641.12.

36. Plaintiff and defendants agreed that the principal amount of the Construction

Material loans would be repaid, together with ten percent (10%) of the cost of the materials.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT

37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained

in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

5
 38. Defendants have failed to make the payments agreed to be made on the $290,000

Loan and on the loans made to purchase Construction Materials.

39. In order to make the loans described in this Complaint, plaintiff had to borrow

significant sums of money from third parties, which were secured by loans on plaintiff’s personal

residence.

40. Defendants failure and refusal to pay the $290,000 Loan and the loans to purchase

Construction Materials required plaintiff to refinance the loans he had obtained to make such

loans to defendants, resulting in damages to plaintiff for such refinancing costs in an amount to

be proven at the trial of this matter, but estimated to be not less than Thirty Thousand Dollars

($30,000.00), for which damages plaintiff should be awarded judgment against defendants,

jointly and severally.

41. In addition, plaintiff is entitled to judgment against defendants, jointly and

severally, for the principal balance and accrued interest owed on the $290,000 Loan and on the

Construction Materials loans through April 30, 2016 in an amount to be proven at trial but

estimated at Five Hundred Seventy-six Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-one Dollars and

Twenty-one Cents ($576,791.21) through April 30, 2016, together with interest accruing after

April 30, 2016 at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained

in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

6
 43. By making the Construction Materials loans to defendants, plaintiff enabled

defendants to save an amount estimated at not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in

out of pocket expenses associated with jobs performed by Protech.

44. Permitting defendants to retain the benefits derived from the Construction

Materials loans without repaying plaintiff would unjustly enrich defendants at the expense of

plaintiff in an amount estimated at not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00).

45. Plaintiff should be awarded judgment against defendants, jointly and severally,

for the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), or such other amount as the court

determines to be just and proper taking all of the facts and circumstances into account.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

MISREPRESENTATION

46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained

in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

47. Defendants represented to plaintiff that they would re-pay to plaintiff the

$290,000 Loan and the Construction Material loans, together with interest at the rate of ten

percent (10%) per annum.

48. Plaintiff reasonably relied on defendants representations.

49. Defendants have failed to make the payments they agreed to make.

50. Defendants failure to make the agreed upon payments has resulted in plaintiff

suffering damages for an amount not less than Five Hundred Seventy-six Thousand Seven

Hundred Ninety-one Dollars and Twenty-one Cents ($576,791.21).

7
 51. Defendants failure to make the agreed upon payments has resulted in plaintiff

suffering damages in the form of refinancing costs associated with the loans he obtained in order

to make loans to defendants in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated at not less than

Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) for which damages plaintiff should be awarded judgment

against defendants, jointly and severally.

52. Plaintiff should be awarded judgment against defendants, jointly and severally,

for the principal balance and accrued interest owed on the $290,000 Loan and on the

Construction Materials loans through April 30, 2016 in an amount to be proven at trial but

estimated at Five Hundred Seventy-six Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-one Dollars and

Twenty-one Cents ($576,791.21), together with interest accruing after April 30, 2016 at the rate

of ten percent (10%) per annum.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CIVIL STALKING AND TRESPASS

53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained

in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

54. In late 2013, defendant Jennifer Diamond became angry at plaintiff and his wife,

and drove her car onto plaintiff’s lawn, crushing sprinkler heads, damaging the sprinkling

system, and damaging the lawn. A photograph of Jennifer Diamond in her car on plaintiff’s lawn

is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

55. When Jennifer Diamond drove her car onto plaintiff’s lawn, she caused damages

in an amount to be proven at trial, but estimated at not less than two thousand dollars

($2,000.00).

8
 56. Upon information and belief, defendant Jennifer Diamond stole a holiday wreath

from plaintiff’s front door in late 2013, resulting in damages to plaintiff in an amount to be

proven at trial, but estimated to be sixty dollars ($60.00).

57. Defendants sold portions or “pieces” of the Equipment, rendering the Equipment

that is still owned by Protech unusable.

58. During the first two weeks of May, 2016, defendants sent communications to

plaintiff in which they threatened to put the unusable Equipment and unused materials in storage

under plaintiff’s name.

59. During the first two weeks of May, 2016, defendants sent additional

communications to plaintiff in which they threatened to deliver the unusable Equipment and

unused materials to plaintiff.

60. Plaintiff expressly directed defendants not to put Equipment or materials in

storage in plaintiff’s name, and not to deliver Equipment or materials to plaintiff.

61. On Friday, May 27, 2016, defendants delivered a trailer approximately 26 feet in

length containing one or more pieces of a large, commercial saw to plaintiff’s residence, without

plaintiff’s knowledge or consent and in direct violation of plaintiff’s instructions to defendants.

62. On Friday, May 27, 2016, defendants trespassed on plaintiff’s property by parking

a trailer approximately 26 feet in length containing one or more pieces of a large, commercial

saw in plaintiff’s driveway, blocking access to plaintiff’s garage.

63. Defendants trespass on plaintiff’s property and parking of the trailer containing

pieces of a large, commercial saw in plaintiff’s driveway cracked one of the concrete slabs

9
comprising plaintiff’s driveway, resulting in damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but

estimated at not less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).

64. On Friday, May 27, 2016, plaintiff called the Sandy City police department

regarding defendants trespass upon his property and the parking of a trailer approximately 26

feet in length containing one or more pieces of a large, commercial saw in plaintiff’s driveway,

which trailer is licensed to and registered in the name of defendant Protech.

65. The Sandy City police officer who responded to plaintiff’s call left messages for

defendant Jennifer Diamond, who eventually came to plaintiff’s property.

66. Jennifer Diamond was asked by the Sandy City police officer to remove the trailer

from plaintiff’s property, which Jennifer Diamond refused to do.

67. The Sandy City police officer informed Jennifer Diamond that if she came onto

plaintiff’s property she would be arrested.

68. Jennifer Diamond showed the Sandy City police officer her middle finger, and

stated words to the effect: “I have three more loads coming and they will be delivered to this

property.”

69. In addition, Jennifer Diamond yelled: “F*** you!” at the Sandy City police

officer.

70. Upon the advice of the Sandy City police officer, plaintiff purchased two “NO

TRESPASSING” signs and posted them on his property.

71. Less than two hours after posting the “NO TRESPASSING” signs, Chad

Diamond, Jennifer Diamond, employees of Protech, and/or other agents acting on behalf of

defendants, removed one of the “NO TRESPASSING” signs and the bracket holding it.

10
 72. After the preceding stalking events occurred, Rachel Coon could see from her

bedroom window that one of the signs had been taken down.

73. Rachel Coon went outside to look for the sign, at which time Jennifer Diamond

threatened Rachel Coon by screaming at her: “If you continue to pursue this I will burn your

house down!”

74. Rachel Coon continues to be very fearful that Jennifer Diamond or her agents will

follow through with the threat to destroy her home and injure people who live in it.

75. Jennifer Diamond’s threats against plaintiff’s wife have caused plaintiff to suffer

severe mental anguish.

76. Jennifer Diamond’s threats against plaintiff’s wife have caused plaintiff to suffer

severe emotional distress.

77. Defendants left the tongue of the trailer they parked in plaintiff’s driveway

sticking approximately 6 feet into the street.

78. Defendants know that the street has no lighting during the night.

79. Defendants intentionally left the tongue of the trailer sticking into the street to

impede traffic.

80. Defendants knew that by leaving the tongue of the trailer sticking into the street

they were endangering individuals and vehicles traveling past plaintiff’s residence.

81. Defendants intentionally left the tongue of the trailer sticking into the street to

force plaintiff’s to have the trailer towed and stored at plaintiff’s expense.

11
 82. Plaintiff’s incurred damages in an amount to be proven at trial for towing and

storing the trailer and equipment located on it, which damages are estimated to be not less than

ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)

83. Defendants conduct resulted in plaintiff and plaintiff’s wife suffering severe

mental and emotional distress.

84. Two video surveillance cameras were installed on the front of the Coon property

on May 28, 2016.

85. On May 29, 2016, Brooke Diamond, the daughter of Chad and Jennifer Diamond

and acting for and on behalf of Chad and Jennifer Diamond, drove up, hopped out of the car,

trespassed on the Coon property, and stole the remaining no trespassing sign.

86. The Coons called the police again and showed them the video surveillance of the

trespass and theft committed by Brooke Diamond on behalf of her parents (Sandy City Police

Case Number SY 16-25564.)

87. At 9:02 pm on May 30, 2016 a male friend of Chad and Jennifer Diamond who

goes by the name of “Brady” and whom plaintiff has observed at the Diamond home many times

came from the Diamond Property onto plaintiff’s property, paced back and forth in front of

plaintiff’s home, slowly walked around the front plaintiff’s house, peering into the windows and

trying to look inside, and then stood on the front porch for more than thirty seconds without

ringing the doorbell or knocking.

88. Plaintiff’s wife, Rachel Coon, was in home when Brady intruded on the property,

was very frightened and hid in her home, trying to avoid being seen by the intruder.

12
 89. Rachel’s fear was heightened due to Jennifer Diamond’s threats to burn her house

down, and the intruder’s reputation as a “pot head.”

90. Upon information and belief, Brady came onto plaintiff’s property acting as an

agent or representative of defendants, or at their request.

91. Defendants conduct constitutes “Stalking” as that term is defined at UTAH CODE

ANN. § 76-5-106.5(1)

92. Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a civil stalking injunction against defendants

pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN. § 77-3a-101 through 103, inclusive.

93. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of defendants

trespasses on his property and stalking, and the court should issue a civil stalking injunction

against the defendants, jointly and severally; should award damages for trespass and stalking in

favor of plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and severally in an amount to be proven at trial

but estimated at not less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00); and should award

attorney fees in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to UTAH

CODE ANN. § 77-3a-101(16).

94. In addition, plaintiff is entitled to judgment against defendants, jointly and

severally, for the principal balance and accrued interest owed on the $290,000 Loan and on the

Construction Materials loans through April 30, 2016 in the amount of Five Hundred Seventy-six

Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-one Dollars and Twenty-one Cents ($576,791.21), together

with interest accruing after April 30, 2016 at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum,

compounded monthly.

13
 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF UTAH CODE ANN. § 58-55-603

95. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained

in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

96. UTAH CODE ANN. § 58-55-603(1) states that when a contractor receives any

construction funds from an owner or another contractor for work performed and billed, he shall

pay each of his subcontractors and suppliers in proportion to the percentage of the work they

performed under that billing, unless otherwise agreed by contract.

97. UTAH CODE ANN. § 58-55-603(1) further states that if the contractor fails to pay

for work performed by his subcontractors or suppliers within 30 consecutive days after receiving

construction funds from the owner or another contractor for work performed and billed, or after

the last day payment is due under the terms of the billing, whichever is later, he shall pay to the

subcontractor or supplier, in addition to the payment, interest in the amount of 1% per month of

the amount due, beginning on the day after payment is due, and reasonable costs of any

collection and attorney’s fees.

98. Plaintiff is a materials supplier.

99. Defendants were required by UTAH CODE ANN. § 58-55-603 to pay plaintiff for

materials within thirty days of receiving payment for Construction Materials sold by plaintiff to

Protech.

100. Defendants have been paid and have failed to pay plaintiff within thirty days.

14
 101. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amounts still owed for Construction Materials

sold to Protech, together with interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month.

102. Plaintiff is entitled to recover all costs of this action and attorney fees from

Protech due to its failure to pay for Construction Materials within thirty days of receiving

payment from the owner or contractor for whom Protech was providing services.

103. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to plaintiff for the amounts owed to

plaintiff provided by UTAH CODE ANN. § 58-55-603.

104. Judgment should be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, jointly

and severally, for the principal balance of the Construction Materials loans, together with interest

at the rate of one percent (1%) per month and attorney fees in an amount to be determined at

trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

PIERCING OF CORPORATE VEIL

105. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained

in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

106. Upon information and belief, defendants Jennifer Diamond and Chad Diamond

have not observed all corporate formalities imposed by the Utah Revised Business Corporations

Act in conjunction with the formation and operation of Protech.

107. Upon information and belief, Jennifer Diamond and Chad Diamond’s failure to

observe corporate formalities subjects them to personal liability for the debts of Protech.

15
 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

108. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained

in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

109. Defendants conduct, acts, and omissions set forth in this Complaint are the result

of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing

and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of plaintiff and his spouse.

110. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against defendants, jointly

and severally, pursuant to Utah Code Section 78B-8-201(1)(a).

111. Judgment for punitive damages should be entered in favor of plaintiff and against

defendants in an amount not less than the general damages and/or compensatory damages

awarded to plaintiff, which amount is estimated at not less than Six Hundred Thousand Dollars

($600,000.00), or such other amount as may be proved at trial.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of this action and hereby tenders the jury fee with the

filing of this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully petitions the court to grant plaintiff the following

relief:

1. On plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action, to issue a permanent Civil Stalking

Injunction against defendants, jointly and severally, preventing defendants from coming onto

16
plaintiff’s property; preventing defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s property; enjoining

defendants from delivering trailers, equipment, shipping containers, boxes, drums, building

materials or other personal property of any nature or type to Ryan Coon, Rachel Coon, or family

members of Ryan or Rachel Coon at home or work; and enjoining defendants from threatening,

harassing, or annoying plaintiff, plaintiff’s spouse, and visitors to plaintiff’s residence.

2. On plaintiff’s First and Third Causes of Action, for judgment in favor of plaintiff

and against defendants, jointly and severally, for an award of damages in an amount to be

determined at trial but estimated at not less than Five Hundred Seventy-six Thousand Seven

Hundred Ninety-one Dollars and Twenty-one Cents ($576,791.21) principal and accrued interest

through April 30, 2016, plus interest thereafter at the rate of ten percent per annum.

3. On plaintiff’s First and Third Causes of Action, for judgment in favor of plaintiff

and against defendants, jointly and severally, for an additional award of damages for the

refinancing costs incurred by plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial but estimated at not

less than Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00).

4. On plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action, for judgment in favor of plaintiff and

against defendants, jointly and severally, for an award of damages in an amount to be determined

at trial but estimated to be not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00).

5. On plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action, for judgment in favor of plaintiff and

against defendants, jointly and severally, for an award of damages arising out of defendants

trespass and stalking in an amount to be determined at trial but estimated at not less than One

Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00).

17
 6. On plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action, for judgment in favor of plaintiff and against

defendants, jointly and severally, for an award of damages arising out of defendants violation of

UTAH CODE ANN. § 58-55-603 for the principal balance of the Construction Materials loans,

together with interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month and attorney fees in an amount to

be determined at trial.

7. On plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action, for judgment that Jennifer Diamond and

Chad Diamond’s failure to observe corporate formalities subjects them to personal liability for

the debts of Protech Coatings, Inc.

8. On plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action, for judgment for punitive damages

pursuant to Utah Code Section 78B-8-201(1)(a) in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in an

amount not less than the general damages and/or compensatory damages awarded to plaintiff,

which amount is estimated to be not less than Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00), or

such other amount as may be proved at trial.

9. For plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred herein pursuant to

UTAH CODE ANN. § 77-3a-101(16) and UTAH CODE ANN. § 58-55-603;

10. For such other relief the Court deems just and proper.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2016.

STRONG & HANNI

/s/ Bradley Wm. Bowen

Bradley Wm. Bowen
Alan Houston
Attorneys for Plaintiff

18
EXHIBIT A