FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/03/ :26 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x RYAN & RODNEY DIAMONDS, INC. : Index No /2015 Plaintiff, -against- Hon. Melissa A. Crane. A. HARRIS LLC, ALEX HARRIS and SHIREEN. FERNANDEZ, FIRST COMPLAINT AMENDED Defendants x (" Plaintiff' Plaintiff Ryan & Rodney Diamonds, Inc. ("Plaintiff"), by its attorneys, for its first Defendant" amended complaint against A. Harris LLC (the "LLC Defendant"), (" Harris" Alex Harris ("Harris") and Shireen Fernandez ("Fernandez," and collectively with the LLC Defendant and Harris, "Defendants" "Defendants") alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action to recover thousands of dollars for items of jewelry that were delivered to Defendants by Plaintiff on promise of payment and were never paid for. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to CPLR 301 and 302 because the LLC Defendant is domiciled in New York, because all Defendants transacted and regularly conducted business in New York, and because Defendants Harris and Fernandez committed tortious acts in New York. 3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to CPLR 503(c) because Plaintiff's principal place of business is in New York County. 1 of 18

2 PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Ryan & Rodney Diamonds, Inc. is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business at 15 West 47th Street, Booth 62, New York, New York, Upon information and belief, the LLC Defendant is a New York limited liability company with its registered address listed as 608 Fifth Avenue, Suite 308, New York, New York Upon information and belief, Mr. Harris is an individual whose last known place of residence is 539 South Helberta Avenue, Redondo Beach, California Upon information and belief, Ms. Fernandez is an individual whose last known place of residence is 86 Pierson Avenue, Edison New Jersey FACTS Background 8. Plaintiff is in the business of selling and distributing jewelry, and in particular, "estate jewelry." 9. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Mr. Harris and his company, the LLC Defendant were in the business of buying and reselling jewelry, including estate jewelry. 10. A wide-spread practice used in the estate jewelry industry is referred to as the "memo" transaction. Similar to consignment, the memo transaction method allows a reseller like Mr. Harris to hold a jewelry supplier's (i.e., the creditor's) product for a specified period of time while he seeks a buyer. The reseller pays for the item of jewelry only if that item is sold. Otherwise, the product is returned to the supplier. When the jewelry is given to the reseller, the items of jewelry are itemized on a "memo" issued by the creditor. 2 of 18

3 11. Prevalent in the memo transaction process is the use of "head checks," whereby a reseller will take pieces of jewelry in return for a post-dated check written out to the creditor. Upon selling the items, the creditor issues an invoice for the sold items and the reseller instructs the creditor to deposit the head check to pay the invoice. The creditor thereby gets paid for the items that were fronted. Accepting a head check is inherently an act of faith and trust. The issuer trusts that the creditor will not deposit the check until instructed to do so. The creditor, in turn, trusts that the issuer of the check will ensure that there is enough money in the bank account to cover the check on the due date. A reseller builds his creditworthiness in the estate jewelry industry by gradually establishing a record of covering memos/invoices with the postdated head checks that he provided to the creditor. Alex Harris Makes a Comeback into the Business 12. Mr. Harris had previously been provided with jewelry on memo transactions by Plaintiff and other creditors in approximately After failing to cover several checks that he provided to Plaintiff and other suppliers for jewelry taken on memo, Mr. Harris was rendered not creditworthy in the estate jewelry business and, in or around 2013, no creditor would engage in memo transactions with Mr. Harris unless he had a person to act as a reference, thereby vouching for Mr. Harris's ability to cover the memos. 13. In 2013, Mr. Harris made a comeback into the business. Knowing that he had to overcome the stigma of having defaulted on his debt in the previous year, Mr. Harris got back into estate jewelry resale with the help of a reference named Gus Davis. However, Mr. Davis vouched for Mr. Harris for only a short period of time and, at some point in 2013, Mr. Harris needed a new reference. Defendants Harris and Fernandez Fraudulently Induce Plaintiff into Entering a Memo Transaction Arrangement with Mr. Harris 3 of 18

4 14. In order to induce Plaintiff to enter into an arrangement-whereby Plaintiff would regularly front him expensive pieces of jewelry on memo transactions-mr. Harris presented Ms. Fernandez to Plaintiff as the person who would support his business going forward. 15. On several occasions in 2013 and 2014, Mr. Harris expressly told Plaintiff's principles Ryan and Radni Javidnia that Ms. Fernandez "had money" and that she would "back him up" if Plaintiff agreed to deal with him again. Plaintiff would not have extended credit to Mr. Harris without the assurances and representations that Ms. Fernandez was supporting Mr. Harris's business. 16. By Fernandez's own admissions, the representations that Ms. Fernandez was supporting Mr. Harris's business were false. Ms. Fernandez was not supporting Mr. Harris's business, was not backing him, and was not involved in his business in any way. Nevertheless, Ms. Fernandez allowed her identity (in particular, her account and her checking accounts) to be used by Mr. Harris to give Plaintiff the false perception that she was backing him financially. 17. On August 14, 2014, when Mr. Harris wanted Plaintiff (and other creditors) to again engage in memo transactions with him, Mr. Harris laid out his scheme to Ms. Fernandez in " an (the "August 14 "). After Ms. Fernandez expressed reservations about her continued involvement with Mr. Harris's business clients, in the August 14 Mr. Harris explicitly informed Ms. Fernandez that he needed his creditors, including Plaintiffs, to continue receiving s from Ms. Fernandez in order to establish and maintain his credibility. To that end, Mr. Harris told Ms. Fernandez that he intended to write s to his creditors on Ms. Fernandez's behalf and send them from her account for the purpose of fooling his creditors into thinking that she was supporting his business. Mr. Harris explained that Ms. Fernandez's 4 of 18

5 assent to this arrangement was "a matter of life and death" to his business. The August 14 provided in full: Sorry to bother you with this, Love, but I really need your help now more than ever. I wouldn't ask you if I was not desperate. It's a matter of life and death with my business and I cannot survive without your help. You have been my rock since the beginning and my lifesaver. If it wasn't for you my creditors would not give me a second chance. You have saved me just by your continued love and support. All I ask is that they receive s from you as that shows credibility. They won't know it's me writing and they will think you are supporting me with my business. I desperately need this right now or I am done forever. I won't harass you with writing s since I can write them on your behalf as I can just use your account. Please, Love, help me with this and I give you my word that I will never harass you for writing s. You know you are my world and I will always take care of you and protect you in every way I can always. You have my word on this. I cannot survive without your help. You are my everything. Love you so much. Best wishes and thank you. Alex. 18. Relying on Mr. Harris's and Ms. Fernandez's fraudulent representations about Ms. Fernandez financially supporting him, in or around 2013, Plaintiff entered in a memo transaction and head-check arrangement with Alex Harris, whereby Plaintiff would supply various items of jewelry to Mr. Harris (and/or his company, the LLC Defendant) upon request, which Defendants would pay for by authorizing Plaintiff to cash any number of pre-printed head "Agreement" checks provided to Plaintiff, from time to time (the "Agreement"). 19. Throughout 2014 and 2015, Alex Harris took many items of jewelry on memo from Plaintiff pursuant to the Agreement. Plaintiff delivered the requested items of jewelry on each and every occasion. Plaintiff issued memos and/or invoices memorializing these items and agreed-upon price. The memos and/or invoices were issued to either A Harris LLC or Shireen Fernandez. 5 of 18

6 20. Upon receiving the jewelry, Alex Harris delivered a series of signed post-dated checks made out to Plaintiff from either A. Harris LLC's account at Bank of America, or a personal checking account at Wells Fargo in the name of Shireen Fernandez. 21. Mr. Harris failed to make payment on several invoices for items of jewelry which he requested and received. 22. Specifically, the following invoices were rendered by Plaintiff and remain outstanding: Invoice Date Invoice No. Due Date Amount 5/6/2014 Memo. No /11/2014 $46, /21/ /22/2014 $25, /10/ /11/2014 $34, /15/ /16/2014 $20, /13/ /14/2015 $15, /13/ /14/2015 $7, /13/ /13/2015 $10, /6/ /7/2015 $24, /6/2015 Memo No /11/2015 $29, remains outstanding (original amount, $48,500.00) 3/16/2015 Memo No /21/2015 $35, /16/ /17/2015 $42, remains outstanding (original amount, $78,000.07) 3/17/ /18/2015 $30, of 18

7 23. Ms. Fernandez willingly went along with the scheme to defraud Plaintiff into thinking she was backing Mr. Harris. Ms. Fernandez's account was copiously used during the relevant time period to send s to Plaintiff on the premise that the s were coming from Ms. Fernandez-precisely as contemplated in the August Ms. Fernandez substantially assisted in the fraud by providing Mr. Harris with unimpeded access to her account, 24. Ms. Fernandez's account was used (either sent, received, or ce'd) for the purpose of business communications relating to Mr. Harris's dealings with Plaintiff. For example, Ms. Fernandez was often ce'd by Mr. Harris for the purpose of communicating to Plaintiff that she was supporting Mr. Harris's business-including, inter alia, by wiring Plaintiff money from her bank account and/or a joint account that she purportedly held with Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris also assumed Ms. Fernandez's identity and sent many s to Plaintiff from Ms. Fernandez's account. 25. Ms. Fernandez knew full-well about the fraud that was being committed upon Plaintiff with her assistance. Mr. Harris would often send Ms. Fernandez a separate , either (i) showing her what he had already sent to Plaintiff's principals from her account, or (ii) running past Ms. Fernandez what he was about to send to Plaintiff's principals from her account. 26. Plaintiff's principals had no reason to believe that they were communicating with anyone other than Ms. Fernandez and responded to her s as if they were communicating with her. Ms. Fernandez took no action whatsoever to inform Plaintiff's principals that it was Alex Harris (not her) who had been sending them s from her account. 7 of 18

8 27. Mr. Harris used checks from Ms. Fernandez's bank accounts at Chase and Wells Fargo as head checks to obtain jewelry from Plaintiff. Specifically, six of the checks that were provided as head checks in connection with the twelve memos/invoices at issue in this action were from Ms. Fernandez's Wells Fargo account. 28. Mr. Harris's use of Ms. Fernandez's checks was a critical element of the scheme to induce Plaintiff to provide him credit. Mr. Harris's credit limit was built up with each check that was used to cover payments for the jewelry he took from Plaintiff on memo. Plaintiff was fully confident that Ms. Fernandez was financially supporting Mr. Harris because it was repeatedly paid with Ms. Fernandez's checks. Without the use of Ms. Fernandez's checks, Mr. Harris would not have been extended the creditworthiness that he leveraged to defraud Plaintiff out of $320, Ms. Fernandez undoubtedly allowed her checking account to be used as part of Mr. Harris's scheme. Ms. Fernandez left signed checks at the apartment that she shared with Mr. Harris to be used for rent and bills. Mr. Harris used those checks (and many others blank checks that were left for him and that he signed himself) as head checks in connection with memo transactions with Plaintiff. 30. Ms. Fernandez knew that Mr. Harris was using her checking account for such business dealings and allowed the practice to continue unabated. In fact, on January 1, 2015, she sent an to Mr. Harris acknowledging that she knew that he had been using her Wells Fargo account for his business. Ms. Fernandez was also aware of the activity/transactions that were occurring within her Wells Fargo account. She questioned Mr. Harris by about balances and about particular deposits. Ms. Fernandez never communicated to Plaintiff in any shape or form that Mr. Harris was not authorized to use her checks. 8 of 18

9 31. During the relevant time period Ms. Fernandez had access to (and accessed) her Wells Fargo account online. On December 6, 2014, Ms. Fernandez ed Mr. Harris a screenshot of her online bank account showing a pending withdrawal/debit of $33, Mr. Harris ed back to question Ms. Fernandez about the source of the approximately $33,000 withdrawal because he had to pay Plaintiff $30,000 on the following day. Ms. Fernandez was thus obviously aware that Alex Harris was using her account to pay Plaintiff. Yet Ms. Fernandez took no action whatsoever to inform Plaintiff's principals that Alex Harris had been using her checks without her permission, thereby allowing the fraud to continue. 32. On November 16, 2014, Ms. Fernandez ed Plaintiff's principals to inform them that she was terminating her personal and "business" relationship with Alex Harris. However, the breakup did not last long. Mr. Harris informed Plaintiff's principals by telephone that the couple were back together almost immediately after the supposed break-up, and Plaintiff continued to receive checks (which cleared) from Ms. Fernandez's account. Plaintiff's principals also received s from Ms. Fernandez less than two weeks after the supposed break-up directing Plaintiff as to which head checks they could deposit. communications between Ms. Fernandez and Mr. Harris just a month after the supposed break-up demonstrate that the pair were again coordinating s sent to Plaintiff's principals on the false premise that they were coming from Ms. Fernandez. 33. Ms. Fernandez's feigned support of Mr. Harris's business continued throughout the entire time period relevant to this action. In early 2015, after Alex Harris fell behind in his debt to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's principals ran into Ms. Fernandez in Miami while attending an estate jewelry convention. When they questioned Ms. Fernandez about the money owed to Plaintiff, 9 of 18

10 Ms. Fernandez told Plaintiff's principals not to worry and expressly promised that she and Mr. Harris would pay the money that was owed. Plaintiff Was Never Paid the Money it is Owed 34. The goods delivered to Defendants for which payments remain outstanding are worth a total of $320,700.07, as agreed upon by the parties. 35. Defendants have not objected to any of the above-invoices, which have been rendered, and are outstanding as of the date of this Complaint. 36. Defendants have acknowledged that the invoices listed above from November 2014 to March 2015 remain outstanding. 37. Plaintiff has not received payment from Defendants, nor authorization of payment, for the outstanding amount of $320, Plaintiff has demanded payment of the outstanding $320, Defendants have refused to pay the outstanding amount of $320, they owe to Plaintiff. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Account Stated) 40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 41. From May 2014 to March 2015 Defendants requested various items of jewelry, valued at $320, as agreed by the parties. 42. Plaintiff delivered the items of jewelry requested by Defendants from May 2014 to March 2015 and valued at a total of $320, Plaintiff sent invoices to Defendants for the requested and delivered items of jewelry in the amount of $320, I 10 of 18

11 44. Defendants have not disputed that the invoices in the amount of $320, are due and outstanding. 45. Defendants have acknowledged that the invoices in the amount of $320, remain due and owing. 46. Plaintiff has demanded payment of the outstanding $320, he is owed for the requested and delivered items of jewelry reflected in the invoices. 47. Defendants have refused to pay the $320, they owe to Plaintiff for the requested and delivered items of jewelry reflected in the invoices. 48. No payment has been received by Plaintiff relating to the invoices. 49. Defendants owe Plaintiff not less than $320, as an account stated, represented by the invoices rendered and outstanding from May 2014 to March SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Goods Sold and Delivered) 50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 49 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 51. Starting in or around 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant Harris entered into the Agreement whereby Plaintiff would supply various items of jewelry to Defendants upon request, which Defendants would pay for by authorizing Plaintiff to cash any number of pre-printed checks provided to Plaintiff, from time to time. 52. Throughout 2014 and 2015 Defendants placed orders for various items of jewelry from Plaintiff. 53. Plaintiff delivered the ordered items of jewelry on each and every occasion. 54. From May 2014 to March 2015, Defendants failed to make payment on seven invoices for items of jewelry which they requested and received of 18

12 55. The items of jewelry delivered to Defendants for which payments remain outstanding are worth a total of $320, Defendants have not objected to any of the above-invoices, which have been rendered, and are outstanding as of the date of this Complaint. 57. Defendants have acknowledged that such amount remains due and owing. 58. Plaintiff has requested payment from Defendants for the $320, representing the value of the items of jewelry delivered to Defendants. 59. Defendants have refused to pay the $320, representing the value of the items of jewelry delivered to Defendants. 60. Plaintiff has not received any payment for the $320, owed to it by Defendants representing the value of the items of jewelry delivered to Defendants. 61. Plaintiff is entitled to recover not less than $320, from Defendants for the goods sold, delivered and accepted between May 2014 and March THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract) 62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 63. Starting in or around 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant Harris entered into the Agreement whereby Plaintiff would supply various items of jewelry to Defendants upon request, which Defendants would pay for by authorizing Plaintiff to cash any number of pre-printed checks provided to Plaintiff, from time to time. 64. From May 2014 to March 2015 Defendants requested various items of jewelry from Plaintiff through submission of purchase orders, valued at a total of $320,700.07, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. I 12 of 18

13 65. Plaintiff delivered the items of jewelry requested by Defendants from May 2014 to March 2015, valued at a total of $320, Plaintiff has demanded payment of the $320, it is owed, including by sending invoices to Defendants. 67. Defendants refused to pay the $320, they owed to Plaintiff for the items of jewelry delivered to Defendants. 68. No payment has been received by Plaintiff relating to the invoices. 69. Defendants are in breach of the Agreement because they failed to pay the $320, they owed to Plaintiff for the requested items of jewelry. 70. As a result of such breach, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount not less than $320, for the requested and delivered items of jewelry. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment) 71. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 70 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 72. Defendants have been enriched in an amount not less than $320, in the form of items of jewelry delivered to Defendants by Plaintiff. 73. Defendants' enrichment in an amount not less than $320,700.07, representing the value of the items of jewelry delivered to Defendants, was at Plaintiff's expense. 74. Equity and good conscience require that Plaintiff recover from Defendants for the value of the items of jewelry Plaintiff delivered to Defendants and for which it was not paid. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud Against Defendants Alex Harris and Shireen Fernandez) 75. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 74 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. I 13 of 18

14 76. Having previously defaulted on his debt to creditors, including Plaintiff, Defendant Alex Harris needed someone to back him so he could make a comeback into the business in But Mr. Harris had no such supporter. 77. In order to induce Plaintiff into entering into the Agreement (i.e., a memo and head check arrangement) to front Mr. Harris expensive pieces of jewelry, Mr. Harris falsely presented Ms. Fernandez as someone who had money and who would back him up. In several in-person conversations with Plaintiff's principals in 2013, Mr. Harris explicitly held out Ms. Fernandez as his financial backer. 78. The purported fact that Ms. Fernandez was supporting him was material, indeed critical, to getting Plaintiff to enter into the Agreement, thereby extending Mr. Harris the credit he needed. 79. As proof of the fact that she was supporting him, Mr. Harris provided Plaintiff with numerous checks from Ms. Fernandez's personal bank account as head checks. This is the only way that Mr. Harris was able to accomplish his comeback. Mr. Harris used Ms. Fernandez's head checks to build up trust with Plaintiff so as to increase his credit. When Plaintiff's principals saw that Ms. Fernandez's checks were clearing they became convinced that Ms. Fernandez had the money to cover Mr. Harris's memos/invoices, and that Alex Harris again had the means and creditworthiness to be trusted with memo transactions. 80. The fraud was perpetuated for almost a two-year period of time. Throughout all of 2014 and into early 2015, Mr. Harris sent numerous s from Ms. Fernandez's account to support the perception that Ms. Fernandez was a part of Mr. Harris's business. In one of the few face-to-face meetings that Plaintiff's principals had with Ms. Fernandez, she I 14 of 18

15 personally perpetuated the idea that she was a part of Mr. Harris's business and was backing him by, among other things, promising that "we" will pay you. 81. The direct representations that Ms. Fernandez was backing Mr. Harris were false, and equally false was the conduct that Mr. Harris and Ms. Fernandez engaged in throughout 2014 and into 2015 to make Plaintiff's principals believe that Ms. Fernandez was supporting Mr. Harris. Ms. Fernandez today admits that she was not backing Mr. Harris, that there was no "we," and claims that any debt and/or promises to pay were on Alex Harris alone. 82. Alex Harris and Shireen acted with the intent to defraud Plaintiff into extending credit to Mr. Harris. The August 14 plainly demonstrates that Mr. Harris knowingly enlisted Ms. Fernandez in a scheme to get his creditors to give him a second chance. Mr. Harris asked Ms. Fernandez to allow him to use her account so he could write and send s on her behalf. Mr. Harris admitted not only the fraud, but its purpose in telling Ms. Fernandez that "[t]hey won't know it's me writing and they will think you are supporting me with my business." 83. Ms. Fernandez knowingly allowed Mr. Harris to use her identity, her Yahoo , and her checking accounts in furtherance of the fraud. Ms. Fernandez was kept in the loop on Mr. Harris's fraud and knew that Mr. Harris was using her checking account in furtherance of the fraud. Despite having full-knowledge of Mr. Harris's use of her persona, Ms. Fernandez did nothing to stop it. Ms. Fernandez made no attempt to tell Plaintiff's principals that her identity was being falsely used to make them think that she was backing Mr. Harris. 84. Plaintiff entered into the Agreement with Mr. Harris only because its principals believed that Ms. Fernandez was supporting him in his business. They would not have done so otherwise. Plaintiff was justified in so-believing because, unlike Mr. Harris's own checks in the previous year, Ms. Fernandez's checks cleared without issue. Plaintiff's principals also regularly I 15 of 18

16 received s from Ms. Fernandez, among other things, directing them as to which of her checks they could deposit, promising additional payments to Plaintiff, and organizing check deposits and/or money wires to Plaintiff. These s, seemingly coming from Ms. Fernandez, provided assurance that Mr. Harris was using Ms. Fernandez's checks with her authorization and that she was part of his business. Plaintiff had no reason to believe differently. Since Ms. Fernandez did nothing to inform Plaintiff's principals that it was Mr. Harris who was communicating with them under false pretense, Plaintiff had no reason to believe that communications from Ms. Fernandez's account were coming from anyone other than Ms. Fernandez. 85. Plaintiff was damaged by the fraud. Without the representation that Ms. Fernandez was backing him (buttressed by the use of Ms. Fernandez's checking accounts and persona), Plaintiff would not have extended Alex Harris the credit that Mr. Harris leveraged to defraud Plaintiff into fronting him many pieces of very expensive jewelry including the $320, in jewelry that Mr. Harris took and never paid for that is the subject of this action. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Aiding and Abetting Fraud Against Defendant Shireen Fernandez) 86. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 85 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 87. For the reasons discussed above, an underlying fraud was perpetuated upon Plaintiff. 88. The August 14 establishes that Ms. Fernandez had full actual knowledge of the underlying fraud from the fraud's inception. I 16 of 18

17 89. Further direct and circumstantial evidence demonstrates that Ms. Fernandez acquiesced to Mr. Harris's scheme. Mr. Harris wrote s from Ms. Fernandez's account as he told her he would do. Mr. Harris used Ms. Fernandez's checkbook over a two-year period to make it appear to Plaintiff that Ms. Fernandez was backing him. 90. Ms. Fernandez was aware of Mr. Harris's use of her account and her bank account. Ms. Fernandez's s demonstrate that Alex Harris kept her informed about certain fraudulent s he sent to Plaintiff impersonating Ms. Fernandez. Scores of checks were written and processed on Ms. Fernandez's account totaling nearly a million dollars. Ms. Fernandez was aware of the activity in her bank account during the relevant time period. 91. Ms. Fernandez provided substantial assistance to the underlying fraud. There were two crucial elements of the fraud: (1) checks from Ms. Fernandez that successfully cleared, thereby convincing Plaintiff that Alex Harris had a legitimate business partner with the means to cover his debts, and (2) s from Ms. Fernandez supporting the notion that Ms. Fernandez was actively engaged in and supporting Mr. Harris's business, and was fully aware that her checking account was being used in connection with the Agreement. 92. Ms. Fernandez allowed Mr. Harris to access her account and to use it at his will. Mr. Harris used Mr. Fernandez's account to further the fraud. Despite being told about Mr. Harris's intent to commit fraud in the August 14 , Ms. Fernandez did not change her password, log out of her account on their home computer, or take any steps to prevent the fraud from occurring. Ms. Fernandez also allowed Mr. Harris to use her checking accounts. Mr. Harris Mr. Harris used Mr. Fernandez's checking accounts to further the fraud. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment: I 17 of 18

18 On the First Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial, but not less than $320,700.07; On the Second Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial, but not less than $320,700.07; On the Third Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial, but not less than $320,700.07; On the Fourth Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial, but not less than $320,700.07; On the Fifth Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial, but not less than $320, plus punitive damages; and On the Sixth Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be determined at time of trial, but not less than $320, plus punitive damages. Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses; Awarding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this suit; and Ordering such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: December 18, 2017 BLANK ROME LLP By: Martin S. Krezalek Martin S. Krezalek The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY (212) Attorneys for Plaintiff Ryan & Rodney Diamonds, Inc. I 18 of 18