IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, Case No.: vs. ELITE PURCHASING GROUP INC., a Florida Corporation, a/k/a FURNITUREDRIVE.COM and THEATERSEATS.COM; and DEAN A. BARDAKJY, individually and as owner, officer and/or director of Elite Purchasing Group Inc. Defendants. / COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES AND OTHER STATUTORY RELIEF Plaintiff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff ), sues Defendants ELITE PURCHASING GROUP INC., a Florida corporation and DEAN A. BARDAKJY, individually and as owner, officer and/or director of Elite Purchasing Group Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as Defendants ). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief, brought pursuant to Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 50l, Part II, Florida Statutes (2001). 2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of said statute. 3. The statutory violations alleged herein occurred in or affected more than one judicial circuit in the State of Florida. 1

2 4. Venue is proper in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit as the principal place of business of the Defendant is Broward County, Florida. 5. Plaintiff is an enforcing authority of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act as defined in Chapter 50l, Part II, Florida Statutes, and is authorized to seek damages, injunctive and other statutory relief pursuant to this part. 6. Plaintiff has conducted an investigation and the head of the enforcing authority, Attorney General Bill McCollum, has determined that an enforcement action serves the public interest. DEFENDANTS 7. Defendants, at all times material hereto, provided goods or services as defined within Section (8), Florida Statutes (2001). 8. Defendants, at all times material hereto, solicited consumers within the definitions of Section (7), Florida Statutes (2001). 9. Defendants, at all times material hereto, were engaged in a trade or commerce within the definition of Section (8), Florida Statutes (2001). 10. Defendant Dean A. Bardakjy, is an adult male over the age of twenty one and is sui juris. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bardakjy resides in Broward County, Florida at 1401 NE 5 th Court, Fort Lauderdale, Florida Defendant Bardakjy was at all times material hereto, was an owner, officer and/or director of Defendant Elite Purchasing Group Inc. 12. At all times material hereto, Defendant Bardakjy knew of and controlled the activities of Defendant Elite Purchasing Group Inc. He had actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that the acts of the employees, agents, and 2

3 representatives of the corporate Defendant as described below, were unfair or deceptive and/or prohibited by law. 13. At all times material hereto, Defendant Elite Purchasing Group Inc. (hereinafter referred to as EPG ) was a Florida for-profit corporation, and was an internet retailer of furniture. It had its principal place of business located at 2000 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 109, Fort Lauderdale, Florida DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES CHAPTER 501, PART II FLORIDA STATUTES COUNT I 14. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates herein and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 13 as if fully set forth below. 15. Chapter (1), Florida Statutes, declares unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful. 16. Commencing on a date unknown, but at least subsequent to January 1, 2004, the Defendants engaged in various unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive trade practices, as set out further herein, in violation of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (2001). 17. Among said acts or practices, the Defendant falsely advertised they were part of a vast network of manufacturers thereby implying a special relationship with manufacturers where none existed. 18. In furtherance of this misrepresentation, the Defendant prominently displayed the trademarks of companies such as Drexel Heritage, Henredon and Lane, on its web page without authorization. By doing so, the defendant created an unfair advantage over his competitors. 3

4 19. Also, the Defendant deceived the public by creating the appearance of an affiliation of these companies with the Defendant where none existed. 20. The public was further led to believe that this special relationship with manufacturers allowed for fast turnaround on regular orders that usually shipped out within one business day as advertized on its web page. 21. The Defendant claimed they specialize in Speedy Shipping. 22. In fact the Defendant was plagued with late orders, and in many cases, furniture that was never delivered at all. 23. Customers who attempted to obtain information about their furniture delivery were often met with unanswered phone calls. 24. When a customer was able to speak with someone, they were given various excuses for the delay. 25. Some of these excuses included inability to make partial shipments when one item was on backorder; insufficient space on a delivery truck; the company was too busy and even a hijacked truck to name a few. 26. These delaying tactics would cause the customer to miss the opportunity to cancel their orders and obtain refunds from their credit card companies because the 60 day chargeback period was usually passed by a magnitude of months. 27. The Defendant further promised that, within the first 30 days of delivery, furniture delivered with defects or damage would to be replaced or repaired. 28. The defendant instructed customers to keep the original factory cartons with all packing and manuals and instructed them to contact customer service to be issued a Return Authorization number. 4

5 29. Contrary to the Defendant s advertisement, consumers who complained of damaged furniture did not have their furniture replaced or repaired. 30. One consumer paid over $7, for chairs that were delivered unassembled. 31. The consumer contacted the Defendant as the chairs were being assembled to advise the chairs could not be assembled due to broken parts. 32. Instead of instructing the consumer to return the chairs immediately, they were instructed to accept delivery and were told to expect replacement chairs. 33. The consumer never received replacement chairs. 34. After approximately four months of phone calls, the consumer was finally told he would have to pay an additional $75.00 to the delivery company to have the chairs picked-up to supposedly repair the broken parts. 35. Another consumer was promised touch-up paint for a damaged mirror as opposed to replacement or repair. 36. These acts and practices, as hereinabove alleged, were and are to the injury and prejudice of the public and the Defendants competitors and constituted and now constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition within the intent and meaning of Section 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (2001). Said practices further constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act and pursuant to the standards of unfairness and deception set forth and interpreted by the Federal Trade Commission and federal courts. 37. Unless the Defendant is permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and practices herein complained, his continued activities will result in irreparable injury to the unwary, consuming public, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 5

6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFOR, the Plaintiff, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, respectfully requests the following relief: 1. Award actual damages to all consumers who are shown to have been injured in this action, pursuant to Section (1) (c), Florida Statutes (2001). 2. Assess against Defendants herein civil penalties in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for each act or practice found to be in violation of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes (2001). 3. Award reasonable attorney s fees and costs to Plaintiff herein, pursuant to Florida Statute Enter an Order pursuant to F.S permanently enjoining the Defendants, their agents, employees, or any other persons who act under, by, through, in concert with or on behalf of the Defendants from unauthorized use of trademarks. 5. Waive the posting of any bond by Plaintiff in this action. 6. Grant such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper. Respectfully Submitted BILL McCOLLUM Attorney General By: GEORGE E. RUDD Assistant Attorney General Economic Crimes Division Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs 110 S.E. 6th Street, Tenth Floor Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (954) Fla. Bar. No