KOTA Lucky Scooter Complaint PDF

Case 5:15-cv-00416 Document 1 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TECHLAW LLP
Dana B. Robinson (Bar No. 208265)
dana@techlawllp.com
Kayla Jimenez (Bar No. 292365)
kayla@techlawllp.com
P.O. Box 1416
La Jolla, CA 92038
Telephone: (858) 488-2545
Facsimile: (858) 777-3347
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
DAKOTA SCHUETZ, an individual,
P.O. Box 1416

La Jolla, California 92038
(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
16
17
18
19
LUCKY SCOOTER PARTS, LLC, and

BRIAN JEIDE, an individual, and
ROLAND PAUL CORRIVEAU, an
individual,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5:15-cv-0416
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL RELIEF
14
15
Case No.:
Defendants.
1. False Association, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a);

2. Breach of Contract;
3. Breach of the Duty of Good Faith & Fair
Dealing;
4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
5. Fraud;
6. Negligent Misrepresentation;
7. Deceit;
8. Unjust Enrichment;
9. Intentional Interference with Contractual
Relations;
10. Intentional Interference with Prospective
Economic Advantage;
11. Violation of the Right of Publicity, Cal.
Civ. Code 3344;
12. Common Law Trademark Infringement;
13. State Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code 17200;
14. State False Advertising, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code 17500.
28
Page 1 of 23
COMPLAINT5:15-cv-0416
Plaintiff Dakota Schuetz (herein referred to as Kota or Plaintiff) alleges
the following against Defendants Lucky Scooter Parts, LLC (Lucky) Brian Jeide
(Jeide) and Roland Paul Corriveau (Corriveau) (collectively, Defendants):
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an action for False Association under the Lanham Act, Breach of
Contract, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Fiduciary
Duty, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Unjust Enrichment, Intentional
Interference with Contractual Relations, Intentional Interference with Prospective
Economic Advantage, Violation of the Right of Publicity, Common Law
10
Trademark Infringement, State Unfair Competition and False Advertising. Plaintiff
11
seeks actual damages, Defendants profits, and/or statutory damages, punitive
12
damages, an award of attorneys fees and costs, and preliminary and permanent
13
injunctive relief.
14
PARTIES
15
1.
16
International Scooter Association World Champion for 2012, 2013 and 2014.
17
2.
18
liability company that distributes and sells scooters and scooter parts and
19
accessories. It is believed that Lucky does business at 8429 154th Ave., NE
20
Redmond, WA, 98052, and distributes products worldwide.
21
3.
22
principle of Lucky.
23
4.
24
and a principal of Lucky.
25
26
Kota resides in Temecula, California. Kota is a professional athlete and the
Upon information and belief, Defendant Lucky is a Washington limited
Upon information and belief, Defendant Jeide is a Washington resident and a
Upon information and belief, Defendant Corriveau is a Washington resident
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5.
This is an action for False Association under Section 43(a) of the Lanham
27
28
Page 2 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), Breach of Contract, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation,
Deceit, Unjust Enrichment, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations,
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Violation of the
Right of Publicity, Common Law Trademark Infringement, and State Unfair
Competition and False Advertising.
6.
U.S.C. 1331 and 1332. Further, complete diversity of citizenship exists, and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28
10
7.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants based upon: (a)
11
transaction of business by Defendants by promoting and selling products in this
12
judicial district; (b) commission by Defendants of the infringing and other tortious
13
conduct underlying Plaintiffs claims, directed into this judicial district; and (c)
14
entering into a contractual relationship with Plaintiff in this judicial district which
15
was breached in this judicial district.
16
8.
17
California under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) & (c) and 1400.
18
BACKGROUND FACTS
Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Central District of
19
Kotas Professional Career
20
9.
21
International Scooter Association World Championships (2012-2014).
22
10.
23
his first Scooter Association World Championship at the age of 16.
24
11.
25
in one minute in the Guinness Book of World Records.
26
12.
Kota is a professional scooter athlete and the winner of the past three
Kota has been a professional scooter athlete since the age of 10. Kota won
Kota is also listed as the current world record holder of the most backflips
While Kota is certainly a celebrity in the scooter world, his popularity
27
28
Page 3 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
extends far beyond the sport of scootering. Kota has over 67,000 likes on
Facebook and signs thousands of autographs a year. Kota has appeared on
numerous magazine covers and television programs, including The Ellen Show
in 2013. Kotas YouTube videos have been viewed over 60 million times. Kota
was also featured in BBCs Amazing Achievements program.
13.
scooter company.
14.
sponsorship agreement. Jeide represented he was the president of Lucky, claiming
10
further that Lucky was an extremely profitable scooter manufacturing and
11
distribution company. Defendants Jeide and Corriveau promised Kota that if Kota
12
signed the sponsorship agreement with Lucky, Kota would receive a financial
13
interest in Lucky and royalties from a KOTA complete signature scooter and
14
parts that would make Kota a millionaire.
15
15.
16
several other offers from sponsors. However, Kota decided to accept a sponsorship
17
deal with Lucky based on Jeide and Corriveaus statements.
18
Kotas Negotiations with Defendants and the Sponsorship Agreement
19
16.
20
agreement, where Lucky would pay Kota $2,000.00 a month for the first year of
21
the sponsorship agreement. Corriveau, on behalf of Lucky, also agreed that Kota
22
would receive a 1% membership interest per year in Lucky and 10% of net sales
23
from KOTA signature scooter and parts.
24
17.
25
for the remaining 2 years of the sponsorship agreement. However, Jeide and
26
Corriveau told Kota that Kota would make much more than $2,000 per month
In 2012, Kota decided to seek out a sponsorship with a family-friendly
On or about July 2012, Defendant Jeide approached Kota about signing a
At the time Defendants approached Kota, Kota was 16 years old and had
Corriveau, on behalf of Lucky, proposed a three-year sponsorship
Kota informed Defendants that he was concerned about supporting himself
27
28
Page 4 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
after the first year, as Kota would receive distributions from his ownership in
Lucky as well as 10% of net sales from the KOTA signature scooter and parts.
18.
were displayed in stores. This promise was important to Kota, because it would
further bolster Kotas name recognition and brand.
19.
agreement with Lucky, the financial interest in Lucky and the royalties from the
KOTA products would make [Kota] a millionaire.
20.
Defendants promised to feature Kota on all Lucky marketing materials that
Jeide and Corriveau promised Kota that if Kota signed the sponsorship
Corriveau specifically told Kota that Kotas membership interest in Lucky
10
would result in a huge payout for Kota because Defendants were planning on
11
selling Lucky for a huge profit within two to three years to a larger entity, such as
12
the Trek Bicycle Corporation.
13
21.
14
agreement with Lucky on September 7, 2012. A true and correct copy of the
15
sponsorship agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A to the Complaint (the
16
Sponsorship Agreement).
17
22.
18
plus a percentage of scooter sales. However, Kota relied on Defendants
19
representations that a sponsorship deal with Lucky would be in his best interest
20
and make him a millionaire.
21
23.
22
Agreement was the prime of Kotas career. The sport of scootering was growing,
23
and Kota won three world championships during his time at Lucky.
24
Kotas Ownership Interest in Lucky
25
24.
26
ATHLETE 3 percentage points of ownership (equity) in SPONSOR. One percent
Relying on Defendants representations, Kota signed a sponsorship
Kota had other sponsorship offers, including one offer for $5,000 per month
The time that Kota was contracted with Lucky under the Sponsorship
The Sponsorship Agreement provides that SPONSOR will grant
27
28
Page 5 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
of equity in SPONSOR will be granted at the end of each year of the sponsorship
for three years. (Exhibit A, p. 3).
25.
in income for Kota, and help fund Kotas retirement.
26.
In fact, Defendants never intended for Kota to receive any distributions from his
interest in Lucky, as evidenced by an email from Jeide to Kota dated January 7,
2015. Jeide stated in this email, I also want you to be aware that the only time
your equity will pay anything is if the company does a distribution or we sell the
10
company. We dont plan on selling and we have never done distributions and dont
11
plan on it in the future.
12
27.
Defendants never rendered an accounting to Kota regarding Lucky.
13
28.
Defendants also terminated Kota two days before the completion of his
14
second year of the Sponsorship Agreement.
15
29.
16
Kotas ownership interest in Lucky continue to vest.
17
30.
18
Lucky would fully vest at the time of any ownership change. (Exhibit A, p. 3 at
19
12(a)).
20
31.
21
therefore, Kotas 3% ownership interest in Lucky is fully vested.
22
Issues with Lucky Products
23
32.
24
with customized products that meet his specifications within 30 days so he can
25
practice and test them. (Exhibit A p.3).
26
33.
Defendants promised Kota that his financial interest in Lucky would result
Kota never received distributions related to his ownership interest in Lucky.
Upon information and belief, Defendants terminated Kota to avoid having
According to the Sponsorship Agreement, Kotas ownership interest in
Upon information and belief, Luckys ownership changed in 2013, and
The Sponsorship Agreement states, SPONSOR shall provide ATHLETE
Kota did not receive customized products in a condition satisfactory for his
27
28
Page 6 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
athletic purposes from Defendants until August 10th, 2014.
34.
specifications. For instance, several scooter decks broke after test-rides.
The KOTA Complete Signature Scooter and Royalties
35.
launch a KOTA complete signature scooter within six months... (emphasis
added). Given that the Sponsorship Agreement was executed September 7, 2012,
Defendants were required to complete the KOTA complete signature scooter by
March 7, 2013.
Frequently, the products Defendants provided to Kota did not meet Kotas
The Sponsorship Agreement provided that SPONSOR will build and
10
36.
The KOTA Complete Signature Scooter was not completed until September
11
2014, which is after Defendants terminated Kota and cancelled Kotas
12
Sponsorship Agreement.
13
37.
14
ATHLETE 10% of net sales of [the KOTA Complete Signature Scooter] for the
15
duration of the Agreement, paid quarterly. Should SPONSOR choose to build
16
KOTA signature parts, SPONSOR will remit to ATHLETE 10% of net sales of
17
each signature part. (Exhibit A p.3, emphasis added).
18
38.
19
instead of 10% of net sales on KOTA signature parts and the KOTA Complete
20
Signature Scooter, Kota would receive 15% of net sales on KOTA signature parts
21
and the KOTA Complete Signature Scooter. Jeide reiterated this in an email to
22
Kota on January 25, 2014.
23
39.
24
Scooter after Kotas termination. Thus, Kota was not able to make the amount of
25
royalties Defendants promised.
26
40.
The Sponsorship Agreement also states that Defendants shall remit to
On or about summer 2013, Defendant Jeide, on behalf of Lucky, agreed that
Defendants terminated Kota, and launched the KOTA Complete Signature
Furthermore, upon information and belief, Kota has not received all of his
27
28
Page 7 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
15% of net sales on the KOTA signature scooter and the KOTA signature parts.
Kotas Travel Expenses
41.
events and promotional activities. Specifically, the Sponsorship Agreement states,
SPONSOR will fund travel and lodging expenses of ATHLETE for agreed upon
competitions, events, and promotional activities.
42.
Association World Championship in England. Kota attended the event, but Lucky
did not reimburse Kota for all his expenses.
Defendants also agreed to pay Kotas travel expenses for competitions,
Defendants agreed that Kota should attend the 2014 International Scooter
10
43.
Lucky also did not reimburse Kota for the mileage, maintenance and repair
11
costs that Kota incurred while using his vehicle for Lucky.
12
44.
13
not reimburse Kota for the vehicle maintenance that was done in preparation for
14
this tour. Lucky cancelled the East Coast Sprinter Tour 2013 after Kota already
15
performed and paid for the vehicle maintenance.
16
Defendants Additional Promises to Kota
17
45.
18
him to competitions around the world.
19
46.
20
trade shows, including: Germany for ISPO (the worlds largest trade show for
21
scooters) in 2013, 2014 and 2015; Australia; China; the Scooter World
22
Championships; the InterBike Trade Show in Las Vegas; and the East Coast
23
Sprinter Tour in 2013.
24
47.
25
for the ISPO in 2013, 2014 and 2015. Defendants also cancelled the East Coast
26
Sprinter Tour in 2013 and the InterBike Trade Show Las Vegas in 2012, 2013 and
Lucky requested that Kota attend the East Coast Sprinter Tour 2013, but did
Defendants promised to promote Kota as their number-one rider, and send
Defendants specifically promised to send Kota to several countries and
Defendants cancelled the trip to Australia as well as the trips to Germany
27
28
Page 8 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
2014.
48.
instead promoted a different kind of professional scootering called street
scootering instead of promoting park scootering. Kota is a scooter rider known
for park scootering.
49.
promised back when Defendants approached Kota about signing the Sponsorship
Agreement.
50.
Defendants did not promote Kota as their number-one rider. Defendants
Defendants also failed to feature Kota in all marketing materials as was
Additionally, Defendants promised to pay for Kotas vehicle to be wrapped
10
with Luckys design work, and reimburse Kota for the cost of taking off the
11
previous wrap. Kotas previous wrap cost over $6,400, but Kota took the wrap off
12
his vehicle based on Defendants promises. The cost to remove the old wrap alone
13
totaled $1,000. Defendants did not reimburse Kota for the cost to remove the
14
wrap. Defendants also did not put new wrap on Kotas vehicle. As such, Kota lost
15
the opportunity to generate revenue from sponsors that would have otherwise paid
16
to have wrap, stickers and decals on Kotas vehicle.
17
Tukno Bars Dispute
18
51.
19
Bar.
20
52.
21
and business.
22
53.
The Tukno Bars are extremely popular with consumers.
23
54.
Kota had an agreement with Anthony Baker to manufacture the Tukno Bars.
24
When Kota went to order more Tukno Bars, Mr. Baker informed Kota that he did
25
not have any Tukno Bars ready because Defendants bought out the entire supply.
26
55.
Kota designed and created a scooter product, which Kota named the Tukno
Defendants agreed that Kota could sell Tukno Bars under Kotas own brand
The above-mentioned action damaged Kota and Mr. Bakers professional
27
28
Page 9 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
relationship.
56.
quality for price. The cheap Tukno Bars are advertised as KOTA products even
though Kota did not approve of the Tukno Bars being manufactured anywhere but
the United States. These cheap Tukno Bars have flooded the market, and
affected Kotas customers, including distributors that are trying to sell the higher
quality Tukno Bars.
57.
using Kotas name, without Kotas permission and without paying Kota any
Defendants also began to manufacturer the Tukno Bars in China, sacrificing
Upon information and belief, Defendants continue to sell Kotas Tukno Bars
10
licensing or royalty fees.
11
Kotas Performance
12
58.
13
Agreement and broken their promises to Kota, Kota has gone above and beyond
14
his obligations in the Sponsorship Agreement.
15
59.
16
promote SPONSORS products and services for up to 45 days per year. Kota has
17
promoted Lucky an average of 290 days per year.
18
60.
19
flight passes, as his mother is a flight attendant.
20
61.
21
thousands of autographs, won three world championships, set two Guinness Book
22
of World Records, and appeared in countless magazines. Kota also appeared on
23
The Ellen Show at this time, wearing a Lucky brand shirt.
24
62.
25
August 10, 2014. When Kota returned from the championship, Lucky fired Kota.
26
Defendants Misuse of Kotas Name and Image
While Defendants have disregarded their obligations in the Sponsorship
The Sponsorship Agreement requires Kota to make himself available to
Kota has also saved Defendants money by traveling using his mothers free
During the time Kota was contracted with Lucky, Kota signed tens of
Kota won his third International Scooter Association championship on
27
28
Page 10 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
63.
While the Sponsorship Agreement provides that All videos and
photographs of ATHLETE taken or created by SPONSORshall be considered
the intellectual property of SPONSOR, the Sponsorship Agreement does not
grant Defendants an interest in Kotas name, image or likeness. See Exhibit A to
the Complaint.
64.
to promote their business.
65.
these quotations to Kota. Defendants then published the false Kota quotations
After Kota was fired, Defendants continued to use Kotas name and image
In one instance, Defendants fabricated several quotations and attributed
10
without informing Kota or obtaining Kotas consent.
11
66.
12
products.
13
67.
14
image and likeness to promote their products.
15
68.
16
image or likeness after the contract terminated, yet Defendants continue to use
17
Kotas name, image and likeness to promote their products.
18
Defendants Current Actions
19
69.
20
fourth quarter of 2014.
21
70.
22
royalties if Kota agreed to release Defendants from everything Defendants owed
23
Kota in the past, and all royalty payments moving forward. This was unacceptable
24
to Kota.
25
71.
26
scooter parts, using Kotas name and brand, without Kotas permission and
Defendants still continue to sell KOTA named scooters and scooter
Upon information and belief, Defendants continue to use Kotas name,
Kota did not give permission to Defendants to continue to use his name,
Defendants refuse to send Kota his royalty payments for sales up to the
On or about January 7, 2015, Jeide told Kota that he would only pay Kota
Defendants continue to sell Kotas signature scooter and Kota signature
27
28
Page 11 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
without paying Kota royalties.
72.
reputation. For example, on social media, Kotas fans are questioning why Kota
has a signature scooter but does not ride it.
73.
Upon information and belief, Defendants have done so in order to continue
profiting from Kotas popularity without compensating Kota.
The sale of the Kota signature scooter and parts is damaging Kotas
Defendants have not announced that Kota is no longer riding for Lucky.
COUNT I
(False Association Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) et seq.)
10
74.
Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
11
75.
Defendants use in commerce of Plaintiffs name, image, likeness and
12
trademarks, including the KOTA trademark, as used on goods that do not emanate
13
from Plaintiff, constitutes a false designation of origin and false association by
14
representing that Defendants goods are associated or sponsored by Plaintiff, when
15
in fact they are not.
16
76.
17
trademarks with knowledge that Plaintiff owns, has used, and continues to use
18
Plaintiffs name, image, likeness and trademarks constitutes intentional conduct by
19
Defendants to make false designations of origin, false associations and false
20
descriptions about Defendants goods.
21
77.
22
well-established goodwill in Plaintiffs name, image, likeness and trademarks that
23
Plaintiff has developed in connection with his products and unique brand.
24
Defendants have done so to confuse consumers as to the origin, association and
25
sponsorship of Defendants goods.
26
78.
Defendants use in commerce of Plaintiffs name, image, likeness and
Defendants have deliberately and willfully attempted to trade on Plaintiffs
Defendants conduct has confused or is likely to confuse consumers as to
27
28
Page 12 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
the origin, association, connection or sponsorship of Defendants products in
violation of 15 USC 1125(a).
79.
suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to his
business, reputation, and goodwill.
As the direct and proximate result of such false association, Plaintiff has
COUNT II
(Breach of Contract)
80.
81.
A valid agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants existed.
10
82.
The Defendants breached the agreement by failing to render distributions
11
from Lucky to Plaintiff as promised, failing to remit the proper royalties to
12
Plaintiff, failing to provide Plaintiff with customized products that met Plaintiffs
13
specifications within 30 days, failing to provide Plaintiff with evidence of his 3%
14
interest in Lucky, failing to launch the KOTA complete signature scooter within
15
six months, failing to reimburse Plaintiff for travel expenses, failing to send
16
Plaintiff to the countries promised, failing to properly promote Plaintiff as
17
promised, and failing to reimburse Plaintiff for replacing the vehicle wrap.
18
83.
19
party.
20
84.
21
condition precedent.
22
85.
The Plaintiff was damaged by Defendants breach of the agreement.
23
86.
The damages sustained by Plaintiff are reasonably ascertainable.
24
87.
The damages sustained by Plaintiff were a foreseeable consequence of the
25
Defendants breach.
26
Defendants breach was not excused by any conduct of Plaintiff or any third
Defendants breach was not the result of Plaintiffs failure to perform a
COUNT III
27
28
Page 13 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
(Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
88.
89.
Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a contract.
90.
Plaintiff has not breached any element of the contract with Defendants.
91.
Defendants have breached the letter and spirit of the contract by continuous
breach thereof, culminating in a refusal to pay Plaintiff what was promised,
terminating the contract right before the release of the scooter which would
generate royalties for Plaintiff, interfering with Plaintiffs business, and
withholding distributions for his membership interest in Lucky after they had
10
promised the distributions would make Plaintiff rich.
11
92.
12
contract with promises of wealth they never intended Plaintiff to receive.
13
93.
14
full well that the negative consequences to the Plaintiff would be substantial.
15
94.
16
suffered monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Defendants acted willfully and maliciously, intending to lock Plaintiff into a
Defendants acted in bad faith, looking out for their own interests, knowing
As the direct and proximate result of Defendants violation, Plaintiff has
17
COUNT IV
18
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
19
95.
20
96.
Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff to manage Lucky, and to
21
account to Plaintiff for the activities of Lucky as Plaintiff owned a membership
22
interest in Lucky.
23
97.
Defendants have not accounted to Plaintiff for the activities of Lucky.
24
98.
By virtue of the above stated acts, Defendants have, in bad faith, breached
25
their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff.
26
99.
As the direct and proximate result of Defendants bad faith breach of their
27
28
Page 14 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
duties, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT V
(Fraud)
100. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
101. Defendants have defrauded Plaintiff by falsely representing that Plaintiffs
membership interest in Lucky and royalties from the KOTA Lucky products would
provide Plaintiff with the income promised.
102. Defendants knew that Plaintiffs membership interest in Lucky would not
result in any payment to Plaintiff, and in fact never intended to pay Plaintiff any
10
distributions from Lucky.
11
103. Defendants also knew the royalties from the KOTA Lucky products would
12
not make Plaintiff a substantial sum of money.
13
104. Defendants intended Plaintiff to rely on the aforementioned representations
14
in order to induce Plaintiff to sign the Sponsorship Agreement.
15
105. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants representations, signing the
16
Sponsorship Agreement on Defendants word.
17
106. Defendants fraudulent activities have damaged Plaintiff in an amount to be
18
determined at trial.
19
COUNT VI
20
(Negligent Misrepresentation)
21
22
108. Defendants negligently made false allegations and misrepresentations about
23
Lucky to Plaintiff.
24
109. Defendants knew or should have known that the statements were false and
25
misrepresentative.
26
110. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants representations.
27
28
Page 15 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
111. Defendants negligent misrepresentations have damaged Plaintiff in an
amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT VII
(Deceit)
113. Defendants have deceived Plaintiff and Plaintiffs fans and customers to the
detriment of everyone involved.
114. Defendants deceitful activities have damaged Plaintiff in an amount to be
determined at trial.
10
COUNT VIII
11
(Unjust Enrichment)
12
13
116. Plaintiffs contract specified that he is required to work 45 days of the year
14
for Defendants, but Plaintiff actually worked over 200 days a year for the
15
Defendants.
16
117. Plaintiff was not compensated for the additional days he worked for
17
Defendants.
18
118. Plaintiff was not paid for the travel and automobile expenses that he
19
incurred to the benefit of Defendants.
20
119. Plaintiff also developed and popularized the Tukno Bars, which Defendants
21
then sold to their profit.
22
120. Defendants have benefitted from Plaintiffs hard work and actions to the
23
detriment of Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial.
24
COUNT IX
25
(Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations)
26
27
28
Page 16 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
122. Plaintiff had a contractual relationship with the manufacturer of the Tukno
Bars that was beneficial to Plaintiff.
123. Defendants knew Plaintiff had a contractual relationship with the
manufacturer of the Tukno Bars, Mr. Baker.
124. Defendants intentionally disrupted the relationship between Plaintiff and
Mr. Baker by buying the entire supply of Tukno Bars from the manufacturer so
that the manufacturer could not fill Plaintiffs orders.
125. Defendants bought the entire supply of Tukno Bars so that Plaintiffs
business relationship and reputation would suffer.
10
126. Defendants actions have disrupted or are intended to disrupt Plaintiffs
11
relationship with Mr. Baker.
12
127. Defendants have no legal right, privilege or justification for their conduct.
13
128. As the direct and proximate cause of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has
14
suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
15
129. Based on the intentional, willful and malicious nature of Defendants
16
actions, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary damages and reasonable
17
attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.
18
COUNT X
19
(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
20
21
131. Plaintiff had a longstanding economic relationship with his customers who
22
were purchasing the Tukno Bars.
23
132. Defendants knew Plaintiff had an economic relationship with his customers.
24
133. Defendants intentionally disrupted the relationship between Plaintiff and the
25
manufacturer of the Tukno Bars by taking Plaintiffs design for the Tukno Bars
26
and having cheaper versions manufactured in China so that Defendants could
27
28
Page 17 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
undercut Plaintiff and Plaintiffs customers, who were distributing the Tukno Bars.
134. Defendants actions have disrupted or are intended to disrupt Plaintiffs
relationship with his customers.
135. Defendants have no legal right, privilege or justification for its conduct.
136. As the direct and proximate cause of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has
suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
137. Based on the intentional, willful and malicious nature of Defendants
actions, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary damages and reasonable
attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.
10
COUNT XI
11
(Violation of the Right of Publicity Cal. Civ. Code 3344)
12
13
139. Plaintiff has a right in his name, image and likeness.
14
140. Defendants have used and continue to use Plaintiffs name, image and
15
likeness without Plaintiffs permission on Defendants website and in Defendants
16
advertising and marketing materials.
17
141. Defendants use of Plaintiffs name, image and likeness without Plaintiffs
18
permission is deliberate and willful.
19
142. Plaintiffs reputation has been damaged by Defendants use of Plaintiffs
20
name, image and likeness.
21
143. Defendants have also profited from the use of Plaintiffs name, image and
22
likeness but have not compensated Plaintiff for this use.
23
144. Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against Defendants, as well as
24
all other remedies available under the law, including, but not limited to
25
disgorgement of profits.
26
COUNT XII
27
28
Page 18 of 23
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
(Common Law Trademark Infringement)
146. By virtue of having used and continuing to use the KOTA trademark, the
Plaintiff has acquired common law rights in the KOTA trademark.
147. Defendants infringing use of the KOTA trademark is likely to cause
confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers, who will believe that
Defendants services and/or goods originate from, or are affiliated with or
endorsed by, Plaintiff when, in fact, they are not.
148. As the direct and proximate result of Defendants infringement of Plaintiffs
10
common law trademark rights, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer,
11
monetary damages and irreparable injury to his business, reputation, and goodwill.
12
COUNT XIII
13
(State Unfair Competition Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq.)
14
15
150. Upon information and belief, Defendants engaged in the sale of products
16
that use Plaintiffs trademarks, name, image and likeness without Plaintiffs
17
permission to do so.
18
151. Defendants have profited from the use of Plaintiffs trademarks, name,
19
image and likeness.
20
152. Defendants advertising and sale of these products has caused irreparable
21
harm to Plaintiff, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
22
COUNT XIV
23
(False Advertising & Deceptive Trade Practices Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17500)
24
25
154. Defendants have made false statements about Defendants goods and
26
services on Defendants websites and in Defendants advertising materials.
27
28
Page 19 of 23
155. Defendants have made false statements about Defendants goods to third
parties.
156. In the course of conducting its business, Defendants knowingly made false
representations as to affiliation, connection and/or association with Plaintiff by
using Plaintiffs trademark, name, image and likeness without Plaintiffs
permission.
157. Upon information and belief, Defendants have profited from these false
statements and misrepresentations.
158. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants false statements, Plaintiff
10
has suffered and will continue to suffer monetary damages and irreparable injury
11
to his business, reputation, and goodwill.
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
12
13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the
14
following relief:
15
A.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Injunctive relief to prevent ongoing infringement, false association
and unfair competition consisting of:

1. An order prohibiting Defendants from using Plaintiffs name, image
and likeness;
2. An order prohibiting Defendants from using name KOTA or any
similar mark;
3. An order instructing Defendants to deliver to Plaintiff any and all
goods bearing the KOTA name;
23
4. An order instructing Defendants to cease sale of the Tukno Bars;
24
5. An order instructing Defendants to deliver to Plaintiff any and all
25
26
goods bearing Plaintiffs name, image and likeness;

6. An order requiring Defendants to cease all conduct which implies
27
28
Page 20 of 23
that Plaintiff or his entities are associated with, endorsed by or
sponsored by Plaintiff;
7. An order prohibiting Defendants from falsely advertising their
P.O. Box 1416

(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
companys products or services;
B.
An accounting by Defendants to Plaintiff for Lucky;
C.
An order to deliver evidence of Plaintiffs ownership of 3% of Lucky;
D.
Compensatory damages for past trademark infringement;
E.
Compensatory damages for past false association;
F.
Compensatory damages for past unfair competition;
10
G.
Compensatory damages for breach of contract;
11
H.
Compensatory damages for intentional interference with contractual
12
relations;
13
14
I.
Compensatory damages for intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage;
15
J.
Compensatory damages for fraud;
16
K.
Compensatory damages for deceit;
17
L.
Compensatory damages for unjust enrichment;
18
M.
Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 505 and 1203(b)(4) and (5), and 1125(a), full
19
costs in litigating this matter, including reasonable attorneys fees;
20
N.
Punitive damages for Defendants willful and malicious conduct; and
21
O.
All other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.
22
23
DATED this 5th day of March, 2015.
24
TECHLAW, LLP
25
By___/s/ Dana B. Robinson_______

26
27
28
Page 21 of 23
1
2
P.O. Box 1416

La Jolla, CA 92038
dana@techlawllp.com
3
4
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
P.O. Box 1416
(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 22 of 23
1
2
3
4
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Dakota Schuetz hereby demands a jury trial as provided by Rule
38(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5
6
7
DATED this 5th day of March, 2015.

TECHLAW, LLP
8
9
10
11
P.O. Box 1416
(858) 488-2545 FAX: (858) 777-3347
TechLaw LLP
12
13
By___/s/ Dana B. Robinson_______

P.O. Box 1416
La Jolla, CA 92038
dana@techlawllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 23 of 23

KOTA Lucky Scooter Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KOTA Lucky Scooter Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:15-cv-00416 Document 1 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1

DAKOTA SCHUETZ, an individual,

P.O. Box 1416

LUCKY SCOOTER PARTS, LLC, and

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

1. False Association, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a);

Case 5:15-cv-00416 Document 1 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:2

Plaintiff Dakota Schuetz (herein referred to as Kota or Plaintiff) alleges

(Jeide) and Roland Paul Corriveau (Corriveau) (collectively, Defendants):

P.O. Box 1416

NATURE OF THE CASE

Duty, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Unjust Enrichment, Intentional

Interference with Contractual Relations, Intentional Interference with Prospective

Economic Advantage, Violation of the Right of Publicity, Common Law

Trademark Infringement, State Unfair Competition and False Advertising. Plaintiff

seeks actual damages, Defendants profits, and/or statutory damages, punitive

accessories. It is believed that Lucky does business at 8429 154th Ave., NE

Redmond, WA, 98052, and distributes products worldwide.

and a principal of Lucky.

Kota resides in Temecula, California. Kota is a professional athlete and the

Upon information and belief, Defendant Lucky is a Washington limited

Upon information and belief, Defendant Jeide is a Washington resident and a

Upon information and belief, Defendant Corriveau is a Washington resident

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

P.O. Box 1416

Case 5:15-cv-00416 Document 1 Filed 03/05/15 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:3

and Fair Dealing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation,

Deceit, Unjust Enrichment, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations,

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Violation of the

Right of Publicity, Common Law Trademark Infringement, and State Unfair

Competition and False Advertising.

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

transaction of business by Defendants by promoting and selling products in this

was breached in this judicial district.

California under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) & (c) and 1400.

Kotas Professional Career

International Scooter Association World Championships (2012-2014).

his first Scooter Association World Championship at the age of 16.

in one minute in the Guinness Book of World Records.

While Kota is certainly a celebrity in the scooter world, his popularity

P.O. Box 1416

Case 5:15-cv-00416 Document 1 Filed 03/05/15 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:4

Facebook and signs thousands of autographs a year. Kota has appeared on

was also featured in BBCs Amazing Achievements program.

sponsorship agreement. Jeide represented he was the president of Lucky, claiming

further that Lucky was an extremely profitable scooter manufacturing and

parts that would make Kota a millionaire.

deal with Lucky based on Jeide and Corriveaus statements.

Kotas Negotiations with Defendants and the Sponsorship Agreement

from KOTA signature scooter and parts.

In 2012, Kota decided to seek out a sponsorship with a family-friendly

On or about July 2012, Defendant Jeide approached Kota about signing a

Corriveau, on behalf of Lucky, proposed a three-year sponsorship

Kota informed Defendants that he was concerned about supporting himself

P.O. Box 1416

Case 5:15-cv-00416 Document 1 Filed 03/05/15 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:5

further bolster Kotas name recognition and brand.

KOTA products would make [Kota] a millionaire.

Defendants promised to feature Kota on all Lucky marketing materials that

Corriveau specifically told Kota that Kotas membership interest in Lucky

the Trek Bicycle Corporation.

sponsorship agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A to the Complaint (the

plus a percentage of scooter sales. However, Kota relied on Defendants