Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1
`
`
`MEYLAN DAVITT JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`ROBERT L. MEYLAN (State Bar No. No. 144031)
`rmeylan@mdjalaw.com
`MARY H. CHU (State Bar No. 156459)
`mchu@mdjalaw.com
`GRACE CHEN (State Bar No. 293383)
`gchen@mdjalaw.com
`444 South Flower Street, Suite 1850
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (213) 225-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 225-6660
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Honda Performance Development, Inc.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`
`
`HONDA PERFORMANCE
`DEVELOPMENT, INC., a California
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`JUDITH FERNANDEZ-ADELUGBA, an
`individual, GEORGE A. FERNANDEZ, an
`individual, ALICIA WILKERSON, an
`individual, ALEX WILKERSON, an
`individual doing business as Engineering
`Talent Connect, BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
`SERVICES, INC., a California
`corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
`inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CASE NO. ________________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`1. Violation of RICO Under 18 U.S.C.
`§ 1962(c)
`2. Violation of RICO Under 18 U.S.C.
`§ 1962(d)
`3. Fraud
`4. Conversion
`5. Aiding and Abetting Fraud
`6. Aiding and Abetting Conversion
`7. Conspiracy
`8. Alter Ego
`9. Unjust Enrichment
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:2
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff Honda Performance Development, Inc. (hereinafter, “Plaintiff” or
`“HPD”), for its Complaint against defendants Judith Fernandez-Adelugba, George A.
`Fernandez, Business Solutions Services, Inc., Alicia Wilkerson, and Alex Wilkerson
`doing business as Engineering Talent Connect (hereinafter, collectively “Defendants”)
`alleges as follows:
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`1.
`HPD brings this action to recover monies stolen by Defendants in
`connection with a common enterprise and fraudulent scheme whereby Defendants,
`through sham entities that they formed, submitted multiple false invoices to HPD for
`payment for services that where never rendered. Pursuant to this scheme, Defendants
`wrongfully obtained payments from HPD, totaling in excess of $1.7 million dollars,
`which amount HPD seeks to recover herein in addition to punitive and other damages.
`PARTIES
`2.
`Plaintiff HPD is, and at all relevant times herein, was a corporation
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place
`of business in Los Angeles County, California.
`3.
`HPD is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that defendant
`Judith Fernandez-Adelugba (“Judith Fernandez”) is, and at all times relevant herein
`was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
`4.
`HPD is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that defendant
`George A. Fernandez (“George Fernandez”) is, and at all times relevant herein was, a
`resident of Los Angeles County, California.
`5.
`HPD is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that defendant
`Alicia Wilkerson is, and at all times relevant herein was, a resident of Los Angeles
`County, California.
`6.
`HPD is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that defendant
`Alex Wilkerson is, and at all times relevant herein was, a resident of Los Angeles
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:3
`
`
`County, California. HPD is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Mr.
`Wilkerson is, and at all times relevant herein was, doing business as Engineering Talent
`Connect (“ETC”).
`7.
`HPD is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that defendant
`Business Solutions Services, Inc. (“BSS”) is incorporated under the laws of the State of
`California and has listed its principal place of business with the California Secretary of
`State as 25536 Bowie Court Stevenson Ranch, California 91381 in Los Angeles County,
`California.
`8.
`HPD is informed and believes that the fictitiously named defendants, Does
`1 through 50, inclusive, are responsible in some manner for the acts and omissions
`alleged herein, whether intentionally or otherwise, and are therefore liable to Plaintiff
`for all, or part, of the damages alleged herein. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and
`capacities of said fictitiously named defendants and will amend its Complaint when
`their names and identities are ascertained.
`9.
`Based on information and belief, at all relevant times, each Defendant was
`an agent, principal, employer, employee, representative, partner and/or associate of each
`other Defendant, and acted within the course and scope of said agency, employment,
`representation or association in doing or failing to do the subject acts and omissions,
`which were authorized, known and ratified by each other Defendant. Defendants
`conspired together to accomplish the wrongdoing alleged herein, and are vicariously
`liable for the acts and/or omissions of each other Defendant.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964(c)-(d), because Plaintiff alleges claims under the
`Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).
`11. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because in
`any civil action in which the district court has original jurisdiction, the district court
`“shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the action that are so
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:4
`
`
`related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the
`same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”
`12. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 18
`U.S.C. § 1965 because all Defendants reside in this district. Venue is also proper in this
`district because Defendants carried out their wrongful enterprise and scheme to defraud
`in this district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in
`this district.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`13. Plaintiff HPD, a wholly owned subsidiary of American Honda Motor Co.
`Inc., is the technical operations center for the high performance racing programs at
`Honda and specializes in the design and development of racing engines, chassis and
`various performance parts. Defendant Judith Fernandez was previously employed by
`HPD as a Human Resources Manager. Ms. Fernandez abruptly resigned from that
`position on February 9, 2018, shortly after HPD began investigating the fraudulent
`billing scheme giving rise to this action. Defendant Alicia Wilkerson was also
`previously employed by HPD as a buyer in HPD’s Procurement Department. On
`February 20, 2018, less than two weeks after Ms. Fernandez’s departure, Ms.
`Wilkerson, who is a friend and colleague of Ms. Fernandez, also abruptly resigned from
`her position at HPD. On information and belief, Defendants Judith Fernandez and
`Alicia Wilkerson were co-workers at two prior employers before they joined HPD, and
`Ms. Fernandez advised Ms. Wilkerson of the opportunity at HPD for which the latter
`was hired. Defendant Alex Wilkerson is the husband of Alicia Wilkerson and also
`worked with Defendant Judith Fernandez at a prior employer before Ms. Fernandez
`became an employee of HPD.
`14. HPD is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants
`Judith Fernandez, George Fernandez, Alicia Wilkerson, Alex Wilkerson doing business
`as Engineering Talent Corporation and BSS formed a common enterprise orchestrated
`by Judith Fernandez whereby said Defendants agreed to submit false invoices through
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:5
`
`
`sham entities that they formed in order to obtain monies from HPD under false
`pretenses. On information and belief, Defendant BSS was formed and owned by
`Defendant George A. Fernandez, the father of Judith Fernandez, in or about October
`2016. On information and belief, Engineering Talent Connect (also referred to herein as
`“ETC”) was registered as a fictitious business in Los Angeles County on November 8,
`2016 by Defendant Alex Wilkerson.
`15. Pursuant to the scheme, Defendant Judith Fernandez, acting in
`contravention of her duties as Human Resources Manager, represented to HPD that BSS
`and ETC had been retained as vendors to provide services relating to diversity recruiting
`and placement. Through the use of the mail and wires, Defendants caused BSS and
`ETC to submit multiple fabricated invoices to HPD for payment for services knowing
`that the submissions were false and that no services had ever been rendered by those
`entities to HPD. Shortly after the formation of BSS and ETC in the fall of 2016, the
`individual Defendants caused BSS and ETC to complete and submit to HPD “Supplier
`Information” forms required of all HPD vendors identifying, among other information,
`the banking institutions and bank account information for the payment of invoices and
`to which payments were sent by HPD.
`16. For over two and a half years, between March 11, 2015 through December
`6, 2017, Defendants through BSS submitted to HPD well over one hundred invoices
`seeking payment for services totaling $1,639,564. Many of the invoices included no
`invoice number and lacked detail about the descriptions of the services provided,
`describing them only vaguely as “Diversity Recruiting Advertising”, “Job Postings”,
`“Exclusive Candidate Search”, “Placement Fee”, “Corporate Sponsorship and logo and
`promotion purchases. Many of the invoices submitted directed HPD to “Please make
`check payable to: Business Solutions Services P.O. Box 220335 Newhall, CA 91322-
`0335.” A representative sample of the BSS invoices submitted to HPD is attached
`hereto as Exhibit A.
`17. On information and belief, Defendants knew that the BSS invoices were
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:6
`
`
`fraudulent because no services had been rendered to HPD, but nonetheless submitted
`them for payment to HPD. Defendant Judith Fernandez, acting in contravention of her
`duties to HPD, personally approved and directed HPD to pay BSS’s false invoices.
`Based on information and belief, the invoices were false because searches of the
`websites supporting minority and veteran recruitment and employment where BSS’s
`invoices reflect job postings were run reflect that no job openings had been posted on
`HPD’s behalf. Indeed, one website which Defendants claimed was used (and for which
`they billed HPD) did not even have a national job posting service during the period
`covered. Additionally, the published prices for running ads on the identified websites
`were far lower than the amounts BSS billed HPD. Further, Defendant Judith Fernandez
`had represented to HPD that the company had hired four diverse employees through
`national/regional events and two diverse employees through campus events. During
`MS. Fernandez’s tenure at HPD, however, the candidates hired by HPD all came from
`other sources of recruitment and not any asserted activities of BSS or ETC.
`18. Because it was unknown to HPD that BSS had submitted false invoices,
`and as intended by Defendants, HPD paid BSS a total of $1,562,364 based upon the
`invoices submitted to HPD by BSS. Most of these payments were made by HPD via
`ACH wire transfer. HPD also paid a total of $34,250 to BSS by way of check which
`was sent by mail for payment on five false and fraudulent invoices. Additionally, a total
`of $161,200 was paid by way of multiple payments via credit card. If HPD had known
`that the BSS submitted invoices were completely fabricated, HPD would not have paid
`those invoices.
`19. Over the course of a year, between December 7, 2016 through December
`11, 2017, Defendants caused ETC to submit to HPD at least fourteen separate invoices,
`seeking payment for services totaling $192,000. On information and belief, Defendants
`knew that the ETC invoices were fraudulent because no services had been rendered to
`HPD, but nonetheless submitted them for payment to HPD. The ETC invoices looked
`similar to those submitted by BSS and included no invoice number or detail about the
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:7
`
`
`descriptions of the services provided, describing them only vaguely as “30 Day High
`Visibility Posting”, “4 postings”, and “Corporate Sponsorship.” A representative
`sample of the ETC invoices submitted to HPD is attached hereto as Exhibit B. As she
`did with the BSS invoices, Ms. Fernandez, acting in contravention of her duties,
`personally approved and directed HPD to pay ETC’s fraudulent invoices. Because it
`was unknown to HPD that ETC had submitted false invoices, and as intended by
`Defendants, HPD paid ETC a total of $183,600 based upon the amounts billed by ETC,
`all of which payments were made via ACH wire transfer to ETC’s designated bank. If
`HPD had known the ETC submitted invoices were completely fabricated, HPD would
`not have paid those invoices.
`20. Ms. Fernandez exploited her position as Human Resources Manager and
`acted as the linchpin of the common enterprise and fraudulent scheme and as such
`controlled and directed all communications that occurred between HPD, on the one
`hand, and BSS and ETC, on the other. The communications Ms. Fernandez directed on
`behalf of the common enterprise included discussions relating to the submission,
`approval and payment of invoices as well as communications relating to where HPD
`should send payment to those entities (including communicating changes regarding
`bank account information for the recipient sham entities). Throughout the entire period
`that BSS and ETC were submitting false invoices to HPD, HPD’s independent inquiries
`to those entities went unanswered and thus, as orchestrated by Ms. Fernandez, HPD
`personnel (other than Ms. Fernandez) never had any communications with any
`representative of either BSS or ETC.
`21. On information and belief, Defendants Judith Fernandez, George
`Fernandez, Alicia Wilkerson, Alex Wilkerson dba Engineering Talent Connect, and
`BSS agreed to a common enterprise to defraud HPD and conspired with one another to
`carry out their scheme to wrongfully obtain funds from HPD under false pretenses using
`sham invoices that they caused the fictitious entities BSS and ETC to submit to HPD for
`payment for services that they knew were never rendered. The scheme described herein
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:8
`
`
`is the subject of a federal indictment which was filed on August 18, 2020, in the United
`States District Court Central District against Judith Fernandez, George Fernandez and
`Alex Wilkerson.
`22. The enterprise and scheme agreed to between and among all Defendants
`allowed Defendants to steal a total of $1,745,964 from HPD for their own benefit.
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
` (Violations of RICO Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) Against All Defendants)
`23. Plaintiff HPD re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
`allegation in paragraphs 1 through 22 as though fully set forth herein.
`24. At all relevant times, Defendants Judith Fernandez, George Hernandez,
`Alicia Wilkerson, Alex Wilkerson dba Engineering Talent Connect and BSS are each a
`“person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. sections 1961(3) and 1962(c).
`25. Defendants Judith Fernandez, George Hernandez, Alicia Wilkerson, Alex
`Wilkerson dba Engineering Talent Connect and BSS constitute an “enterprise”
`(“Enterprise”) within the meaning of the 18 U.S.C. sections 1961(4) and 1962(c). The
`Enterprise was engaged in and conducted activities during all relevant times to obtain
`monies and property under false pretenses.
`26. Defendants Judith Fernandez, George Hernandez, Alicia Wilkerson, Alex
`Wilkerson dba Engineering Talent Connect and BSS agreed to and did conduct and
`participate in conduct of the Enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering
`activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1341 (mail fraud) and 18 U.S.C. section 1343
`(wire fraud) by wrongfully obtaining, receiving and retaining money or property under
`false pretenses and the use of the mail or wires were done in furtherance of the scheme
`to defraud.
`27. Defendants committed multiple related acts in violation of 18 U.S.C.
`sections 1341 and 1343, in that they submitted multiple fabricated invoices between the
`period from March 2015 through December 2017 to HPD seeking payment for services
`that they knew were never rendered and, as intended by Defendants, received multiple
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:9
`
`
`payments from HPD for the amounts fraudulently billed by Defendants. The acts set
`forth above constitute a pattern of racketing activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).
`28. Defendants have directly and indirectly conducted and participated in the
`conduct of the Enterprise’s affairs through the pattern of racketeering activity described
`above, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
`29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ racketeering activities and
`violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c), Plaintiff HPD has been injured in its business
`and property in that Defendants’ scheme caused HPD to lose in excess of $1.7 million
`in funds that were stolen from HPD.
`30.
`In addition, as a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’
`racketeering activities and violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c), HPD has been forced
`to incur attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this action.
`31. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1964(c), HPD is entitled to recover treble
`damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees from Defendants.
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Violations of RICO Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) Against All Defendants)
`32. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
`in paragraphs 1 through 31 as though fully set forth herein.
`33. Defendants Judith Fernandez, George Hernandez, Alicia Wilkerson, Alex
`Wilkerson dba Engineering Talent Connect and BSS knowingly agreed to and conspired
`to violate 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c). Specifically, the Defendants have directly and
`indirectly conducted and participated in the conduct of the Enterprise’s affairs through
`the pattern of racketeering and activity described above.
`34. On information and belief, Defendants knew of and agreed to facilitate the
`Enterprise’s scheme to obtain funds from HPD under false pretenses, including by
`wrongfully obtaining, receiving and retaining funds stolen from HPD through
`Defendants’ fraudulent billing scheme.
`35. On information and belief, Defendants knew that their acts were part of a
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:10
`
`
`pattern of racketeering activity and agreed to the commission of those acts to further the
`schemes described above. This conduct constitutes a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C.
`section 1962(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d).
`36. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conspiracy and violations
`of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d), Plaintiff HPD has been injured in its business and
`property in that the scheme between and among Defendants caused HPD to lose in
`excess of $1.7 million.
`37.
`In addition, as a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’
`conspiracy and violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d), HPD has been forced to incur
`attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this action.
`38. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1964(c), HPD is entitled to recover treble
`damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees from Defendants.
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
` (Fraud Against All Defendants)
`39. Plaintiff HPD re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
`allegation in paragraphs 1 through 38 as though fully set forth herein.
`40. On information and belief, between March 2015 through December 2017,
`Defendants through sham entities that they formed, specifically BSS and ETC,
`submitted fabricated invoices to HPD for payment for services that they knew were
`never performed.
`41.
` Defendants intended to induce HPD to rely on the false invoices that they
`caused BSS and ETC to submit to HPD to make payments to those entities for
`Defendants’ benefit.
`42. As intended by Defendants, HPD relied on and believed that the invoices
`submitted by Defendants accurately reflected services that were rendered to HPD and
`based on this reliance and belief, HPD made payments to BSS and ETC based upon the
`submitted invoices.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:11
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`43. At the time of the foregoing misrepresentations, HPD reasonably relied on
`the representations included in the invoices submitted by Defendants, because HPD had
`no reason to disbelieve or suspect that BSS or ETC had submitted false invoices. If
`HPD had known the submitted invoices were completely fabricated, HPD would not
`have paid them.
`44. Based on the misrepresentations made by Defendants, HPD was harmed in
`an amount to be determined at trial, but exceeding at least $1.7 million.
`45. The aforementioned acts constitute malice, oppression, and fraud, and
`entitles HPD to punitive damages.
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Conversion Against All Defendants)
`46. Plaintiff HPD incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in
`Paragraphs 1 through 45 above as though fully set forth at length.
`47. HPD owned and had the right to possess the funds that it paid BSS and
`ETC based upon the false invoices that Defendants caused BSS and ETC to submit to
`HPD.
`
`48. Defendants exercised wrongful control over HPD’s funds by receiving and
`retaining funds belonging to HPD that Defendants obtained through their fraudulent
`billing scheme.
`49. Defendants’ wrongful control and possession of funds belonging to HPD
`has caused, and will continue to cause, substantial damages to HPD in an amount
`exceeding at least $1.7 million.
`50. A constructive trust should be imposed for the purpose of preventing unjust
`enrichment by Defendants for the loss of use and value of HPD’s funds.
`SECOND
`(Aiding and Abetting Fraud Against All Defendants)
`51. Plaintiff HPD re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
`allegation in paragraphs 1 through 50 as though fully set forth herein.
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:12
`
`
`52. On information and belief, each of the Defendants knew that false invoices
`for services that were never rendered were being submitted by the other named
`Defendants to HPD for payment.
`53. On information and belief, each of the Defendants encouraged and/or
`substantially assisted the other named Defendants in furthering the scheme by
`preparing, submitting, and/or concealing the false invoices that were submitted to HPD
`for payment knowing that no services had ever been rendered to HPD, and such
`encouragement and substantial assistance was a factor in causing injury to HPD.
`54. Each of the Defendants’ actions in encouraging and substantially assisting
`the fraudulent billing scheme described above actually and proximately caused HPD to
`be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $1.7 million.
`THIRD
`(Aiding and Abetting Conversion Against All Defendants)
`55. Plaintiff HPD re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
`allegation in paragraphs 1 through 54 as though fully set forth herein.
`56. HPD owned and had the right to possess the funds that it paid BSS and
`ETC for services that were never performed.
`57. On information and belief, each of the Defendants knew that the other
`named Defendants, through the submission of false invoices, had stolen, unlawfully
`converted, or taken funds belonging to HPD.
`58. On information and belief, despite such knowledge, each of the Defendants
`provided assistance to the other named Defendants in preparing, submitting and/or
`concealing the false invoices that were submitted to HPD for payment through the
`fraudulent billing scheme.
`59. Each of the Defendants’ actions actually and proximately caused HPD to
`be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $1.7 million.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`12
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:13
`
`
`FOURTH
`(Conspiracy Against All Defendants)
`60. Plaintiff HPD re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
`allegation in paragraphs 1 through 59 as though fully set forth herein.
`61. Upon information and belief, Defendants agreed to a common enterprise
`and scheme and arranged and conspired with each other to submit false invoices to HPD
`through sham entities that they formed in order to wrongfully receive and possess funds
`belonging to HPD.
`62. Defendants facilitated, participated in, and furthered the scheme by
`submitting false invoices to HPD for payment for services knowing that no services had
`ever been rendered and received funds paid by HPD in connection with Defendants’
`fraudulent billing scheme.
`63. Defendants’ actions actually and proximately caused HPD to be damaged
`in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $1.7 million.
`EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Alter Ego Against All Defendants)
`64. HPD incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in
`Paragraphs 1 through 64 above as though fully set forth herein.
`65. On information and belief, HPD alleges that a unity of interest in
`ownership exists between BSS, on the one hand, and Judith Fernandez, George
`Fernandez, Alicia Wilkerson and Alex Wilkerson doing business as Engineering Talent
`Connect, on the other hand.
`66. On information and belief, HPD alleges that BSS is under the control of
`Ms. Fernandez, Mr. Fernandez, Ms. Wilkerson and Mr. Wilkerson.
`67. On information and belief, BSS was incorporated and is owned by Mr.
`Hernandez, Judith Fernandez’s father, and upon information and belief, BSS’s business
`address is a residence that was gifted to Mr. Fernandez by his daughter Judith
`Fernandez. On information and belief, Ms. Fernandez has at all relevant times directed
`13
`COMPLAINT
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:14
`
`
`the activities of BSS and Ms. Fernandez, on BSS’ behalf, has conducted all
`communications that took place between BSS and HPD, including but not limited to the
`preparation, submission and approval for payment of false invoices that BSS submitted
`to HPD as part of Defendants’ fraudulent billing scheme.
`68. On information and belief, HPD alleges that BSS is non-operational, is not
`adequately capitalized and is merely a shell.
`69. On information and belief, HPD alleges that recognizing any purported
`distinction between BSS, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other, would lead to
`an inequitable result by allowing Defendants to continue to benefit from control of BSS.
`70.
` On information and belief, HPD alleges that recognizing a distinction
`between BSS, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other, would sanction a fraud
`and promote injustice.
`
`NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Unjust Enrichment Against All Defendants)
`71. HPD incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in
`Paragraphs 1 through 70 above as though fully set forth herein.
`72. Defendants have wrongfully received and retained funds and property
`which rightfully belong to HPD.
`73. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, Defendants have
`been unjustly enriched to the detriment of HPD.
`74. HPD therefore demands restitution and judgment against Defendants in an
`amount to be determined at trial.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`PRAYER
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff HPD prays for judgment against all Defendants as
`follows:
`1.
`$1,745,964;
`
`For actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than
`
`14
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-08570-JFW-MAA Document 1 Filed 09/18/20 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:15
`
`
`2.
`For damages as may be found for violations of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c)
`and/or section 1962(d), with the sum duly trebled in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section
`1964(c);
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`For pre-judgment interest according to law;
`For punitive or exemplary damages;
`For attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action; and
`Other further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiff HPD demands a trial by jury of all claims and issues triable by a jury.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`DATED: September 18, 2020 MEYLAN DAVITT JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`/s/ Robert L.Meylan
`Robert L. Meylan
`Mary H. Chu
`Grace Chen
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Honda Performance Development, Inc.
`
`
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`MEYLAN DAVITT
`JAIN AREVIAN & KIM LLP
`
`15
`COMPLAINT
`
`