Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 1 of 46
`
`
`
`JEFFREY C. HALLAM (State Bar No. 161259)
`jhallam@sideman.com
`E-Mail:
`LYNDSEY C. HEATON (State Bar No. 262883)
`lheaton@sideman.com
`E-Mail:
`MICHAEL H. HEWITT (State Bar No. 309691)
`mhewitt@sideman.com
`E-Mail:
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, Twenty-Second Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3711
`Telephone:
`(415) 392-1960
`Facsimile:
`(415) 392-0827
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cisco Systems, Inc.
`and Cisco Technology, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California
`corporation; CISCO TECHNOLOGY,
`INC., a California corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` CASE NO. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
`
`1. INDUCING BREACH AND INTERFERING
` WITH CONTRACT;
`2. FRAUD
`3. AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD
`4. CONSPIRACY
`5. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;
`6. TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, 15
` U.S.C. § 1114;
`7. TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING, 15
` U.S.C. § 1114;
`8. FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION, 15
` U.S.C. § 1125;
`9. CALIFORNIA UNFAIR BUSINESS
` PRACTICES, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §
` 17200, et. seq.; and,
`10. UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`MUSHKIN, INC., a Colorado corporation
`(d/b/a ENHANCED NETWORK
`SYSTEMS); JEFFREY RAMEY, an
`individual; DOES 1-10,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3629
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 2 of 46
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Cisco Systems, Inc. (“CSI”) and Cisco Technology, Inc. (“CTI”) (together,
`
`“Cisco” or “Plaintiffs”), hereby complain and allege against Defendants Mushkin, Inc., a Colorado
`
`(d/b/a Enhanced Network Systems ) (“ENS” or “Enhanced Network Systems”) and Jeffrey Ramey
`
`(“Ramey”) (together, “Defendants’) as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`From December 2016 to October 2018, Ramey, a Senior Account Manager at
`
`Cisco Authorized Reseller, General Data Tech (“GDT”), in collusion with secondary market
`
`unauthorized reseller ENS, orchestrated and maintained a sophisticated fraud scheme against
`
`Cisco by using the name of a falsified end user – Provident Realty Advisors (“Provident”) – to
`
`obtain significant discounts on millions of dollars’ worth of Cisco products. The charade involved
`
`repeated, false statements to Cisco regarding “Provident,” claiming that this purported end user
`
`needed discounted pricing for large amounts of networking products to be put in service in various
`
`real estate developments. In truth, Cisco’s later investigation revealed that the real Provident
`
`Realty Advisors had never purchased Cisco products, never heard of Ramey, and had never agreed
`
`to act as a “front” for Ramey and ENS’ scheme. The products, instead, went to ENS’ true end
`
`customers and the profit from the fraudulently obtained discounts, on information and belief, was
`
`split between Ramey and ENS. Over the course of their scheme, Ramey and ENS purchased
`
`approximately $17.1 Million worth of Cisco products by fraudulently negotiating discounts of 70-
`
`80%, resulting in millions of dollars in loss to Cisco.
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants also worked together to induce numerous
`
`Cisco Authorized Resellers to breach their agreements with Cisco by purchasing products from the
`
`“Provident” scheme.
`3.
`
`The “Provident” scheme ended only after Cisco’s internal Brand Protection team
`
`discovered that the products sold under the Provident account had ended up with numerous end
`
`customers all over the country with no connection to or association with the real “Provident Realty
`
`Advisors,” a real estate development company located in Dallas, Texas.
`4.
`
`In addition, for over a decade, Defendant ENS has been selling, attempting to sell,
`
`offering to sell, importing, and/or distributing counterfeit “Cisco” products to customers, including
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3629
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`the governmental entities and companies with other sensitive infrastructure. Cisco is aware of at
`
`least 477 counterfeit Cisco products ENS sold to customers including the U.S. Department of the
`
`Navy, the U.S. Justice Department, and California Department of Industrial Relations.
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a California
`
`corporation, with its principal place of business at 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, California
`
`95134. Plaintiff Cisco Technology, Inc. is, and at all times mentioned herein was a California
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, California
`
`95134. CTI owns the trademarks used by CSI in marketing Cisco-branded products.
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Mushkin, Inc. is, and at all relevant times
`
`was, a corporation located in Colorado with its principal business address at 14 Inverness Drive
`
`East, Suite F-100, Englewood, Colorado 80112 and does business under the name “Enhanced
`
`Network Systems.”
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Ramey is, and at all relevant times was, an
`
`individual residing in Texas, with the last known address of 309 Scenic Glen Drive, Mansfield,
`
`Texas 76063.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This Court has diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332. Each of the Plaintiffs is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California,
`
`having its principal place of business in the State of California. Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendant ENS is a corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Colorado.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Ramey is a citizen of the State of Texas. The amount in
`
`controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`9.
`
`This Court also has original subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`relating to violations of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. (the “Lanham Act”)
`
`pursuant to the provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, as well as under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a) and (b).
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 4 of 46
`
`
`
`10.
`
`This Court further has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent
`
`state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as those claims are so related to Cisco’s claims under
`
`federal law that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus
`
`of operative facts.
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants ENS and Ramey, who have
`
`engaged in substantial business activities in this district, misled consumers and Plaintiffs by their
`
`conduct in this district or conduct directed into this district, directed business activities at this
`
`district, and committed tortious acts with knowledge that the effects of their acts would be felt by
`
`Cisco in this district.
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because a substantial
`
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to Cisco’s claims occurred in this judicial district, and a
`
`substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district. Venue is
`
`also proper because Defendants are each subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of
`
`California.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`13.
`
`In accordance with Civ. L.R. 3-2(c), this action is properly assigned to the San
`
`Francisco Division or the San Jose Division as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
`
`rise to Cisco’s claims occurred in the San Francisco Division and a substantial part of the property
`
`that is the subject of the action is situated in the San Jose Division.
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Cisco’s Business and History
`
`Cisco was founded in 1984 and is the worldwide leader in developing,
`
`A.
`14.
`
`implementing, and providing the technologies behind networking, communications, and
`
`information technology products and services. Cisco develops and provides a broad range of
`
`networking products and services that enable seamless communication among individuals,
`
`businesses, public institutions, government agencies, and service providers. Specifically, the
`
`thousands of engineers who work at Cisco develop and provide networking and communications
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`hardware, software, and services that utilize cutting-edge technologies to transport data, voice, and
`
`video within buildings, across cities and campuses, and around the world.
`15.
`
`Since its founding, Cisco has pioneered many of the important technologies that
`
`created and enabled global interconnectivity. During the past three decades, Cisco has invested
`
`billions of dollars, and the time and dedication of thousands of its engineers, in the research,
`
`development, and sale of industry-leading networking and communications products and services.
`16.
`
`Cisco has also built up tremendous goodwill and brand reputation among
`
`consumers, including corporate and government consumers, through significant investment in
`
`advertising, promoting, and delivering products, software, and services of the highest quality
`
`under Cisco’s CISCO trademark and trade name and the family of CISCO-related trademarks (the
`
`“CISCO Marks”). Cisco has used the family of CISCO Marks to identify goods and services as
`
`being genuine and authorized, and therefore, the CISCO Marks are well-recognized signifiers of
`
`Cisco’s best-in-class products, software, and services.
`
`B.
`17.
`
`Cisco’s Sales Procedures and Discount Fraud Deterrence Approach
`
`Cisco’s annual revenue from the sale of hardware, software, and related services is
`
`approximately $50 billion dollars world-wide. In order to support this global market, for the great
`
`majority of its sales, Cisco relies upon a system of independent distributors and resellers located
`
`throughout the world. This system is commonly used in the IT hardware and networking industry.
`
`These independent distributors and resellers, referred to as “Authorized Channel Partners,”
`
`“Partners” or “Authorized Resellers,” typically represent several other equipment manufacturers,
`
`in addition to Cisco. Among other things, Cisco’s distribution system allows it to maintain
`
`expertise and a local presence in regions of the world where there would not otherwise be
`
`sufficient business to support it.
`18.
`
`Authorized Resellers are required to enter into contractual relationships with Cisco
`
`that allow them to purchase Cisco products and services at a partner discount from Cisco’s
`
`authorized distributors. The most common contractual relationship is called an Indirect Channel
`
`Partnership Agreement (“ICPA”). This agreement requires Authorized Resellers to purchase
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`Cisco products and services only from Cisco or authorized distributors and to sell those products
`
`and services only to end customers for their internal use (“End Users”).
`19.
`
`On occasion, a customer will request a large, non-standard discount in order to
`
`purchase Cisco products. Typically, this occurs when an End User has a major project and has the
`
`choice of installing Cisco network hardware or products sold by one of Cisco’s competitors. In
`
`such an instance, a Cisco Authorized Reseller may request that Cisco and the Authorized
`
`Distributor approve a deviation from the standard pricing, to permit the Authorized Reseller to
`
`purchase the equipment at a discounted price from the Authorized Distributor, and then sell the
`
`products to the End User at the discounted price. Depending on the extent of the deviation, a
`
`particular discount request is reviewed by Financial Controllers, a Region Manager (“RM”), or
`
`even an Operations Director (“OD”).
`20.
`
`Generally, Cisco Authorized Resellers are not permitted to sell to other Authorized
`
`Resellers or unauthorized resellers (such as Defendant ENS) and can only sell Cisco products to
`
`End Users themselves. Cisco Authorized Resellers are also required to purchase Cisco products
`
`only directly from Cisco Authorized Distributors or Cisco itself and may not purchase Cisco
`
`products from other Authorized Resellers or unauthorized resellers (such as Defendant ENS).
`
`Cisco Authorized Resellers purchase Cisco products at prices that are set by the Authorized
`
`Distributor, and which typically amount to discounts in the amount of approximately 35%-42%
`
`depending upon the Authorized Reseller’s partnership level.
`21.
`
`Generally, discount fraud schemes against Cisco require a level of sophistication
`
`and knowledge about Cisco’s distribution model that is typically only achievable with an intimate
`
`knowledge of Cisco’s internal operations. While Cisco’s internal controls have made a material
`
`difference in deterring such schemes, a sophisticated individual or entity implementing a complex
`
`and successful discount fraud scheme can cause Cisco to suffer significant financial harm.
`
`C.
`22.
`
`Cisco SMARTnet Contracts and Warranty
`
`In addition to selling its products, Cisco also sells optional service contracts, known
`
`as “SMARTnet” contracts. Identifying and correcting customers’ technical problems in a prompt
`
`and efficient manner is an important part of Cisco’s business model because customers often rely
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`upon Cisco products for mission critical functions. SMARTnet contracts provide customers with
`
`enhanced warranty service on their purchased products on an expedited basis.
`23.
`
`On the relatively rare occasions when Cisco parts fail, SMARTnet contracts offer
`
`customers “Advance Replacement Parts.” As the name suggests, the “Advance Replacement
`
`Parts” feature, or “Return Material Authorizations (“RMAs”), provide customers with an advance
`
`replacement of a malfunctioning Cisco product before the customer returning the defective
`
`product to Cisco. This prevents customers from having long periods of downtime to their
`
`networks. The terms and conditions of the SMARTnet contract require, in part, that (1) the
`
`product for which advance replacement is sought be validly covered by the SMARTnet contract,
`
`and (2) the customer return the allegedly defective product giving rise to the claim made pursuant
`
`to the SMARTnet contract. The customer must pay Cisco if it fails to return the failed part for
`
`which it made a claim.
`
`D.
`24.
`
`Cisco’s Trademarks
`
`CTI owns all rights, title, and interest in the CISCO Marks, which are included on
`
`the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The CISCO Marks are well-
`
`known. They are used in connection with Cisco’s networking hardware and software products and
`
`services. They include, but are not limited to, the following marks that are used in interstate
`
`commerce:
`
`Mark
`
`CISCO
`CISCO SYSTEMS
`CISCO
`
`Registration Number
`1,542,339
`1,996,957
`2,498,746
`
`Registration Date
`June 6, 1989
`August 27, 1996
`October 16, 2001
`
`CISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3,759,451
`
`3,978,294
`
`4,263,591
`
`March 9, 2010
`
`June 14, 2011
`
`
`December 25, 2012
`
`
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 8 of 46
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`The CISCO Marks are distinctive, having no meaning outside of their use by Cisco
`
`in its course of business operations and in its advertising to distinguish its products and services.
`
`Cisco uses the CISCO Marks to advertise through a wide variety of media including television,
`
`radio, newspapers, magazines, billboards, direct mail, and websites.
`26.
`
`Cisco has attained one of the highest levels of brand recognition among consumers
`
`due to its extensive advertising and promotional efforts and its continuous use of its core CISCO
`
`Marks for the past three decades. As a result of Cisco’s longstanding and widespread use and
`
`promotion of the CISCO Marks, Cisco customers around the globe have come to rely upon the
`
`CISCO Marks to identify Cisco’s high-quality hardware, software, and services.
`27.
`
`Cisco’s customers associate Cisco’s famous and well-known CISCO Marks
`
`exclusively with Cisco and Cisco’s products and services. When consumers encounter these
`
`marks and decide to purchase goods and services identified by these marks, they expect to receive
`
`genuine Cisco products that have been produced by Cisco and meet Cisco’s rigorous quality
`
`control standards.
`
`E.
`28.
`
`Counterfeit “Cisco” Products
`
`Counterfeit products that bear markings similar or identical to the CISCO Marks
`
`provide customers with a false assurance that the products they have purchased: (1) are reliable
`
`and conform with Cisco’s high standards, (2) come with applicable warranties, (3) can be placed
`
`under a Cisco service support contract (i.e., SMARTnet) without payment of extra relicensing or
`
`inspection fees, and (4) have been produced in accordance with Cisco’s quality assurance
`
`standards.
`29.
`
`In addition to harming Cisco’s customers, the sale of counterfeit Cisco products
`
`also harms Cisco in many ways. Among these, counterfeit Cisco products which fail or degrade
`
`create the false impression that Cisco products are unreliable, thereby improperly tarnishing
`
`Cisco’s reputation and causing Cisco to suffer lost sales and future business opportunities. When
`
`customers purchase Cisco-branded parts that are counterfeit and unreliable, their image of Cisco is
`
`diminished and Cisco’s opportunity to sell genuine, high-quality products to those customers may
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 9 of 46
`
`
`
`be lost forever. As a result, Cisco suffers substantial and irreparable harm to its brand, image,
`
`business, and goodwill with the public. Cisco also suffers lost sales when customers purchase
`
`counterfeit products instead of genuine Cisco products. Cisco also suffers when a customer
`
`obtains SMARTnet coverage for a counterfeit product, which Cisco may then feel obligated to
`
`service and replace, if necessary, for customer service and satisfaction reasons.
`
`F.
`
`Impact on Health, Safety, and National Security Caused By Counterfeit Cisco
`Products
`
`30.
`
`Cisco products are part of the backbone of the United States information network.
`
`Many of Cisco’s products are purchased by U.S. governmental entities, the military, hospitals, and
`
`by other industries, and used in important and life-essential applications. Certain critical
`
`governmental and other infrastructure is built on, and relies upon, Cisco products to maintain the
`
`security of data storage and transfer.
`31.
`
`The importance of certain critical infrastructure’s reliance on the quality of Cisco
`
`products cannot be overstated. Cisco firewalls, for example, ensure the integrity of government,
`
`medical, and business data and communications. Many critical government functions rely upon
`
`the performance of high-quality Cisco products, as compared to the dangers posed by lower
`
`quality counterfeits.
`
`G.
`32.
`
`Defendants’ Fraudulent Conduct
`
`As described above, Ramey and ENS worked together for nearly two years to
`
`perpetrate a massive discount fraud scheme and obtain unwarranted, steep discounts on Cisco
`
`product by providing false information regarding purported End User “Provident.”
`33.
`
`Ramey worked as a Senior Account Manager for Cisco Authorized Reseller GDT
`
`from approximately late 2016 until October 2018. As an employee or independent contractor of
`
`Cisco Authorized Reseller GDT, Ramey had the ability to request discounted pricing from Cisco.
`
`Upon information and belief, based on his experience at GDT (and prior employers who also sold
`
`Cisco products), Ramey was familiar with the process for requesting and obtaining discounted
`
`pricing from Cisco.
`
`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
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 10 of 46
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Cisco’s investigation of the “Provident” scheme has
`
`uncovered that, on or around December 6, 2016, prior to the first transactions with Cisco under the
`
`“Provident” name, Jeff Ramey, Bill Cox (Director of Sales at ENS), and Charles Carlson (CEO of
`
`Comware Inc., a broker specializing in the sale of audio-visual equipment) met, presumably
`regarding the purchase of Cisco products under the “Provident” account.1
`35.
`Just days later, in or around December 12, 2016, Ramey contacted Cisco claiming
`
`that GDT had a new customer, Provident, that was looking to purchase $5 million worth of Cisco
`
`products. Ramey told Cisco that Provident was a real estate company based in Dallas that
`
`purchased and installed networking products in the buildings it developed. Ramey also told Cisco
`
`that, to make the deal work, Provident would need approximately 70-80% off of the list price in
`
`order to “… replace all of the HP switches in [Provident’s] existing building.” Ramey further
`
`claimed that more deals would follow as Provident had plans to develop several other buildings
`
`through the rest of that fiscal year and would likely purchase more Cisco product as a result.
`
`Cisco would later discover that, while “Provident Realty Advisors” was a legitimate real estate
`
`company located in Dallas, its representatives had never heard of Ramey and claim to have never
`
`purchased Cisco products.
`36.
`
`On the first Provident deal, based on the information provided by Ramey and relied
`
`upon by Cisco, Cisco approved a discount of approximately 66% off Cisco’s Global List Price,
`
`agreeing to sell $900,000 worth of products for approximately $300,000. While Ramey was
`
`telling Cisco that discounts were needed to replace HP (a competitor’s) gear in a building
`
`Provident owned, he was separately emailing with Bill Cox at ENS about filling a stocking order
`
`1 Upon information and belief, Charles Carlson is a personal contact of Ramey. Cisco is
`
`informed that Ramey knew Carlson from Mr. Ramey’s prior employment with a company called
`Synetra. Cisco is informed that Synetra’s and Comware’s offices were located in the same
`building and that Ramey and Carlson would often refer business to each other. Cisco has also
`uncovered information suggesting that Ramey and Carlson also owned an LLC together
`(Todoverde Consulting Ventures, LLC) during the Provident scheme, as described more-fully
`below. Later on in the Provident scheme, Comware acted as an intermediary between GDT and
`ENS, the unauthorized reseller ultimately selling the fraudulently obtained “Provident” gear to end
`customers.
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 11 of 46
`
`
`
`for ENS with the very same Cisco product. On December 16, 2016, just days after Ramey
`
`submitted the first Provident discount request to Cisco, Cox sent Ramey an order for Cisco
`
`products identical or nearly identical to the products included in the discount request submitted by
`
`Ramey to Cisco for the Provident “HP replacements.” Emails between Cox and Ramey also
`
`detailed the margin split between Ramey and ENS, showing “Jeff’s” margin as $47,750 and
`
`“Bill’s” margin at $41,322.
`37.
`
`On December 19, 2016, Ryan Bolger, an Operations Manager at ENS, sent Ramey
`
`a purchase order for the gear identified in the ENS estimate, showing the end customer as “PRA,”
`
`(indicating “Provident Realty Advisors”) and listing the address as 2838 Market Loop, Suite 100,
`
`Southlake, Texas – an address that, upon information and belief, is associated with Comware, a
`
`company run by Ramey’s associate Charles Carlson, and not related in any way with the real
`
`Provident Realty Advisors. At that time, Ramey did not tell Cisco that ENS was involved in the
`
`purchase of product under the “Provident” name.
`38.
`
`Thereafter, Ramey submitted the first order of products under the “Provident”
`
`account to Cisco, either directly or through an assistant. Cisco is informed and on that basis
`
`alleges that such product was never intended for and never made it to the real Provident Realty
`
`Advisors.
`39.
`
`From December 2016 on, until the scheme was uncovered by Cisco Brand
`
`Protection in October 2018, Ramey continued to process orders for ENS under the “Provident”
`
`account in the same manner. Cisco’s investigation has revealed that Ramey would receive
`
`requests for orders from ENS – for either ENS’ true end customers, or for product to stock ENS’
`
`shelves – and process them under the “Provident” account name at Cisco, requesting steep
`
`discounts based on falsified information. Ramey consistently requested discounts between 70-
`
`80%, claiming that such pricing was necessary to beat out competitors for different Provident
`
`development projects. For example, Ramey told one of Cisco’s account managers that the
`
`discounted pricing was needed on networking equipment to outfit a new “Ross building” as part of
`
`a larger project of building rollouts. In fact, the “Ross building” project was used to justify
`
`discounts on at least 30 separate discount requests to Cisco. Upon information and belief, the
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 12 of 46
`
`
`
`“Ross building” was a pure fabrication by either Ramey, ENS, or both, and the name “Ross” was
`
`used because Ross Miller is Director of Operations at ENS and was often listed as the contact
`
`point for products being shipped to “Provident.”
`40.
`
`Except for the first shipment (which was associated with an address linked to
`
`Comware), all shipments for product under the “Provident” account were delivered not to the real
`
`Provident Realty Advisors, nor its developments, but directly to ENS’ address in Colorado: 141
`
`Inverness Drive West, Englewood.
`41.
`
`Throughout the run of the “Provident” scheme, Ramey prevented the account
`
`managers at Cisco from having any direct contact with the end customer at “Provident,” despite
`
`repeated requests. Ramey refused to provide contact information and insisted that all
`
`communication to “Provident” flow through him and his team at GDT, claiming that “Provident”
`
`did not want to interface directly with Cisco. When one Cisco representative attempted to contact
`
`“Provident” directly, upon information and belief, Ramey became very upset and refused to work
`
`with that Cisco representative ever again.
`42.
`
`Ramey claimed to be in contact with certain individuals at “Provident” who would
`
`dictate the products needed and negotiate price points. Ramey would sometimes indicate that he
`
`had spoken with or was planning on speaking with “Tony” at “Provident,” and at other times said
`
`he had spoken with or was planning on speaking with “Tommy Sanders” at the company. Cisco’s
`
`investigation would later uncover that no “Tony” or “Tommy Sanders” ever worked at Provident
`
`Realty Advisors and that no one at Provident Realty Advisors had any recollection of ordering any
`
`Cisco product. Instead, all of the Cisco product ordered by Ramey for “Provident” went to service
`
`ENS’ customers.
`
`i.
`
`ENS’ Sales to the San Francisco Airport
`
`43.
`
`One example of Ramey’s and ENS’ scheme is particularly illustrative – the April
`
`2017 sale of Cisco products to the San Francisco International Airport.
`44.
`
`On April 26, 2017, Cox at ENS emailed Ramey and Ramey’s assistant, Venida
`
`Jackson, regarding the purchase of 7 industrial Cisco Ethernet switches and 14 power supplies.
`
`2835-246\4142223
`
`
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-7514
`
`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
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
`
`ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, 22ND FLOOR
`
`SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07514 Document 1 Filed 11/14/19 Page 13 of 46
`
`
`
`45.
`
`The next day, on April 27, 2017, Ramey created an estimate on Cisco’s “Build
`
`Price” tool for 7 industrial Ethernet switches and 14 power supplies, describing it as a “PRA
`
`industrial switch deal.” Ramey shared the quote with an Account Manager at Cisco, who then
`
`submitted the deal request under Deal ID number 17680067 under the “Provident” account, with
`
`notes indicating that Ramey claimed a discount was necessary in order to beat out the competition
`
`for “Provident’s” business in a highly competitive time frame. Cisco approved a 68% discount
`
`based on Ramey’s submission.
`46.
`
`On April 28, 2017, Ross Miller, Director of Operations at ENS, sent Ramey a
`
`purchase order for the seven switches and corresponding power supplies with a “Ship To” address
`of “Mushkin, Inc./ENS”2 at ENS’ Englewood, Colorado address. Provident’s name did not appear
`on the purchase order. Ramey then submitted an order for the same switches and power supplies
`
`to Cisco, but under the “Provident” account.
`47.
`
`On May 16, 2017, after the products had been shipped to ENS, Miller sent Ramey
`
`and Venida Jackson a separate purchase order for SMARTnet coverage for the same seven
`
`switches. The cover email identified product serial numbers which linked back to the same seven
`
`switches ordered under the “Provident” Deal ID 17680067 approved on April 27, 2017. In the
`
`order for SMARTnet coverage, Miller also identified the true End User of the products as “San
`
`Francisco International Airport,” which, upon in