Willett V Procopio, Cuba Beverage, Zouvas

Case 3:17-cv-02144-LAB-JMA Document 1 Filed 10/19/17 PageID.
1 Page 1 of 27
FILED
Margaret Willett Oct 19 2017
316 ProsiJect St~ Unit 1
2 La Jolla, CA 92u37 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Ph: (858) 525-1485 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY sl Joseph! DEPUTY
3 margaretwillett@yahoo.com
4
5 Plaintiff in Pro Se
6
7
8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
II MARGARET WILLETT
Case No: '17CV2144 LAB JMA
12 Plaintiff
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
13 DAMAGES FOR:
vs.
14 1. Fraud in the Offer or Sale of
ALEX PROCOPIO, an individual; Securities (Violations of Section
15 and as CEO & President of Cuba 17(a) of the Securities Act;
Beverage Comp~ny;_LUKE ZOUV AS 2. Fraud in Connection of The Sales
16 an individual; MARK ZOUVAS, an And Purchase of Securities
individual, and as CFO of Cuba (Violations of of Section 1O(b)
17 Beverage Company; JONATHAN M. of the Exchange Act and Rule
SHIF:Jf, an individual; and DOES 1-10 10b-5 thereunaer);
18 INCLuSIVE 3. Conspiracy; ·
4. Investment Fraud;
19 5. Fraudulent Inducement;
Defendants 6. Concealment Fraud;
20 7. Constructive Fraud;
8. Monetary Conversion;
21 9. Accountmg;
10. Constructive Trust;
22 11. Breach of Fiduciary Duties
(And Aiding And Abetting Thereof)
23 12. Restitution {Unjust Enrichment)
24 JURY DEMANDED
25
26 /././
27 /././
28 /././
Case 3:17-cv-02144-LAB-JMA Document 1 Filed 10/19/17 PageID.2 Page 2 of 27
I Margaret Willett
316 Prospect St:.< Unit 1
2 La Jolla, CA 92v37
Ph: (858) 525-1485
3 margaretwillett@yahoo.com
4
5 Plaintiff in Pro Se
6
8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
II MARGARET WILLETT
Case No:
12 Plaintiff
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
13 DAMAGES FOR:
vs.
14 1. Fraud in the Offer or Sale of
ALEX PROCOPIO, an individual; Securities ( Violations of Section
15 and as CEO & President of Cuba 17(a) of the Securities Act;
Beverage Company; LUKE ZOUVAS 2. Fraud in Connection of The Sales
16 an individual; MARK ZOUVAS, an And Purchase of Securities
individual, and as CFO of Cuba (Violations of of Section 1O(b)
17 Beverage Company; JONATHANM. of the Exchange Act and Rule
SHIF~,_ an individual; and DOES 1-10 10b-5 thereunaer);
18 INCLuSIVE 3. Conspiracy; ·
4. Investment Fraud;
19 5. Fraudulent Inducement;
Defendants 6. Concealment Fraud;
20 7. Constructive Fraud;
8. Monetary Conversion;
21 9. Accountmg;
10. ConstructiVe Trust;
22 11. Breach of Fiduciary Duties
(And Aiding And Abetting Thereof)
23 12. Restitution (Unjust Enrichment)
24 JURY DEMANDED
25
26 !.!./
27 !././
28 /././
I Plaintiff, Margaret Willett, on her own behalf, hereby alleges the

2 following based on her own personal knowledge, information and belief:
3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b ),
5 20(d)(l), and 22(a) ofthe Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§
6 77t(b), 77t(d)(1), & 77v(a), and Sections 21(d)(1), 21(d)(3)(A), 21(e), and 27 of
7 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(1),
8 78u( d)(3 )(A), 78u(e) & 78aa. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
9 Plaintiffs state claims under 28 U.S. Code§ 1367.
10 Defendants have, directly or indirectly made use of the means or
II instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a
12 national securities exchange, in connection with the transactions, acts, practices
13 and courses of business alleged in this complaint.
14 Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 22(a) of the
15 Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), and Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15
16 U.S. C.§ 78aa, because the defendants reside and conduct business in the district
17 and because certain of the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of conduct
18 constituting violations of the federal securities laws occurred within this district.
19 PARTIES
20 1. At all relevant times herein, the Plaintiff, Margaret Willett, resided in
21 and continues to reside in the County of San Diego, State of California.
22 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, that Defendant, Alex Procopio
23 (hereinafter, "Procopio), was at all times relevant, the CEO and President of Cuba
24 Beverage Company, Inc., (hereinafter, "CUBA") a suspended Wyoming
25 Corporation, with its principal place of business located at 655 India St., San
26 Diego, County of San Diego, State of California. Procopio is also believed to
27 personally reside within San Diego County.
28 /././
-2-
1 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant, Luke Zouvas

2 (hereinafter, "Luke Z"), was at all times relevant hereto, both legal counsel and
3 an insider/stockholder of CUBA and is also believed to personally reside within
4 San Diego County.
5 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant,
6 Mark Zouvas (hereinafter, "Mark Z. "), is and was at all relevant times, the CFO
7 of Cuba and an insider stockholder, and is believed to be a resident of San Diego
8 County.
9 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant,
10 Jonathan Shiff is an individual, and was also legal counsel for Cuba and an
11 insider and stockholder and resides in San Diego County.
12 6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities ofDefendants
13 sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, and therefore sue such Defendants by such
14 fictitious name. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names
15 and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff are informed and believe and, based
16 thereon, allege that each of the fictitiously named Defendant is responsible in
17 some manner for the injuries to Plaintiff as alleged herein and that such injuries
18 as herein alleged were proximately caused by such Defendants.
19 7. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all
20 times herein mentioned each of the Defendants was the agent, employee,
21 corporate officer or co-conspirator of the remaining Defendants, and based on
22 said alleged status, was/were acting within the course and scope of such agency,
23 employment corporate position nd/or, common scheme.
24 SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
25 8. In September 2010, Plaintiff Margaret Willett, (hereinafter "WILLETT")
26 was approached by Jonathan M. Shiff (hereinafter, "SHIFF"), (an insider), to
27 invest proceeds from an insurance settlement received from the death of her
28 father in an energy drink manufactured by a company called CUBV.
-3-
I 9. Shiff is an attorney who was representing CUBV's CEO, Defendant,

2 Alex Procopio, (hereinafter, "PROCOPIO"). At that time CUBV was being sold
3 in Costco stores. The Company was also promoted to have just won a national
4 energy drink contest in Miami, Florida.
5 10. Plaintiff invested a total of $150,000 in the Cuba Beverage Company
6 directed by its current CEO, Defendant Alex Procopio, for a 5% share in the
7 company which equaled two million shares of the agreed forty million share
8 issuance. These shares were agreed to be non-dilutional. Plaintiff was to have
9 received from SHIFF all necessary paperwork to complete this agreement,
10 including, but not limited to, stock certificates. however none of the paperwork
II and/or stock certificates were delivered to Plaintiff by SHIFF.
12 11. SHIFF would go on to be the "handler" of monies being distributed
13 ' from the CUBV IPO. Plaintiff is informed and believes that millions of dollars
14 worth of proceeds from the CUBV IPO were received by SHIFF. Repeated
15 requests by Willett to get information and obtain her stock certificates from Shiff
16 went unanswered and ignored.
17 12. CUBV was brought public@ $1.00 per share in November 2010,
18 however Plaintiff received no stock or proceeds from the IPO event. Plaintiff
19 thereafter discovered that the insiders (Defendants herein), and promoters began
20 to liquidate the securities in a classic "Pump and Dump" scheme. 1
21 13. Immediately, numerous phoney and false press releases were issued by
22 CUBV even though the stock continued to drop. Plaintiff still received no shares,
23 however she discovers that insiders including Procopio, Shiff, Luke Zouvas Mark
24 Zouvas continue to sell off their shares.
25 /././
26
1
. Pump and dump is a scheme that attempts to boost the price of a stock through recommendations based on false, misleading or greatly
27 exaggerated statements. The perpetrators of this scheme, who already have an established position in the company's stock, sell their positions after
28 the hype has led to a higher share price.
- 4-
I 14. Plaintiff finally receives a total of 1,036,378 RESTRICTED shares of

2 CUBV stock after the insiders (Defendants herein) sold their shares, which she
3 could not sell, and for an amount far less than what was promised.
4 15. The Cuba Beverage Company quarterly report dated August 15,
5 2015 reported zero sales, zero inventory and zero cash, and yet Defendant
6 Procopio "awarded" himself FIVE HUNDRED MILLION (500,000,000)
7 SHARES of Cuba Beverage Company stock in exchange for just $5,000 worth of
8 debt he claimed was owed to him. In addition defendant Procopio "awarded"
9 "four independent parties" alleged to be Procopio's lawyers at the Zouvas Law
10 Group, including, but not limited to, Luke Zouvas, and the brother of Luke
11 Zouvas (not a member of the firm), Mark Zouvas, TWO HUNDRED AND
12 TWENTY MILLION (220,000,000) SHARES of Cuba Beverage Company in
13 return for just $2,200 of total alleged debt for these shares.
14 16. These artificially-valued awards of stock to defendants and the Zouvas
15 Law Group have destroyed the value of all other Cuba Beverage Company
16 shareholders stock and have wiped out the investments of innocent shareholders
17 in Cuba Beverage Company. Yet, at or about the same time, CUBA was paying
18 Penny Stock reviewers over $60,000, to falsely pump up the value of the stock,
19 for the purpose of attracting unwitting investors to buy the inflated shares, and
20 then having certain insiders (defendants herein) then suddenly sell the over-
21 valued shares- effectively stealing money directly from the innocent share
22 purchasing public ..
23 17. In September 2015, Plaintiff asked Defendant Procopio to provide
24 her with a list of shareholder names, and other information relating to the
25 above-referenced shares transfers Procopio was further ordered to do so by San
26 Diego Superior Court Judge Frederick A. Mandabach on September 18, 2015.
27 To date, no such information has been produced.
28 /././
-5-
1 18. Earlier in 2015, Plaintiff demanded that these shares be returned to

2 the company and that Procopio immediately resign as CEO and demanded that
3 the Board of this corporation investigate these claims and take the actions
4 requested within 10 days of the date of the Demand letter.
5 19. Plaintiff further demanded that these shares be returned to the
6 company and that Defendant Procopio immediately resign as CEO, and that the
7 Board of this corporation investigate these claims and take the actions requested
8 within 10 days of the date of this letter.
9 20. The company now known as CUBA, has a long history of name
10 changes, and following monetary trends such as metals in the early part of this
11 century, then real estate at its peak in 2006, and now, jumping on the health drink
12 craze with an herbal energy drink, which it marketed for a short time. In each
13 case, the company was funded by penny stock sales, the value of which it
14 consistently pumped up with paid promotions by Penny Stock gurus and web
15 sites, after which, the stock was dumped at the peak of its value, with the bulk
16 transferred to insiders for resale, leaving investors such as the Plaintiff with
17 penniless paper with no value.
18 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Procopio,
19 Shiff, Luke Zouvas Mark Zouvas all unlawfully enriched themselves in this
20 fraudulent Pump and Dump scheme.
21
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
22 FRAUD IN THE OFFER OR SALE OF SECURITIES
Violations of Section 17(a) ofthe Securities Act
23 (As to All Defendants)
24 22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations
25 made in~~ 1 through 21, as fully set forth above.
26 23. Defendants ALEX PROCOPIO, LUKE ZOUVAS, MARK ZOUVAS,
27 and JONATHAN M. SHIFF, and each of them, by engaging in the conduct
28 described above, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities by the use
- 6-
1 or means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate

2 commerce or by use of the mails:
3 a. with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;
4 b. obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of a
5 material fact or by omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
6 statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, 110t
7 misleading; or
8 c. engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which
9 operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.
10 By engaging in the conduct described above, each of the defendants
11 violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section
12 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a).
13 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14 FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE
OR SALE OF SECURITIES
15 (Violations of Section lO(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule lOb-5 thereunder)
(As to All Defendants)
16
17 24. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations

19 25. Defendants Alex Procopio, LUKE ZOUVAS, MARK ZOUVAS, and
20 JONATHAN M. SHIFF ,and each of them, by engaging in the conduct described
21 above, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security,
22 by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or
23 of the facilities of a national securities exchange, with scienter:
24 a. employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;
25 b. made untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state a material
26 fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the
27 circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
28
- 7-
1 c. engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or.

2 would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.
3 26. By engaging in the conduct described above, each ofthe defendants
4 violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section
5 1O(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b ), and Rule 1Ob-5 thereunder, 17
6 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
7 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD
8 (Asserted against all Defendants)
9 27. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations
11 28. As long as two or more persons agree to perform a wrongful act, the
12 law places civil liability for the resulting damage on all of them, regardless of
13 whether they actually commit the tort themselves. The effect of alleging
14 conspiratorial conduct is to impose liability on all who agree to the plan to
15 commit the wrong as well as those who actually carry it out. Therefore a plaintiff
16 is entitled to damages from those defendants who concurred in the tortious
17 scheme with knowledge of its unlawful purpose. Further, the requisite
18 concurrence and knowledge 'may be inferred from the nature of the acts done, the
19 relation of the parties, the interests of the alleged conspirators, and other
20 circumstances. Tacit consent as well as express approval will suffice to hold a
21 person liable as a coconspirator.
22 29. One is subject to liability for conspiracy to defraud if he:
23 (a) does a tortious act in concert with the other or pursuant to a common
24 design with him, or
25 (b) knows that the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives
26 substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself, or
27 /.!./
28 /.!./
- 8-
1 (c) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious

2 result and his own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to
3 the third person. Such liability also extends to those who lend aid or
4 encouragement to the wrongdoer, or ratifY and adopt his acts done for their
5 fraudulent purposes.
6 30. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants above and each of them,
7 conspired with one another in connection with the fraudulent scheme to defraud
8 the Plaintiff and other investors in Cuba, by pumping up the value of the stock
9 and then dumping the CUBA stock on the market to induce further investment,
10 and thereby, increasing the value of the stocks which they almost exclusively
11 owned together and such dumping caused the value of the stock to fall to such
12 extent that the other investors such as the Plaintiff has become valueless. of the
13 Defendants above were aware of the fraudulent activities of the others and, each
14 knew that the marketing of the energy drinks was to be short term and for the
15 purpose of pumping up the value of the excessively issued stock, after which the
16 inflated stock was to be dumped on investors for the purpose of selling the excess
17 stock by insiders who held the majority of the stock, based on fraudulent debt
18 restructuring and who then used the money invested by the Plaintiff and other
19 investors, to enrich themselves by siphoning off the capital investments and
20 leaving a shell corporation with no value. Plaintiff further allege that their
21 conspiracy went beyond mere acquiescence to active participation in the scheme
22 to defraud Plaintiff out of their substantial investment in the various companies I
23 corporations which Defendants and others paid by them had induced them to
24 invest in.
25 31. Plaintiff further alleges that all of the Defendants concurred in the
26 investment scheme and knew that it was wrongful and had an unlawful purpose
27 and intent and that each gave consent and encouragement to the others in
28 committing the fraudulent acts and failures to disclose and/or, to conceal the
-9-
1 fraud from the Plaintiff. Plaintiff also allege that each of the Defendants were
2 aware of their vulnerability to such a fraudulent scheme, based on their age and
3 limited financial resources.
4 32. Despite that knowledge, Plaintiff alleges that each of the Defendants
5 agreed in the furtherance of the fraudulent scheme and each of them unjustly
6 profited from the scheme.
7 33. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent conspiracy of the
8 named defendants, the Plaintiff has been caused to suffer economic damages of
9 at least $500,000 and emotional trauma of being victimized by the Defendants,
10 all to her loss and damage. Further, Plaintiff alleges that the acts of the
11 Defendants were intentional, malicious and committed with a conscious disregard
12 for the consequences suffered by the Plaintiff and therefore, punitive damages
13 are appropriate to deter such action by others and that their damages be enhanced
14 pursuant to California Civil Code, 3345, according to the discretion of the judge
15 Of]ury.
16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of
17 them, as hereinafter set forth.
18 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19 INVESTMENT FRAUD
21
34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations
22
made in~~ 1 through 33, as fully set forth above.
23
24 35. Cal. Corp. Code §25400. "It is unlawful for any person, directly or
indirectly, in this state:
25
26 (a) For the purpose of creating a false or misleading appearance of
active trading in any security or a false or misleading appearance
27 with respect to the market for any security, (1) to effect any
28 transaction in a security which involves no change in the beneficial
ownership thereof, or (2) to enter an order or orders for the purchase
- 10-
1 of any security with the knowledge that an order or orders of

2 substantially the same size, at substantially the same time and at
substantially the same price, for the sale of any such security, has
3
been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties, or (3)
4 to enter an order or orders for the sale of any security with the
knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at
5
substantially the same time and at substantially the same price, for
6 the purchase of any such security, has been or will be entered by or
for the same or different parties.
7
8 (b) To effect, alone or with one or more other persons, a series of

transactions in any security creating actual or apparent active trading
9
in such security or raising or depressing the price of such security,
10 for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by
others.
11
12 (c) If such person is a broker-dealer or other person selling or
offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security,
13 to induce the purchase or sale of any security by the circulation or
14 dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such
security will or is likely to rise or fall because of market operations
15
of any one or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or
16 depressing the price of such security.
17 (d) If such person is a broker-dealer or other person selling or
18 offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security,
to make, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such
19 security by others, any statement which was, at the time and in the
20 light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or
misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omitted to
21
state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements
22 made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading, and which he knew or had reasonable ground to
23
believe was so false or misleading.
24
(e) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a
25 broker-dealer or other person selling or offering for sale or
26 purchasing or offering to purchase the security, to induce the
purchase or sale of any security by the circulation or dissemination
27
of information to the effect that the price of such security will or is
28 likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any one or
- 11 -
1 more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the

price of such security.
2
3 36. Plaintiff alleges the Defendants employed a scheme to deceive and
4 defraud her of the money that she had invested with the Defendants; by
5
devaluing the company stock to such an extent that it has no current value. She
6
alleges that the Defendants made both untrue statements to her and the public
7
about the company that their money was invested with and also omitted critical
8
9 information about the investments, apart from the names of the companies,
10 including, who owned the companies and the value of the stock invested in these
11 compames.
12
37. Plaintiff further alleges the acts of the Defendants and each of them in
13
concert with the others, intended to deceive her as to the true nature and value
14
15 of the stocks purchased and, by concealing the true status of the corporation, that
16 had no value and were used for purposes of committing investment fraud against
17 the Plaintiff and others, based on the lack of any legitimacy of the corporation
18
(suspended), and complete lack of capitalization of the same. Plaintiff also
19
alleges that the stock values were manipulated by Defendants, artificially pumped
20
21
up with false reviews by paid promoters, and large amounts of stock transferred
22 to insiders as it was being pumped through bogus debt transfers and that CUBA
23 is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme to convert investor monetary investments to

24
Defendants and blame the loss on the purported product failure.
25
38. As a direct and proximate result of the investment fraud of the named
26
defendants, the Plaintiff has been caused to suffer economic damages of at
27
28 least $500,000 and emotional trauma of being victimized by the Defendants, all
- 12-
I to her loss and damage. Further, Plaintiff alleges that the acts of the Defendants
2 were intentional, malicious and committed with a conscious disregard for the
3
consequences suffered by the Plaintiff and therefore, punitive damages are
4
appropriate to deter such action by others and that her damages be enhanced .
5
6 pursuant to California Civil Code, 3345, according to the discretion of the judge.

9
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10 FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
11 (Asserted Against All Defendants)
12
13
39. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations
15 40. California law imposes liability on one who falsely induces another to
16
change their legal or financial position to their detriment. The statutory authority
17
for such imposition is as follows:
18
California Civil Code §1709, states as follows:
19
20 "One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to
alter his position to his injucy or risk, is liable for any damage which
21
he thereby suffers."Civil Code §1710 "A deceit, within the meaning
22 of the last section, is either:
23 1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who
24 does not believe it to be true;
25 2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has
no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;
26
27 3. The suppression of a fact. by one who is bound to disclose it, or
who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for
28
want of communication of that fact"
- 13-
I 41. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants and each of them, made false
2 representations with respect to the value of stock that they were induced to
3 purchase, as to the market opportunities for the health drinks, the transfer of
4 stock to company insiders and other information that was concealed and
5 suppressed by Defendants concerning material information about the corporation
6
42. Plaintiff further alleges that she was caused to detrimentally change
7 her financial position based on the false representations of the Defendants as to
8 the nature and legitimacy of the company that they was advised to continue to
9 invest with, and that they were financially injured as a result of the
10 misrepresentations and the concealment of the true facts regarding the
II investments, including the misrepresentations regarding the true value of the
12 Cuba stock at that time, and the prospects for increased value in the future, by
13 Defendant, Shiff, as well as further misrepresentations by the other Defendants,
14 then and thereafter, as to the true value of the stocks and of the Defendants'
15 scheme to artificially pump up the value of the stock and then dump it, which
16 Plaintiff did not realize until the August 15, 2015, quarterly report, showing no
17 value.
18 43. Plaintiff also alleges that she was justified in relying on the
19 representations of the Defendants regarding the financial condition of Cuba
20 Beverage.
21 44. Defendants, and particularly Procopio, represented that they had
22 experience and success in the health drink market. Had the Plaintiff known or
23 had reason to realize that the health drink marketing plan was to be short lived
24 merely to pump up the stock of CUBA with plans to immediately transfer the
25 pumped stock to insiders and then sell it for a huge profit, she would have never
26 further invested in the company, nor changed her financial and legal position in
27 reliance on the presumed direction of the company and financial future. Plaintiff
28 further alleges that the representations by the Defendants and all ofthem
- 14-
1 regarding the status of CUBA, were false and made with the intent of inducing
2 Plaintiff to invest and that Plaintiff reasonably relied on such representations to
3 her detriment.
4 45. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent inducement of the
5 named defendants, the Plaintiff has been caused to suffer economic damages
6 of at least $500,000 and emotional trauma of being victimized by the Defendants,
7 all to her loss and damage. Further, Plaintiff alleges that the acts of the
8 Defendants were intentional, malicious and committed with a conscious disregard
9 for the consequences suffered by the Plaintiff and therefore, punitive damages
10 are appropriate to deter such action by others and that her damages be enhanced
12 or JUry.
13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray judgement against Defendants, and each of
15 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
16 CONCEALMENT FRAUD
17 (Asserted Against All Defendants)
18
46. Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations
20 47. Concealment fraud occurs when there is a fiduciary or other

21 confidential relationship between the parties imposing a duty of full disclosure.
22 The concealing person, with an intention to deceive, does not disclose important
23 facts that the concealing person knows but the victim does not and could not
24 know. Further, the victim reasonably relied on and was harmed by the
25 concealment.
26 48. There are four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment
27 may constitute actionable fraud:
28 1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff;
- 15 -
1 (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not
2 known to the plaintiff;
3 (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff;
4 and·
'
5
(4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses
6
some material facts.
7
49. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Procopio, and other of the Defendants,
8
owed to her a duty of full disclosure of all relevant and material facts regarding
9
the nature of their investments and the true status of the company that her money
10
was being invested with, based on their status as officers and insiders of that
11
company, which created a fiduciary and confidential relationship.
12
50. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant, Procopio and others in
13
conspiracy with him, failed and even refused, to disclose the true financial and
14 legal status of Cuba Beverage that her money was invested in and the true value
15 of the stocks purchased and held by her and instead, actively and fraudulently,
16 suppressed and concealed the true nature of Plaintiffs' investments to hide their
17 wrongful conduct in artificially pumping and dumping the corporate stock to
18 siphon off the Plaintiffs' monetary investment without any disclosure of the
19 same or any oversight of any kind.
20 51. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent concealment of the
21
named defendants, the Plaintiffhas been caused to suffer economic damages of
22
at least $500,000 and emotional trauma of being victimized by the Defendants,
23
all to their loss and damage. Further, Plaintiff alleges that the acts of the
24
Defendants were intentional, malicious and committed with a conscious disregard
25
for the consequences suffered by the Plaintiff and therefore, punitive damages
26 are appropriate to deter such action by others and that their damages be enhanced
28 or JUry.
- 16-
I SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
4 52, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations

5 made in ~~ 1 through 51, as fully set forth above.
6 53. Constructive fraud consists of any breach of duty in which one
7 without actual fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person at fault, or any
8 one claiming under the person at fault, by misleading another to the prejudice of
9 the person misled, or to the prejudice of anyone claiming under the person
10 misled. In addition, constructive fraud consists of any act or omission
II that the law specially declares to be fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud.
12 54. In its generic sense, constructive fraud comprises all acts, omissions
13 and concealments involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or
14 confidence, and resulting in damage to another. Constructive fraud exists in
15 cases in which conduct, although not actually fraudulent, ought to be so treated--
16 that is, in which such conduct is a constructive or quasi fraud, having all the ·
17 actual consequences and all the legal effects of actual fraud.
18 a. In any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains
19 an advantage to the person in fault, or any one claiming under him, by misleading
20 another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; or,
21 b. In any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be
22 fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud."
23 55. Constructive fraud comprises any act, omission or concealment
24 involving a breach oflegal or equitable duty, trust or confidence which results in
25 damage to another, even though the conduct is not otherwise fraudulent. If a ·
26 fiduciary relationship exists, any concealment of material fact is fraud. Unlike
27 actual fraud, constructive fraud does not require an intentional deception, an
28 "intent to deceive being implied from the failure to disclose.
- 17-
1 Further, reasonable reliance is presumed upon a nondisclosure of the

2 fiduciary, absent direct evidence of lack of reliance.
3 56. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, who were agents of the Plaintiff,
4 due to their status as corporate officers and insiders of Cuba Beverage, owed
5 fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff based on the confidential relationship that
6 existed between them, and based on such fiduciary relationship. Plaintiff further
7 alleges that Procopio and the other Defendants, in concert with him, owed duties
8 to the Plaintiff to fully disclose all aspects of the investments being made by the
9 Plaintiff. Such duties also prohibited Procopio and others in concert with him
10 from engaging in self-dealing in an exclusively beneficial manner, as well as a
11 duty of loyalty to the Plaintiff which she claim was breached.
12 57. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Procopio and others in concert with
13 him, breached those duties by gaining an advantage over the Plaintiff, by
14 engaging in self-dealing, in that the Defendants engaged in concealed conduct by
15 hiring promoters to pump up the CUBA stock and then dumping the stock and
16 siphoning off their investments by means ofinsider trading for their own use and
17 benefit, in an unjust manner and in circumvention of the fiduciary duties.
18 58. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of fiduciary and
19 confidential duties by the named defendants, the Plaintiff has been caused to
20 suffer economic damages of at least $500,000 and the emotional trauma of being
21 victimized by the Defendants, all to her loss and damage. Further, Plaintiff
22 alleges that the acts of the Defendants were intentional, malicious and committed
23 with a conscious disregard for the duties owed and the consequences suffered by
24 the Plaintiff and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate to deter such action
25 by others and that their damages be enhanced pursuant to California Civil Code,
26 3345, according to the discretion of the judge or jury.
- 18-
I EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 MONETARY CONVERSION
4 59. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations
6 60. California cases permitting an action for conversion of money
7 typically involve those who have misappropriated, commingled, or misapplied
8 specific funds held for the benefit of others. Thus, a claim for conversion may be
9 stated when there is a special relationship between the parties where the
10 defendant has a duty to retain or apply funds on the plaintiffs behalf, such as
II investments, the remedy of conversion is proper.
12 61. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Procopio and other officers and
13 insiders of Cuba, were fiduciaries of the Plaintiff, based on the confidential
14 nature of the relationship between the parties, in their capacity as officers of
15 Cuba Beverage and managing the Plaintiff money for investment purposes.
16 62. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants breached those duties, by
17 misappropriating corporate funds, allowing the corporation to become suspended
18 and unable to legally operate, by devaluing the stock of the corporation and
19 incurring excessive debt, further affecting the value of the stock, in direct
20 violation of their fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiff, including, but not limited
21 to, those prohibiting self-dealing and duties of loyalty an accounting and full
22 disclosure.
23 63. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent conspiracy of the
24 named defendants, the Plaintiff has been caused to suffer economic damages of
25 at least $500,000 and emotional trauma of being victimized by the Defendants,
26 all to her loss and damage.
27
28 /././
- 19-
1 Further, Plaintiff alleges that the acts of the Defendants above were
2 intentional, malicious and committed with a conscious disregard for the
3 consequences suffered by the Plaintiff and therefore, punitive damages are
4 appropriate to deter such action by others and that her damages be enhanced
6 or Jury.
7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray judgment against Defendants, and each of
9 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10 ACCOUNTING
11 (As to All Defendants
14 65. It is a well-established rule that an action for an accounting is a matter
15 of equity jurisdiction. An accounting is sufficiently stated where the allegations
16 of the complaint show that the defendant was the trusted agent ofthe plaintiff,
17 acting in a fiduciary capacity, and having for a long period of time the entire
18 charge and control of plaintiffs business, and that by various kinds of misconduct
19 which are specially described, defendant caused losses and became liable in
20 various sums of money, the true amounts of which cannot be ascertained and
21 determined without an accounting, there is sufficient ground for an accounting in
22 equity. A cause of action seeking an accounting requires the following: (1) a
23 confidential relationship; (2) an oral agreement pursuant to which respondents
24 became the trusted agents of appellant to handle his money and invest the same in
25 sound securities for his benefit; (3) misconduct of respondents who, contrary to
26 the terms of the agreement, bought and sold speculative and unsound securities
27 with appellant's money for their own gain and secret profit; (4) resulting loss to
28 appellant which cannot be ascertained without an accounting, the means of
-20-
I which are within the knowledge of respondents.

2 66. Plaintiff alleges that a confidential relationship existed between her
3 and the named Defendants above and Procopio in particular, were acting as the
4 controlling officers of Cuba Beverage and by extension, agents of the Plaintiff,
5 and owed to her a duty of full disclosure as to the debts and assets and the value
6 of her stock as well as full disclosure and accounting of the expenses and
7 income derived from the health drink marketing, among other details of the
8 corporate management that would in any way materially affect the value and
9 security of the Plaintiff' stocks.
IO Further, they were acting in the capacity of trusted agents entrusted with
II the prudent management of those monies they obtained from the sale of CUBA
I2 stock to the Plaintiff and other investors in the company.
13 67. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants have failed and refused to
I4 provide her with any information concerning the financial status of the
IS company and value of the stocks they own, despite written request for the same,
I6 and an existing court order to provide such accounting and disclosure.
I7 Those attempted inquiries by the Plaintiff have been routinely ignored by
I8 the Defendants and they has no other means of compelling disclosure of the
I9 status of their investments, absent an order re: Contempt from the court
20 compelling the Defendants to fully account for all of the investments made on
2I behalfofthe Plaintiff and the amount and value of the stock, the debts incurred,
22 the health drink financials and full disclosure of all stocks transfers.
23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt from
24 the court sua sponte or by noticed motion, for a full accounting of the information
25 above.
26 /./.!
27 1.1.1
28 /././
- 2I -
1 TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
5 made in 11 1 through 67, as fully set forth above.
6 69. A constructive trust is an involuntary equitable trust created by
7 operation of law as a remedy to compel the transfer of property from the person
8 wrongfully holding it to the rightful owner. The essence of the theory of
9 constructive trust is to prevent unjust enrichment and to prevent a person from
10 taking advantage of his or her own wrongdoing. A constructive trust may only
11 be imposed where the following three conditions are satisfied: (1) the existence
12 of a res (property or some interest in property); (2) the right of a complaining
13 party to that res; and (3) some wron<dul acquisition or detention of the res by
14 another party who is not entitled to it.
15 70. As alleged above, the Defendants, and particularly, Defendant,
16 Procopio were, and are agents of the Plaintiff, based on their fiduciary
17 relationship to them as officers and managers of Cuba Beverage. Also as alleged
18 above, the Defendants and each of them have breached their fiduciary duties to
19 them and have engaged in insider self-dealing and disloyalty to them.
20 71. Based on the allegations above, the Plaintiff seeks the imposition of a
21 constructive trust on any and all personal assets of the Defendants and
22 particularly those of Procopio, to prevent their dissipation and to allow the
23 Plaintiff to trace the misappropriation of her investment monies to any and all
24 assets transferred to or by the Defendants, including all monies received from the
25 sale of Cuba Beverage stock with the value of those assets upon a judgment in
26 their favor in this matter.
-22-
1 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES
3 And Aiding And Abetting Thereof
5 72. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations

7 73.To establish a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff
8 must demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of that duty,
9 and damages. Various relationships can give rise to fiduciary responsibilities.
10 The trusted management by officers of a corporation of the investments in the
11. company by those such as the Plaintiff imposes on such officers and managers
12 of a corporation, the utmost duties to properly manage such investments, and

13 avoid insider self-dealing and disloyalty to the corporation and stockholders.
14 74. Where a fiduciary relationship exists, the usual duty of diligence to
15 discover facts does not exist as one is entitled to rely on the good faith oftheir
16 agent. Plaintiff allege that the Defendants, and each of them, violated their
17 collective fiduciary duties owed to them, and have done so consistently and
18 repetitively, though the discovery of such breaches has been very recent.
19 75. Plaintifffurther alleges that the breaches of the fiduciary duties owed
20 to the Plaintiff, has resulted in their sustaining losses occasioned by the
21 dissipation of her investment monies due to the self-dealing of the individual
22 defendants in using their corporate positions of trust as their own private piggy
23 bank, filled with the deposits of stockholders such as the Plaintiff.
24 76. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of the Defendants'
25 fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff, she has been caused to suffer economic
26 damages of at least $500,000 and emotional trauma of being victimized by the
27 Defendants, all to their loss and damage.
28 /././
- 23 -
I Further, Plaintiff alleges that the acts of the Defendants were intentional,
2 malicious and committed with a conscious disregard for the consequences
3 suffered by the Plaintiff and therefore, punitive damages are appropriate to deter
4 such action by others and that their damages be enhanced pursuant to California
5 Civil Code, 3345, according to the discretion of the judge or jury.
8 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 RESTITUTION (Unjust Enrichment)
II 77. Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations
12 made in~~ 1 through 76, as fully set forth above ..
13 78. California courts have recognized multiple grounds for awarding
14 restitution. Under the law of restitution, an individual is required to make
15 restitution if he or she is unjustly enriched at the expense of another. Restitution
16 may be awarded: (1) in lieu of breach of contract damages when the parties had
17 an express contract, but it was procured by fraud or is unenforceable or
18 ineffective for some reason, or (2) when a Defendant obtained a benefit from the
19 plaintiff by fraud. duress. conversion. or similar conduct.
20 California law recognizes that a plaintiff may elect which remedy to seek.
21 Under the law of restitution, an individual is required to make restitution if he or
22 she is unjustly enriched at the expense of another.
23 A person is enriched if the person receives a benefit at another's expense.
24 In addition, California statutory law provides that restitution may be obtained
25 when one obtains something from the owner without consent, or by fraudulently
26 obtained consent, and must restore it to the owner from whom it was obtained.
27 /././
28 /././
-24-
I 79. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have used their positions as
2 officers and insiders in the Cuba Beverage Company, managed by, the
3 Defendants, who used the money invested by the Plaintiff and others to enrich
4 themselves and used their investments as a personal slush fund to use for their
5 own personal purposes, such as racing, and have been unjustly enriched thereby.
6 80. Based on the unjust enrichment of the Defendants as alleged herein
7 above, the Plaintiff seek restitution with interest, of all monies that they invested
8 with the Defendants, that have since been converted for the Defendants own uses
9 and purposes, in an amount to be determined at trial.
10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and
II each of them as follows:
12 1. For all compensatory damages incurred according to proof;
13 2. For all consequential damages incurred according to proof;

14 3. For all special damages according to proof;
15 4. For punitive damages sufficient to punish the Defendants and act as a
16 deterrent to others;
17 5. For all statutory damages as applicable;
18
6. For attorney's fees and costs of suit as incurred;
19
7. For Equitable relief, providing for an accounting, a constructive trust
20
and restitution;
21
8. For such other relief that the court may deem just and proper.
22
23
Dated: 10/19/2017 By: ~ffi~OJ9}:~wl~L~ ~Jf)o1~(,___.-
24 Margaret Willett I Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
- 25-
•
I VERIFICATION
2 UNITED STATES DIST. COURT
3
:§§ WILLETT vs. PROCOPIO, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DIST. CALIFORNIA
4
5
I, MARGARET WILLETT , if called upon to testify as a witness, would
6
7 and competently do so of my own personal knowledge and do now declare as
8 follows:
9
I am a party to this action. I have read the foregoing document, entitled
10
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, and know its contents. The
II
matters stated are true of my own knowledge and belief, and as to those matters I
12 believe them to be true.
13
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United
14
States that the foregoing is true and correct. ~
:: Date Octobec 19,2017 By' IDOI<(f"ri wadi

17 Margaret Willett I Plaintiff
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-26-
Case 3:17-cv-02144-LAB-JMA Document 1-1 Filed 10/19/17 PageID.28 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 (Re~·. 06/17)
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARGARET WILLETT BY ,y DEPUTY
ALEX PROCOPIO, LUKE ZOUVAS, MARK ZOUVAS, JONATHAN M.
SHIFF
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA
(EXCEPT IN ft.S. PLAIN11FFCAS/!:',') (JN (!_!:,: PI.AINTIFFCASESONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address. ml(/ TelepJWnf! Number) Attorneys (lfKnl)lrnj
UNKNOWN
IN PROSE
'17CV2144 LAB JMA
11. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X"inOm:BoxfJnM III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Piaceml "X" in om· Box/or Plaimiff
(For Diversity Ca.ves Only) and One Box for DefenJamj
0 I U.S. Government ~ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (li.S. (iovemltl<'f/( Nut a Pari):J Citizen ofThis State 0 I 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4
ofBusiness In This State
0 2 U.S. Go\'emment 0 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State LJ 2 LJ 1 Incorporated and Principal Place L] 5 0 j
Defendant (/ndiwlfl: Citizenship of l'anw.v m Item 11/J of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 03 0 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6
L) 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Reiltted Seizure 375 False Claims Act
L) 120 Marine Cl 3 I 0 Airplane Cl 365 Pers011ullnjnry - ofProperty21 USC881 .176QWTam(31 USC
Ll 130 Miller Act Cl 315 Airplane Product Product Liabihty 690 Other 3729(a))
Ll 140 Negoliable Instrument Liability 0 %7 Health Carel 400 State Reapportionment
0 150 Reoovery 0 320 Assauh, Libel & Phannaceutical 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement Slander Personal Injury 430 Banks and Banking
0 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 450 Conm1erce
LJ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 0 368 Asbestos Perwnnl 460 Deportlllion
Student Loarl.'; LJ 340 Marine lnjmy Pmduct 470 Racketeer t11fluenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product Liability
Ll 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL
of Veteran's Benefits LJ 350 Motor Vehicle
Ll !60 S10ckholders· Suits Cl 35.~ Motor Vehicle l"J 371 Tnllh in Lending Secunties/C'ommodities/
Ll 19{} 0 tiler Contract Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal 720 Laborl1vlanagement Exchan~:~e
[J 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 890 Other Statutory Actions
Ll 196 Franchise 0 385 Propeny Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 891 Agricultural Acts
Product Liability 75 I Family and Medical 893 Environmental Mllllers
Leave Act 895 Freedom oflr1fonnation
Act
791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 A!bittation
0 220 Foreclosure 0 441 Voti11g Income Security Act or Defeudanf) 899 Administrative Proccdwe
0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment LJ 442 Employment 871 IRS-lllird Party AcVRev1ew or Appeal of
0 240 Tons to Land LJ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC' 7609 Agency Decision
t:J 245 Ton Prodt!Ct Liability Accorrunodations 530 Genernl 950 Constitutionality of
n 290 All Other Real Prope~· LJ 445 Amer. w/Disabililies 535 Death Pe11alty State Stall.1tes
Empluynumt Other:
L1 446 Amer. w!Di!lftbilities 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Ocher Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
LJ 448 Edur;:ation 555 Prison Condition
0 560 Civil Detainee·
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One HoxOnM
!'( 1 Originul 0 2 Removed from a 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict a 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation-
(Y er;i6'J Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Dd "otciiejurisdictimmlstatutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSEOFACTIONb1~8~U~.S~.~C=o~d~e~1~34~8~e~t~se~-------------------------------------------------
Brief description of cause:
SECURITIES FRAUD
VII. REQUESTED IN 0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND$ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint'
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 500,000.00 ,JllRY DEMAND: ~Yes ONo
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(Sc!tJ iflslnrctil!ns}:
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
10117/2017
i''OR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT# AMOUNT APPLYING lfP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

--- ----·-----
Case 3:17-cv-02144-LAB-JMA Document 1-1 Filed 10/19/17 PageID.29 Page 2 of 2
JS44 (Rev.06117) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadin&s or other papers as required by law,· except as
provided b_Y,l9~al_rules of,c~urt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is requtred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of imttatmg the CIVIl docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
MARGARET WILLETT ALEX PROCOPIO, LUKE ZOUVAS, MARK ZOUVAS, JONATHAN M.
SHIFF
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Atldress, and Telephone Numbe1~ Attorneys (Jf Known)
UNKNOWN
IN PROSE
II, BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Pia" a" "X" Ia 0"' BaxOaly) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Pia""' "X" Ia o"' Baxf"' Plaimiff
(For Diversify Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
Ol U.S. Government 1'$3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Governmem Not a Parly) Citizen of This State 0 l 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place (j 4 0 4
ofB\tSiness In Tills State
0 2 U.S. Govenunent 04 Diversity Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 0 5
Defendant (lndicale Citizenship of Pal'lies in Item III) ofBusiness In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6
0 PERSONAL INJURY 625 Dn1g Related Seizure 0 375 False Claims Act
0 310 Airplane 0 365 Personal Injury • of Property 21 USC 881 0 376QuiTam(31 USC
0 315 Airplane Product Product Liabi\lty 690 Other 3729(a))
0 0 367 Health Carel
r,
f]~%il!~~iilii!ii11:
4
Liability
[j 400 State Reapportionment
0 320 Assault, Libel & Phannaceutical 0 410 Antitrust
Slauder Personal Injmy 430 Banks and Banking
0 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 450 Commerce
0 !52 Recovery ofDefaulted Liability (j 368 Asbestos Personal 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability
0 !53 Re<:overy of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY
ofVeteran's Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle CJ 370 Other Fraud
0 160 Stockholders' Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Tntth in Lending Aot Securities/Commodities/
0 190 Other Contract Product Liability CJ 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management Exchange
0 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 890 Other StaMoty Actions
0 196 Franchise Injul)' CJ 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 891 Agricultural Acts
0 362 Personal injury· Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 893 Environmental Matters
9j[j!:§:qRJ~!Qllli!!£ii[i!j[Qil[~
~ ~ 790 Other
LeaveLabor
Act Litigation ~~~mJ;ii2ji~§jj~iJ::j~
j::
895 Freedom of lnfonnation
Act
(j 210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
LJ 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
CJ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS-Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
(j 240 Torts to Land 0 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 usc
7609 Agency Decision
0 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of
0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities 535 Death Penalty State Statutes
Employment Other:
0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities 540 Mandmnus & Other
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee-
Conditions of
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" tnOne Box Only)

IS( 1 Original 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict 0 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF ACfiON I;B:'n:C.,i:'fd';"e"sc"ri'=pt:fio"':'n":o';f.:'ca:"u"se"":- " ' - " " ' " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SECURITIES FRAUD
VII. REQUESTED IN 0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND$ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv P. 500,000.00 JURY DEMAND: )ll; Yes ONo
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY (See instrucliom):
JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
10/17/2017
FOR OFFICE USE ONL V
RECE[PT# _ _ _ _ AMOUNT _ _ _ _ _ __ APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

---- ---- ------

Willett V Procopio, Cuba Beverage, Zouvas

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

Willett V Procopio, Cuba Beverage, Zouvas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:17-cv-02144-LAB-JMA Document 1 Filed 10/19/17 PageID.

8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I Plaintiff, Margaret Willett, on her own behalf, hereby alleges the

1 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant, Luke Zouvas

I 9. Shiff is an attorney who was representing CUBV's CEO, Defendant,

28 the hype has led to a higher share price.

I 14. Plaintiff finally receives a total of 1,036,378 RESTRICTED shares of

1 18. Earlier in 2015, Plaintiff demanded that these shares be returned to

1 or means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate

17 24. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations

1 c. engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or.

1 (c) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious

1 of any security with the knowledge that an order or orders of

8 (b) To effect, alone or with one or more other persons, a series of

1 more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the

23 is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme to convert investor monetary investments to

8 them, as hereinafter set forth.

14 made in~~ 1 through 38, as fully set forth above.

19 made in~~ 1 through 45, as fully set forth above.

20 47. Concealment fraud occurs when there is a fiduciary or other

I SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4 52, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations

1 Further, reasonable reliance is presumed upon a nondisclosure of the

I EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

I which are within the knowledge of respondents.

1 TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5 72. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations

12 of a corporation, the utmost duties to properly manage such investments, and

13 2. For all consequential damages incurred according to proof;

:: Date Octobec 19,2017 By' IDOI<(f"ri wadi

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Citizen or Subject of a 03 0 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6

RECEIPT# AMOUNT APPLYING lfP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6

V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" tnOne Box Only)

RECE[PT# _ _ _ _ AMOUNT _ _ _ _ _ __ APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

You might also like