May 22, 2013
Why DAVID RUTKAUSKAS & ROBERT SARTIN Should Sue Themselves (Part 1) by Sean Kelly
I am being sued by two bullies from Tulsa, OK: David Rutkauskas, CEO of Beautiful Brands International (BBI), and his “muscle,” respected attorney Robert Sartin of Barrow & Grimm, PC*.
According to an article in The Journal Record, the bullies claim that I made comments that “implied that BBI intimidates and threatens its franchisees, lies about the financial strength and fails to support its franchisees once the agreements have been executed.”
The lawsuit (attached below) alleges that I made comments “with an intent to cause disrepute, public hatred, contempt, ridicule and embarrassment to BBI, to deprive BBI of public confidence, and to injure BBI,” and that I “willfully and maliciously engaged in improper, systematic, concerted and deliberate efforts to destroy the good will and business relationships between BBI and its clients.”
In this regard, respected attorney Robert Sartin gives me WAY too much credit.
Even if I tried my very best, I could never have caused the disrepute, contempt, ridicule, embarrassment, or deprivation of public confidence that David Rutkauskas has brought to himself and BBI through his public rants on Twitter (some posted below) and through the bullying email and text messages he has sent to a female ex-client (not posted here. Yet.).
In fact, I believe that David Rutkauskas should sue himself for the willful, malicious, & irreparable harm he continues to do to his own reputation and to the BBI brand.
I hereby offer my services to serve as an expert witness pro bono in the proposed case of Sartin, Rutkauskas & BBI v. Sartin & Rutkauskas.
I believe respected Tulsa attorney Robert Sartin should name himself as a defendant in this proposed lawsuit for encouraging his arguably unstable client into a volatile, public & unwinnable lawsuit, despite the fact that David Rutkauskas has demonstrated a propensity for public self-destruction via social media.
Additionally, I offer the exhibits below (from my vast gallery of screenshots), to support the proposed contention that CEO David Rutkauskas has systematically and maliciously portrayed himself as an unprofessional and foul-mouthed bully with a gift for antisemitism, homophobia, misogyny and even ailurophobia (hatred of cats).
CEO as Schoolyard Bully: The Rants of David Rutkauskas [WARNING: Offensive Language]
I am confident that the Rutkauskas & Sartin SLAPP lawsuit against me will end in further embarrassment for them, as UnhappyFranchisee.Com mostly provided a forum for the complaints of the many critics of Beautiful Brands. I have been scrupulous in making sure the opinions I share are based on verifiable information from multiple sources. And I am being represented by the formidable, no-nonsense attorney Jonathan Fortman.
However, if David Rutkauskas were to sue himself for defamation, his tweets in the last few months would provide a treasure trove of damaging evidence.
Here are a few of the tweets from a man who holds himself out to be an entrepreneurial business icon, visionary and restaurant industry thought leader:
CEO David Rutkauskas challenged me to come to Tulsa and fight his 81 year old father.
CEO David Rutkauskas publicly asked my attorney “R u a Jew”? Twice.
CEO David Rutkauskas asked a woman he doesn’t know if she is having an affair with me and asked “R u a Jew?”
Right next to family pictures of his wife, his kids and his parents, CEO David Rutkauskas posted the words “fat fuck ugly shit face SK when was the last time u had a women hit on you . HaHa. or u had a women Sean Fuck Fat Face” and “thx Dickface ugly mother fucker.”
If we do get to court and someone asks me: “Did you damage the reputation of David Rutkauskas?” won’t the answer be obvious?
With CEO Rutkauskas’ social media meltdowns and his respected attorney Sartin holding his coat, goading him to fight all his detractors, why would I need to defame him?
He’s doing a superlative job defaming himself.
Beautiful Brands International, LLC vs. Sean Kelly (Link. Document is clickable mid-page)
* Technically, I’m being sued by Beautiful Brands International (BBI), but the seasoned bully-boy team behind it is the arguably unstable CEO David Rutkauskas and his well-compensated enabler and enforcer Robert Sartin.
** I was also threatened on Twitter by user account @FuckOffLiars & insulted by @MissTroothBeTold. Is @FuckOffLiars is a Rutkauskas pseudonym? Compare writing styles and decide for yourself.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE DAVID RUTKAUSKAS, ROBERT SARTIN, BBI OR BARROW & GRIMM PC? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
Tags: David Rutkauskas, Beautiful Brands International, BBI, David Rutkauskas Twitter, Robert Sartin, attorney Robert Sartin, Barrow & Grimm PC, Unhappy Franchisee lawsuit, Sean Kelly Lawsuit, David Rutkauskas lawsuit, BBI lawsuit, Beautiful Brands lawsuit, SLAPP lawsuit, Jon Fortman, Jonathan Fortman
January 21, 2013
A franchise lawsuit was filed against Vapiano international LLC on January 16, 2013 in the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division
The franchise lawsuit complaint document for TIMO HERBRAND, VAP ISTANBUL RESTORAN ISLETMELERI LTD., Plaintiffs, v. VAPIANO INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant is available in PDF format at the bottom of this post.
Herbrand et al v. Vapiano International LLC seeks relief for:
1. Breach of contract
2. Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
4. Vicarious Liability for Turkish Law Violations
The Plaintiffs are seeking awards for damages and awards for punitive damages in the area of $2,000,000
The Herbrand et al v. Vapiano International LLC complaint alleges:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action stems from the deliberate, willful actions of Defendant and its agents to breach Plaintiffs’ bargained -for right to exclusively operate Vapiano restaurants in Turkey and to cheat Plaintiffs out of millions of Euros in lost profits.
2. Pursuant to a Development Agreement signed in November 2006, Defendant granted Plaintiff Herbrand and his associates the right to open ten Vapiano restaurants in Turkey and the right to be the exclusive operator of Vapiano restaurants in Turkey. Yet, after Plaintiffs had opened only one restaurant, Defendant went behind Plaintiffs’ backs to assist a third party in opening competing Vapiano restaurants in direct breach of the Development Agreement. On top of this, Defendant misappropriated funds and confidential financial information from Plaintiff VAP Istanbul in order to open and operate the competing restaurants.
3. Defendant was able to carry out this scheme because of double-dealing by its agent, Kent Hahne (“Hahne”), who, at all relevant times, served both as President of Defendant Vapiano International and as a shareholder in a joint venture formed with Plaintiff Herbrand and others to exclusively operate Vapiano restaurants in Turkey.
Hahne advantaged Defendant to the detriment of Plaintiffs, encouraging Plaintiff Herbrand and his associates to halt development, while at the same time working to open competing restaurants.
In furtherance of this plan, Hahne directed Ertan Kirimselioglu, then-General Manager of Plaintiff VAP Istanbul, to misappropriate funds and information, without the knowledge of Plaintiffs, to open the competing restaurants.
The actions of Hahne and Defendant were intentional, deceptive and evidence a complete lack of good faith in their dealings with Plaintiffs.
Read the lawsuit (PDF) here:
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE VAPIANO FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY OR VAPIANO INTERNATIONAL LLC?
PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
Franchise lawsuit, franchise lawsuits, Vapiano lawsuit, franchise litigation, franchise attorney, franchise law, Vapiano franchise, TIMO HERBRAND, Herbrand v. Vapiano International, Kent Hahne,
February 3, 2012
Noble Roman’s franchise lawsuit news. Kari Heyser, Fred Eric Heyser and Meck Enterprises, LLC, et al v. Noble Roman’s, Inc. et al, lawsuit was filed in Superior Court in Hamilton County, Indiana on June 19, 2008.
The franchisee plaintiffs alleged that Noble Roman’s fraudulently induced them to purchase franchises for traditional locations through misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding the franchises.
Noble Roman’s filed counterclaims for damages for breach of contract against all of the Plaintiffs in the approximate amount of $3.6 million plus attorney’s fees, interest and other cost of collection, or a total of over $5 million.
As a result of the Order filed January 26, 2012, the company’s partial summary judgment motions were granted as to specific types of damages such as past fees, future fees, attorney’s fees and interest.
Here is Noble Roman’s press release on the granting of the summary judgement.
press release Jan. 30, 2012, 5:00 p.m. EST
Noble Roman’s Granted Summary Judgment on Counterclaims Against Plaintiffs
INDIANAPOLIS, Jan 30, 2012 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Noble Roman’s, Inc. /quotes/zigman/235863 NROM -5.67% , the Indianapolis based, non-traditional franchisor and licensor of Noble Roman’s Pizza and Tuscano’s Italian Style Subs, today announced that in an Order by the Hamilton Superior Court I filed January 26, 2012 in the long-standing lawsuit by certain former franchisees, Noble Roman’s was granted partial summary judgment as to liability against the Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants on the company’s counterclaims against them. As a result of this partial summary judgment, the Court determined that certain of the former franchisees of Noble Roman’s, Inc. were liable to the company for direct damages and consequential damages, including net loss future royalties, for breach of their franchise agreements. In addition, the Court determined that, as a matter of law, Noble Roman’s was entitled to recover attorneys fees associated with obtaining preliminary injunctions, fees resulting from the prosecution of Noble Roman’s counterclaims and fees for defending against fraud claims against the company and certain of its officers. The amount of the award is to be determined at trial.
The company was a Defendant in a lawsuit styled Kari Heyser, Fred Eric Heyser and Meck Enterprises, LLC, et al v. Noble Roman’s, Inc. et al, filed in Superior Court in Hamilton County, Indiana on June 19, 2008 (Cause No. 29D01 0806 PL 739). The Court issued an Order dated December 23, 2010 granting summary judgment in favor of the company against all of the Plaintiffs allegations of fraud. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud against the company and certain of its officers were determined to be without merit. Plaintiffs previously filed numerous motions, including an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals, in an attempt to get the December 23, 2010 summary judgment order reversed. All of those attempts have failed, including the Indiana Court of Appeals which dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ last attempt to get the summary judgment award vacated was their attempt to vacate the Order on the grounds of misconduct of third parties. On December 1, 2011, the Judge issued an Order denying their request and specifically found "that there was absolutely no evidence of misconduct and the Court admonished Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel for making such unfounded allegations." The fraud charges against the company and certain of its officers have been dismissed entirely, and Plaintiffs have no appeal rights remaining.
The Complaint was originally against the company and certain officers and institutional lenders. The Plaintiffs are former franchisees of the company’s traditional location venue. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants fraudulently induced them to purchase franchises for traditional locations through misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding the franchises. In addition to the above claims, one franchisee/Plaintiff in the case asserted a separate claim under the Indiana Franchise Act as to which the Court’s Order denied the company’s motion for summary judgment, as the Court determined that there is a genuine issue of material fact, but did not render any opinion on the merits of the claim. The company denies liability on the Indiana Franchise Act claim and will continue to vigorously prosecute its defenses against the claim.
The company filed counterclaims for damages for breach of contract against all of the Plaintiffs in the approximate amount of $3.6 million plus attorney’s fees, interest and other cost of collection, or a total of over $5 million. As a result of the Order filed January 26, 2012, the company’s partial summary judgment motions were granted as to specific types of damages such as past fees, future fees, attorney’s fees and interest. The amount of the damages awarded to the company will be determined at trial.
SOURCE: Noble Roman’s, Inc. CONTACT: Paul Mobley, Chairman & CEO 317/634-3377
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE AND/OR THE NOBLE ROMAN’S FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? SHARE AN OPINION OR INSIGHT BELOW.
Contact the author of site admin at UnhappyFranchisee[at]gmail.com
November 15, 2011
Matco Tools & TD Bank worked together to scam Matco franchise owners, the Small Business Administration (SBA) and American taxpayers, according to a class action franchise lawsuit filed by Marks & Klein, LLP of Red Bank, N.J. yesterday.
The press release issued by Marks & Klein, LLP is included below.
UnhappyFranchisee.com intends to follow this case and other allegations against Matco as they unfold.
If you are familiar with the Matco Tools franchise or distributorship programs, please share your insights or opinions with a comment below.
Representatives of Matco Tools, TD Bank or others are invited to submit clarification, opposing opinions or rebuttals for publication. Contact the site ADMIN at UnhappyFranchisee[at]gmail.com.
Also read: MATCO TOOLS Franchise Complaints.
* * * * *
Marks & Klein franchise lawsuit press release:
Father & Son File Lawsuit Against Matco Tools and TD Bank
Class Action Lawsuit Claims the Tool Company and Bank Engaged in Widespread SBA Loan Fraud
TRENTON – A father and son – David Villano, Jr. and David Villano III, through their attorneys, Marks & Klein, LLP of Red Bank, N.J., today filed a class action lawsuit against TD Bank and Matco Tools, Inc. alleging the tool company franchisor and the bank engaged in a loan fraud scheme to encourage unsophisticated borrowers to enter into risky business loans to buy Matco Tools franchises.
The scheme enabled Matco to sell more franchises and TD Bank to make risky loans without concern. The bank knew if the loans failed, the loans would ultimately be repaid by United States taxpayers through the SBA guaranteed loan program. Data from the SBA shows that from 2000 to 2010, Matco Tools’ SBA loans had a staggering 37.3 percent failure rate.
“It is most unfortunate that SBA loans, which are designed to assist aspiring entrepreneurs to finance a new business venture and benefit the economy could, as alleged in this case, be used for such deceitful purposes,” said Gerald A. (Jerry) Marks, Esq., lead plaintiff counsel.
“Many individuals like the Villanos have unknowingly been exploited,” Marks said. “We are seeking treble damages to discourage this sort of conduct from happening again in the future. United States taxpayers have unwittingly been `bailing out’ lenders like TD for years on defaulted loans that should never have been made in the first place.”
The lawsuit alleges that Matco and TD conspired to make loans using secret three-year income projections, in violation of FTC franchise disclosure regulations. Specifically, Matco would deliver the secret three-year income projections to TD Bank with a letter, instructing bank officials not to disclose the projections to loan applicants.
The bank would then use the income projections to qualify the loans for SBA financing. But Matco kept the projections secret because it knew of the high rate of failure among its franchisees and feared the lackluster projections would be used by failed franchisees filing suit.
The lawsuit further states that Matco, TD Bank and other unscrupulous SBA lenders preyed upon the Villanos and other unsophisticated borrowers because of their perception that the lender would not make the loan unless it believed the Matco franchise was an acceptable business opportunity.
According to the lawsuit, TD Bank profited through its collection of loan origination fees as well as interest on the loan principal, which it collected from borrowers while these improper loans were current. When the loans would ultimately fail, TD bank and other lenders would pass along the loss to the American taxpayer, as SBA loans are 90 percent guaranteed by taxpayers, according to the FDIC.
Matco, as the franchisor, would likewise profit from the sale of a new franchise and having its franchised distributors sell tool products for two to three years in a designated route, before ultimately failing and being replaced by a new franchisee.
“Matco and TD had the ability to perpetuate this scheme because of a self-serving lending culture that was more than happy to originate and collect fees and pass along the risk of loss to its customers and taxpayers, even if the law was being violated,” said Louis Tambaro, Esq., another member of Marks & Klein. “By bringing this lawsuit as a national class action, we look forward to exposing the dark underbelly of a destructive lending culture.”
* * * * *
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MATCO TOOLS FRANCHISE OR DISTRIBUTORSHIP? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MATCO TOOLS FRANCHISE OR DISTRIBUTORSHIP? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
Contact the author or site admin at UnhappyFranchisee[at]gmail.com.