Elite Daily Paul Kim Lawsuit 2018

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2018 09:55 AM INDEX NO.
650481/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2018
SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X X
PAUL KIM, Index No.
Date Filed:
SUMMONS
Plaintiff, Plaintiff designates New York County

As the place of Trial
-against-
Basis of Venue: Plaintiff's Premises

JONATHON FRANCIS, a/k/a Jonathon
Francis San Pedro, a/k/a Jonathon F. San Pedro;
DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R. ADAMS,
ELITE DAILY, ELITE DAILY.COM,
BDG MEDIA, INC., DMG MEDIA, LLC and
BUSTLE DIGITAL GROUP,

Plaintiff's address:
38th -
Defendants, 240 West Street Apt. 4
New York, New York 10018
County of New York

--------------------------------------------------------------X X
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action
and to serve a copy of the your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this
summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs Attorney within 20 days

·
after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of se within 30 days
after the service is complete if this summons is not perso y delivere to y u within
the State of New York); and in case of your failure to pear or answer ju ment will
be taken against you by default for the relief deman d in the complain .
Dated: January 3.0_, 2018
SUNSHINE IS ON & HECHT, LLP

Attorneys for intiff
390 North B - Suite 200

oadway
Jericho, Ne York 11753
352- 100
(516)
Defendant's Address:
Jonathon Francis a/k/a Jonathon Francis San Pedro a/k/a Jonathon F. San Pedro
87th -
201 East Street Apartment 27N
New York, New York 10128-4132
1 of 27
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2018 09:55 AM INDEX NO. 650481/2018
David Arabov
123 Washington Street
New York, New York 10006-1549
Gerard R. Adams
55 Dorothea Terrace
Belleville, New Jersey 07109-1515
Elite Daily
c/o BDG Media, Inc.
315 Park Avenue South
10th
Floor
Elite Daily
c/o DMG Media LLC
4th
218 North Avenue
Mechanieville, New York 12118
Elite Daily
c/o Bustle Digital Group
10th
Floor
Elite Daily.com
c/o BDG Media, Inc.

10th
Floor
Elite Daily.com
c/o DMG Media LLC
4th
218 North Avenue
Elite Daily.com
c/o Bustle Digital Group

10th
Floor
BDG Media, Inc.

10th
Floor
2 of 27
DMG Media LLC

4th
218 North Avenue
Bustle Digital Group

10th
Floor
3 of 27
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
PAUL KIM
Plaintiff, Index No.
-against-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
JONATHON FRANCIS, a/k/a Jonathon
Francis San Pedro, a/k/a Jonathon F. San Pedro;
DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R. ADAMS, ELITE
DAILY, ELITE DAILY.COM, BDG MEDIA, INC.,
DMG MEDIA, LLC and BUSTLE DIGITAL GROUP.
Defendants.
----------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, PAUL KIM, by his attorneys SUNSHINE ISAACSON & HECHT, LLP as a
for the Complaint against JONATHON FRANCIS, a/k/a Jonathon Francis San Pedro, a/k/a
Jonathon F. San Pedro; DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R. ADAMS, ELITE DAILY, ELITE
DAILY.COM, BDG MEDIA, DMG MEDIA and BUSTLE DIGITAL GROUP complaining
of the defendants herein, hereby states and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION:
1. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendants Elite Daily, Jonathan Francis,
David Arabov and Gerard Adams in connection with the electronic media site known
as Elite Daily. Plaintiff possessed the technical know-how to build websites and
specifically the Elite Daily website, and in exchange for Plaintiff providing services
of building the Elite Daily website, managing and updating their social media
activities, providing graphic designs, custom coding, production of business plans,
photography, video editing and branding the site, Plaintiff was given a fifteen (15'/0)
4 of 27
per cent equity position in the company together with fifteen (15%) per cent of all
operating revenue.
2. Plaintiff spent countless hours completing his end of the bargain providing all of
these services for Elite Daily, and in exchange for not charging the Defendants for
Plaintiff's services on a current basis, Plaintiff was given a fifteen (15%) per cent
interest of the Elite Daily business. Elite Daily was recently sold for approximately
Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00) to which Plaintiff was entitled to 15%, or
approximately $7,500,000.00, together with 15% of revenue and pre-judgment
interest. Defendants failed to disclose the sale of the business and their actions clearly
support their intention of wrongfully avoiding their contractual duties to Plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff was also the owner of the trademark/service mark of Elite Daily (serial
number 8549152). In anticipation of the sale of Elite Daily, Defendants wrongfully
removed Plaintiff's name from the ownership of the trademark.
4. The Defendants are responsible to Plaintiff for numerous causes of action, which are
set forth more fully in this Complaint.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE:
"Plaintiff"
5. Plaintiff, PAUL KIM, (hereinafter referred to as "PlaintifP or "Kim") is an
380'
individual residing at 240 West 38 Street, Apartment 4, New York, New York
10018.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant JONATHON FRANCIS a/k/a Jonathon
Francis San Pedro, a/k/a Jonathon F. San Pedro, (hereinafter referred to as "San
5 of 27
Pedro" 87*
Pedro") is an individual residing at 201 East 87 Street, Apartment 27N, New York,
New York 10128.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant DAVID ARABOV (hereinafter referred to as
"Arabov") is an individual residing at 123 Washington Street, New York, New York
10006.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant GERARD R. ADAMS, (hereinafter referred
"Adams"
to as "Adams") is an individual residing at 55 Dorothea Terrace, Belleville, New
Jersey 07109.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant ELITE DAILY is an entity trade name
organized and existing under laws of the state of New York.
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant ELITE DAILY.COM is an entity organized
and existing under laws of the state of New York.
11. Defendants ELITE DAILY and ELITE DAILY.COM are hereinafter collectively
Daily"
referred to as "Elite Daily").
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant BDG MEDIA, INC. (hereinafter referred to
Media"
as "BDG Media") is a foreign corporation licensed and authorized to do business in
10*
the State of New York with offices at 315 Park Avenue South, 10 Floor , New York,
New York 10010.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant DMG MEDIA, LLC (hereinafter referred to
Media"
as "DMG Media") is a limited liability company licensed and authorized to do
4*
business in the State of New York with offices at 218 North 4 Avenue,
Mechanieville, New York 12118.
6 of 27
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant BUSTLE DIGITAL GROUP (hereinafter
Digital"
referred to as "Bustle Digital") is a company licensed and authorized to do business
- 11*
in the State of New York with office as 315 Park Avenue South 11 Floor, New
York, New York 10010.
15. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in that all parties reside in the City and State of
New York.
16. Defendant Adams resides in New Jersey but based upon the nature of the business
transacted in this matter in the City and State of New York, CPLR §302(a) provides
jurisdiction over Defendant Adams.
17. In or about 2011, Plaintiff was introduced to Defendants Adams, Arabov and
Arabov's father by a mutual friend and Defendant San Pedro. Arabov's father owned
a jewelry store known as Jacob & Company, and at the time it was believe that
Defendant Adams was a customer of the jewelry store. Arabov later worked for
Adams as an intern in a company known as AEG, which solicited penny stocks.
18. At the time of the meeting, Plaintiff was an experienced computer coder and was able
to build websites, which Plaintiff also had experience with.
19. Defendants San Pedro, Arabov and Adams interviewed Plaintiff with respect to
building their website blog, which was only an idea at the time Plaintiff met with
Defendants. After the interview and after numerous discussions, it became apparent
to Plaintiff that Defendants did not have sufficient money for Plaintiff's services, nor
the know-how to perform any of the work required to build the Elite Daily site for
themselves.
7 of 27
20. On June 15, 2011, Defendant San Pedro sent Plaintiff an email asking if Plaintiff was
interested in a project with Arabov and Adams whereby Plaintiff would build a
website known as Elite Wall Street, which would provide stock tips by naked ladies
to attract an older male audience. As a gesture of good will, Plaintiff agreed to begin
building a test/data site to show Arabov and Adams an example of what kind of site
Plaintiff would be able to build for them.
21. On June 22, 2011, the Defendants reviewed Plaintiff's test/data site and indicated
their satisfaction.
22. On July 5, 2011, Plaintiff and San Pedro discussed a meeting with all parties.
23. On July 7, 2011, San Pedro provided Plaintiff with an email, sent with the authority
of the other principals, that in connection with Plaintiff's domain name purchase, my
stake in the company would be fifteen (15%) per cent of Elite Wall Street.
24. Through an email chain, Plaintiff agreed to accept fifteen (15%) per cent of Elite
Daily in exchange for providing a full working website, managing and updating all
social media activities, graphic design, custom coding, production of business plans,
photography, video editing and branding the site, which was recently sold.
25. At the time Plaintiff entered into the agreement on July 7, 2011 with Elite Daily and
the Defendants, Plaintiff began working on the site and performing all of the
necessary services.
26. Over the course of many months, Plaintiff built the Elite Daily website from his home
office in Manhattan and the Elite Daily offices in Manhattan. Defendants would
frequently stop by and inquire about the content, layout and status of Elite Daily site
offering collaborative assistance relative cosmetic issues such as the style of the site.
8 of 27
Plaintiff continued working full time for Elite Daily, whether Plaintiff worked out of
Adams'
his home office, the Elite Daily office in Manhattan or at Defendant office.
27. During the time Plaintiff worked on the Elite Daily website, Adams also retained
Plaintiff from time to time to work on other projects known as AEG, Wall Street
Whiz Kid, Mr. X Stocks and Penny Egg Ed. On or about December 2011, a meeting
was held with Plaintiff and Defendants San Pedro, Arabov and Adams in which the
parties were so pleased with the launch of Elite Daily, Plaintiff was granted an
eighteen (18%) per cent share of the company in consideration of his continued
updating of the website.
28. On July 12, 2011, Plaintiff received an email from San Pedro with log-in information
for Elite Wall Street's go-daddy account. Thereafter Plaintiff replied with a first draft
of a logo. Plaintiff and San Pedro scheduled future meetings.
29. On July 13, 2011, San Pedro and Plaintiff discussed key components of the website
Elite Wall Street. Plaintiff provided a second round of logo possibilities and Plaintiff
received its first stock list for the site.
30. Plaintiff continued working on the site through October 10, 2011 at which time
Plaintiff emails Arabov of his recommendation to switch the old site named Elite
Wall Street to Elite Daily.
31. After much discussion and continued work on the site, Plaintiff trademarked Elite
Daily under the names Paul Kim and Jonathon San Pedro.
32. Through various email exchanges commencing February 6, 2012, Plaintiff rejects
new projects requested by Defendants, however Plaintiff indicates he wants to focus
all of this energy on Elite Daily.
9 of 27
33. On February 12, 2012, Defendant San Pedro emails Adams, Arabov and Plaintiff
stating: "Paul and I are wondering if we could all jump on a call and meet up for
lunch if you are in the city. We wanted to just talk over the direction of Elite Daily so
page."
we are all on the same
we'
34. On February 13, 2012, Arabov replies in an email to all parties stating: "Yes, we'll
set up later today.
35. Between February 13, 2012 and March 12, 2012, there seemed to be a noticeable
inability for the parties to schedule a meeting. On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff sent a
reply email stating: "Waddup. Just tried calling you guys a no one is picking up/or
replying to any emails. Just want an update on what's going on with everything. I
don't get why nobody is responding?? If someone can call me back that would nice.
Thanks."
36. Plaintiff learned from reliable sources that Elite Daily was sold to Daily Mail for
approximately $50,000,000.00 in January 2015.
37. On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff became the co-owner of Elite Daily as referenced by
trademark/service mark application register of Elite Daily (serial number 85491525).
On a date in close proximity to the proposed sale date, Defendant Elite Daily and
Defendant San Pedro fraudulently executed documents which requested the
abandonment of Plaintiff's ownership of Elite Daily intellectual property.
38. Upon information and belief, it is alleged the BDG Media operated the Elite Daily
website at a certain point in time.
39. Upon information and belief, BDG Media presently operates the Elite Daily website.
10 of 27
40. Upon information and belief, it is alleged the DMG Media operated the Elite Daily
41. Upon information and belief, DMG Media presently operates the Elite Daily website
42. Upon information and belief, it is alleged the Bustle Digital operated the Elite Daily
43. Upon information and belief, Bustle Digital presently operates the Elite Daily
website.
44. Upon information and belief, on April 17, 2017, Bustle Digital purchased Elite Daily
from DMG Media.
45. Upon information and belief, DMG Media purchased Elite Daily from Defendants
San Pedro, Arabov and Adams in or about 2015.
AS AND FOR A FIRST OF ACTION

CAUSE
BREACH OF CONTRACT
46. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-30
of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
47. Defendants San Pedro, Arabov, Adams and Elite Daily entered into a valid and
binding contract in which Plaintiff was provided a fifteen (15%) per cent interest in
exchange for Plaintiff providing Elite Daily with a full working website built by
Plaintiff in which Plaintiff managed and updated all social media activities, graphic
designs, custom coding, production of business plans, photography, video editing and
branding to site to become Elite Daily.
48. Plaintiff performed any and all conditions precedent and obligations for which
Plaintiff is seeking payment under the agreement. Collectively, Defendants are
11 of 27
indebted to Plaintiff for services rendered pursuant to the agreement representing
fifteen (15%) per cent of the income and sale price of Elite Daily. Although Plaintiff
has previously demand payment, Defendants collectively have failed and refused to
pay. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants collectively for non-pay.
49. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to fifteen (15%) per cent of the profits
generated by Elite Daily and the Defendants during the period of time Elite Daily was
operating, and fifteen (15%) per cent of the sale proceeds, in excess of the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD AGAINST DEFENDANTS
JONATHON FRANCIS, a/k/a Jonathon Francis San Pedro, a/k/a Jonathon F. San Pedro;
DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R.ADAMS, ELITE DAILY, ELITE DAILY.COM,
BUSTLE'
BDG MEDIA, INC., DMG MEDIA, LLC and DIGITAL GROUP.
50. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in in the first and
cause of action of the Complaint herein.
51. As a fifteen (15%) per cent owner of Elite Daily and a registered owner of the Elite
Daily trademark, Plaintiff was owed fiduciary duties by Defendants, including a duty
of loyalty.
52. Plaintiff became engaged by Elite Daily at a time that Elite Daily was essentially
nothing more than an idea in 2011. The Defendants had no technical ability to
translate their idea into a workable website, which is why the needed Plaintiff to
perform the various services that Plaintiff provided.
53. The Plaintiff and Defendants jointly agreed on a percentage of ownership in which
the Plaintiff would not receive compensation for his efforts, but would retain a fifteen
12 of 27
(15%) per cent interest in all revenue and profits of the website. The Plaintiff
Defendants'
performed his duties admirably. He turned the ideas into a workable
website that succeeded in the marketplace wildly beyond anyone's imagination, and
Plaintiff also provided his own expert opinion what would sell the particular site,
which included changing the name from Elite Wall Street to Elite Daily and changing
the concept from a soft-porn site to a serious website that attracted millions of
followers that were serious targets for advertisers seeking to gain expose in the
marketplace utilizing the Elite Daily site.
54. Defendants deliberately misled Plaintiff as set forth above for the purposes of (i)
making Plaintiff believe that he would be a partner and a fifteen (15%) per cent
owner of Elite Daily as an incentive to having Plaintiff use all of his skills to create a
state-of-the-art website; (ii) making numerous promises to Plaintiff in order to keep
Plaintiff working on the site until Defendants were able to secretly and surreptitiously
Defendants'
sell the site to a third party; and (ii) failing to disclose to Plaintiff
intentions, and thereafter fraudulently and wrongfully converting the trademark of
Elite Daily to be sold to a third party.
Defendants'
55. Plaintiff relied upon misrepresentations and omissions and only learned
of the deceitful and fraudulent activities of Defendants after the conduct occurred. .
56. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been injured in an amount to be determined
at trial, but in no event less than the present value of $5,000,000.00.
10
13 of 27
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT:
57. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in the first and
second causes of action in the Complaint herein.
58. As set forth in the email of July 7, 2011, Defendant San Pedro forwarded an email
which contained the following content:
PK!! Domain is purchased ©
- we'
I spoke to David this morning re getting all the content sorted out frame by
frame page page so it won't be too on your end - to try to make it
by crazy going
as easy and clean as possible for you to get this up on deadline.
I told David that you would love to have a stake in the company as opposed to
just a project and thus us you out for all web shit - He was
building contracting
are you of course he has to be in on this with us for this whole -
like, crazy thing
With that in mind, he initially offered 15% of overall revenue - we toyed with the
thought of breaking it down BTW Stock Marketing Income and Ad
Revenue/Membership and that gets too confusing and I don't want you to get
stuck on the short end of the stick so we are to do an All-In on this shit -
going
Let me know if you are cool with the piece of the pie or if you want to counter.
DA is totally not a greedy dude at all, hes just interested in being full time winner
like we are so let me know!
59. Defendants provided the inducement to Plaintiff in order for him to build the website.
60. Plaintiff responded to this email and agrees to go forward by stating that he would
accept the offer. Plaintiff further stated his acceptance by building the website under
those terms. By Defendants making these representations of ownership to Plaintiff,
Defendants induced Plaintiff to devote all of his time and energy in building the Elite
Daily website, and all other work attendant to making the website work.
61. Defendants deliberately made these material misrepresentations and omissions with
the intent that Plaintiff would rely upon them by providing all of the work that
Defendants had requested in obtaining their result, while at the same time secretly
11
14 of 27
selling the Elite Daily site without making any payment whatsoever to Plaintiff and
providing an compensation to Plaintiff for the work performed, even though
Defendants knew that Plaintiff was entitled to fifteen (15%) per cent of the gross
proceeds.
62. Defendants further made deliberate material misrepresentations by fraudulently
removing Plaintiff from ownership of the Elite Daily trademark in anticipation of
selling the Elite Daily site to a third party. Plaintiff has been injured in an amount of
be determined at the time of trial, but in no event less than the present value of
$5,000,000.00.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANTS
DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R. ADAMS, ELITE DAILY, ELITE DAILY.COM,
BUSTLE'
63. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in the first, second
and third causes of action in the Complaint herein.
64. At no time did Defendants ever indicate to Plaintiff that Defendants were in the
process of selling Elite Daily. Defendants purposely allowed Plaintiff to believe that
his interest would be protected at the time of sale and when the Elite Daily site had
generated profits.
65. Each of the Defendants intended to participate in the scheme to defraud Plaintiff.
66. Plaintiff has been injured in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less
than the present value of $5,000,000.00.
12
15 of 27
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

UNFAIR COMPETITION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
BUSTLE'
67. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in the first, second,
third and fourth causes of action of the Complaint herein.
Defendants'
68. This cause arises under the Common Law of the State of New York.
wrongful conduct described above was unfair, malicious, fraudulent, deliberate and in
bad faith and in violation of Common Law of Unfair Competition of the State of New
York.
69. The aforesaid acts by Defendants have caused and unless enjoined by this Court will
continue to cause irreparable damage, loss and injury to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff
Defendants'
has no adequate remedy at law. As a result of action, Plaintiff has been
damaged in an amount not yet determined or ascertainable.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONVERSION AGAINST DEFENDANTS
BUSTLE'
70. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation contained in the first,
second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action contained in the Complaint herein.
71. Plaintiff was the owner of the Elite Daily trademark/service mark intellectual
property.
13
16 of 27
72. Defendants converted the trademark/service mark intellectual property to their own
name by wrongfully and improperly removing Plaintiff's name from said service or
trademark. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged in an
amount not yet determined or ascertainable.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
BUSTLE'
:
second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action contained in the Complaint
herein.
74. The service trademark is an original work of authorship registered with the United
States Registry under serial number 85491525.
75. At all relevant times, the names of ownership of Elite Daily were jointly in the names
of Paul Kim and Jonathon San Pedro.
76. Defendants knowingly and willfully infringed and continue to infringe upon
Plaintiff's ownership rights, copying, reproducing, distributing, marketing and
unauthorized derivative work based upon the Elite Daily website.
77. Upon information and belief, Defendants have earned substantial income as a result
of their sole ownership credit of Elite Daily.
78. The aforesaid acts constitute infringement of Plaintiff's copyright and ownership in
Defendants'
violation of the Copyright Act. As a result of conduct, Plaintiff has been
damaged in an amount not yet determined or ascertainable.
14
17 of 27
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING AGAINST DEFENDANTS
BUSTLE'
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action contained in the
Complaint herein.
80. The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants required the Defendants conduct
themselves and fulfill their contractual obligations of good faith and to deal fairly
with Plaintiff.
81. In violation of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing contained in the
agreement by and between Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants instead completely
ignored their obligations to Plaintiff, and knowingly did so in violation of
Defendants'
duties owed to Plaintiff.
82. The aforesaid acts constitute breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
Defendants' Defendants'
dealing by of their duties to Plaintiff. As a result of
conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount not yet determined or
ascertainable.
15
18 of 27
AS AND FOR AN NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ACCOUNT STATED AGAINST DEFENDANTS
BUSTLE'
third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action contained in the
Complaint herein.
84. As a result of Plaintiff's fifteen (15%) per cent ownership in Elite Daily, an account
was stated by and between Plaintiff and Defendants.
85. Upon the stated value, there is due and owing to Plaintiff the amount of at least
$7,500,000.00, or such amount as may be determined at trial, but in any event an
amount not less than $7,500,000.00
AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW §349
AGAINST DEFENDANTS
BUSTLE'
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth causes of action contained
in the Complaint herein.
87. In violation of New York General Business Law §349, Defendants have engaged in
deceptive and misleading business practices.
16
19 of 27
88. The conduct of Defendants described above is not subject and does not comply with
the rules and regulations of and the statutes administered by the Federal Trade
Commission or any official department, division, commission or agency of the United
States.
89. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order from the Court enjoining such unlawful acts
and practices, and to recover its actual damages as well as to be awarded reasonable
attorneys'
fees.
90. As a result of the aforesaid, there is due and owing to Plaintiff an amount not yet
determined or ascertainable.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
BUSTLE'
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth causes of action
contained in the Complaint herein.
92. Plaintiff is the owner of a trademark which covers Elite Daily. Defendants have
violated the terms of the trademark.
93. Defendants have violated the Lanham Act, 15 USC, §§1114, 1115 et sec.
94. Defendants have also violation 17 USC §§501, 506(a)(1)(a), 506(1)(b), 506(a)(1)(c),
15 USC §1125(a), 15 USC §1125(d), 18 USC §1832, 18 USC §2319(b), §2319(c)
and §2319(d).
17
20 of 27
Defendants'
95. As a proximate result of actions, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue
to suffer great damage to his business, good will, reputation, profits and the strength
of the trademark, which Defendants have illegally converted and misappropriated.
The injury to Plaintiff continues to be ongoing and irreparable.
96. As a result of the foregoing, there is due and owing the Plaintiff an amount not yet
determined or ascertainable.
AS AND FOR AN TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES AGAINST DEFENDANTS
JONATHON FRANCIS, a/k/a Jonathon Francis San Pedro,
a/k/a Jonathon F. San Pedro; DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R. ADAMS
third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh causes of action
contained in the Complaint herein.
98. Defendants San Pedro, Arabov. and Adams possessed a legal obligation and fiduciary
duty to Plaintiff in that the Defendants promised an interest in Elite Daily.
99. Defendants San Pedro, Arabov and Adams possessed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff
with respect to the ownership of Elite Daily, which was in the joint names of Plaintiff
and Defendant San Pedro.
Adams'
100. Defendants San Pedro, Arabov and actions herein with respect to illegally
changing ownership of Elite Daily to San Pedro and improperly avoiding Plaintiff's
interest together with knowingly circumventing Plaintiff of his business interest in
Defendants"
Elite Daily is a clear breach of said fiduciary duty.
18
21 of 27
101. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been injured in an amount to be
than'
determined at trial, but in no event less than the present value of $5,000,000.00.
AS AND FOR AN THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AGAINST DEFENDANTS
a/k/a Jonathon F. San Pedro; DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R. ADAMS
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth
causes of action contained in the Complaint herein.
103. As set forth in the case herein, Defendant San Pedro, Arabov and Adams made a
promise significant enough to cause Plaintiff to act on said promise and complete the
build-out of the Elite Daily website.
Adams'
104. Plaintiff relied upon the Defendants San Pedro, Arabov and promises
with respect to promising a fifteen (15%) interest in Elite Daily.
105. Plaintiff has suffered a significant detriment as a result of the actions of
Defendants San Pedro, Arabov and Adams.
106. Upon the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that Plaintiff has established the
necessary element of promissory estoppel.
19
22 of 27
AS AND FOR AN FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
a/k/a Jonathon F. San Pedro; DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R. ADAMS,
ELITE DAILY, ELITE DAILY.COM, BDG MEDIA, INC.,
DMG MEDIA LLC and BUSTLE DIGITAL GROUP.
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and
thirteenth causes of action contained in the Complaint herein.
109. In this action, the Defendants collectively have benefitted from the work,
expertise, skills and expenditures of time and effort on the part of the Plaintiff.
110. All of the Defendants associated with Elite Daily have obtained a huge windfall,
none of which would have been possible without the work provided by Plaintiff KIM.
111. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants San Pedro, Arabov, Adams, Elite
Daily, BDG Media, DMG Media and Bustle Digital have been unjustly enriched by
the work performed by Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PAUL KIM demands judgment against Defendants
DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R. ADAMS, ELITE DAILY, ELITE DAILY.COM, BDG
MEDIA INC., DMG MEDIA, LLC and BUSTLE DIGITAL GROUP as follows:
20
23 of 27
(a) On the first cause of action on a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lower
courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction;
(b) On the second cause of action in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event
less than the present value of $5,000,000.00;
(c) On the third cause of action in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event
less than the present value of $5,000,000.00;
(d) On the fourth cause of action in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event
less than the present value of $5,000.000.00;
(e) On the fifth cause of action in an amount not yet determined or ascertainable;
(f) On the sixth cause of action in an amount not yet determined or ascertainable;
(g) On the seventh cause of action in an amount not yet determined or ascertainable;
(h) On the eighth cause of action in an amount not yet determined or ascertainable;
(i) On the ninth cause of action in the amount of at least $7,500,000.00, or such amount
as may be determined at trial, but in any event an amount not less than $7,500,000.00;
(j) On the tenth cause of action in an amount not yet determined or ascertainable;
(k) On the eleventh cause of action in an amount not yet determined or ascertainable;
On the twelfth cause of action in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event

(1)
less that the present value of at least $5,000,000.00;
(m) On the thirteenth cause of action in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no
event less than the present value of $50,000,000.00;
On the fourteenth cause of action in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no

(n)
event less than the present value of $50,000,000.00;
21
24 of 27
(o) And for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just, proper and
equitable.
Dated: Jericho, New York

J_0 , 2018
~9~
January
Suns~hine I son 4 Hecht, LLP
Jeffrey A. nshine, Esq.
Attorney r Plaintiff PAUL KIM

390 No h Broadway - Suite 200
Jeric , New York 11751
(516) 352-2100
22
25 of 27
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) SS:
COUNTY OF NASSAU )
I
PAUL KIM, being sworn, deposes and says:
That deponent is the Plaintiffs in the within action.
That deponent has read the foregoing Complaint and knows the contents thereof.
That same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters stated therein to
be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true.
P~a ~
PAUL KlM .
Sworn to before me this
January ~,
_30_, 2018
/
1~ ElLEEN MCGRATH
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE
Notary Public OF NEW YORK
j No.01MC636366
l QualifiedIn Nassau County
MY Commission
Expires 08-21-2021
26 of 27
Index No.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
PAUL KIM,
Plaintiff,
-against-
JONATHON FRANCIS, a/k/a Jonathon Francis San Pedro a/k/a Jonathon F. San Pedro;
DAVID ARABOV; GERARD R. ADAMS; ELITE DAILY; ELITE DAILY.COM; BDG
MEDIA, INC.; DMG MEDIA, LLC and BUSTLE DIGITAL GROUP,
Defendants.
..
............
........
SUMMONS 4 VERIFIED COMPLAINT
SUNSHINE, ISAACSON 4 HECHT, LLP

Attorneys for the Plaintiff
390 N. - Suite 200

Broadway
Jericho, NY 11753
(516) 352-2100
Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted.

Dated:
Attorney for
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
NOTICE OF ENIRY: That the within is a (certified) true copy of a entered in the Office of
The Clerk of the within County on .
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT: That an Order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for
Settlement to the Hon. , one of the judges of the within Court at
on .
Dated: Jericho, NY
Sunshine, Isaacson & Hecht, LLP
390 N. Broadway - Suite 200
Jericho, NY 11753
27 of 27

Elite Daily Paul Kim Lawsuit 2018

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Elite Daily Paul Kim Lawsuit 2018

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2018 09:55 AM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff, Plaintiff designates New York County

Basis of Venue: Plaintiff's Premises

BUSTLE DIGITAL GROUP,

County of New York

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action

summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiffs Attorney within 20 days

Dated: January 3.0_, 2018

SUNSHINE IS ON & HECHT, LLP

390 North B - Suite 200

New York, New York 10128-4132

Belleville, New Jersey 07109-1515

Mechanieville, New York 12118

c/o BDG Media, Inc.

315 Park Avenue South

Mechanieville, New York 12118

c/o Bustle Digital Group

BDG Media, Inc.

315 Park Avenue South

New York, New York 10010

DMG Media LLC

Mechanieville, New York 12118

Bustle Digital Group

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff, Index No.

of the defendants herein, hereby states and alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION:

activities, providing graphic designs, custom coding, production of business plans,

Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00) to which Plaintiff was entitled to 15%, or

approximately $7,500,000.00, together with 15% of revenue and pre-judgment

support their intention of wrongfully avoiding their contractual duties to Plaintiff.

number 8549152). In anticipation of the sale of Elite Daily, Defendants wrongfully

removed Plaintiff's name from the ownership of the trademark.

set forth more fully in this Complaint.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant JONATHON FRANCIS a/k/a Jonathon

New York 10128.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant DAVID ARABOV (hereinafter referred to as

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant GERARD R. ADAMS, (hereinafter referred

organized and existing under laws of the state of New York.

and existing under laws of the state of New York.

New York 10010.

Mechanieville, New York 12118.

York, New York 10010.

jurisdiction over Defendant Adams.

Adams as an intern in a company known as AEG, which solicited penny stocks.

to build websites, which Plaintiff also had experience with.

Plaintiff would be able to build for them.

updating of the website.

of a logo. Plaintiff and San Pedro scheduled future meetings.

received its first stock list for the site.

Wall Street to Elite Daily.

new projects requested by Defendants, however Plaintiff indicates he wants to focus

all of this energy on Elite Daily.

set up later today.

approximately $50,000,000.00 in January 2015.

trademark/service mark application register of Elite Daily (serial number 85491525).

Defendant San Pedro fraudulently executed documents which requested the

abandonment of Plaintiff's ownership of Elite Daily intellectual property.

website at a certain point in time.

website at a certain point in time.

website at a certain point in time.