Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT - LAW DIVISION

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

LEO STOLLER,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

CIVIL ACTION

v.

)

)

LANCE G. JOHNSON;

)

File No: 08-L-010766

DAVID ABRAMS;

)

Libel and Slander

ALFRED GOODMAN;

)

ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO &

)

GOODMAN LLP;

)

)

JOHN AND JANE DOES;

)

ABC CORPORATIONS;

)

and OTHER UNKNOWN ENTITIES

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT

Leo Stoller, and commences this action against the

Defendants Lance G. Johnson; David Abrams; Alfred Goodman; Roylance, Abrams, Berdo &

Goodman LLP, and not yet identified JOHN DOES and/or ABC CORPORATIONS, and/or

OTHER ENTITIES

wit:

that are unknown at this time; and bring the following causes of action to

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff brings this action and demands trial by jury on all counts.

I.

PARTIES

1.

Plaintiff, Leo Stoller, (hereinafter "STOLLER"), is a citizen of the state of

Illinois, and resident of Cook County, Illinois, who at all times does currently reside and conduct

business in Cook County Illinois. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was, and is, a

"nationally" known trademark expert for over 30 years, who provides expert witness testimony

in intellectual property cases.

DEFENDANT LANCE G. JOHNSON

2. Defendant

Lance G. Johnson, (hereinafter "JOHNSON"), is

a

resident

of

Washington D.C., and trademark attorney with the law firm of Roylance, Abrams, Berdo &

Goodman LLP., who regularly does business in Cook County Illinois. Defendant Lance G.

Johnson is engaged in the conduct complained of in the course and scope of his employment and

is sued in his individual capacity. Defendant Lance G. Johnson's partners are David Abrams and

Alfred Goodman. Lance G. Johnson encouraged, sanctioned, condoned and ratified the conduct

of Defendants David Abrams and Alfred Goodman.

DEFENDANT DAVID ABRAMS

3. Defendant David Abrams (hereinafter "ABRAMS") is a resident of Washington

D.C., and trademark attorney with the law firm of Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman LLP

who regularly does business in Cook County Illinois.

Defendant David Abrams engaged in the

conduct complained of in the course and scope of his employment and is sued in his individual

capacity. Defendant David Abrams' partners are Lance G. Johnson and Alfred Goodman. David

Abrams encouraged, sanctioned, condoned and ratified the conduct of Defendants Lance G.

2

Johnson and Alfred Goodman.

DEFENDANT ALFRED GOODMAN

4. Defendant

Alfred

Goodman,

(hereinafter

"GOODMAN"),

is

a

resident

of

Washington D.C., and trademark attorney with the law firm of Roylance, Abrams, Berdo &

Goodman LLP who regularly does business in Cook County Illinois. Defendant Alfred Goodman

engaged in the conduct complained of in the course and scope of his employment and is sued in

his individual capacity. Defendant Alfred Goodman is a partner

with Lance G. Johnson and

David Abrams. Alfred Goodman encouraged, sanctioned, condoned and ratified the conduct of

Defendants Lance G. Johnson and David Abrams.

DEFENDANT ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN LLP

5. Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman LLP (hereinafter "ROYLANCE") is a law

firm, a domestic limited liability partnership, and upon information and belief, charted under the

laws of Washington D.C. where it is located and doing business in Cook County Illinois

6. At all times relevant to this action, Roylance was doing business in Cook County,

committed a tort in whole or in part in Cook County, and/or performed work or legal services in

the State of Illinois.

II. SUBJECT MATTER AND PERSONAL JURISICTION

7. Jurisdiction over Defendants is proper, in that Defendants performed acts and

omissions which are tortuous and caused injury in Illinois.

Venue is proper in Cook County,

Illinois, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101(2) because the Defendants filed a counterclaim against

3

Leo Stoller and prosecuted Case No: 05 C 00725 in the United States District Court, Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and

venue is proper within Cook County, Illinois for all of the parties, the Plaintiff who is a resident

of Cook County, and the Defendants, all of whom do business regularly within Cook County.

III. GENERAL ALEGATIONS

8. This arises out of a relationship between Stoller, a nationally known trademark

expert, and the Defendants who are

well-known trademark attorneys with personal vendettas

against the Plaintiff and wants to destroy the Plaintiff's reputation and his business.

The

Defendants are attempting to destroy Stoller's reputation in the trademark industry and to prevent

Stoller from being able to acquire trademarks, license trademarks, and/or act as a trademark

expert.

9. The Defendants began writing defamatory things about the Plaintiff and prepared

a paper containing per se

false, unfair, and defamatory statements about Leo Stoller that was

submitted in a libelous paper to the 32 nd Annual Intellectual Property Institute presented by the

Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of California, on November 8-10, 2008,

Marriott Hotel, Monterey, California. This paper was also published on the Internet.

10. By Defendants' actions, Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on

Stoller. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Leo Stoller has been injured and suffered damages,

including injury to his business reputation, loss of prospective business opportunities, and loss of

expected returns of his investment in his trademark business. Plaintiff seeks the relief, which is

set forth below.

11. Defendants' statements about Leo Stoller constitute defamation per se under

4

Illinois law. The statements: (1) falsely impute the commission of a criminal offense, (2) falsely

impute an inability or want of integrity in performing the duties of

Stoller in his profession ; and

(3) use false words prejudicing Stoller in his trade or profession.

12. The Defendants, with intentional and/or reckless disregard for the truth, and with

actual malice, inaccurately and unfairly issued a libelous paper (Exhibit A), which slandered the

Plaintiff and defamed Leo Stoller.

Defendants issued the paper for the improper purpose of

generating publicity

for themselves

by harming

Leo Stoller's

reputation and business

relationships, prejudicing Leo Stoller in his trade and/or his profession.

13. The wide and affirmative publication of false statements of fact damaged and

impugned the integrity of Leo Stoller as a professional, impaired his business relationships, and

caused him actual pecuniary loss.

COUNT I

DEFAMATION

14. Stoller repeats and reallages and incorporates by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 and 13 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

15. Defendants published one or more oral and written false statements that were

intended to impeach Stoller's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.

16. On November 8, 2007, Defendants published to the 32 nd Annual Intellectual

Property Institute, libelous a paper marked as Exhibit A, the attached document.

17. The defamatory statements were included in the paper Exhibit A, but not limited

to the following:

"Leo Stoller is a trademark terrorist who should be in jail. His scheme relied

5

On serial false oaths, falsified evidence, and false testimony by two

Co-conspirators in support of extortion by false allegations of trademark

Infringement. He extorted settlement fees and obtained new trademark

Registrations from innocent business owners by assignment on the promise

Of an uncontrolled license back to allow the victims to continue operating

Their businesses. Exploiting weaknesses in multiple aspects of the TM

Registration system. Stoller acquired new trademark registrations by fraud,

Perjury and false specimens of use. It's amazing that he wasn't wearing

Federal orange years ago."

18. Defendants defamatory statements were published maliciously and with intent to

destroy the Plaintiff's reputation and ability to earn a living in his chosen profession.

19. As a proximate result of the foregoing defamatory statements by Defendants,

Stoller suffered injuries, including injuries to his reputation.

20.

The

foregoing

defamatory

statements

were

made

by

Defendants

with

the

knowledge of their falsity and with actual malice, so as to justify an award of punitive damages.

Defendants conspired to commit Libel, entered into an agreement as between themselves, to

generate publicity for themselves, by placing Plaintiff in a false light and intentionally inflicted

emotional distress on the Plaintiff. As if the Defendants' were the "White Knight(s) seeking their

fame and fortune by ridding the trademark world of the "evil" Stoller!" See Exhibit A.

21. The statements impugned by the Defendants to Stoller, the slurs on Stoller's

character by Defendants, including his honesty, integrity, virtue and/or reputation, the oral and

written statements by Defendants Exhibit A

were malicious and done with malice in order to

destroy the Plaintiff's professional reputation in the trademark industry.

6

22. Stoller is not a public figure.

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff

Stoller

demands

judgment

against

Defendants,

Lance

G.

Johnson; David Abrams; Alfred Goodman; Roy lance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman LLP, and not

yet identified JOHN DOES and/or ABC CORPORATIONS, and/or OTHER ENTITIES for

compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the minimum amount required for jurisdiction

in Cook County, Illinois, and for exemplary damages in an amount that will serve to punish

Defendants, and defer Defendants from similar conduct.

COUNT II

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

23. Stoller repeats and reallages and incorporates by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 and 22 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

24. Defendants intentionally and deliberately inflicted emotional distress on Stoller

by defaming him to the State Bar of California and the Trademark Bar.

25. As a result of Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, Stoller was, is, with a

high degree of likelihood, will continue to be emotionally

defamation of him.

distressed due to Defendants

26. As a result of Defendants' extreme and outrageous conduct, Stoller has suffered

and will continue to suffer mental pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarrassment,

and humiliation.

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff

Stoller

demands

judgment

against

Defendants,

Lance

G.

Johnson; David Abrams; Alfred Goodman; Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman LLP, and not

yet identified JOHN DOES and/or ABC CORPORATIONS, and/or OTHER ENTITIES for

compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the minimum amount required for jurisdiction

7

in Cook County, Illinois, and for exemplary damages in an amount that will serve to punish

Defendants, and defer Defendants from similar conduct.

COUNT III

CONSPIRACY TO DEFAME LEO STOLLER

27. Stoller repeats and reallages and incorporates by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 and 26 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

28. On or about November 8, 2007, Defendants published one or more oral and

written false statements for the purpose of defaming and inflicting emotion distress on Plaintiff.

29.

Each

of the

said

Defendants,

Lance

G.

Johnson;

David

Abrams;

Alfred

Goodman; Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman LLP, and not yet identified JOHN DOES and/

or ABC CORPORATIONS, OTHER ENTITIES. Knowingly and willfully conspired, aided and

abided each other and agreed among themselves to defame and to inflict emotion distress on

LEO STOLLER, and entered into an agreement between themselves to do same.

30. Each of the said Defendants did the acts and the things therein alleged pursuant to

and in furtherance of the conspiracy and above-alleged statements.

31. Defendants furthered the conspiracy by cooperation or lent aid or encouraged,

and/or ratified and adopted the acts, in that they all collaborated and conspired to defame LEO

STOLLER.

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff

Stoller

demands

judgment

against

Defendants,

Lance

G.

Johnson; David Abrams; Alfred Goodman; Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman LLP, and not

yet identified JOHN DOES and/or ABC CORPORATIONS, and/or OTHER ENTITIES for

compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the minimum amount required for jurisdiction

8

in Cook County, Illinois, and for exemplary damages in an amount that will serve to punish

Defendants, and defer Defendants from similar conduct.

COUNT IV

CONSPIRACY TO INFLICT EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

32. Stoller repeats and reallages and incorporates by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 and 31 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

33. Defendants conspired to intentionally and deliberately inflict emotional distress

on Stoller by defaming him to the State Bar of California and the Trademark Bar.

Defendants

entered into an agreement between themselves and conspired together to inflict emotional

distress on Stoller.

34. As a result of Defendants' conspiracy, Stoller was, is, with a high degree of

likelihood, will continue to be emotionally distressed due to Defendants conspiracy to defame

him.

35. As a result of Defendants' conspiracy to defame Stoller, the Plaintiff has suffered

and will continue to suffer mental pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarrassment,

and humiliation.

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff

Stoller

demands

judgment

against

Defendants,

Lance

G.

Johnson; David Abrams; Alfred Goodman; Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman LLP, and not

yet identified JOHN DOES and/or ABC CORPORATIONS, and/or OTHER ENTITIES for

compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the minimum amount required for jurisdiction

in Cook County, Illinois, and for exemplary damages in an amount that will serve to punish

Defendants, and defer Defendants from similar conduct.

Plaintiff requests punitive damages

in the amount of One Hundred Million Dollars.

9

COUNT IV

AIDING AND ABEDING

36. Stoller repeats and reallages and incorporates by reference the allegations in

paragraphs 1 and 35 above with the same force and effect as if herein set forth.

37. Defendants David Abrams and Alfred Goodman aided and abided

Defendant

Lance G. Johnson and each other Each of the said Defendants,

Lance G. Johnson; David

Abrams; Alfred Goodman; Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman LLP, and not yet identified

JOHN DOES and/or ABC CORPORATIONS, OTHER ENTITIES, MICHAEL T. ZELLER,

ESQ.,

his

law

firm

QUINN,

EMANUEL, URQUHART,

OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP.,

WILLIAM JEFFREY FACTOR, ESQ., and his law firm SEYFARTH SHAW LLP., WILLIAM

J. BARRETT, his law firm BARACK, FERRAZZANO, KIRSCHBAUM & NAGELBERG,

LLP., and/or RICHARD F. FOGEL, ESQ. , his law firm SHAW, GUSSIS, FISHMAN,

GLANTZ, WOLFSON & TOWBIN LLC

aided and abided

each other while conspiring to

intentionally and deliberately slander and defame Stoller

in a Paper filed before the California

Bar Association Exhibit A

and inflicting emotional distress on Stoller by defaming him to the

State Bar of California and the Trademark Bar.

38. As a result of Defendants' aiding and abiding each other to defame Plaintiff,

Stoller was, is, with a high degree of likelihood, will continue to be emotionally distressed due to

Defendants aiding and abeding to defame Stoller.

35. As a result of Defendants' aiding and abeding to defame Stoller, the Plaintiff has

suffered

and will continue to suffer mental pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma,

10

embarrassment, and humiliation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Stoller demands judgment

against

Defendants, Lance G.

Johnson; David Abrams; Alfred Goodman; Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman LLP, and not

yet identified JOHN DOES and/or ABC CORPORATIONS, and/or OTHER ENTITIES for

compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the minimum amount required for jurisdiction

in Cook County, Illinois, and for exemplary damages in an amount that will serve to punish

Defendants, and defer Defendants from similar conduct.

Plaintiff requests punitive

damages in the amount of One Hundred Million Dollars.

Respectfully submitted,

Leo Stoller 7115 W. North Avenue, #272 Oak Park, Illinois 60302 (312) 545-4554

VERIFICATION

I, LEO STOLLER, state that I have made reasonable investigation into the facts

contained herein and certify this pleading pursuant to Section I-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil

Procedure.

Leo Stoller 7115 W. North Avenue, #272 Oak Park, Illinois 60302 (312) 545-4554

11

OATH AND DECLARATION

I, LEO STOLLER, depose and state that I have read the foregoing Complaint. The facts

contained therein are true and correct except as to those items stated to be upon information and

belief, and as to those items, these allegations are true and correct to the best of my information

and belief.

I declare that I am authorized to execute this document on my own behalf, that all

statements made of my own knowledge are true, and all statements made on information and

belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements are made with the knowledge that

willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,

under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Leo Stoller 7115 W. North Avenue, #272 Oak Park, Illinois 60302 (312) 545-4554

12