Kosiso Nonyelu

1 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 COUNTY OF SOLANO XAVIER ***** Case No.: 5 Plaintiff, 6 7 8 v. DOMINIC ***********, LETICIA************AND DOES 1-25 9 10 Defendants. 11 COMPLAINT FOR: 1. CONVERSION 2. FRAUD 3. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 4. CIVIL THEFT (Penal Code § 496) Date: Time: Dept: - Plaintiff Xavier *******("Plaintiff") alleges as follows: I INTRODUCTION This is a civil action arising from Defendants' fraudulent misappropriation of Plaintiff's 16 settlement funds and property. Plaintiff entrusted Defendant Dominic ******, his own 17 brother, to assist in the collection of investment proceeds owed to Plaintiff. Instead of 18 fulfilling his fiduciary duty, Defendant Dominic ********secretly traveled to Mexico, 19 20 collected approximately $500,000 in settlement funds, and wrongfully retained the money and property for his own benefit. Defendant Leticia **********was aware of and participated in the scheme, further depriving Plaintiff of his rightful assets 21 22 II .PARTIES 23 24 1. Plaintiff XAVIER ***** is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual residing in Texas. - 2. Defendant DOMINIC **************** is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual residing in Vacaville, California. 3. Defendant LETICIA ****** is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual residing in **********, California and is the wife of Defendant DOMINIC *****. XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 1 of 13 1 4. The true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 10, 2 inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious 3 names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. 4 5 III JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are residents of California. 7 6. Venue is proper in Solano County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 395(a) because 8 Defendants reside in Solano County. U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cross-border financial disputes when a substantial connection to the United States exists. In Republic of 9 10 Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court held that jurisdiction can be established when a foreign act has direct financial implications in the United States. 11 IV GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 12 13 14 7. In or around March 2022, Plaintiff invested funds with a company called ********************operating in Mexico. 8. By June 2024, **** owed Plaintiff approximately $500,000 in investment returns and 15 principal. 16 9. In early June 2024, Defendant DOMINIC *****, who is Plaintiff's brother, agreed to assist 17 Plaintiff in collecting the settlement funds owed by ****. 18 19 10. On or about June 2, 2024, Defendant DOMINIC ****secretly booked a flight to Mexico for June 6, 2024, despite having made plans with Plaintiff to travel together between June 16-20, 2024. 20 11. Defendant DOMINIC ******'s secret booking of an earlier flight evidences his 21 premeditated intent to defraud Plaintiff. 22 12. On or about June 6, 2024, Defendant DOMINIC ***** traveled to Mexico and collected 23 approximately $500,000 in settlement funds from **** on Plaintiff's behalf, including both cash 24 and real property located at Salazar *******, Michoacan *****, Mexico. 25 13. Instead of transferring the settlement funds and property to Plaintiff as agreed, Defendant DOMINIC ***** wrongfully retained possession of the money and property. 26 14. Defendant DOMINIC ***** subsequently used the misappropriated funds to purchase a 27 Ford Bronco in Mexico and transport it to the United States, among other purchases. 28 15. When Plaintiff demanded return of his settlement funds and property, Defendant DOMINIC XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 2 of 13 1 ******refused and made threats against Plaintiff and his family members. 2 16. On information and belief, Defendant LETICIA ***** was aware of, participated in, and 3 benefited from her husband's scheme to misappropriate Plaintiff's settlement funds. 4 V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5 ( Conversion - Against All Defendants) Legal Standard for Conversion 6 7 8 9 17. Under California law, conversion is a strict liability tort that does not require bad faith or wrongful intent, only the wrongful exercise of dominion over another's property without consent. (Taylor v. Forte Hotels Int’l, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1119, 1124 (1991). 10 11 To establish a claim for conversion, a plaintiff must prove: 12 1. Plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property 13 2. Defendant’s wrongful act of dispossession or interference with the property 14 3. Damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the conversion 15 16 Plaintiff’s Right to Possession 17 18 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 as though fully set forth herein. 19 20 21 19. Plaintiff had a vested ownership interest and the right to possession of approximately $500,000 in settlement funds and real property that were collected from ********** in Mexico. 22 20. Plaintiff’s entitlement to these funds was clear and undisputed, as the settlement funds 23 and property were obtained on Plaintiff’s behalf and intended for Plaintiff’s benefit. (a 24 person with a clear ownership right has an enforceable claim for conversion). 25 Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct 26 27 28 21. Defendant Dominic *****was entrusted to collect these settlement funds and property but, instead, wrongfully exercised dominion over them for his own benefit.By secretly XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 3 of 13 1 booking an earlier flight to Mexico and misappropriating the funds and property, 2 Defendant Dominic ***** engaged in conduct that constitutes conversion under 3 California law. In (Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora, 223 Cal. App. 4th 202, 209 (2014) the California Court of Appeal held that vendor’s use of credit card to obtain money from 4 corporation constituted the tort of conversion, and corporation was not required to show 5 that a specific sum of money was entrusted to vendor in order to maintain cause of action 6 for conversion. 7 22. Defendant Dominic *****’s unauthorized control over the funds, refusal to return them, 8 and subsequent use of the money to purchase a Ford Bronco in Mexico constitute an 9 unlawful taking. 10 23. Defendant Leticia ******, with full knowledge of the misappropriation, aided and abetted in the conversion by benefiting from the use and retention of Plaintiff’s funds and 11 property. a party who knowingly benefits from converted property may be held liable for 12 conversion. 13 Defendants’ Lack of Consent 14 15 24. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants' taking, withholding, or use of his funds and 16 property. lack of consent is a key element of conversion, In Fong v. East West Bank, 19 17 Cal. App. 5th 224, 231 (2018), the depositor brought an action for conversion and violation of Elder State Act against the bank arising out of the bank’s transfer of money 18 out of the depositor’s account, court granted summary Judgement to the bank. On appeal, 19 the Court of appeal held that genuine issue of material fact as to whether depositor’s 20 signature on document authorizing repayment loan, pursuant to which the bank 21 22 transferred money out of depositor’s account, was forged precluded summary judgement. 25. Defendant Dominic ******’s failure to return the settlement funds and property upon demand further solidifies his liability for conversion. 23 24 Damages Suffered by Plaintiff 25 26 26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered significant financial harm, including but not limited to: 27 28 • Loss of $500,000 in settlement funds and property XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 4 of 13 1 • Emotional distress due to the betrayal of trust 2 • Additional expenses incurred in efforts to recover the misappropriated property 3 By their actions, Defendants have engaged in an unauthorized and wrongful exercise of control 4 over Plaintiff’s property, depriving him of its rightful use and enjoyment, and are there therefore 5 liable for conversion. 6 VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 7 (Fraud - Against All Defendants) 8 9 Legal Standard for Fraud 10 11 27. Under California law, fraud occurs when a party intentionally makes a false representation, conceals material facts, or makes a promise without any intent to 12 perform, causing the plaintiff to rely on the misrepresentation to their detriment. 13 (California Civil Code § 1572). To establish a cause of action for fraud, Plaintiff must 14 prove: 15 1. A false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure of a material fact 16 17 2. Knowledge of its falsity (scienter) 3. Intent to defraud or induce reliance 18 4. Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff 19 5. Resulting damages 20 Defendants’ Fraudulent Misrepresentations - 28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein. 29. Defendant Dominic *******, with knowledge of its falsity, falsely represented to Plaintiff that he would act as Plaintiff’s agent in collecting settlement funds from **********. Fraud occurs when a party knowingly makes a false statement with intent to defraud. (Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631, 638 (1996) 27 28 XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 5 of 13 1 30. At the time of making this representation, Defendant Dominic ***** had no intention of 2 transferring the settlement funds and property to Plaintiff and instead planned to keep 3 them for his own benefit. 4 31. Defendant Dominic *****’s secret booking of an earlier flight to Mexico, without informing Plaintiff, further evidences his fraudulent intent and premeditated scheme. 5 6 intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and conduct. 32. Defendant Leticia *****, knowing of and benefiting from the fraudulent scheme, 7 participated in the misappropriation of Plaintiff’s settlement funds. A party who aids, 8 abets, or benefits from fraud can be held liable. (Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., N.A., 9 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1118 (C.D. Cal. 2003). 10 Defendants’ Knowledge of Falsity (Scienter) - 33. Defendants knew that the representations they made to Plaintiff were false when they made them. 34. Defendant Dominic ***** never intended to act in good faith as Plaintiff’s agent; rather, he intended to deceive Plaintiff and convert the settlement funds and property for his own use. 35. Defendant Leticia *******, with full awareness of the fraudulent scheme, assisted in concealing the misappropriation and used the converted funds for her personal benefit. Defendants’ Intent to Defraud Plaintiff 19 20 21 36. Defendants’ intent to defraud Plaintiff is further demonstrated by their refusal to return the settlement funds and property, their use of the funds for personal purchases, and the threats made against Plaintiff when he demanded the return of his money and assets. - Plaintiff’s Justifiable Reliance 37. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations, believing that his brother, Dominic *****, would act in good faith to collect and return his settlement funds. 26 38. Plaintiff’s reliance was justified because of the familial relationship between the parties 27 and because Defendant Dominic ***** had previously assured him that he would act in 28 Plaintiff’s best interest. XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 6 of 13 1 39. Defendants intentionally induced Plaintiff’s reliance to gain control over the settlement 2 funds and property, knowing that Plaintiff would not have entrusted them with this 3 responsibility had he known of their true intentions. Fraudulent inducement occurs when a party knowingly makes false representations to gain another’s trust. 4 5 6 Damages Suffered by Plaintiff 40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations and 7 concealment, Plaintiff has suffered significant financial harm, including but not limited 8 to: 9 10 11 • Loss of $500,000 in settlement funds and property • Emotional distress resulting from Defendants’ deceit and betrayal • Additional expenses incurred in efforts to recover the misappropriated funds 12 VII. 13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Against All Defendants) 14 15 Legal Standard for Breach of Fiduciary Duty- A claim for breach of fiduciary duty under California law requires the Plaintiff to establish: 1. The existence of a fiduciary relationship 2. A breach of that fiduciary duty 3. Causation of damages as a result of the breach 21 22 A fiduciary relationship arises when one party places trust and confidence in another, and the other party accepts the obligation to act in good faith for the benefit of the first party. 23 Existence of a Fiduciary Relationship - 41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 40 as though fully set forth herein. 42. Defendant Dominic ***** voluntarily undertook the role of acting as Plaintiff’s agent for the purpose of collecting Plaintiff’s settlement funds from *******. XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 7 of 13 1 43. By agreeing to act on Plaintiff’s behalf in this financial transaction, Defendant Dominic 2 *****assumed a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of Plaintiff, to act with loyalty, 3 and to refrain from self-dealing or misappropriating the funds. fiduciary duties arise 4 where one party acts on behalf of another in financial matters. 44. A fiduciary relationship exists where one party accepts control over another's financial 5 affairs. Defendant Dominic ***** exercised control over Plaintiff’s funds and property, 6 thereby establishing a fiduciary duty. 7 45. Defendant Leticia ******also owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by knowingly assisting, 8 facilitating, and benefiting from the breach of fiduciary duty by her husband, making her 9 liable as well. 10 Breach of Fiduciary Duty 11 12 46. Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff in the following ways: 13 a. Secretly traveling to Mexico earlier than agreed, without Plaintiff’s knowledge, to collect 14 the settlement funds in bad faith. 15 16 b. Misappropriating the $500,000 in settlement funds and property for personal use rather than transferring them to Plaintiff as agreed. (Gutierrez v. Girardi, 194 Cal. App. 4th 925, 17 931 (2011) [misappropriation of a client’s or beneficiary’s funds constitutes a clear breach of 18 fiduciary duty]). 19 20 c. Using Plaintiff’s funds to purchase personal property, including a Ford Bronco, and concealing the assets instead of returning them. - d. Refusing to return the settlement funds and threatening Plaintiff and his family to deter them from recovering the misappropriated funds. 47. These acts amount to self-dealing, deception, and disloyalty, all of which are fundamental breaches of fiduciary duty under California law. Causation and Damages 27 28 XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 8 of 13 1 48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff has suffered significant financial and emotional harm, including but not limited to: 2 3 • The loss of $500,000 in settlement funds and property 4 • Inability to access or use his rightful assets 5 • Legal expenses incurred in efforts to recover his misappropriated property 6 • Emotional distress caused by the betrayal of trust by a close family member 7 8 (Civ. Code § 3333 [damages for breach of fiduciary duty include actual losses and consequential damages]. 9 VIII. 10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Civil Theft - Penal Code § 496 - Against All Defendants) 11 12 Legal Standard for Civil Theft Under Penal Code § 496 - California Penal Code § 496(a) provides that: “Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or obtained in any manner constituting theft, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or 17 withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall 18 be punished by imprisonment…” 19 Furthermore, § 496(c) allows for civil recovery, stating: 20 21 “Any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision (a) may bring an action for three 22 times the amount of actual damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees.” 23 This means that if a defendant wrongfully takes, receives, or withholds property belonging to 24 another, the victim can sue for treble damages—three times the amount of actual loss—plus 25 attorney’s fees. 26 Application to This Case 27 28 XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 9 of 13 1 49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 48 as though fully set forth herein. 2 3 50. Defendants, particularly Defendant Dominic *****, knowingly and unlawfully obtained Plaintiff’s property—$500,000 in settlement funds and real property—from 4 ***************under the false pretense of assisting Plaintiff. 5 51. Defendant Dominic *****misappropriated these funds and used them for personal 6 purchases, including acquiring a Ford Bronco, rather than transferring them to Plaintiff as 7 agreed. 8 52. Defendant Leticia ****** aided and abetted the concealment and retention of the stolen funds, knowing that the property rightfully belonged to Plaintiff. Under California law, 9 those who assist in withholding or concealing stolen property can be held liable under 10 California Penal Code § 496. 11 Knowing Possession and Concealment of Stolen Property 12 13 53. To establish a claim under Penal Code § 496, Plaintiff must show that Defendants knew 14 15 they were receiving or withholding stolen property. 54. Here, Defendant Dominic *****: 16 a. Secretly traveled to Mexico ahead of Plaintiff to wrongfully collect the settlement 17 funds, evidencing premeditated intent. b. Retained the full $500,000 and real estate, despite having no legitimate claim to them. 18 c. Converted a portion of the funds into a Ford Bronco and other purchases, making it 19 impossible for Plaintiff to recover his assets in full. 20 d. Refused to return the money or property when Plaintiff demanded it and instead made 21 22 threats against Plaintiff and his family. 55. Defendants’ actions amount to wrongful withholding and concealment under § 496, making them liable for civil theft. 23 24 Entitlement to Treble Damages Under Penal Code § 496(c) 25 26 27 56. Plaintiff suffered actual damages of at least $500,000 as a direct result of Defendants’ wrongful withholding of his settlement funds and property. 28 XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 10 of 13 1 57. Pursuant to Penal Code § 496(c), Plaintiff is entitled to recover three times the actual damages, totaling at least $1,500,000. 2 3 58. California courts have upheld the applicability of § 496(c) in civil cases involving 4 misappropriation of funds (Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, 5 13 Cal. 5th 333 (2022) confirming that withholding funds obtained through fraud 6 constitutes theft under § 496 and allows for treble damages. 7 59. 8 Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs of suit as expressly provided by Penal code § 496. 9 10 Defendants knowingly and unlawfully obtained and retained Plaintiff’s property under false 11 pretenses. Their refusal to return the funds and their active concealment of misappropriated 12 13 assets constitutes theft under California Penal Code § 496(a). Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover treble damages, attorney’s fees, and all costs of suit under § 496(c), as supported by established California case law. 14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 15 16 17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For compensatory damages according to proof at trial, but no less than $500,000; 18 2. For treble damages pursuant to Penal Code § 496(c); 19 3. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 20 4. For imposition of a constructive trust; 21 5. For an accounting of all funds and property received from WAP; 22 6. For prejudgment interest at the legal rate; 7. For costs of suit incurred herein; 23 24 8. For reasonable attorneys' fees as permitted by law; and 9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 25 26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 27 28 DATED: March 10, 2025 XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 11 of 13 1 2 By: _________________________ 3 4 5 XAVIER ****** Pro Se - XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 12 of 13 1 2 3 4 VERIFICATION I, XAVIER *******, declare: I am the plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing Complaint and know its contents. The matters stated in the Complaint are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. 5 6 7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on _________________, 2025, at _________________, Texas. 8 9 10 XAVIER ****** - XAVIER ******’S COMPLAINT Page 13 of 13