Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02844-JSW

Document 16

Filed 06/22/2007

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Joel A. Goodman (FL Bar No. 802468) Admitted pro hac vice Email: [email protected] Goodman & Nekvasil, P.A. 14020 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 808 P.O. Box 17709 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Telephone: 727-524-8486 Facsimile: 727-524-8786 Cary S. Lapidus (CA Bar No. 123983) Email: [email protected] Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus 425 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 296-7101 Facsimile: (415) 296-7821 Local counsel Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Maria Cui

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1ANSW ER Case No. C 07-02844 JSW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) Case No. C 07-02844 JSW ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ANSWER ) DANIEL MARIA CUI, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Defendant Daniel Maria Cui, hereby answers the Complaint of The O.N. Equity Sales Company ("ONESCO"), as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. stated. Without knowledge, therefore denied. Admitted. Admitted Admitted that personal jurisdiction exists; denied that venue is proper on the ground THE O.N. EQUITY SALES COMPANY,

Case 3:07-cv-02844-JSW

Document 16

Filed 06/22/2007

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5.

Admitted that the Defendant invested in the Lancorp Financial Fund Business Trust

("Lancorp"); denied that Lancorp had no association with ONESCO, given that ONESCO's agent Gary Lancaster ("Lancaster") sold Lancorp to the Defendant. 6. Admitted with respect to the first sentence of this paragraph; denied with respect to

the second sentence. 7. Without knowledge with respect to the first sentence of this paragraph and therefore

denied; denied with respect to the second sentence. 8. 9. 10. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Without knowledge and therefore denied. With respect to the first and second sentences of this paragraph, Exhibit "A" to the

Complaint speaks for itself. With respect to the third sentence, without knowledge regarding records that ONESCO received from the receiver and therefore denied. 11. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely identify the risk factors listed in Exhibit "A" to the Complaint as represented to the Defendant. 12. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely identify the risk factors listed in Exhibit "A" to the Complaint as represented to the Defendant or that the phrase "high risk" is repeated throughout Exhibit "A" to the Complaint. 13. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely describe the Lancorp offering requirements as represented to the Defendant. 14. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely describe the Lancorp offering requirements as represented to the Defendant. 15. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely describe the Lancorp offering requirements as represented to the Defendant. -2ANSW ER Case No. C 07-02844 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-02844-JSW

Document 16

Filed 06/22/2007

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16.

Exhibits "B" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that Defendant made a

certification, and denied that the allegations of this paragraph accurately and completely describe this exhibit and the pertinent circumstances. 17. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the Defendant executed

a copy of Exhibit "A." Denied that the Defendant acknowledged that a broker-dealer was not involved. Denied that the allegations of this paragraph accurately and completely describe the omissions and representations made to the Defendant. 18. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely describe the omissions and representations made to the Defendant. 19. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely identify the Lancorp offering requirements as represented to the Defendant. 20. With respect to the first sentence of this paragraph, denied that the alleged disclosures

evidence ONESCO's lack of involvement. With respect to the second and third sentences and the interpolated quotation from Exhibit "A" to the Complaint, Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. Denied that the second and third sentences of this paragraph and the interpolated quotation accurately and completely describe the omissions and representations made to the Defendant about ONESCO and Lancaster. Denied with respect to the last sentence of this paragraph. 21. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that a reader of the quoted

material from Exhibit "A" should infer that a broker-dealer was not involved. Denied that the allegations of this paragraph accurately and completely describe the omissions and representations made to the Defendant about ONESCO and Lancaster. 22. Exhibit "A" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely describe the Lancorp offering requirements as represented to the Defendant.

-3ANSW ER Case No. C 07-02844 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-02844-JSW

Document 16

Filed 06/22/2007

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

23.

Exhibit "B" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely describe the provisions of the Lancorp subscription agreement as represented to the Defendant. 24. Exhibit "B" to the Complaint speaks for itself. Denied that the allegations of this

paragraph accurately and completely describe the provisions of the Lancorp subscription agreement as represented to the Defendant. 25. 26. Lancaster. 27. Denied because Defendant opened accounts and entered into contractual relationships Denied because ONESCO knew about Lancorp through its agent, Lancaster. Denied because ONESCO provided materials to Defendant through its agent,

through ONESCO's agent, Lancaster. 28. Denied because Defendant purchased securities or investments through ONESCO's

agent, Lancaster. 29. Lancaster. 30. Exhibit "B" to the Complaint speaks for itself; denied that ONESCO has accurately Denied because funds were disbursed or received through ONESCO's agent,

and completely described the alleged event. 31. With respect to the first sentence of this paragraph, Exhibit "B" to the Complaint

speaks for itself. Denied that the second and third sentences of this paragraph accurately and completely state the nature of the activity occurring after the execution of the Subscription Agreement and denied that this later activity was based solely on conduct pre-dating the execution of the Subscription Agreement. 32. Admitted that Defendant filed an amended arbitration claim with other claimants

against ONESCO before the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD"). Denied that the allegations of this paragraph accurately and completely characterize the nature of the arbitration claims. With respect to the last sentence of this paragraph, Exhibit "C" to the Complaint speaks for itself.

-4ANSW ER Case No. C 07-02844 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-02844-JSW

Document 16

Filed 06/22/2007

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. 2. 3. herein. 2. 3. Denied. 1. herein. 2. 1.

COUNT I Defendant realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten

Denied because Defendant is entitled to enforce ONESCO's written arbitration

agreement with the NASD. 3. 4. Admitted that Defendant seeks to invoke NASD Rule 10301. Admitted that an investor can compel arbitration under the conditions alleged in this

paragraph; denied that an investor can compel arbitration only under the conditions alleged in this paragraph. 5. 6. 7. Denied. Denied. Denied with respect to the first sentence of this paragraph; admitted with respect to

the second sentence. 8. Admitted that the allegations of this paragraph describe the relief that ONESCO

seeks; denied that ONESCO is entitled to this relief. 9. With respect to the first sentence of this paragraph, admitted that an immediate

controversy exists; denied that this controversy is real or substantial. Admitted that the second sentence describes the relief that ONESCO seeks; denied that ONESCO is entitled to this relief. COUNT II Defendant realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully rewritten

Admitted that the allegations of this paragraph describe the relief that ONESCO

seeks; denied that ONESCO is entitled to this relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The disputes between the parties are arbitrable. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Venue is improper. -5ANSW ER Case No. C 07-02844 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-02844-JSW

Document 16

Filed 06/22/2007

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: June 22, 2007

Respectfully submitted, GOODMAN & NEKVASIL, P.A. By: /s/ Joel A. Goodman Joel A. Goodman Attorney pro hac vice

LAW OFFICES OF CARY S. LAPIDUS Cary S. Lapidus Local counsel Attorneys for Defendant

-6ANSW ER Case No. C 07-02844 JSW

Case 3:07-cv-02844-JSW

Document 16

Filed 06/22/2007

Page 7 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Electronic Mail Notice List Daniel T. Balmat [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 22, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List below, and I hereby certify that I have mailed the foregoing via U.S. Mail to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Manual Notice List below. /s/ Joel A. Goodman Joel A. Goodman Goodman & Nekvasil, P.A. 14020 Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 808 P.O. Box 17709 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Telephone: 727-524-8486 Facsimile: 727-524-8786

Joseph Anthony Meckes [email protected], [email protected] Manual Notice List Marion H. Little Michael R. Reed Zeiger, Tigges & Little, LLP 3500 Hunter Center 41 South High Street Columbus, OH 43215

-7ANSW ER Case No. C 07-02844 JSW