12400 Ventura Blvd. #137
Studio City, California
Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Stephen Victor Mitchell,
an individual Plaintiff,
v.
Catherine Claudine Michiels,
an individual Defendant,
CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM
JEWELRY, INC., a California
Corporation Defendant,
..
CASE NO.BC403442
BREACH OF CONTRACT
VERIFIEDCAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF CONTRACT
PARTIES
1. Stephen Victor Mitchell, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is one of the people of California, and in this court of record complains of the following: Catherine Claudine Michiels (hereinafter “Defendant”) is an individual in the State of California and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWERY, INC., a California S corporation, who are summoned to answer the Plaintiff in a plea of breach of contract, to wit:
..
INTRODUCTION
..
2. Shortly after Plaintiff and Defendant met in July of 2006 and became romantically involved, Defendant verbally proposed to Plaintiff that he function for the Defendant and her Catherine Michiels jewelry brand, later embodied by the California S corporation CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWERY, INC, in the capacity of an éminence grise (an advisor or decision-maker who operates secretly or unofficially) to use the Defendant’s exact words.
3. At the time of this verbal proposal, Defendant held up the model of fashion designer Yves St. Laurent and Pierre Bergé who met in 1958, became romantically involved and formed an equal partnership whereby St. Lauren created fashion designs and Bergé managed the strategy and tactics of developing the brand.
4. By late August of 2006, the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s proposal of partnership and éminence grise function and set aside his own business endeavors to focus on the needs of the Defendant and her Catherine Michiels brand.
3. At the time of this verbal proposal, Defendant held up the model of fashion designer Yves St. Laurent and Pierre Bergé who met in 1958, became romantically involved and formed an equal partnership whereby St. Lauren created fashion designs and Bergé managed the strategy and tactics of developing the brand.
4. By late August of 2006, the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s proposal of partnership and éminence grise function and set aside his own business endeavors to focus on the needs of the Defendant and her Catherine Michiels brand.
SPECIFICS
5. Plaintiff performed under the éminence grise/partnership proposed by the Defendant by actions including, but not limited to, the following:
6. By September of 2006, The Defendant established the email account sm@catherinemichiels.com from which the Plaintiff could send and receive communication in his function on behalf of the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC.
7. On September 6, 2006, one of Plaintiff’s first actions in his role of éminence grise/partner occurred when Plaintiff created a positioning statement for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. (See Exhibit A [cm.pdf] titled Catherine Michiels). This was presented in the form of a biography that articulated and positioned the Defendant as an artist and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. With this document, Plaintiff originated and introduced the “Recognition” concept that was to define the line of silk-tie bracelets and necklaces that are signature and cornerstone to the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. and which reference is in use to this day as the positioning/concept statement defining the Defendant and her line of product. Plaintiff integrated the context of art, social responsibility and spirituality as indigenous to the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC.
8. Prior to November, 2006, Plaintiff arranged and negotiated a factoring agreement with Primary Funding Corporation of San Diego California on behalf of the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. in order to facilitate cash flow from client orders to the Defendant (See Exhibit B [Catherine Michiels reserve.pdf] titled PRIMARY FUNDING CORP RESERVE ACCOUNT REPORT).
9. On November 7, 2006, Plaintiff created a press release for Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. dated November 10, 2006 titled “Designer Catherine Michiels reports doubled sales volume from 2005 in first six months of ’06.” The release reiterated the “Recognition” concept and Plaintiff integrated the idea that men were wearing the silk bracelets in order to open and develop the market for the Defendant’s product to male customers (See Exhibit C [CMcorp Press Release.doc] titled Designer Catherine Michiels reports…).
10. On December 4, 2006, Plaintiff created the name “La Vie de l’Amour” (The Life of Love) for a four-sided ring designed by the Defendant, which is mentioned in news releases created by the Plaintiff for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. (See Exhibit D titled Catherine Michiels Fine Custom Jewelry & Exhibit E [La Vie de l’Amour with photos.pdf] titled La Vie de l’Amour ring…).
11. From March 8, 2007 through June 29, 2008, Plaintiff created and administered a blog for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. with the web address http://catherinemichiels.blogspot.com/ using the sm@catherinemichiels.com email account to promote the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. and to increase the “footprint” of both on the Internet. (See Exhibit F [CM blog.doc] titled Catherine Michiels).
12. In April of 2007, Plaintiff created a merchandising concept for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. christened “La Valise Secrète” (The Secret Case).
13. On March 19, 2007, Plaintiff authored a marketing concept/legend for “Bob”, a skull ring designed by Defendant that brought attention and consumer enthusiasm to the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. (See Exhibit G [Bob.pdf] titled “Bob”).
14. On March 23, 2007, Plaintiff authored a proposal/presentation for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. destined for Indian investors who were thinking of making an investment in the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. (See Exhibit H [CM Budget & Explanation.pdf] titled A budget and explanation…).
15. In the months following the proposal for the Indian investors, the Plaintiff attended meetings and telephone conferences with the Indian investors to negotiate an agreement in principle for their investment in the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC.
16. On April 9, 2007. Plaintiff authored a letter for Defendant’s signature terminating the “Sales Representative Agreement” between the Defendant, CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. and Lisa Natt of SOLA Showroom (See Exhibit I [Lisa Natt.doc] titled Dear Ms Natt:).
17. On May 4, 2007, Plaintiff authored a release that was circulated by the Defendant to media and clients that announced in part, “It is no surprise that gross sales figures for Catherine’s line more than doubled in the last year (2005: $170K/2006: $400K” (See Exhibit J [CM Vogue.pdf] titled Catherine Michiels).
18. On June 30, 2007, Plaintiff authored the text for a merchandising booklet for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. destined for distribution to wholesale and retail consumers (See Exhibit K [Booklet text.doc] titled Booklet text).
19. In July of 2007, a mini-documentary conceived, produced and directed by the Plaintiff for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. titled “Voyage” was posted to the Defendant’s website (http://www.catherinemichiels.com/) where it remains to the date of this filing.
20. On July 22 of 2007, Plaintiff authored a news release announcing the introduction of the mini-documentary “Voyage” to the Catherine Michiels website (See Exhibit L [CM News July 2007.pdf] titled July 2007).
21. On July 6, 2007, Plaintiff designed and authored graphic documents as packaging for the mini-documentary “Voyage” in DVD format for dissemination to press and clients of the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. (See Exhibit M [DVD coverfinal.pdf] titled cover final & M1 [DVD cover reverse.pdf] titled DVD cover reverse.).
22. On August 16, 2007, Plaintiff authored a press release regarding the mini-documentary “Voyage” which was disseminated by Nia Davis of Purpose PR, who served as a PR representative for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC.. (See Exhibit N [Voyage press release.pdf] titled Catherine Michiels debuts ‘Voyage’…).
23. On August 27, 2007, Plaintiff created a deal memo for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. for David Edelstein, a potential investor for “La Valise Secrète” project (See Exhibit O [Valise Secrète Deal Memo.doc] titled Valise Secrète Deal Memo).
24. On September 26, 2007, Plaintiff authored, at Defendant’s request, a letter to Terence A. Oved Esq. dated 1 October, 2007 and signed by Defendant which stated Defendant’s position vis-à-vis Lisa Natt of SOLA Showroom (See Exhibit P [letter to Terence A. Oved.doc] titled Dear Mr. Oved ).
25. By December 7, 2007, Plaintiff had negotiated a settlement between Defendant, CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. and Lisa Natt of SOLA Showroom thereby avoiding costly litigation between the parties (See Exhibit Q [Settlement_Agreement.pdf] titled Settlement Agreement...).
26. On December 20, 2007, Plaintiff authored and signed a letter sent to Daniel Seidenstein Esq of OVED & OVED LLC on behalf of the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. providing clarification to elements of the Settlement Agreement between the Defendant and Lisa Natt of SOLA Showroom (See Exhibit R [letter to Daniel Seidenstein.doc] titled Dear Mr. Seidenstein).
27. On January 9, 2008. Plaintiff created a press release for the Robo Bro pendant designed by Defendant’s son Charles Demeester to be marketed by CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. (See Exhibit S [Robo Bro press release.pdf] titled Charles Demeester launches…).
28. In February 2008, Plaintiff created a news release for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. referencing the mini-documentary “Voyage” and the “La Vie de l’Amour” ring (See Exhibit T [CM News February 2008.pdf]ttled February 2008).
29. On April 19, 2008, Plaintiff created a news release for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. for dissemination to press and clients promoting CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. and reiterating mention of the “La Vie de l’Amour” ring (See Exhibit U [CM News AprilMay 2008.pdf]titled April/May 2008).
30. On June 8, 2008, Plaintiff created a news release for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. promoting the Defendant the brand and its offerings (See Exhibit V [CM News June July 2009.pdf] titled June/July 2008).
31. On June 17, 2008, Plaintiff created a market summary for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. for the purpose of concluding an agreement with investors, including but not limited to Jacques Zribi of Paris, France (See Exhibit W [CM market summary.pdf] titled Market Analysis Summary).
32. On August 31. 2008. Plaintiff finalized the creation of a business plan for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. which postulated a brand development concept and strategy christened by the Plaintiff as “La Vie de Chateau” (The Chateau Life) (See Exhibit X [La Vie de Chateau.pdf] titled La Vie e Chateau).
33. On September 4, 2008, Plaintiff created a news release for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. promoting the Defendant’s appearance at the Tranoi trade show in Paris, France as well as other news concerning CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. (See Exhibit Y [CM News September 2008.pdf] titled September/October 2008).
34. On September 20, 2008, Plaintiff created a document for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. to be given to Jacques Zribi for the purpose of attracting private investors to the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. (See Exhibit Z [CM for Jacky.pdf] titled Catherine Michiels Fine Custom Jewelry).
35. On September 26, 2008, Plaintiff created a media news release for the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. for dissemination to clients of CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. (See Exhibit AA [CM_Media_Fall_08.pdf] titled Fall 2008).
36. In the weeks prior to the Defendant’s termination of her romantic relationship with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff accompanied the Defendant to a branch of the Bank of America in Beverly Hills, California to assist the Defendant in cashing a check from Jacques Zribi of Paris, France in the amount of $30,000 (Thirty thousand dollars) as an initial investment in the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC..
37. On November 6, 2008, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that their romantic relationship was terminated and demanded that Plaintiff vacate the house in which they cohabited immediately (within the next few hours).
38. The Defendant has failed to offer compensation to the Plaintiff for his performance pursuant the éminence grise/partnership agreement which the Defendant had proposed to the Plaintiff and which, subsequent to Plaintiff’s acceptance, had been functioning since August/September 2006 through November 6, 2008 to the benefit of the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC.
39. By November 20, 2008, Defendant had deleted, or changed the password to block Plaintiff’s access to, the email account sm@catherinemichiels.com.
40. As of the date of this filing, Defendant has failed to provide any form of compensation whatsoever to the Plaintiff pursuant to the éminence grise/partnership agreement with regard to the increased commercial value of the Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. resulting from the Plaintiff’s performance under the agreement.
41. As of the date of this filing, Defendant has failed to address the issue of Plaintiff’s equity pursuant to the éminence grise/partnership agreement in any manner whatsoever.
42. The failure of the Defendant to address the issues of Plaintiff’s compensation and equity pursuant to the éminence grise/partnership agreement constitutes a material breach of contract.
43. As of September, 2008, the Defendant provided the following statement and figures regarding the sales figures for CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC.: “This presentation should be viewed with the following gross sales figures for Catherine Michiels in mind: Sales 2004: $50.4K, Sales 2005: $170K, Sales 2006: $400K, Sales 2007: $600K, Sales 2008: $680K (actual and projection), Sales 2009: $1M (projection). The forward looking figures for ’09 are projections based on the current operation and take into account the venture that we are currently discussing.” (See Exhibit Z [CM for Jacky.pdf] titled Catherine Michiels Fine Custom Jewelry).) LAW OF THE CASE The law is decreed as follows:
44. The plaintiff cannot enforce the defendant's obligation unless the plaintiff has performed the conditions precedent imposed on him. (C.C. 1439)
45. The basic object of damages is compensation, and in the law of contracts the theory is that the party injured by breach should receive as nearly as possible the equivalent of the benefits of performance. (See C.C. 3300; U.C.C. 1106(1))
46. For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this code, is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result there from. (C.C. 3300)
47. If the plaintiff gives up an established business or profession to enter into new activities by contract with the defendant, on breach the plaintiff may recover the profit or earnings he would have made if he had remained in his former business or profession. (C.C. 3301)
48. In the one case, the success of the business usually depends upon a variety of circumstances, and the outcome is therefore too uncertain to provide a tangible basis for computation; while in the other, past experience has demonstrated the success of the enterprise and provides a reasonably certain basis for the calculation of plaintiff's probable loss consequent upon the breach. (Hoag v. Jenan (1948) 86 C.A.2d 556, 564, 195 P.2d 451)
49. Whenever the terms of a contract relate to matters which concern directly the comfort, happiness, or personal welfare of one of the parties, or the subject matter of which is such as directly to affect or move the affection, self-esteem, or tender feelings of that party, he may recover damages for physical suffering or illness proximately caused by its breach.[Westervelt v. McCullough (1924) 68 C.A. 198, 228 P. 734]
50. Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt. (C.C. 3287(a)) REQUEST FOR RELIEF
51. For that cause of action therefore Plaintiff brings his suit.
52. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief and judgment against Defendant as follows:
53. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendant as follows:
54. That the court enters a declaratory judgment that Defendant and CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE CUSTOM JEWELRY, INC. have acted in breach of contract relative to the Plaintiff with regard to the éminence grise/partnership which commenced in August/September of 2006 and was terminated by Defendant in November 2008;
55. That the court grants Plaintiff three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) damages;
56. That the court grants Plaintiff such other and further relief as the court deems proper;
57. That the court grants Plaintiff costs of suit incurred.
58. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
December 8, 2008, County of Los Angeles, California
_________________________
Stephen Victor Mitchell
