First Amended Complaint

Stephen Victor Mitchell
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

FIRST AMENDED ACTION BREACH OFCONTRACT

VERIFIED

CAUSE 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:

SPECIFICS

2. Paragraphs 1 through 58 from the BREACH OF CONTRACT originally filed by the Plaintiff including all exhibits are incorporated as though fully stated herein.
3. The following paragraphs are added to the Plaintiff’s action for BREACH OF CONTRACT:
59. Though the Plaintiff specified that the contract proposed by the Defendant and accepted by the Plaintiff was oral in nature by alleging, “At the time of this verbal proposal, Defendant held up the model of fashion designer Yves St. Laurent and…” (See BREACH OF CONTRACT Page 2, Lines 11-16), Plaintiff hereby affirms that the contract proposed by the Defendant and entered into by the parties was an oral contract.
60. Specifically, Defendant asked Plaintiff to be responsible for marketing, public relations, branding and media strategies and business development on behalf of the defendants collectively.
61. Plaintiff hereby affirms that the compensation offered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was a fifty percent equity share in the business of the Defendants collectively (See BREACH OF CONTRACT, Page 2, Lines 11-16).
62. Plaintiff hereby alleges that Defendant offered, in addition to an equity share in the business, a weekly compensation to the Plaintiff for his efforts on behalf of the Defendants collectively.
63. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants collectively did, in fact, pay to Plaintiff the sum of $250 (two hundred, fifty dollars) in partial compensation for his efforts on their behalf for each of the four weeks in November 2006 for a total of $1000 (one thousand dollars)(See Exhibits: AB, AC, AD, & AE [Invoices to CATHERINE MICHIELS FINE JEWELRY INCORPORATED for weeks ending November 3, 10, 17 & 24 of 2006].
64. As of December, 2006, Plaintiff advised Defendant that he would no longer submit invoices for a weekly compensation stating that he was content that the equity share in the business was adequate compensation for his efforts.
65. The Defendant did not object to that which Plaintiff proposed in Paragraph 64 above.
66. Plaintiff alleges that the scope of his activities on behalf of the defendants collectively went beyond the performance requested of him by the Defendant to include, though not limited to, negotiating with the attorneys of a party bringing suit against the Defendants collectively, developing product and concepts for the business to sell, developing materials with which to attract investors to the business, creating advertising copy for the business and creating naming for merchandise offered by the business.
67. The breach of contract occurred on November 6, 2008 when the Defendant cut the Plaintiff off from any further participation in the enterprise of the Defendants collectively and refused to discuss or offer a settlement or compensation for the Plaintiff’s equity share in the business consequent to his performance pursuant to the oral contract between the parties.
68. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

February 17, 2009, County of Los Angeles, California

_________________________

Stephen Victor Mitchell