Text of Bandler Lawsuit

Disclaimer: I believe this text to be an accurate reproduction of case #132495 filed on January 23, 1997 in Santa Cruz County, California. I have not checked the whole thing word for word against the paper copy, however, and disclaim any and all responsibility for its accuracy. — Stever

The text is almost complete. It is missing the exhibits:


Michael Brooks Carroll, Esq. (54904) Law Offices of Michael Brooks Carroll 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 788-7600 Attorneys for Plaintiffs RICHARD W. BANDLER, BRAHM VON HUENE, and DOMINIC LUZI

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

RICHARD W. BANDLER, an individual; BRAHM VON HUENE, an individual; and DOMINIC LUZI, an individual, Plaintiffs,

v.

QUANTUM LEAP, INC., a California corporation; JOHN T. GRINDER, JR., an individual; CARMEN BOSTIC ST.CLAIR, an individual; GRINDER, DeLOZIER & ASSOCIATES, a California corporation; LAURA GRINDER, an individual; MARK CARROLL, an individual; NLP COMPREHENSIVE, a business entity of unknown form; LARA EWING, an individual; STEVE ANDREAS, a.k.a. JOHN O. STEVENS, an individual; CONNIRAE ANDREAS, an individual; CHRISTINA HALL, an individual; NLP PROFICIENCY ASSOCIATES, a business entity of unknown form, d.b.a. THE NLP CONNECTION; and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No. __________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY DAMAGES, DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, EQUITABLE AND OTHER RELIEF DUE TO:

Plaintiffs RICHARD W. BANDLER, BRAHM VON HUENE (as to the First and Sixth Causes of Action only), and DOMINIC LUZI (as to the First and Sixth Causes of Action only) complain as follows:

General Allegations

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (hereinafter "NLP") is a technology that generates and utilizes models of human behavior for the purpose of training persons and organizations to better achieve their goals and accelerate their learning processes. NLP is a commercial product that is marketed for pecuniary profit in interstate commerce to the general public throughout the United States and abroad (particularly in the United Kingdom) by means including, but not limited to: seminars and other programs, for which fees are charged; books, tapes and other educational materials that are sold as goods; consulting engagements to companies and individuals, for which fees are charged; certifications of practitioners and trainers of NLP, for which fees are charged and royalties paid; and certifications of other skills and uses of NLP, for which fees are charged and royalties are paid.

To preserve the integrity of NLP as a commercial product, a centralized certification method was established and is used to maintain standards of quality and consistency of training and practice. From the very inception of NLP as a commercial technology, and continuously through the present, such certification function has been performed and is currently being provided by the SOCIETY OF NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING (hereinafter the "SOCIETY"), which has always been owned, operated and/or legally controlled by plaintiff RICHARD W. BANDLER (hereinafter "plaintiff" or "BANDLER"). The SOCIETY was originally developed by BANDLER as a marketing device. The service mark of the Society was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, with all rights appurtenant thereto, being owned and/or controlled by BANDLER at all times material herein.

The art and technique of NLP was invented in the mid-1970's by plaintiff BANDLER with the assistance of Defendant John T. Grinder, Jr. (hereinafter "GRINDER"), and BANDLER subsequently agreed to and has acknowledged GRINDER as the co-creator and co-founder of NLP and the SOCIETY. To facilitate such commercial exploitation of NLP, BANDLER and GRINDER on or about August 22, 1979, licensed Not, Ltd. to have the sole rights to administer NLP certification testing procedures and to award NLP certificates through the SOCIETY. Not, Ltd. was at that time, and at all times material herein, a California corporation owned and controlled by plaintiff BANDLER. Plaintiff BANDLER and defendant GRINDER commercially exploited the NLP technology jointly through the SOCIETY, which through their partnership agreement of November 1, 1979, was organized and operated as a general partnership between Not, Ltd., and Unlimited, Ltd., a California corporation owned and controlled by GRINDER.

On September 25, 1981, BANDLER through Not, Ltd. instituted a civil action for injunctive relief and damages in the Santa Cruz Superior Court styled Not, Ltd. v. Unlimited, Ltd., Grinder, et al., Case No. 78482, against GRINDER and his corporation Unlimited, Ltd., arising out of GRINDER's attempts to usurp and divert for himself BANDLER's and the SOCIETY'S rights in the commercial exploitation of NLP, including the rights to conduct certification activities and to receive income from certification activities. On October 29, 1981, a judgment was entered by the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, The Hon. Harry F. Brauder presiding, by which the Court permanently enjoined GRINDER, Unlimited, Ltd., and their agents, officers, employees, representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, from among other things, "1) Using the name or logo [of the SOCIETY] or any facsimile thereof which may tend to mislead or deceive the public as being under the aegis of [the SOCIETY]; 2) Conducting seminars purporting to offer certification in the field of Neuro-Linguistic Programming; 3) Utilizing [m]arketing devices developed by [Not, Ltd. and BANDLER]" and 4) Soliciting or contacting clients, employees, agents or contractors for any purpose detrimental to [Not, Ltd. and BANDLER]," unless specifically authorized by Not, Ltd. and BANDLER. A true and correct copy of said judgment and permanent injunction is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter the "PERMANENT INJUNCTION") .

The PERMANENT INJUNCTION incorporates by reference a settlement agreement dated October 27, 1981, entered into by BANDLER and GRINDER individually as well as on behalf of their respective corporations, Not. Ltd., and Unlimited, Ltd. (hereinafter the "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT"). In the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, GRINDER individually and on behalf of Unlimited, Ltd., agreed to fully and irrevocably transfer all interests that GRINDER and Unlimited, Ltd., had in the SOCIETY, to Not, Ltd. and BANDLER. Section III.A. of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT provides that: (1) the partnership between Not, Ltd. And Unlimited, Ltd. regarding the SOCIETY shall be terminated; (2) "Grinder hereby agrees to transfer and does hereby transfer all his interests and that of Unlimited, Ltd., in said partnership [SOCIETY] to Not, Ltd.," and (3) "The parties hereby agree that The Society of Neuro-Linguistic Programming shall continue as a sole proprietorship vested in Not, Ltd." A true and correct copy of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference.

In the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BANDLER and Not, Ltd. granted defendant GRINDER a limited and conditional 10-year license to conduct NLP seminars eight times a year in six specified cities and defined regions, on the conditions that royalties be paid by GRINDER to plaintiff BANDLER from the proceeds of such seminars, that the SOCIETY remain the sole source of certifications, and that GRINDER protect and promote the certification process and the exclusive role of the SOCIETY in the certification process.

Beginning at least as early as 1988, defendant QUANTUM LEAP, INC. (hereinafter "QUANTUM"), has been an entity owned, dominated and controlled by defendant GRINDER and/or defendant CARMEN BOSTIC ST.CLAIR (hereinafter "ST.CLAIR"), and has been used by defendants GRINDER and ST.CLAIR to circumvent and evade defendant GRINDER's obligations under the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION and to conceal GRINDER's violations of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION and other rights of plaintiff BANDLER, as well as to facilitate and conceal the receipt of revenues from such violations and breaches. Prior to QUANTUM's existence, defendant GRINDER, DELOZIER & ASSOCIATES (hereinafter "GD&A") similarly had been an entity owned, dominated and controlled by defendant GRINDER and/or defendants LAURA GRINDER and MARK CARROLL, and had been used by defendants GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, and LAURA GRINDER to circumvent and evade defendant GRINDER's obligations under the PERMANENT INJUNCTION and SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, to conceal defendant GRINDER's violations of the PERMANENT INJUNCTION, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and other rights of plaintiff BANDLER, as well as to facilitate and conceal the receipt of revenues from such violations and breaches.

Defendants GRINDER, QUANTUM, ST.CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, and MARK CARROLL, and DOES 1 through 200, with full knowledge and in conscious disregard of BANDLER's rights and GRINDER's obligations under the PERMANENT INJUNCTION and the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and GRINDER's obligations to BANDLER arising under the law, breached the PERMANENT INJUNCTION and SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, committed acts unfair competition under federal and state laws by palming off their goods and services, infringed upon the SOCIETY's registered service mark and misused plaintiff BANDLER's name and intellectual property without consent. Such material breaches and other violations of plaintiff BANDLER's rights by such defendants include, but are not limited to, the following conduct:

Such defendants affirmatively concealed and failed to disclose the existence of the PERMANENT INJUNCTION and SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT to persons and entities with whom they engaged in the commercial exploitation of NLP, and to persons or entities which otherwise had a need or right to know;

Such defendants during the period of GRINDER's 10-year license conducted NLP seminars and issued NLP certificates without the payment of royalties to plaintiff BANDLER as required by the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION;

Such defendants during the period of GRINDER's 10-year license conducted NLP seminars outside of the territories (the six explicitly identified cities and states) authorized by the license;

Such defendants continued after the expiration of GRINDER's 10-year license on October 27, 1991, to conduct seminars in NLP without approval of plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY, and without the payment of royalties to plaintiff BANDLER;

Such defendants during and after GRINDER's 10-year limited license certified persons in NLP without the consent of plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY, and without the payment of royalties to plaintiff BANDLER;

Such defendants continued after the expiration of GRINDER's 10-year license on October 27, 1991, to falsely portray GRINDER to the public as being authorized to offer NLP certifications on behalf of the SOCIETY;

Such defendants continued after the expiration of GRINDER's 10-year license on October 27, 1991, to falsely portray GRINDER to the public as being authorized to authorize others to offer NLP certifications on behalf of the SOCIETY;

Such defendants continued after the expiration of GRINDER's 10-year license on October 27, 1991, to certify individuals in NLP and issue and/or sign NLP certificates, without the approval of plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY and without payment of royalties to plaintiff BANDLER, some such certificates being offered with the representation that they would be certificates of the SOCIETY;

Such defendants issued and signed NLP certificates that bear a logo and seal virtually identical to the official logo and seal of the SOCIETY;

Such defendants offered and in fact provided certifications in NLP which purport to authorize others to use the NLP technology created, owned and/or controlled by plaintiff BANDLER without BANDLER's consent or the payment of any consideration to BANDLER;

Defendant GRINDER falsely stated under penalty of perjury to the United States Patent and Trademark Office that GRINDER owned and controlled the service mark of the SOCIETY and the underlying intellectual property rights;

Such defendants continued after the expiration of GRINDER's 10-year license on October 27, 1991, to otherwise exploit and make use of the SOCIETY and the intellectual properties of BANDLER and the SOCIETY as though GRINDER owned and controlled the SOCIETY or could use such intellectual properties without the consent of BANDLER; and

Such defendants represented falsely to the general public and persons interested in ascertaining whether BANDLER possessed any intellectual property rights relating to NLP and the SOCIETY and whether GRINDER was bound by any obligations including any Court orders restricting his use of intellectual property rights in NLP, certification in NLP, and the SOCIETY, that BANDLER had no such rights and GRINDER had no such restrictions.

Plaintiff BANDLER is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that defendants NLP COMPREHENSIVE, LARA EWING (hereinafter "EWING"), STEVE ANDREAS a.k.a. JOHN O. STEVENS (hereinafter "STEVENS"), CONNIRAE ANDREAS (hereinafter "ANDREAS"), and DOES 1 through 200, individually and in conspiracy with each other, tortiously interfered with the contractual and legal entitlements of plaintiff BANDLER under the PERMANENT INJUNCTION and SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (a) by aiding and abetting the breaches of defendants QUANTUM, GRINDER, ST.CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, and MARK CARROLL set forth hereinabove; (b) by engaging or arranging for the engagement of GRINDER, ST. CLAIR, QUANTUM or GD&A to provide programs and/or certifications in NLP without the consent of plaintiff BANDLER or the payment of royalties therefor; and (c) by passing off their goods and services related to NLP as having been approved, certified and authorized by BANDLER and/or the SOCIETY.

Plaintiff BANDLER is informed and believes and based thereon alleges, that defendants QUANTUM, GRINDER, ST.CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, and DOES 1 through 200, individually and in conspiracy with each other, tortiously interfered with plaintiff BANDLER's contractual relations with NLP COMPREHENSIVE regarding seminars and NLP products when such defendants caused the termination of NLP COMPREHENSIVE's contractual relations with plaintiff BANDLER, and caused defendants QUANTUM, GRINDER and GD&A to be hired instead.

Plaintiff BANDLER is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that written agreements exist between defendant CHRISTINA HALL (hereinafter "HALL") and plaintiff BANDLER, by which defendant HALL was granted limited license to conduct NLP seminars, sell NLP books, tapes and other products, and issue NLP certifications through the SOCIETY, in consideration for payment by defendant HALL to plaintiff BANDLER of royalties. Defendant HALL, individually and through her entity defendant NLP PROFICIENCY ASSOCIATES d.b.a. THE NLP CONNECTION (hereinafter the "HALL ENTITIES"), and DOES 1 through 200, materially breached such obligations under such agreements, committed acts of unfair competition under federal and state laws by palming off their goods and services, infringed upon the SOCIETY's service mark, and misused plaintiff BANDLER's name and intellectual property without consent. Such material breaches and other violations of plaintiff BANDLER's rights by such defendants include, but are not limited to, the following conduct:

Defendant HALL conducted NLP seminars, sold NLP books, tapes and other products, and issued NLP certifications, without payment of royalties to plaintiff BANDLER;

Defendant HALL issued NLP certificates bearing forged signatures of plaintiff BANDLER, and the name of plaintiff BANDLER without authorization or consent;

Defendant HALL misrepresented to the public that she personally owns the intellectual property rights to the official logo and seal of the SOCIETY, and on the basis of such misrepresentation licensed others to use the official logo and seal of the SOCIETY and received payments therefor; and

After defendant HALL was reminded in no uncertain terms no later than April 14, 1995, that plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY had terminated any authority she had to certify individuals and to issue certificates under the auspices of the SOCIETY, defendant HALL continued to do so and received payments therefor.

Defendant HALL was at one time the custodian of records of the SOCIETY. Although defendant HALL's duties and rights as the custodian were terminated more than 18 months ago, and despite demands having been made, HALL continues to refuse to surrender the records of the SOCIETY to plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY. Such records have become evidence or potentially may be important to on-going legal matters alleged herein, inasmuch as such records substantiate many of the factual claims being made in this action. Plaintiff BANDLER is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that defendant HALL with intent to obstruct justice, has deliberately or with wanton neglect caused such records of the SOCIETY to be destroyed, misplaced or lost.

Parties

Plaintiff BANDLER is an individual residing in the City and County of San Francisco, California. Plaintiff BANDLER is a signatory to the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, a party having a beneficial interest in the PERMANENT INJUNCTION, and an intended beneficiary of the PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

Plaintiff BRAHM VON HUENE (hereinafter "VON HUENE") is an individual residing in the City and County of San Francisco, California. Plaintiff VON HUENE is a "consumer" or potential "consumer" as that term is defined in California Civil Code 1761(d), of the goods and services of plaintiff BANDLER, and defendants QUANTUM, GRINDER, ST.CLAIR, GD&A, NLP COMPREHENSIVE, EWING, HALL, the HALL ENTITIES, STEVENS and ANDREAS. Plaintiff VON HEUNE is a party to only the First and Sixth Causes of Action alleged in this Complaint.

Plaintiff Dominic LUZI (hereinafter "LUZI") is an individual residing in the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff LUZI is a "consumer" or potential "consumer", as that term is defined in California Civil Code 1761(d), of the goods and services of plaintiff BANDLER and defendants QUANTUM, GRINDER, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, NLP COMPREHENSIVE, EWING, HALL, the HALL ENTITIES, STEVENS and ANDREAS. Plaintiff LUZI is a party to only the First and Sixth Causes of Action alleged in this Complaint.

Defendant QUANTUM LEAP, INC. ("QUANTUM"), is a California corporation doing business in the County of Santa Cruz, and which has a registered place of business in this county. The officers and controlling persons of defendant QUANTUM include defendants GRINDER and ST.CLAIR. Defendant GRINDER has admitted under oath that beginning in 1988 and continuing to present, he has "assigned" to defendant QUANTUM revenues derived from the activities alleged to be actionable in this Complaint.

Defendant JOHN T. GRINDER ("GRINDER") is an individual purportedly residing in the County of Santa Cruz. GRINDER is the primary subject of the PERMANENT INJUNCTION and a signatory of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

Defendant CARMEN BOSTIC ST.CLAIR ("ST. CLAIR") is an individual who is an officer, director, and controlling person of defendant QUANTUM. Defendant ST. CLAIR has committed certain of the actionable conduct alleged herein in the County of Santa Cruz.

Defendant GRINDER, DeLOZIER & ASSOCIATES ("GD&A") is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the County of Santa Cruz. The principals, officers, employees, and agents of defendant GD&A include defendants GRINDER, LAURA GRINDER and MARK CARROLL.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that defendants LAURA GRINDER and MARK CARROLL are residents in the County of Santa Cruz, whose current addresses are unknown to plaintiffs. Defendants LAURA GRINDER and MARK CARROLL were officers, employees, agents and controlling persons of defendant GD&A. Defendants LAURA GRINDER and MARK CARROLL has committed certain of the actionable conduct alleged herein in the County of Santa Cruz.

Defendant NLP COMPREHENSIVE, is a business entity of unknown form, which has its principal place of business in the State of Colorado, but which does business in the State of California At times material herein, defendant NLP COMPREHENSIVE was owned, operated, and controlled by defendants STEVENS and ANDREAS and EWING.

Defendant LARA EWING ("EWING") is an individual residing in the State of Colorado, but who does business in the State of California. Defendant EWING is a principal, officer, employee, agent and controlling person of defendant NLP COMPREHENSIVE. Defendant EWING has committed certain of the actionable conduct alleged herein in the County of Santa Cruz or outside of the County of Santa Cruz with the knowledge and intent that such conduct would have an effect in the County of Santa Cruz.

Defendant STEVE ANDREAS a.k.a. JOHN O. STEVENS ("STEVENS") is an individual residing in the State of Colorado, but who does business in the State of California. Defendant STEVENS has committed certain of the actionable conduct alleged herein in the County of Santa Cruz or outside the County of Santa Cruz with the knowledge and intent that such conduct would have an effect in the County of Santa Cruz.

Defendant CONNIRAE ANDREAS ("ANDREAS") is an individual residing in the State of Colorado, but who does business in the State of California. Defendant ANDREAS has committed certain of the actionable conduct alleged herein in the County of Santa Cruz or outside the County of Santa Cruz with the knowledge and intent that such conduct would have an effect in the County of Santa Cruz.

Defendant CHRISTINA HALL ("HALL") is an individual residing and doing business in the County of Santa Cruz. Defendant HALL is one of the principals and controlling persons of defendant NLP PROFICIENCY ASSOCIATES d.b.a. THE NLP CONNECTION.

Defendant NLP PROFICIENCY ASSOCIATES is a business entity of unknown form, which also does business as THE NLP CONNECTION (herein after the "HALL ENTITIES"). The principal place of business of the HALL ENTITIES is in the County of Santa Cruz.

The true names and capacities of the defendants named in this action as Does 1 through 200 are unknown to plaintiffs at this time, and are therefore sued under such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of the fictitiously-named defendants is responsible in some manner for the actionable conduct herein alleged, as follows:

Certain of DOES 1 THROUGH 200 are entities and individuals, whose precise identities are presently unknown to plaintiffs, but which plaintiffs are informed and believe acted as agents for and co-conspirators of the defendants named herein in tortiously interfering with the legal and contractual entitlements of plaintiff BANDLER under the PERMANENT INJUNCTION and SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by aiding and abetting the breaches of GRINDER, QUANTUM, ST.CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, and MARK CARROLL as set forth hereinabove, and by themselves attempting to unlawfully appropriate and exploit the service mark of the SOCIETY and BANDLER'S intellectual property rights;

Certain of DOES 1 THROUGH 200 are entities and individuals, whose precise identities are presently unknown to plaintiffs, but which plaintiffs are informed and believe acted as agents for the defendants named herein in tortiously interfering with plaintiff BANDLER's contractual relations with NLP COMPREHENSIVE and other providers of NLP programs and products when defendants caused the termination of plaintiff BANDLER's beneficial business relationship with NLP COMPREHENSIVE and other providers of NLP programs and products and caused defendants QUANTUM, GRINDER and GD&A to be hired instead;

Certain of DOES 1 THROUGH 200 are entities and individuals, whose precise identities are presently unknown to plaintiffs, but which plaintiffs are informed and believe acted as agents for defendants HALL and the HALL ENTITIES named herein by aiding and abetting the material breaches by defendant HALL of her obligations under her agreements with plaintiff BANDLER, committing unfair competition under federal and state laws by palming off their goods and services, infringing upon the SOCIETY'S service mark and other intellectual property, and misusing plaintiff BANDLER's name and intellectual property without consent, as alleged hereinabove;

Certain of DOES 1 THROUGH 200 are entities, individuals, and their co-conspirators, which have contracted with and aided and abetted defendant GRINDER to give NLP programs in breach of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, and in violation of the PERMANENT INJUNCTION;

Certain of DOES 1 THROUGH 200 are entities, individuals, and their co-conspirators, which give NLP programs, sell tapes, books and other NLP educational materials, certify others as NLP practitioners or trainers, or issue NLP certificates purportedly under the auspices of plaintiff BANDLER or the SOCIETY; but which in fact are acting without BANDLER's consent and without payment of royalties therefor; and

Certain of DOES 1 THROUGH 200 are entities, individuals, and their co-conspirators, which give programs, sell tapes, books and other educational materials, certify others as practitioners, trainers or persons with NLP skills, and/or issue certificates without reference to plaintiff BANDLER or the SOCIETY, but which nevertheless commercially exploit the concepts of NLP and the certification of NLP skills in which plaintiff BANDLER holds the intellectual property rights and other legal rights, without executing a written licensing agreement with BANDLER or the SOCIETY, without BANDLER's consent and without payment of royalties therefor;

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each defendant named in this Complaint acted as the agent, employee, alter-ego, privy, controlling person, co-conspirator and aider and abettor, of each and every other defendant. At all relevant times, each defendant was acting within the scope of his, her or its agency, employment, duties, conspiracy or other relationship with the other defendants.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Unfair Methods of Competition and Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices, In Violation of The California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. C.C. 1750, et seq.

(By Plaintiffs BANDLER, LUZI, and VON HUENE Against All Defendants)

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 28.

At all relevant times, defendants, and each of them, have engaged in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices, undertaken in transactions intended to cause the sale of goods or services to "consumers" like LUZI and VON HUENE, by:

Passing off defendants' goods and services as the goods and services of another, namely that of plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY;

Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services of defendants;

Misrepresenting the affiliation, connection, association with, or certification by, another, namely plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY;

Representing that defendants' goods or services have sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection with another (namely, with plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY), which he, she or it does not have; and/or

Disparaging the goods, services or business of plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY, by false or misleading representations of fact.

Such conduct constitutes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, CC 1750, et seq.

Defendants' acts and practices of unfair competition, unless enjoined by order of this Court pursuant to the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiff BANDLER, the SOCIETY, plaintiffs LUZI and VON HUENE, as well as to other members of the public. There is no adequate remedy at law for the injuries which plaintiffs are suffering and which are threatened to be suffered from defendants' current and threatened unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices.

As a proximate result of defendants' violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, plaintiff BANDLER has been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00. Plaintiffs LUZI and VON HUENE have been damaged in an amount not yet ascertained, but more than nominal to each of them.

The actionable conduct alleged hereinabove of those defendants named in this cause of action was perpetrated with and through fraud, oppression, and malice. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each such defendant in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,000.00.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Written Contract

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against QUANTUM, GRINDER, ST.CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, NLP COMPREHENSIVE, EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS and ALL DOES)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 34.

In October of 1981, in Santa Cruz County, California, an agreement was made in writing between plaintiff BANDLER on the one hand, and defendant GRINDER on the other, more fully described and memorialized in the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and the PERMANENT INJUNCTION, in which, among other things, GRINDER personally covenanted to not provide any NLP seminars or certifications unless expressly authorized by plaintiff BANDLER and unless provided under the auspices of the SOCIETY. In consideration, plaintiff BANDLER granted defendant GRINDER a limited 10-year license for to conduct NLP seminars eight times a year in six identified cities and regions, on the conditions that royalties be paid to plaintiff BANDLER from the proceeds of such seminars, that the SOCIETY remain the sole source of NLP certifications, and that GRINDER protect and promote the certification process and the exclusive role of the SOCIETY in the certification process.

Plaintiff BANDLER performed all conditions, covenants and promises required on his part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION, or has been legally excused from doing so by defendants' conduct.

In doing the acts alleged hereinabove, defendant GRINDER intentionally has breached his obligations to plaintiff BANDLER under the agreement memorialized in the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Defendants QUANTUM, ST.CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, NLP COMPREHENSIVE, EWING, STEVENS, and ANDREAS, with full knowledge and in conscious disregard of the BANDLER's rights and GRINDER's obligations under the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION, have aided and abetted GRINDER'S breaches of his obligations under the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION, as set forth more fully hereinabove.

Plaintiff BANDLER did not become aware of defendants' actionable conduct until within ten years of the filing of this Complaint because much of defendants' activities in breach were conducted outside of the United States, and were concealed by defendants. Defendants' actionable conduct in breach of the agreement memorialized in the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION has continued within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint and until the present.

As a direct and proximate consequence of defendants' breaches, plaintiff BANDLER has been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Written Contract

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against HALL, THE HALL ENTITIES, and ALL DOES)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 40.

Plaintiff BANDLER is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that agreements memorialized in writing exist between defendant HALL and plaintiff BANDLER, by which defendant HALL was granted a limited license to conduct NLP seminars, sell NLP books, tapes and other educational materials, and issue NLP certifications through the SOCIETY, in consideration for payment by defendant HALL to plaintiff BANDLER of royalties, HALL's obligations to provide certifications solely through the SOCIETY, HALL's obligation to have all persons certified enter into licenses with BANDLER and the SOCIETY and HALL's obligation to provide the names and addresses of all persons so certified to BANDLER and the SOCIETY.

Plaintiff BANDLER performed all conditions, covenants and promises required on his part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of said agreement with defendant HALL, or has been legally excused from doing so by defendants' conduct.

In doing the acts alleged hereinabove, defendant HALL, individually and through defendant HALL ENTITIES, has materially breached HALL'S obligations under said agreements. Defendant HALL ENTITIES and DOES 1 through 200 have aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff BANDLER did not become aware of such defendants' actionable conduct until within four years of the filing of this Complaint, and such defendants have attempted to conceal such conduct.

As a direct and proximate consequence of such defendants' breaches, plaintiff BANDLER has been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Implied Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against QUANTUM, GRINDER, GD&A, ST.CLAIR, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, NLP COMPREHENSIVE, EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS, HALL, THE HALL ENTITIES, and ALL DOES)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 45.

In doing the acts alleged hereinabove, defendant GRINDER has materially breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied as a matter of California law in the agreement alleged above in the Second Cause of Action. Defendants QUANTUM, GD&A, ST. CLAIR, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, NLP COMPREHENSIVE, LARA EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS and DOES 1 through 200 have induced and aided and abetted defendant GRINDER's breaches of such covenant.

In doing the acts alleged hereinabove, defendant HALL, individually and through defendant HALL ENTITIES, materially breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in HALL'S written agreements alleged above in the Third Cause of Action.

DOES 1 through 200 have induced and aided and abetted defendant HALL's breaches of such covenant.

As a direct and proximate consequence of defendants' breaches, plaintiff BANDLER has been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Federal Unfair Competition [ 43(a) of Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125]

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 50.

At all times relevant to the herein action, defendants, and each of them, have used in interstate commerce words, terms, names, symbols, devices and combinations thereof, that constitute false and misleading descriptions and advertisements of their own services and products which defendants provide in commerce in competition with the services, products, and business of plaintiff BANDLER. Such false and misleading descriptions and advertisements include, but are not limited to, the following:

In advertising and promoting NLP seminars, defendants have misrepresented or caused to be misrepresented that certificates would be issued by or under the auspices of plaintiff BANDLER and/or the SOCIETY, when such defendants did not have any right, authorization, license or consent to do so;

In advertising and promoting NLP seminars, defendants have issued, signed, or caused to be issued or signed, NLP certificates of their own that bear the name and/or forged signature of plaintiff BANDLER and/or the SOCIETY, when such defendants did not have any right, authorization, license or consent to do so; and

In advertising and promoting NLP seminars, defendants have issued, signed, or caused to be issued or signed NLP certificates of their own that bear the official logo and seal or the SOCIETY, or a logo and seal virtually identical to those of the SOCIETY, when such defendants did not have any right, authorization, license or consent to do so.

Such false and misleading descriptions and advertisements have caused and are likely to continue to cause confusion and mistake, and to deceive the public as to the affiliation or connection of defendants to plaintiff, and as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of defendants' services and goods.

Such false and misleading descriptions constitute unfair competition in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125.

Defendants' acts and practices of unfair competition, unless enjoined by order this Court, will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiff BANDLER and his business. Plaintiff BANDLER has no adequate remedy at law for injuries that he is currently suffering and which are threatened to be suffered from defendants' current and threatened acts and practices of unfair competition.

As a proximate result of defendants' unfair competition, plaintiff BANDLER has been damaged in an amount not yet ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00.

The actionable conduct alleged hereinabove of those defendants named in this cause of action was perpetrated with and through fraud, oppression, and malice. Therefore, plaintiff BANDLER is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each such defendant in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,000.00.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

State Unfair Competition [ Cal.B&P C. 17200, et seq.]

(By Plaintiffs BANDLER, VON HUENE and LUZI Against All Defendants)

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57.

As alleged in this Complaint, defendants, and each of them, have engaged in business competition with plaintiff BANDLER by means of false designations of origin in violation of 43(a) of the Lanham Act, infringements of plaintiff BANDLER's rights in the registered service mark of the SOCIETY, breaches of the contracts and implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, misuse of another's name without consent in violation of CC 3344, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and contractual relations.

At all relevant times, defendants, and each of them, engaged in unfair competition by their use of methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices undertaken in transactions intended to result or which did result in the sale of goods and services by:

Passing off defendants' goods and services as the goods and services of another, namely that of plaintiff BANDLER;

Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services of defendants;

Misrepresenting the affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification, another, namely plaintiff BANDLER;

Representing that defendants' goods or services have sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that he, she or it does not have; and/or

Disparaging the goods, services or business of another, namely that of plaintiff BANDLER, by false or misleading representations of fact.

Such wrongdoings constitute unfair competition under Cal. B&P C. 17200, et seq., which conduct has caused and will continue to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of the goods and services marketed by plaintiff BANDLER and defendants, and confusion as to the goods and services certified by the SOCIETY. Such confusion has allowed and will allow defendants to continue to improperly "palm off" and dilute the good will and source recognition which plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY have developed at significant expense and effort.

Defendants' acts and practices of unfair competition, unless enjoined by order this Court pursuant to B&P C. 17203, will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiff BANDLER and such plaintiff's business. Plaintiff BANDLER has no adequate remedy at law for injuries that he is currently suffering and are which threatened to be suffered from defendants' current and threatened acts and practices of unfair competition.

As a proximate result of defendants' unfair competition, plaintiff BANDLER has been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00; and plaintiffs VON HUENE and LUZI have been damaged in an amount not yet ascertained, but more than nominal to each of them.

The actionable conduct alleged hereinabove of those defendants named in this cause of action was perpetrated with and through fraud, oppression, and malice. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each such defendant in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,000.00.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Infringements of Service Mark [15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq.]

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 64.

BANDLER, through the SOCIETY, applied for, and was granted on or about August 16, 1983, a registration of the SOCIETY's official logo and seal as a service mark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. '' 1051, et seq., by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). Such registration is referenced by the PTO as Reg. No. 1,248,697. Such registration gives rise to a presumption under the law that such service mark is a valid and protectable service mark owned by the SOCIETY, which is in turn owned and controlled by plaintiff BANDLER.

Plaintiff was the first in the world to adopt and begin using such service mark to identify plaintiff's business, goods and services involving the training and certification of individuals in the art and technique of NLP. Plaintiff has continuously engaged in competitive interstate commercial activity appurtenant to such service mark. As a result, the relevant consumer public now identifies and associates such service mark with plaintiff BANDLER.

Subsequent to the registration of the service mark, defendants, and each of them, with actual and constructive notice of the proprietary nature of the plaintiff's service mark, have used a facsimile, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of plaintiff's service mark, in a way that would likely cause confusion among members of the relevant consuming public as to the source and provider of the services and trades associated with plaintiff's service mark. Defendants engaged in such infringing use of plaintiff's service mark in connection with defendants' businesses in direct competition with plaintiff, and in the same geographic markets.

Prior to and again through the filing and service of this Complaint, defendants, and each of them, have been put on notice and requested to ened to be suffered from defendants' misuse of plaintiff's name without consent.

As a direct and proximate result of defendants' misuse of plaintiff's name, sponsorship, and identification without consent, plaintiff BANBLER has been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00.

The actionable conduct alleged hereinabove of those defendants named in this cause of action was perpetrated with and through fraud, oppression, and malice. Therefore, plaintiff BANDLER is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each such defendant in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,000.00.

EIGHTH CASUE OF ACTION

Misuse of Another's Name Without Consent

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff Bandler realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 72.

The misuse of plaintiff's name, sponsorship and name identification by defendants without plaintiff's consent in defendants' written products, advertisements, promotions and certificates, as alleged hereinabove, constitutes an intentional and willful violation of CC 3344.

Defendants' wrongful acts in continuing to misuse plaintiff's name, sponsorship and identification without consent, unless enjoined by order of this Court, will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiff BANDLER and plaintiff's business. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for injuries that he is currently suffering and which are threatened to be suffered from defendants' misuse of plantiff's name without consent.

As a direct and proximate result of defendants' misuse of plaintiff's name, sponsorship, and identification without consent, plaintiff BANDLER has been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00.

The actionable conduct alleged hereinabove of those defendants named in this cause of action was perpetrated with and through fraud, oppression, and malice. Therefore, plaintiff BANDLER is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each such defendant in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,00.00.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 77.

As a result of nearly two decades of personal efforts and investments to promote NLP through his business activities, plaintiff BANDLER has developed good will, source recognition and rapport in the market and community consisting of recurring and prospective customers for NLP seminars, certifications, services and products.

Defendants knew of plaintiff's aforementioned established and prospective economic advantages in the market and community consisting of recurring and prospective NLP customers.

In committing the wrongful acts alleged in this Complaint, defendants, and each of them, intended to interfere with, have interfered with, and will continue to interfere with, plaintiff's relationships with such recurring and prospective customers.

Defendants' wrongful acts in their interference with plaintiff's prospective economic advantage, unless enjoined by order of this Court, will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiff BANDLER and plaintiff's business. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for injuries that he is currently suffering and which are threatened to be suffered from defendants' interference with plaintiff's prospective economic advantage.

As a direct and proximate result of defendants' interference with plaintiff's prospective economic advantages, plaintiff BANDLER has to date been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00.

The actionable conduct alleged hereinabove of those defendants named in this cause of action was perpetrated with and through fraud, oppression, and malice. Therefore, plaintiff BANDLER is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each such defendant in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,000.00.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84.

Defendants knew of plaintiff's contractual relations with defendant GRINDER arising from the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION, and arising from agreements between plaintiff BANDLER and certain persons and entities which provide NLP programs and services and which had engaged plaintiff BANDLER to provide NLP certifications, services and products.

In committing the wrongful acts alleged herein this Complaint, defendants, and each of them, intended to interfere with, have interfered with, and will continue to interfere with, such contractual relations.

Defendants' wrongful acts in their interference with plaintiff's contractual relations, unless enjoined by order of this Court, will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiff BANDLER and plaintiff's business. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for injuries that he is currently suffering and which are threatened to be suffered from defendants' interference with plaintiff's contractual relations.

As a direct and proximate result of defendants' interference with plaintiff's prospective economic advantages, plaintiff BANDLER has have to date been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00.

The actionable conduct alleged hereinabove of those defendants named in this cause of action was perpetrated with and through fraud, oppression, and malice. Therefore, plaintiff BANDLER is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each such defendant in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,000.00.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Spoliation of Evidence

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against HALL, THE HALL ENTITIES and ALL DOES)

Plaintiff BANDER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 90.

As hereinabove alleged, defendant HALL was at one time the custodian of records of the SOCIETY, and as such was entrusted and had a duty to preserve and produce when requested the records of the SOCIETY.

Although defendant HALL's duties and rights as the custodian were terminated more than 18 months ago, and despite demands having been made, HALL continues to refuse to surrender the records of SOCIETY to plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY.

The preservation, maintenance, inspection and admission into evidence of such records have become necessary material and to the successful prosecution of this action by plaintiff BANDLER, inasmuch as such records substantiate many of the factual claims being made in this Complaint.

At all relevant times, defendants HALL and the HALL ENTITIES knew that the preservation, maintenance, inspection and admission into evidence of such records would be material to plaintiff BANDLER's cost-effective and successful prosecution of his claims for violation the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION or BANDLER's other legal rights alleged herein.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that defendant HALL with intent to minimize, prevent or deprive plaintiff BANDLER of opportunities to inspect and admit such evidence, deliberately or with wanton neglect has caused such records of the SOCIETY to be destroyed, lost or concealed, and as a direct and proximate result, plaintiff BANDLER has been or will be prevented and deprived of opportunities to inspect and admit such evidence in legal proceedings. Defendants DOES 1 through 200 have aided and abetted the spoliation of such evidence by defendant HALL.

Defendants' continuing wrongful acts in their further spoliation of such evidence, if any remains, unless enjoined by order of this Court, will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to plaintiff BANDLER and plaintiff's business. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for injuries that he is currently suffering and which are threatened to be suffered from defendants' spoliation of evidence.

As a direct and proximate result of defendants' spoliation of evidence, plaintiff BANDLER has to date been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $100,000.00.

The actionable conduct alleged hereinabove of those defendants named in this cause of action was perpetrated with and through fraud, oppression, and malice. Therefore, plaintiff BANDLER is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each such defendant in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000,000.00.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Declaratory Relief

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 99.

A genuine controversy exists as to the respective rights and obligations of BANDLER and each of the defendants regarding the commercial exploitation of NLP and the SOCIETY.

Therefore, plaintiff BANDLER respectfully requests that this Court enter a declaratory judgment adjudicating such rights and obligations.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Accounting and Disgorgement

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against All Defendants)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 102.

Plaintiff BANDLER prays for an accounting and disgorgement of all gains, profits and advantages derived by defendants from all activities involving their unfair competition practices, breaches of agreements, infringements of the SOCIETY's service mark, and other wrongful actions alleged hereinabove in the this Complaint.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Adjudication of Parties Contempt of this Court's Permanent Injunction Entered October 29, 1981, and Imposition of Contempt Sanctions

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against Grinder and All Those Found By the Court to Have Acted in Concert With Grinder)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by references as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 104.

As more fully set forth in the Application for Ex Parte Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt filed in this Court in Action No. 78482 and in the supporting declarations, pleadings and memoranda filed in support of such application, defendant GRINDER, individually and through his controlled entities defendants GD&A and QUANTUM, and with the substantial assistance of individual defendants ST. CLAIR, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, NLP COMPREHENSIVE, EWING, STEVENS ANDREAS and DOES 1 through 200, has materially violated this Court's PERMANENT INJUNCTION entered in Action No. 78482 on October 29, 1981, by conduct, including the following:

Defendant GRINDER, with the aid and assistance of defendants QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL and DOES 1 through 200, issued NLP certificates without the involvement of plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY or the payment of royalties to plaintiff;

Defendant GRINDER, with the aid and assistance of defendants QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL and DOES 1 through 200, conducted NLP programs outside of the territories authorized by the license provisions of the PERMANENT INJUNCTION;

Defendant GRINDER, with the aid and assistance of defendants QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS, NLP COMPREHENSIVE and DOES 1 through 200, continued after the expiration of the license period set forth in the PERMANENT INJUNCTION to conduct to seminars in NLP without the approval of plaintiff BANDLER and the SOCIETY, or the payment of royalties to plaintiff BANDLER;

Defendant GRINDER, with the aid and assistance of defendants QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, EWING, STEVE ANDREAS, CONNIRAE ANDREAS, NLP COMPREHENSIVE and DOES 1 through 200, certified individuals in NLP without the involvement or approval of plaintiff BANDLER, or the payment of royalties to plaintiff BANDLER;

Defendant GRINDER, with the aid and assistance of defendants QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS, NLP COMPREHENSIVE and DOES 1 through 200, falsely portrayed GRINDER to the public as being authorized to offer NLP certifications on behalf the SOCIETY;

Defendant GRINDER, with the aid and assistance of defendants QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS, NLP COMPREHENSIVE and DOES 1 through 200, falsely portrayed GRINDER to the public as being authorized to authorize others to offer NLP certifications;

Defendant GRINDER, with the aid and assistance of defendants GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, and DOES 1 through 200, falsely stated under a penalty of perjury to the United States Patent & Trademark Office that GRINDER had rights of ownership and controlled the service mark of the SOCIETY and its associated intellectual property rights;

Defendant GRINDER, with the aid and assistance of defendants QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS, NLP COMPREHENSIVE and DOES 1 through 200, continued after expiration of the license rights set forth in the PERMANENT INJUNCTION to otherwise exploit and make use of the SOCIETY and the intellectual property rights of BANDLER and the SOCIETY as though GRINDER owned and controlled the SOCIETY and the underlying intellectual property rights; and

Defendant GRINDER, with the aid and assistance of defendants QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS, NLP COMPREHENSIVE and DOES 1 through 200, affirmatively concealed and failed to disclose the existence and significance of the PERMANENT INJUNCTION to persons and entities which had a need to know of this Court's PERMANENT INJUNCTION;

The defendants named in this cause of action were aware of this Court's PERMANENT INJUNCTION; each had the ability to comply with the terms and provisions of this Court's PERMANENT INJUNCTION; and each engaged in conduct which constitutes willful disobedience of this Court's PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

Plaintiff BANDLER has complied with all the procedural requirements of California law necessary for plaintiff BANDLER to seek this Court's adjudication that the defendants named in this cause of action have acted in contempt of this Court's PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Tortious Breach of Obligations Arising Out of Permanent Injunction

(By Plaintiff BANDLER only Against GRINDER, QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS, NLP COMPREHENSIVE, and DOES 1 THROUGH 200)

Plaintiff BANDLER realleges and incorporates by reference as though set forth fully at this point, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 108 above.

In engaging in the conduct alleged above, particularly in the actions alleged above in paragraph 106, defendants GRINDER, QUANTUM, ST. CLAIR, GD&A, LAURA GRINDER, MARK CARROLL, EWING, STEVENS, ANDREAS, NLP COMPREHENSIVE, and DOES 1 THROUGH 200, violated and breached duties owed to plaintiff BANDLER which arise out of and are imposed upon such defendants as a matter of law by this Court's PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

As a proximate result of such defendants' violations and breach of the PERMANENT INJUNCTION, plaintiff BANDLER has been damaged in an amount not yet fully ascertained, but in excess of $2,500,000.00.

The actionable conduct alleged hereinabove of those defendants named in this cause of action was perpetrated with and through fraud, oppression, and malice. Therefore, plaintiff BANDLER is entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each such defendant in an amount to be proven at trial but in no event less than $10,000,000.00.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs RICHARD W. BANDLER, BRAHM VON HUENE, and DOMINIC LUZI pray for entry of judgment against defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. For preliminary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining defendants, and each of them, and their agents, employees, representatives and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in, committing or performing, directly or indirectly, any and all of the following:

2. For an order requiring defendants to show cause, if any they have, why they should not be enjoined as hereinbefore set forth during the pendency of this action;

3. On the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Fifteenth Causes of Action, for actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event to be less than $2,500,000.00;

4. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), for statutory trebling of plaintiff BANDLER's actual damages resulting from defendants' unfair competition practices and infringements of his rights in the SOCIETY's service mark alleged hereinabove in the Fifth and Seventh Causes of Action;

5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), for disgorgement and an award to plaintiff BANDLER of any and all profits earned by defendants resulting from defendants' unfair competition practices and infringements of service mark alleged hereinabove in the Fifth and Seventh Causes of Action;

6. Pursuant to CC 3344(a), for disgorgement and an award to plaintiff BANDLER of any and all profits earned by defendants resulting from defendants' misuse without consent of plaintiffs name, as alleged hereinabove in the Eighth Cause of Action;

7. For declaratory relief as to the respective rights and obligations of plaintiff BANDLER and defendants regarding the commercial exploitation of NLP and the SOCIETY;

8. For an accounting and disgorgement of all gains, profits and advantages derived by defendants from all activities involving their unfair competition practices and infringements of service mark alleged hereinabove in the Fifth, Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action;

9. On the Fourteenth Cause of Action, for an adjudication pursuant to the Order to Show Cause entered by this Court on July 19, 1996, that GRINDER and those acting in concert with him are in contempt of this Court's PERMANENT INJUNCTION entered October 29, 1981, and for imposition of contempt sanctions as allowed by California law against GRINDER and those found by the Court to have been acting in concert with GRINDER in the commission of the conduct constituting the contempt;

10. On the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Fifteenth Causes of Action, for an award of punitive and exemplary damages against each of the defendants named in said Causes of Action in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event to be less than $10,000,000.00;

11. For plaintiffs' attorneys' fees as allowed by law, including under Cal. C.C.1780 and 3344(a) and 15 U.S.C.1117(a), for those causes of action stated herein for which attorneys' fees are recoverable;

12. For costs of suit as allowed by law;

13. For pre-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

14. For such other, further and different relief as the Court may deem just, proper and equitable

DATED: January 22, 1997 Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL BROOKS CARROLL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs RICHARD W. BANDLER, BRAHM VON HUENE, and DOMINIC LUZI


Home | Resources | International | Search | Email