Caitlin Murney / daughter Chistopher Murney / TenFourPictures SCAM ALERT: Caitlin Murney Steals Money From Several Victims / Does Not Pay Debts New York New York

WARNING TO ALL: Do NOT do business of any sort with CAITLIN MURNEY, she is a crook who has stolen and pocketed money from multiple funding sources and companies including my own and does not honor her debts.  See below for details on this case and feel free to contact me for more information.  If this report is still published, it means that CAITLINE MURNEY has still not fulfilled her obligation for the debt.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF CASE

1. Ten Four Pictures was a company co-owned by CAITLIN MURNEY, daughter of CHRISTPHER MURNEY, 210 W. 78^th Street #9B, New York, NY  10024; (((SSN REDACTED))); CA - (((ReDACTED))), that has since closed it doors due to lack of funding and inability to pay back several large debts incurred by Ms. Murney.   My company was one of the unlucky victims of this negligence and scam.
2.  On June 6, 2011, we entered into an agreement with Caitlin Murney and Ten Four Pictures, by which we paid a sum of $20,000.  Per the terms of the agreement (attached), we were to be paid back in full plus a 10% interest on July 15, 2011.  (See attachment / Exhibit A).
3. When the debt was not repaid according to plan, an addendum was created and executed on August 16, 2011 which would add an additional annualized interest of 23.99% to the loan balance.   As of the date of this filing (December 30, 2013), that balance has escalated to $76,112.22.  (see attachment / Exhibit B).
4. When the loan was not repaid, we were forced to take out a sub-loan to make up for these losses.   This resulted in more fees and charges on behalf of the plaintiff.  A new agreement was drafted which would transfer all liability to Caitlin Murney personally, regardless of the fate of Ten Four Pictures LLC, or any corporate or personal bankruptcy, and an additional interest was added at a rate of 5.9%.  The deal was signed by Ms. CAITLIN MURNEY and notarized by a California State Notary on May 10, 2012 by ROBERT WILLIAM VEGA (Commission # 1842015). That interest has now accrued to an additional $58,241.14.   (See attachment / Exhibit C).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 395 and 395.5 at least because Los Angeles County is the is the county in which Plaintiff resides, and because it is the county where the Defendants’ obligations and/or liabilities have arisen and the contract was made. 
2. Venue is further proper in this Court pursuant to the parties’ contractual agreement that “[t]he venue for any legal dispute between Company [CW3PR] and Client [Caitlin Murney] shall be exclusively in the District Court for the State of California located in los Angeles County, California.”
3. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper before this Court of competent jurisdiction because CW3PR seeks equitable relief and damages where the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000. 
4. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because they entered into a contract with a California company that contemplated that any action arising out of that contract would be brought in the California courts, and because Defendants have sufficient contacts with the State of California, and/or because the exercise of jurisdiction in this matter would be just and reasonable. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract and Failure to Pay)
(Against The Defendant)

1. We reallege and incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
2. My compnay and Caitlin Murney / Ten Four Pictures, the business name used by all defendants, entered into a valid contract on June 6, 2011.
3. As detailed above, Caitlin Murney breached the Agreement by, among other things, violating state and local laws governing the deal it contracted with us, with multiple violations of the forthcoming amendments to the agreement.
4. As a direct and proximate result of Caitlin Murney’s breaches of the Agreements, CW3PR has suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages that exceed the jurisdictional limit of this Court and that are no less than $79,641.32.

PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL

1. As alleged above, there is such a unity of interest and ownership of Caitlin Murney and Ten Four Pictures LLC based on the transfer of liability in Exhibit C, that the separateness of these three entities has ceased.
2. Thus, an adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of Caitlin Murney and Ten Four Pictures LLC would sanction a fraud and promote criminal injustice.