• Report: #864279

Complaint Review: Claimtek Systems

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Thu, April 05, 2012
  • Updated: Tue, April 24, 2012

  • Reported By: TrackSuit — Other United Kingdom
Claimtek Systems
3943 Irwine Blvd. Internet United States of America

Claimtek Systems Kyle Farhat Claimtek Systems involved in Lawsuit, Internet

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: ClaimTek Systems' Rebuttal to Case from TecFolks. And Listing of Case from ClaimTek Systems against Kavita Sethi and TecFolks, LLC

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

CV-11 4334
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------~-----------------------------------------)(

TECFOLKS, LLC, Plaintiff, -against- CLAIMTEK SYSTEMS, SYDASOFT, Inc., KYLE FARHAT and NISHAT KURTZ: Defendants.

--------------.----------------------------------------------------J{

RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OfFICE
US DiSTRiCT COURT E.D.N.Y
Index No.:* SEP 0 9 2011 *
VERIFIED
COMPLAlN ISLAND OFFICE
JURY TRlAL DEMANDED HURLEY,J WALL: M.J.

Plaintiff, Tecfolks, LLC (hereinafter "Tecfolks") by its attorneys, the Law Office of Vincent R Fontana, P.C., complains of defendants Claimtek Systems (hereinafter "Claimtek"), Sydasoft , Inc. (hereinafter "Sydasoft"), Kyle Farhat (hereinafter "Farhat") and Nishat Kurtz (hereinafter ''Kurtz''), as follows:

NATURE OF CLAIM
I. This is an action based on breach of contract, 'fraud in the inducement and to rescind the contract ab initio.

2. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 1332(a)(1), CPLR Section 311 and Business Corporation Law Section 307.

4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) in that the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Eastern District of New York.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and resides at 2 Kenneth Street, Plainview, New York 11803, which is within the Eastern District ofNew York.

6. Upon information and belief, defendant ClaimTek Systems is a California corporation doing business in the state of New York.

7. Upon information and belief, defendant Sodasoft is a California corporation doing business in the state of New York.

8. Upon information and belief, defendant Farhat is president of ClaimTek. Farhat is sued herein personally and in his capacity as president of ClaimTek.

9. Upon information and belief, defendant Kurtz is the Business Manager at ClaimTek and is sued herein in official and personal capacity.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. On or about November 30, 2010 the parties purportedly entered into a contract whereby defendant was to provide plaintiff a medical claims processing system for medical insurance claims and billing center functions, including but not limited to the following: training manuals, video tapes, medical billing software, technical support, and other items related to medical claims processing (ExhibitA).

11. In. consideration for the promises made by defendants before and after November 3, 2010, plaintiff paid defendants the sum of $15,095 on signing the contract and executed a promissory note in the amount of$5,000 (Exhibit "A").

12. Pursuant to paragraph 13 on the Addendum to the contract defendants were to provide the costs and details of the dealership at the time of signing the contract. However, defendants failed to provide plaintiff Electronic Medical Records ("EMR") distributorshipand failed to disclose the costs, details of the EMR dealeIership and contracts.

13. Defendants failed to provide technical support and correct errors in the MedOffice software in violation of the terms and conditions of paragraph 15 of the contract, even when the defendants were advised of the problems.

14. Defendants failed to provide technical support and correct errors in the DentOffice software in violation of the terms and conditions of paragraph 15 of the contract, even when the defendants were advised of the problems.

15. Defendants were in violation of paragraph 3 of the contract when it failed to provide a customized Enterprise-Level, Optimized Website valued at $18,000 under the Preferred Plus package.

16. Defendants are in violation of Section 16(i) of the contract addendum because it failed to provide 1700 new brochures.

17. Defendants were in default of Sections 3 and 5 of the contract when they failed to provide full technical, business and marketing support.

18. Defendants are in violation of Section 4 of the contract When it failed to supply all services and support to plaintiff.

19. Defendants arc in violation of Section 12 of the contract by putting its logo on all promotional material that plaintiff was to distribute to its customers, thus making that material useless.

20. Defendants falsely advertised that it provides Certification Commission for Health Information Technology ("CCHIT") and information necessary to function under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("ARRA").

21. Defendants violated the contract by not providing full tech support 24/7 as stated it would.

22. Defendants violated the terms of the contract because it failed to provide plaintiff proper training. TIle DVD's and CD's were of poor quality and full of errors.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

23. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and restates each and every allegation set forth.in paragraphs "1" through 22" as if fully set forth herein.

24. Defendants knew at the time it fraudulently entered into the contract with plaintiff that it was incapable of satisfying the terms and conditions of the contract.

25. Defendants' fraudulent conduct was intentional and engaged in to induce plaintiff to enter into a contract with defendants that it would not have done had the defendants not engaged in the fraudulent misrepresentations.

26. Plaintiff has been damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $250,000.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

27. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and restates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs "1" through "26" as if fully set forth herein.

28. Defendants' conduct as set forth herein constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of the contract to the detriment ofthe plaintiff.

29. Plaintiff has been damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $250,000.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court cnter judgment against defendants:

(1) voiding the contract between plaintiff and defendants ab initio thus declaring the contract null and void;

(2) in the alternative, declaring that the defendants are in breach of theterms and conditions ofthe contract.

Dated: Garden City, New York September 6, 2011

Yours, etc
Law Office of Vincent R. Fontana P.C. .
BY~,~ Vincent R. Fontana
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1010 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, New York 11530


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/05/2012 09:06 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Claimtek-Systems/internet/Claimtek-Systems-Kyle-Farhat-Claimtek-Systems-involved-in-Lawsuit-Internet-864279. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Claimtek Systems

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 0Consumer 1Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company

ClaimTek Systems' Rebuttal to Case from TecFolks. And Listing of Case from ClaimTek Systems against Kavita Sethi and TecFolks, LLC

AUTHOR: ClaimTek Systems - (United States of America)

This is a FRIVOLOUS case against ClaimTek. Its now in the process of being dismissed in its entirety in NY as it doesnt belong in NY courts and it doesnt make any sense from an ethical or legal perspective. Heres why:
 
First, from a legal perspective, ClaimTek contract specifies that before any legal action the parties need to go through MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION. Second, if MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION doesnt solve the issue, the legal venue for law suits is in California not New York. Heres what the contract specifies
 
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION:
Any dispute arising hereunder, which the parties cannot resolve between themselves, using good faith, may be referred to a court certified mediator in Orange County in the State of California. The parties shall share equally in the cost of said mediation. In the event that said dispute is not resolved in mediation, the parties shall submit the dispute to a neutral arbitrator certified by the American Arbitration Association in California. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding. The parties shall share equally in the cost of the arbitration.
 
CHOICE OF LAWS, FORUM SELECTION AND JURISDICTION:
This Agreement has been made and delivered in the State of California, and it shall be construed, enforced and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. ClaimTek and the Licensee/Buyer/Purchaser expressly agrees and acknowledges that the forum and place of any dispute and resolution of any dispute, relating to or arising out of this contract, shall be in the State of California.
 
ClaimTek has filed MOTIONS-TO-DISMISS this case and responded to all items listed in it showing proof that all of the allegations presented by plaintiff were flawed. ClaimTek also filed a case against TecFolks and its owner Kavita Sethi in Orange County, CA Superior court on April 6th, 2012 (Case # 30-2012-00560030-CL-BC-CJC)  for balance due + late fees + attorney fees as our promissory note terms specify. Additionally, ClaimTek is filing a complaint to NY state bar against the attorney that filed this frivolous case in NY.  
 
THE JUST OF THIS CASE IS THISFormer client, Kavita Sethi of TecFolks, LLC, purchased our system only after her husband (who goes by the nickname Harsh) had done extensive research. He was extremely picky and our staff handled him with great patience. He paid $15K down and ClaimTek helped him finance $5K for 5 months interest free. Immediately after the purchase, he turned extra demanding and wouldnt follow company instructions and policies at any level even with the most basic elements. He simply wanted to run the show and have everyone tip-toe around his unsubstantiated demands. Our company objected to his behavior and his unusual request of unique treatment. Mr. Harsh Sethi became verbally abusive when communicating with our staff. He threatened to sue our company then disappeared. Nearly a YEAR later he filed this frivolous lawsuit. It seems that hes been looking for a cheap attorney with low ethics that would do such a filing in federal court in NY where this case does NOT belong. The case was poorly written with redundant allegations, which indicates that the attorney didnt do the writing. This case was prepared for him to simply file. The allegations are NOTHING FACTUAL, the venue is wrong, and to name another company not part to the contract (Sydasoft) and to name employees in the case is simply wrong. Our response to it shows proof contrary to all the allegations. This former client simply wanted a case against our company to show off on the internet. Time will show that his case in NY will be dismissed as it was wrong from its filing to its content and our case against Sethi and TecFolks, LLC will succeed because evidence is Chrystal clear.
 
ClaimTek has been in business since 1993 and has immaculate record as the leader in the industry. The allegations listed against our company are flawed in their entirety and simply do not fit with company record. Why would our company not deliver brochures or provide support? This case proves that no matter what you do as a company or as individual, you cannot please all people. Whats important is to try your best. Also, ClaimTek has never sued a client for lack of payment. In this case we feel pursuing TecFolks and its principals is justified.
 
BELOW IS THE CERTIFICATION OF KYLE FARHAT, PRESIDENT OF CLAIMTEK IN RESPONSE TO THE CASE FILED BY TECFOLKS FOLLOWED BY THE CASE OF CLAIMTEK SYSTEMS LAW SUIT AGAINST TECFOLKS IN ORANGE COUNTY, CA.
--------------------------------------------------------------
BAILEY & OROZCO, LLC
744 BROAD STREET, SUITE 1901
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102
Phone: 973 693 4408
Fax:  973 735 2719
Attorneys for Defendants, ClaimTek Systems, Sydasoft, Inc., and Kyle Farhat
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case No: 11-cv-4334-DRH-WDW
 
CERTIFICATION OF KYLE FARHAT
_______________________________________

I, Kyle Farhat, being of full age, do hereby certify as follows:

1.            I am the sole owner of ClaimTek Systems and authorized to act as its representative and agent.

2.            ClaimTek Systems was incorporated in August of 2005 organized and existing under the laws of California as a Limited Liability Company.  Prior to that it was an S Corporation organized and existing under the laws of Oregon dating back to 1993.

3.            The named Defendant, Nishat Kurtz, is only an employee of ClaimTek Systems.  As such he should not be a named party in this matter.

4.            Plaintiff originally contacted ClaimTek regarding the License in October of 2010 and requested a free trial copy which he used for a month before signing the contract.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit B.

5.            ClaimTek Systems entered into a contract with TecFolks, LLC for its purchase of software from ClaimTek on or about November 30, 2010.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit A.

6.            Both parties corresponded beforehand regarding the terms and voluntarily entered into the contract as demonstrated by my signature and the signature of TecFolks representative, Kavita Sethi.

7.            Kavita Sethis husband and business partner, Harsh Sethi conducted a rigorous research process before purchasing the software, including downloading it and using for a month before purchase.

8.            Pursuant to Section 21 of the contract between the parties, Mediation and Arbitration, any dispute may be referred to a court certified mediator in Orange County, California.  In the event it is not resolved, the dispute must be submitted to a neutral arbitrator in California which shall be final and binding.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit A.

9.            Pursuant to Section 18 of the contract between the parties, Choice of Laws, Forum Selection, and Jurisdiction, the Agreement was made and delivered in California under the laws of California, and TecFolks agreed that the forum and place of any dispute and resolution of any dispute, relating to or arising out of the contract will be in California.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit A.

10.          I negotiated and drafted an addendum to that contract which was executed on or about November 30, 2010.  The addendum made no changes to Section 18, the Choice of Venue Clause, or Section 21, the Arbitration Clause of the underlying contract.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit A.

11.          Plaintiff deliberately and consciously chose to ignore ClaimTek policies and procedures for customer support and training.  The policies and procedures are designed so that ClaimTek can respond efficiently and effectively to as many customers as quickly as possible.  On multiple occasions ClaimTek communicated to Plaintiff the correct process.  Instead, Mr. Sethi refused to comply, refused to present any descriptions or explanations of his problems or information he needed.  Plaintiff claims these problems despite over a month of using the software before signing the contract.  Instead, of following our standard policies for customer support of all customers, he repeatedly demanded special treatment and demanded to speak to managers. 

12.          ClaimTek provides a website for every business using our software and allows them to choose from 20 different designs.  Plaintiff chose to ignore the instructions to provide us with the information necessary to get their personalized website running.  Instead, Plaintiff repeatedly dictated how the website should be set up rather than following our outline instructions.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit C.

13.          Our software is 100% Government ONC-ATCB-Certified.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit F.  As such doctors can received qualified government funding as part of the ARRA stimulus plan.  Plaintiff was signed up and received a two-day training at no extra cost.  The next step was for Plaintiff to become an EMR certified reseller.  However, Plaintiff did not attend this training and never attempted to attend this training afterwards.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit G.

14.          Plaintiff chose not to pursue their business with ClaimTek and cut off communications with our company before they started their marketing campaign.  All marketing brochures, post cards, and presentation folders were delivered as required under the contract, including the 1,700 new brochures.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit D & E.

15.          As yet Plaintiff has chosen not to take advantage of all of the resources available to him under the contract.  Instead, he has focused his energies on controlling our sales, support, training, and marketing departments.  All of the resources and support referenced in the contract are still available to Plaintiff if he wishes to make use of them.

16.          On or about January 4, 2011, I attempted to resolve any remaining issues Plaintiff had by sending him a comprehensive email.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit H.

17.          Plaintiff failed to make any of the five payments required under the Promissory Note.  I sent Plaintiff a demand letter requesting payment and informing him that he was in violation of our contract.  See Certification of Michael Orozco, Exhibit I.

18.          According to our records, all requirements of ClaimTek under the terms of the contract have been met.

I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true to the best of my knowledge.  I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
___________________
Kyle Farhat
President and CEO
ClaimTek Systems
------------------------------- 
 
CASE OF: CLAIMTEK VS. KAVITA SETHI AND TECFOLKS, LLC
FIILED APRIL 6, 2012 IN ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CALIFORNIA
Case No.  30-2012-00560030-CL-BC-CJC

David A. Berstein (State Bar No. 204472)
Eric J. Goodman (State Bar No. 210694)
GOODMAN MOONEY & BERSTEIN, LLP
8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1170
Irvine, California 92618
T:  949.622.0020
F:  949.622.0024
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff ClaimTek, LLC d.b.a. ClaimTek Systems
 
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
 
CLAIMTEK, LLC d.b.a. CLAIMTEK SYSTEMS, a California limited liability company; 
Plaintiff,
v.
KAVITA SETHI, an individual; TECFOLKS LLC, a New York limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive. 
Defendants.

Case No.  30-2012-00560030-CL-BC-CJC
 
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Breach of Written Contract; and
Breach of Promissory Note
-----------------------------------------
For its Complaint against KAVITA SETHI, TECFOLKS LLC, and DOES 1 through 20, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK, LLC d.b.a. CLAIMTEK SYSTEMS alleges as follows:
PARTIES

1.         Plaintiff CLAIMTEK, LLC d.b.a. CLAIMTEK SYSTEMS (hereinafter CLAIMTEK) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a California limited liability company with its principal place of business at 3943 Irvine Boulevard, # 39, Irvine, California 92602.

2.         Upon information and belief, Defendant KAVITA SETHI (hereinafter SETHI) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an individual who currently resides at 2 Kenneth Street, Plainview, New York 11803.

3.         Upon information and belief, Defendant TECFOLKS LLC (hereinafter TECFOLKS) is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business at 998C Old Country Road, Suite 253, Plainview, New York, 11803.

4.         Plaintiff CLAIMTEK is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned each of the Defendants, including all Defendants sued under fictitious names, and those agents, employees, and/or independent contractors identified herein, were the agent and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of this agency or employment.

5.         Defendants Does 1 through 20, whose identities and addresses are unknown to Plaintiff CLAIMTEK, are individuals and/or corporate entities that engaged in the unlawful activities complained of herein.  The Complaint will be amended, if appropriate, to include the name or names of these individuals when such information becomes available. 

6.         Defendants SETHI, TECFOLKS, and Does 1 - 20 shall be collectively referred to in this Complaint as Defendants.
 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7.         This Court has jurisdiction in this matter because Plaintiff CLAIMTEK conducts business in California and because all of the Defendants conduct business with sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avail themselves of the California market through their business dealings here.      
    
8.         Venue is proper in the County of Orange because, among other things, at least one of the parties resides or conducts business in the County of Orange, the contract at issue was entered into in the County of Orange and contains a provision specifying venue in the County of Orange.
 
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9.         Plaintiff CLAIMTEK is in the business of providing electronic medical billing software along with training and support for its customers to operate a medical billing service.   

10.       Through extensive research and development, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK developed a medical claims processing system for medical insurance claims and billing center functions, which include training manuals, video tapes, medical billing software, technical support, and other items related to medical claims processing (hereinafter ClaimTek Billing Center Program.)

11.       On or about November 30, 2010, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK and Defendant TECFOLKS entered into a written Contract & Licensing Agreement (Agreement) wherein Defendant TECFOLKS desired to purchase and utilize a non-exclusive license to the ClaimTek Billing Center Program.  A true and correct copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 

12.       Plaintiff CLAIMTEK has performed all terms and conditions of the Agreement on its part to be performed, other than those it has been prevented or excused from performing by Defendants' nonperformance and breach.

13.       In furtherance of the Agreement, Defendant SETHI executed a Promissory Note (Note) wherein she agreed to be personally liable for payment to Plaintiff CLAIMTEK for the ClaimTek Billing Center Program licensed to Defendant TECFOLKS under the Agreement.  A true and correct copy of the Note is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.   
 
14.       Pursuant to the terms of the Note, Defendant SETHI agreed to pay Plaintiff CLAIMTEK an aggregate price of $19,995.00 with a down payment of $15,030.00 due upon the execution of the Note with the remaining balance due in five (5) monthly installments of $1,000 beginning January 1, 2011.

15.       Defendant SETHI authorized a charge of her credit card in the amount of $15,030.00 and further authorized Plaintiff CLAIMTEK to charge her credit card $1,000 a month for five (5) monthly installments beginning January 1, 2011.

16.       Pursuant to the Note, failure by Defendant SETHI to make any installment payments required under the Note constitutes a default. 

17.       Upon default of the Note, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK may, inter alia, declare all sums immediately due and payable.  

18.       Defendants breached the Note by failing and refusing, and continuing to fail and refuse, to make installment payments required under the Note.

19.       As a result of the Defendant SETHIs default in the Note, there is presently due, owing and unpaid under the Note, the outstanding balance of $6,600.00, as well as all other fees, costs and additional charges due under the Note and all costs and attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiff CLAIMTEK.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Written Contract
(Against Defendants TECFOLKS and Does 1 through 20)

20.       Plaintiff CLAIMTEK realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Complaint as though fully and completely set forth herein.

21.       On or about November 30, 2010, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK and Defendant TECFOLKS entered into a written Agreement wherein Defendant TECFOLKS agreed to purchase a non-exclusive license to the ClaimTek Billing Center Program.

22.       Defendant TECFOLKS agreed to pay for all costs and fees associated with the purchase of the ClaimTek Billing Center Program with the total price amounting to $19,995.00.

23.       Upon execution of the Agreement, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK immediately shipped the ClaimTek Billing Center Program to Defendant TECFOLKS. 

24.       Despite having received shipment of the ClaimTek Billing Center Program, Defendant TECFOLKS failed and continues to fail to remit payment in full.

25.       Plaintiff CLAIMTEK has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required by it on its part except those that have been excused by the nonperformance and breach by Defendants.

26.       All remaining balances and payments are now due in full.

27.       Defendant TECFOLKS breached its Agreement with Plaintiff CLAIMTEK by failing to make full payments immediately upon receipt of the invoices and remains in breach as of the date of this filing.

28.       As a result of the breach by Defendant TECFOLKS, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK has suffered damages of at least $6,600.00 and is additionally entitled to post judgment interest.

29.       Plaintiff CLAIMTEK has attempted to collect sums owed through efforts to contact Defendant TECFOLKS; however payment has not been made to Plaintiff CLAIMTEK as of the date of this filing.

30.       There is presently due, owing and unpaid under the Agreement, the outstanding principal balance of $6,600.00 which includes late fees, together with post judgment interest thereon, as well as all other fees, costs and additional charges due under the Agreement and all costs and attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiff CLAIMTEK.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Promissory Note
(Against Defendants SETHI and Does 1 through 20)

31.       Plaintiff CLAIMTEK realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Complaint as though fully and completely set forth herein.

32.       On or about November 24, 2010, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK and Defendant SETHI executed a Note wherein Defendant SETHI agreed to pay for the ClaimTek Billing Center Program licensed to Defendant TECFOLKS under the Agreement.

33.       Pursuant to the terms of the Note, Defendant SETHI agreed to pay Plaintiff CLAIMTEK an aggregate price of $19,995.00 with a down payment of $15,030.00 due upon the execution of the Note with the remaining balance due in five (5) monthly installments of $1,000 beginning January 1, 2011.

34.       The Note has not been revoked or superseded and remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms as set forth therein. 

35.       Defendant SETHI breached the Note by failing and refusing, and continuing to fail and refuse, to make installment payments required under the Note.

36.       Upon an occurrence of an event of default under the Note, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK may, inter alia, declare all sums under the Note immediately due and payable, and Plaintiff CLAIMTEK has and hereby does so declare.

37.       Defendant SETHI has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Note.

38.       As a result of the Defendant SETHI 's default in the Note, there is presently due, owing and unpaid under the Note, the outstanding principal balance of $6,600.00 which includes late fees, together with post judgment interest thereon, as well as all other fees, costs and additional charges due under the Note and all costs and attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiff CLAIMTEK.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

On its Causes of Action, Plaintiff CLAIMTEK prays for the following relief:
 
ON THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION
1.         For damages in the amount of at least $6,600.00 and according to proof;
2.         For late fees accruing at the rate of $100.00 per month from the date said sums were due;
3.         For attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
4.         For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
 
Dated: April 6, 2012  

GOODMAN MOONEY & BERSTEIN, LLP
By:  ____________________________
Eric J. Goodman
David A. Berstein
Attorneys for Plaintiff ClaimTek, LLC
d.b.a. ClaimTek Systems
 
 

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.