All My Sons Moving And Storage Deceptive business practices, damage to and loss of property, holding property hostage for higher payment Hayward California

As "All My Sons Moving and Storage of Sacramento, Inc." has ignored all contact, this serves as a public notice of intent to seek relief in the apopropriate judicial venue:

COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT, COUNTY OF YOLO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN THE MATTER OF:
##########################
VS.
ALL MY SONS MOVING AND STORAGE OF SACRAMENTO


1) Plaintiffs, ################, allege that the defendant(s), All My Sons Moving and Storage of Sacramento, Inc., et al, by its acts in violation of law and good, accepted business practices as well as its tacit approval of the unlawful and negligent acts of its employees did cause damages to plaintiffs as specified in the attached statement of damages.

2) Plaintiffs allege that the defendant, its employees and agents engaged in the following criminally and civilly actionable activities:

a) Defendant and its employees failed to exercise due care and diligence, in violation of good business practices and procedures, resulting in damage to personal property of the plaintiffs as outlined in attached statement of losses in the amount of $3,527.00.

b) Defendant did willfully with intent to defraud engage in acts intended to extend and delay services to cause overtime and other charges to which, if acting in a reasonable and prudent manner, would not be claimed, such acts including personal visits by family members at the place of work, plaintiffs' home, and multiple, extended breaks where no work was performed.

c) Employees of defendant deviated from course between residences of plaintiffs for a period of approximately forty-five minutes upon a residential street, as witnessed by plaintiffs, where no commercial services were available, to include establishments providing food and fuel, and that such deviation was to deprive plaintiffs of personal property, as itemized in attached statement of losses, by an act of theft in violation of California Penal Code Section 484.

d) Defendant, through and by its employees, upon arrival at plaintiffs' Butte County residence, demanded payment eighty-five percent greater than that originally quoted of $1,215.00, in the additional sum of $1,029.38, stating that plaintiffs' property would not be released unless said inflated, unlawful charges were paid. This act is in violation of California Penal Code Section 522 and California Public Utility Code Section 5143 (d) through (f).

e) Defendant did not provide forms as required under California Public Utilities Code Section 5143 (d) through (f) and that defendant's employees utilized forms non-compliant with said code which were altered and/or annotated in violation of California Penal Code Section 470 (c) after services were performed, not as required prior to the performance of services.

f) Defendant failed to inspect the residence prior to the date of service to ensure a vehicle of proper capacity was used resulting in items being left behind causing plaintiffs to have to rent a vehicle, incurring additional costs of $86.00 and delay placing plaintiffs at risk of not complying with escrow binding escrow agreements and subjecting plaintiffs to potential civil action.


3) Defendant ignored all contact from plaintiffs, by email and registered mail, regarding plaintiffs' complaints until such time plaintiff provided said complaints to defendant's agent for service via registered mail advising that defendant's egregious acts had been posted on the internet whereupon defendant posted a rebuttal and then provided, via mail, a claim form to plaintiff. Plaintiff returned said claim form via registered mail and defendant refused to accept the form which was returned to plaintiff as refused as had defendant so done in all attempts of contact with defendant by plaintiffs.

4) The defendant's registered agents of service, CSC- Lawyers Incorporating Service, rejected the letter of complaint, a copy of that sent the defendant in item 5, claiming the defendant was not their client. Despite the fact that the defendant was clearly identified within the address on the envelope, regardless of defendant's agents' false claim of not being defendant's agents for service, the letter was opened and bears evidence of having been photocopied before being mailed back to plaintiffs. If, upon examination of the exterior of the envelope the defendant was not correctly named, defendant's agents for service should have returned said letter unopened. Defendant's registered agents for service had been positively identified, as per the CA Secretary of State, as CSC- Lawyers Incorporating Service and their handling of plaintiffs' complaint demonstrates an attempt to delay, obfuscate and confound plaintiffs' attempts at restitution by falsely claiming not to be the agent for service while unethically gathering information, a violation of the Code of Ethics of the California State Bar and applicable state law and code.

5) Defendant has clearly demonstrated a propensity toward such egregious behavior alleged by plaintiffs as evidenced by defendant's unfavorable rating by the Better Business Bureau, attached, by the decision rendered in TATIA WAGNER VS. AMS MOVING & STORAGE, INC. ET AL, SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR CASE 01AM01519 in which defendants did not prevail and by numerous unfavorable internet posting alleging similar acts by defendant.

6) Defendants in their phone directory advertising, telephonic on-hold advertising and on the internet have falsely portrayed themselves as a family owned business, using verbiage and images to depict themselves as such. Defendant is, in fact, a franchise of a larger organization that has, on a national scale, engaged in unlawful and unethical business practices as a matter of policy resulting in numerous complaints located on the internet as specified in section 5.

7) Therefore, based upon the preceding outlined unlawful, unethical and egregious acts of defendant, defendant's employees and defendant's registered agent for service, plaintiffs seek relief as follows:

a) Defendant pay plaintiffs for loss, theft and damage in the amount of $3,613.00

b) Defendant pay plaintiffs for the willful, unlawful, inept and unethical acts of defendant, defendant's employees and defendant's agents, as punitive damages, the sum of $1,387.00

c) The court deny defendant, as required in CA Public Utilities Code Section 5143 (c), the amount of unlawful overcharges in the amount of $1,029.38 as said charges are in violation of CA Public Utilities Code Section 5143 (d) through (F).
d) The court deny the defendant any fees for services from plaintiffs as such fees would be tantamount to rewarding defendant for the willful, unlawful, unethical and inept acts of defendant, defendant's employees and defendant's agents.

8) Lastly, plaintiffs request a court date of any Wednesday to preclude wage losses.

Executed this XX day of November, 2004, in the County of Butte, State of California.



________________________________
PLAINTIFFS

CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS - REFER TO SECTION (f) CONCERNING QUOTING ONE PRICE AND DEMANDING ANOTHER UPON DELIVERY. THE FORM MUST BE PROVIDED AS SPECIFIED IN THE CODE AND NO CHARGE MAY EXCEED the "NOT TO EXCEED" CHARGE SPECIFIED IN WRITING BEFORE THE MOVE:

5143. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have
the following meaning:

(1) "Consignor" means the person named in the bill of lading asthe person from whom the household goods and personal effects have been received for shipment and that person's agent.

(2) "Consignee" means the person named in the bill of lading to whom or to whose order the household goods carrier is required to make delivery as provided in the bill of lading and that person's agent.

(b) Any household goods carrier engaged in the business of transportation of used household goods and personal effects by motor vehicle over any public highway in this state shall provide each consignor with a completed copy of the notice set forth in this section. The notice shall be printed in at least 12-point type, except the title and first two paragraphs which shall be printed in boldface type, and provided to each consignor at least three days prior to the date scheduled for the transportation of household goods or personal effects. If the consignor requests services on a date that is less than three days before the scheduled date for transportation of the household goods or personal effects, the carrier shall provide the notice as soon as practicable, but in no event may the carrier commence any services until the consignor has signed and received a signed copy of the notice. The carrier shall obtain sufficient information from the consignor to fill out the form and shall include the correct maximum amount and a sufficient description of services that will be performed. The carrier shall retain a copy of the notice, signed by the cosignor, for at least three years from the date the notice was signed by the cosignor.

(c) Any waiver of the requirements of this section is void and
unenforceable.

(d) The "Not To Exceed" amount set forth in the notice and the agreement between the household goods carrier and the consignor shall be the maximum total dollar amount for which the consignor may be liable for the transportation of household goods and personal effects and any additional services ordered by the consignor (including any bona fide change order permitted under the commission's rules and tariffs) and agreed to by the consignor before any goods or personal effects are moved from their location or any other services are performed.

(e) A household goods carrier may provide the notice set forth in this section either as a separate document or by including it as the centerfold of the informational booklet that the household goods carrier is required to provide the consignor under the commission's tariffs. If the household goods carrier provides the notice as part of the informational booklet, the booklet shall contain a tab that extends beyond the edge of the booklet at the place where the notice is included. The statement "Important Notice" shall be printed on the tab in at least 12-point boldface type. In addition, the statement "Customer Must Read And Sign The Important Notice In The Middle Of This Booklet Before A Move Can Begin" shall be set forth in 14-point boldface type on the front cover of the booklet.

(f) The notice provided the consignor shall be in the following
form:

"IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT YOUR MOVE

"IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ONLY AGREE TO A "NOT TO EXCEED"
AMOUNT THAT YOU THINK IS A PROPER AND REASONABLE FEE FOR THE SERVICES
YOU ARE REQUESTING. THE "NOT TO EXCEED" AMOUNT THIS MOVER IS
REQUESTING IS $______________________ to perform the following
services:

_____________________________________
"IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE "NOT TO EXCEED" AMOUNT LISTED OR THE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE MOVER'S SERVICE AT NO CHARGE TO YOU.

"If you request additional or different services at the time of the move, you may be asked to complete a Change Order which will set forth your agreement to pay for additional fees for those newly requested services. If you agree to the additional charges on that Change Order, those charges may be added to the "NOT TO EXCEED" amount set forth above. If you do not agree to the amounts listed in the Change Order, you should not sign it and may refuse the mover's services.

"A mover cannot refuse to release your goods once you have paid the "NOT TO EXCEED" amount for the transportation of your goods and personal effects and any additional services that you have agreed to in writing. The "NOT TO EXCEED" amount must be reasonable.

"A mover cannot, under any circumstances, withhold food, medicine,medical devices, items to treat or assist a disabled person, or items used for care of a minor child. An unlicensed mover has no right to withhold your goods for any reason including claims that you have not adequately paid for services rendered.

"For additional information or to confirm whether a mover is licensed by the California Public Utilities Commission, please call the Public Utilities Commission toll free at:
________________________________.
insert toll-free number

"I have completed this form and provided the consumer (shipper)
with a copy of this notice.
"Signed _________________________________
Dated_______________________
"I have been provided with a copy of this form.
Signed __________________________________ Dated ___________________"

Attorney General Lockyer Announces Moving Company Owner Sentenced for Felony Grand Theft
Head of West Coast Movers Held Victims' Property Hostage

March 19, 2004

04-039
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(916) 324-5500

(SAN DIEGO) Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced that Eliyahu Sharvit, owner of West Coast Movers, today was sentenced in San Diego Superior County Superior Court for felony grand theft in connection with the firm's handling of a Chula Vista woman's move to Florida.

"Mr. Sharvit tried to defraud his customers out of thousands of dollars," said Lockyer. "He held their property hostage when they refused to pay more than they bargained for, and ultimately extorted thousands of dollars from them. Consumer ripoffs by bad actors in the moving industry are becoming more prevalent in California and across the country. To help protect consumers against this growing problem, we're going to seek criminal charges whenever appropriate."

Sharvit was sentenced by San Diego County Superior Court Judge John M. Thompson to 84 days in jail (already served), a three-year suspended sentence and summary probation. Under a plea agreement, Sharvit also has paid the victim in the case, Julianne Black of Chula Vista, $27,020 in restitution. Additionally, he has paid $2,980 in restitution to Jason and Jennifer Ketner of San Diego, victims prosecutors learned about after charges were filed against Sharvit in the Black case. Sharvit is not a U.S. citizen and will be deported to Israel because of his felony conviction.

Acting on consumer complaints, the Attorney General's Office worked with the San Diego County District Attorney's Office to investigate West Coast Movers, and secure Sharvit's arrest, conviction and sentencing. State and local prosecutors received assistance from the state Department of Food & Agriculture's Division of Weights and Measurement Standards.

Following his arrest, Sharvit pled guilty to one count of felony grand theft of personal property in connection with West Coast's June 2003 agreement to move Black from her Chula Vista residence to Sarasota, Florida. West Coast agreed to move Black's household goods for $2,539.85. The price was based on an estimate that the goods weighed 4,501 pounds. West Coast did not conduct its own inspection of Black's belongings.

At the time it entered into the agreement with Black, West Coast was not authorized to operate in California. The company did not have a valid permit from the California Public Utilities Commission, and its license had been revoked effective April 1, 2003 by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Black was not aware West Coast was operating illegally when she contracted with the firm.

Black eventually went to Florida, with her belongings still in California. After Black arrived in Florida, West Coast contacted her and told her the move would cost $8,290, almost $6,000 more than the agreed upon price. West Coast said the increase was based on a new estimate that her goods weighed 14,000, rather than 4,501 pounds.

After Black balked at paying the additional amount, Sharvit told her West Coast had placed her belongings in the company's storage facility in Chatsworth, California. He said she would not get her property until she paid the $8,290.

Black ultimately contacted another mover, which sent her an estimate that it could move her for $3,480.44. When Black informed Sharvit of her decision to hire the other mover, he told her he would not release her belongings to the mover unless she paid Sharvit $2,550. Unconvinced she owed West Coast any money, but fearful her property would be damaged, Black agreed to provide Sharvit a cashier's check to get her belongings back.

Subsequent investigation by state and local authorities determined Black's property weighed 8,540 pounds less than Sharvit said it weighed in demanding the additional payment of almost $6,000 for an unauthorized, unlicensed move.

Lockyer co-sponsored a new statute (AB 845, Vargas) that toughened state laws regulating movers and strengthened penalties for violations. AB 845 increased the maximum criminal sanctions from a $1,000 fine and three months in jail to a $10,000 fine and one year in jail. Additionally, the new statute requires movers to provide customers a "not to exceed" price up front, and prohibits companies from refusing to deliver goods once a customer pays that price. Movers also will be responsible for the conduct of subcontractors, and no longer will be able to shield themselves from liability by entering such arrangements.

Consumers can file complaints against moving companies with the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit at http://www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm or by writing to the Public Inquiry Unit at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550.

Household Goods Enforcement Unit, CA Public Utilities Commission
This Unit investigates alleged or apparent violations of the Public Utilities Code, Commission regulations, and other California statutes involving household goods carriers, commonly referred to as moving companies. The CPUC has jurisdiction only over California intrastate transportation, that is, when the move both originates and ends up in California. Moves crossing state lines are under the jurisdiction of the Office of Motor Carriers of the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation (main office in California: (916) 498-5050).

All movers offering or performing California intrastate transportation are required to have an active CPUC permit, and public liability and cargo insurance on file with the Commission. The majority of the Unit's efforts involve the detection and abatement of movers advertising and operating without CPUC permits. These movers, known as "bandits," expose the public to significant harm, and have a tremendous, unfair economic advantage over their lawful competitors. The Unit has many tools at its disposal for controlling the bandit mover problem, including stings, intervening with moves in progress, administrative fines, criminal and civil prosecution, and injunctions. Public Utilities Code Section 5322, is being used extensively by the Unit. This law allows Special Agents to obtain a magistrate's finding that telephone service is being used by an unlicensed mover to violate the law. The finding is then used to obtain an order directing the utility providing the telephone service to disconnect it. The statute requires a prior written warning to the mover. (Telephone subscribers whose service is disconnected under this procedure are entitled to a hearing before a Commission ALJ within 21 days.) Since movers rely heavily on telephones to obtain and conduct their business, this procedure has proven to be extremely effective.

Occasionally, a mover comes along who simply uses the "moving" business as a front for the extortion of money from his customers, and the theft and embezzlement of their property. One such unlicensed mover, Larry Phillips, is currently serving a nine-year prison term in southern California, having been convicted in 1996 of nine felonies, including the theft and embezzlement of money and property, resulting from an Enforcement Branch investigation. Phillips and his company placed dozens of customers' personal belongings in an open field, exposed to the elements, then demanded more money from some of those customers so he could "locate" their property. Much of the property tendered to this mover was destroyed, or lost and never recovered. Partly in response to that case, the Consumer Services Division sought and obtained legislation, resulting in a new statute, Public Utilities Code Section 5259.5. That law authorizes the Commission to seek relief from a superior court by way of mandamus, injunction, or appointment of a receiver, whenever it determines that a mover has abandoned, or is abandoning, the stored household goods of a customer.

A few licensed movers have also been known to victimize members of the public, and these also demand the attention of the Household Goods Enforcement Unit. Very often, these movers employ various bait and switch tactics, typically beginning with an unlawful, verbal estimate, and concluding with one or more price hikes after the move begins, when the customer has little choice but to pay. This type of case may result in an administrative fine, or an OII, which may conclude with suspension or revocation of the mover's operating authority. Obtaining reparations for victims of unlicensed and licensed movers investigated by the Unit is always a top priority.

Consumer complaints about movers should be referred to the Consumer Intake Unit of the Consumer Services Division at (800) FON 4 PUC. If you're shopping for a mover, a good place to begin is by reading the booklet entitled, "IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR PERSONS MOVING HOUSEHOLD GOODS (Within California). Movers are required to provide this booklet to all prospective customers upon first in-person contact, or, if possible, to mail it to the customer at least three days prior to the move. Before you hire any mover, get its "Cal T-number," (the CPUC permit number) which is required to be included in all advertising by movers. If you don't find this number, ask the mover for it. Then call the CPUC at (800) 877-8867 to verify that the permit is valid and active.

To the response of All My Sons:

Addressing the preceding response out of sequence for clarity, I submit the following:

When I first contacted your company by phone concerning the first missing piece, no-one even made a feigned attempt at being slightly courteous let alone trying to resolve the problem. I was bluntly told the truck is checked and if the item were found I'd have been notified. No-one would bother to check with the crew, a matter of a simple phone call and a look in the truck. It's Simple, basic customer service and courtesy. All My Sons ignored my subsequent emails after I had discovered the mounting losses and damages, further evidence of the company's non-responsiveness. This is only further substantiated by All My Sons unsatisfactory BBB rating for its failure to resolve, let alone address, customer complaints. The internet is littered with negative information on the company addressing the very complaints we have, showing a pattern of such behavior. Further, I have researched civil actions and contacted a party who brought suit and prevailed, speaking at length about their experiences which echoed our own. In light of the lengthy record of its treatment of customers, All My Sons claim that I did not attempt contact or its claim of desiring customer satisfaction ring hollow. It took a registered letter to your company and its agent for service, as well as these postings, to evoke a response from All My Sons.

With regard to the company's registered agents of service, they rejected the notification they received claiming an inaccurate client identity. Regardless of the fact that the company was clearly identified within the address, the mail was opened regardless. Additionally the mail was dog-eared as if copied prior to its return. They are, indeed, the company's agents for service, as per the CA Secretary of State, and their handling of the notification leads me to conclude that they've had to run interference for the company on more than one occasion.
As to your irrefutable proof that the truck did not deviate en route, we can tell time and witnessed the truck appearing behind us from a residential street some forty-five minutes after they left ahead of us. Absent GPS tracking by an independent contractor, the validity of whatever evidence you may offer would be highly questionable as the point remains that we witnessed the now missing items loaded onto the truck, observed the deviation, noting the time frame, and the items were never unloaded. Further, I looked into the truck to assure nothing remained. Our property did not simply vanish in a move that was non-stop; it defies logic, common sense and the laws of physics as well as insulting anyone of functional intelligence.

As to the tip, I did tip your employees and did so by check but NOT for "their excellent service" as you claim. I did so as a monetary instrument must be negotiated confirming a person's identity, proving a chain of interaction and offering a means by which that person can be located through bank records if they are no longer employed and must be subpoenaed. I considered it insurance and am glad I had done so after having learned from my subsequent investigations that one of the crew was dismissed for cause from another moving company.

This all said, All My Sons can either negotiate in good faith or face the consequences of continuing to obscure, obfuscate and confound the issues in an attempt to delay and ultimately deny fair and reasonable compensation for its egregious acts.

We are sorry you are not completely satisfied with your move. We do strive for complete satisfaction for our customers.

We have not received a written claim form for your move as required by the California Public Utilities at our office. In order to settle a claim we must know that one exists. We have not received your correspondence posted on this web site. For your convenience, a claim form has been mailed to your home via U.S. Postal service return receipt required.

Further, your allegations of a 45 -minute detour by the crew are unfounded. We track all of our vehicles and have irrefutable evidence that shows the location of the truck during your move.

On 9/23/2004, the day after your move we acknowledge your call into our office stating
that you were missing a piece of glass. You are misquoting us. We did not say that we would not look for it. On the contrary, we said that we would check the truck and if we found it we would call you back. We also asked for you to write a letter to the Company stating that you were missing a piece of glass. We do this in case the glass is not located and we can then process the claim. At that time you did not address any other issues with the Company. If you were so dissatisfied why did you not address damages ,cost or items not being moved at this time? In fact, you tipped the movers $ 300.00 for their excellent service.

We know that had you filed a claim with our Company instead of rip -offreport.com, your concerns would have been addressed and the claim would have been handled in accordance with regulations.

So, please complete the claim form as required by law so that we may settle your claim. Our address is located on your bill of lading, which is the same office that you came too personally and purchased packing materials. Again, it is difficult to address issues that we do not know exist.

Sincerely,

For the Company

Better Business Bureau of Northeast California
400 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-6997

BBB Reliability Report

All My Sons Moving & Storage
800 E Street
West Sacramento, CA 95605


General Information

Phone Number: (916) 991-6000
Membership Status: No
Type-of-Business Classification: moving/storage/trucking

The information in this report has either been provided by the company, or has been compiled by the Bureau from other sources.


Customer Experience

Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with the Bureau due to unanswered complaint(s).


Report as of 10/15/2004
Copyright 2004 Better Business Bureau of Northeast California

As a matter of policy, the Better Business Bureau does not endorse any product, service or company. BBB reports generally cover a three-year reporting period, and are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information contained herein is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy. Reports are subject to change at any time.

The Better Business Bureau reports on members and non-members. Membership in the BBB is voluntary, and members must meet and maintain BBB standards. If a company is a member of this BBB, it is stated in this report.

All My Sons Moving and Storage
800 E Street
West Sacramento, CA
95605

CSC- Lawyers Incorporating Service
Agent for Service as per the California Secretary of State
2730 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA
95833


October 13, 2004


To the Recipients:

This registered letter has been sent as All My Sons Moving and Storage, the company, as it failed to acknowledge e-mail sent with regard to my complaints concerning the activities of the company and its employees from when it was engaged as our moving service on September 22, 2004.The practices of the company as well as its tacit approval of the acts of it's employees have resulted in loss, either through ineptitude or outright theft, and damages resulting from failure to exercise due care and diligence. Further, demand of payment forty-two percent higher than that originally quoted in exchange for the release of personal property is within the definition of extortion within California Penal Code Section 522. To quote:

California Penal Code, Section 522 (CPC 522): Every person who, by any extortionate means, obtains from another his signature to any paper or instrument, whereby, if such signature were freely given, any property would be transferred, or any debt, demand, charge, or right of action created, is punishable in the same manner as if the actual delivery of such debt, demand, charge, or right of action were obtained.

The specific civilly, actionable complaints are as follows:

The employees of the company failed to protect property by exercising due caution, diligence, care and reasonable methods of transport resulting in damage. As a result, furniture and items, including, but not limited to, a nightstand, dresser and headboard, as well as an antique German clock dating to 1875, were damaged beyond usefulness and value, respectively, in the amount of $1,300.00.

Tools, valued at $400.00, and a beveled glass table center, valued at $80.00, were not received nor were these items ever accounted for. Further, telephonic inquired regarding these matters were met with rude, evasive responses.

The employees did not act as reasonably expected nor within the confines of common business practices, taking multiple, extended breaks and accepting visits from family members at the job site, acts deemed as unprofessional and intended to consume time with the intent to cause overtime charges which would have not otherwise resulted.

The employees deviated en route to the delivery location, upon a residential street in Woodland, for a period of forty-five minutes to further cause overtime charges which would not have otherwise resulted. Further, this undue delay would lead a person of reasonable mind to conclude it was intended for the purpose of disposing of property neither received nor for which accounted, specifically the tools previously addressed.

The employees of the company withheld the property transported on demand of greater payment than that which originally quoted and that such act was in violation of CPC 522, as previously alleged, an act both civilly actionable and criminally prosecutable.

These common, unethical practices of both the company and its employees by which we have suffered damages are well documented by the Better Business Bureau as well as on at least two web sites upon which similar complaints numbering within the hundreds have been located during our research of the company.

All My Sons Moving and Storage has falsely portrayed itself both verbally, within print and by its on hold messaging, as a family owned and operated business with the intent to lead one to conclude its practices are within the scope of law and governed by good, reasonable, honorable and prudent business practices. Experience and subsequent research have proven this portrayal but a facade.

Because the company has acted so reprehensibly and has failed to provide the courtesy of a response it has demonstrated itself to have no intention of acting in good faith to resolve these complaints nor could it be reasonably expected to do so in a fair and equitable manner if dialogue were to occur. In response, to preclude the company from profiting from its unlawful and unethical acts, the credit card charges of the company have been contested and the credit card company has been directed to make no payment in any amount until this matter is satisfactorily resolved.

Further, do not direct me, again, to file an insurance claim. If the losses were the result of accident, and not arising from willful misconduct, then filing a claim with the company's insurance carrier would be an appropriate avenue of resolution. The acts of the company and its employees are so blatant, egregious and indefensible that, in light of what has incurred and the damages suffered, we could not be adequately compensated.

It was, and still is, my desire to resolve this fairly and equitably. The company is entitled to receive payment for services but only in an amount that is reasonable and customary minus the prorated losses which we have incurred by its acts and those of its employees. If the company, however, refuses to respond with intent to negotiate in good faith this matter will be addressed civilly and I will seek all forms of compensation allowed by law within the municipal court of jurisdiction. Further, the company will be the subject of complaints before the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Attorney General.

In closing, I have never previously pursued any civil action nor filed any criminal complaint against any person or entity. This is the first occasion where I have been so incensed by acts so void of decency, moral behavior and good, fair business practice that I have been compelled to utilize whatever lawful means available to seek remedy.

Sincerely,

...I'd need to have incurred a loss of 4,384 pounds to receive actual damages under the woefully inadequate insurance coverage offered. If I were moving tomatoes, it might be reasonable; however, such is not the case with personal property. Further, additional items discovered missing today under extremely questionable circumstances would only further fuel suspicions to a person of "reasonable mind", as per legal definition, that the acts of the company are beyond defensible by common contractual, insurance coverage definitions and that the carrier, knowing such facts under such coverage, would exercise its contractual rights to remove itself from liability.

Simply stated, the conduct of All My Sons Moving and Storage is civilly actionable because of the failure of the company to act with due diligence, care and prudence within the scope of law. Additionally, the company has acted, in its pricing activities, in a manner that is also indefensible before the courts by withholding the property of its customers until inflated payment is received in a manner that fits the legal definition of extortion under sections 518-527 of the California Penal Code.

To put it bluntly, I will not be placated by pennies on the dollar nor will I disappear from public view until All My Sons Moving and Storage acts in good faith to make us whole. Failing that, I will be forced into a situation of pursing criminal and civil recourse to bring final resolution.

...I'd need to have incurred a loss of 4,384 pounds to receive actual damages under the woefully inadequate insurance coverage offered. If I were moving tomatoes, it might be reasonable; however, such is not the case with personal property. Further, additional items discovered missing today under extremely questionable circumstances would only further fuel suspicions to a person of "reasonable mind", as per legal definition, that the acts of the company are beyond defensible by common contractual, insurance coverage definitions and that the carrier, knowing such facts under such coverage, would exercise its contractual rights to remove itself from liability.

Simply stated, the conduct of All My Sons Moving and Storage is civilly actionable because of the failure of the company to act with due diligence, care and prudence within the scope of law. Additionally, the company has acted, in its pricing activities, in a manner that is also indefensible before the courts by withholding the property of its customers until inflated payment is received in a manner that fits the legal definition of extortion under sections 518-527 of the California Penal Code.

To put it bluntly, I will not be placated by pennies on the dollar nor will I disappear from public view until All My Sons Moving and Storage acts in good faith to make us whole. Failing that, I will be forced into a situation of pursing criminal and civil recourse to bring final resolution.

...I'd need to have incurred a loss of 4,384 pounds to receive actual damages under the woefully inadequate insurance coverage offered. If I were moving tomatoes, it might be reasonable; however, such is not the case with personal property. Further, additional items discovered missing today under extremely questionable circumstances would only further fuel suspicions to a person of "reasonable mind", as per legal definition, that the acts of the company are beyond defensible by common contractual, insurance coverage definitions and that the carrier, knowing such facts under such coverage, would exercise its contractual rights to remove itself from liability.

Simply stated, the conduct of All My Sons Moving and Storage is civilly actionable because of the failure of the company to act with due diligence, care and prudence within the scope of law. Additionally, the company has acted, in its pricing activities, in a manner that is also indefensible before the courts by withholding the property of its customers until inflated payment is received in a manner that fits the legal definition of extortion under sections 518-527 of the California Penal Code.

To put it bluntly, I will not be placated by pennies on the dollar nor will I disappear from public view until All My Sons Moving and Storage acts in good faith to make us whole. Failing that, I will be forced into a situation of pursing criminal and civil recourse to bring final resolution.

Having searched the entire house for needed tools, I have now discovered that a box clearly marked tools is nowhere to be found even though I watched as it was loaded on the truck. Their unexplained forty-five minute diversion en route to our new home coupled with the fact that one crewman had relatives in town visiting while he was at our home only furthers my suspicions and bolsters may case against All My Sons Moving and Storage. The loss is beyond mere coincidence. Now my losses have increased another $400 to total $2750.

The phone number you listed is for All My Sons of Sacramento. Here is the contact for their insurance company, so you can file claims for your lost and broken items.

VANLINER INSURANCE COMPANY
Address: ONE PREMIER DRIVE, P.O.BOX26352
FENTON, MO US 63026
Telephone: (636) 343 - 9889
Fax: (636) 305 - 4270
Policy # CGV4017200

It'll probably take you some time to find out who the actual agent is that would handle your claim, Vanliner is a large company.