NOTICE! Those consumers located in the European Union, effective 5/24/2018 due to the GDPR, citizens of any GDPR applicable country or anyone sitting in, or operating from, such country are prohibited from using this site. Read our Terms of Service to learn more. By using our site you understand and agree to these terms. Don't blame us... blame Europe! This site uses cookies to store information on your computer which may track your browsing behavior on our site and provide you with ads or other offers that may be relevant to you. Some are essential to make our site work; others help us improve the user experience. Read our Privacy Policy to learn more.

Report: #1198864

Complaint Review: Nunka Corp and 16Max - Pompano Beach Florida

  • Submitted: Thu, January 01, 2015
  • Updated: Fri, January 02, 2015
  • Reported By: Justice Required — NEW YORK New York
  • Nunka Corp and 16Max
    11 NE 15 Ave.
    Pompano Beach, Florida
    USA

Nunka Corp and 16Max Tzvi Milshtein, Roy Milshtein, Natalie Milshtein, Leor Milshtein, Uwe Hinrichsen, Ulrike Ulli Hinrichsen, Dr. Tom Corbin, Medvantage International, AMM Marketing, Luvslim, Krest Device Tzvi Milshtein, Uwe & Ulli Hinrichsen of Nunka Corp stole around $120,000 of Money and Product! Pompano Beach Florida

*Author of original report: This Lawsuit Has Been Settled

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

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..

  • 1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION CASE NO. 0:14-cv-62309-BB MARPAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, vs. NUNKA CORPORATION, AMM MARKETING CORPORATION, AMM MARKETING LLC, MEDEVICE CORPORATION, 16MAX CORPORATION, MEDVANTAGE INTERNATIONAL, NEUROCREST, INC., CREATIVE INNOVATIONS GROUP, INC., TZVI MILSHTEIN, ULRIKE HINRICHSEN, UWE HINRICHSEN, JURGEN KRUPA, THOMAS CORBIN, ROY MILSHTEIN, NATALIE MILSHTEIN, LEOR MILSHTEIN, Defendants. ________________________________/ AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, MARPAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., by and through the undersigned attorneys, sues Defendants, NUNKA CORPORATION, AMM MARKETING CORPORATION, AMM MARKETING LLC, MEDEVICE CORPORATION, 16MAX CORPORATION, MEDVANTAGE INTERNATIONAL, NEUROCREST, INC., CREATIVE INNOVATIONS GROUP, INC., TZVI MILSHTEIN, ULRIKE HINRICHSEN, UWE HINRICHSEN, JURGEN KRUPA, THOMAS CORBIN, ROY MILSHTEIN, NATALIE MILSHTEIN, and LEOR MILSHTEIN, and alleges:


.....slidesharecdn.com/marpaynunkatzvimilshteinneurovacuvaslarcomplaintfiled10-141010081229-conversion-gate02/95/rico-lawsuit-marpay-v-nunka-tzvi-milshtein-roy-milshtein-natalie-milshtein-leor-milshtein-neurova-cuvaslar-medvantage-international-16max-complaint-filed-10614-copy-2-638.jpg?cb=1418422947" target="_blank">2. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for remedies authorized by federal statutes pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), remedies authorized by federal statutes pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.; for declaratory and injunctive relief; for actual, consequential and exemplary damages; for relief from acts of conversion, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, civil theft, replevin and tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship; for trademark infringement; for violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for all other relief which this Honorable Court deems just and proper under all circumstances which have occasioned this action. 2. For at least the past five (5) years, Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Uwe Hinrichsen, and Ulrike Hinrichsen have been the ring leaders of a criminal enterprise, engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. More specifically, Defendants Tzvi Milshtein and Uwe Hinrichsen, have engaged in the solicitation of significant amounts of money from investors for an auricular medical device purportedly manufactured by Defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “Medical Device”) through an enterprise of Florida corporations that open as quickly as they shut with the intent to defraud these investors 2 once the investment is made. 3. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein has promoted the Medical Device to potential investors through email and via the internet with promises of significant return on investment because the investors would be getting in on an “early stage” of the development and roll-out of the Medical Device. Upon information and belief, Defendant
  • 3. Tzvi Milshtein’s attempts to solicit investors for the Medical Device were unsuccessful until Plaintiff learned of the existence of the Medical Device and Defendant Tzvi Milshtein through a Google search on the Internet. Over the course of approximately one year of dealing with Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, Plaintiff has been defrauded by Defendants for a significant amount of money including $98,000 in payment for unshipped product and $23,500 in unearned royalties. THE PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Marpay Technologies, Inc. (Plaintiff or “Marpay”), at all times relevant to this action, is a Wyoming corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Wyoming with its principal place of business located at 85 East Marie Street, Hicksville, 3 New York 11801. 5. Defendant, Nunka Corporation (“Nunka”), at all times relevant to this action, is a Florida corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business located at 11 N.E. 15th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060. 6. Defendant, AMM Marketing Corporation (“AMM”), at all times relevant to this action, is a Florida corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business located at 11 N.E. 15th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060. 7. Defendant, AMM Marketing LLC (“AMM LLC”), at all times relevant to this action, is a Florida corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business located at 295 Goolsby Blvd., Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442. 8. Defendant, Medevice Corporation (“Medevice”), at all times relevant to this action, is a Florida corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida with its

  • 4. principal place of business located at 11 N.E. 15th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 4 33060. 9. Defendant, 16MAX Corporation (“16MAX”), at all times relevant to this action, is a Florida corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business located at 11 N.E. 15th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060. 10. Defendant, Medvantage International (“Medvantage”), at all times relevant to this action, is a Delaware corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and, upon information and belief, has its principal place of business located at 11 N.E. 15th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060. 11. Defendant, Neurocrest, Inc. (“Neurocrest”), at all times relevant to this action, is a Florida corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business located at 11 N.E. 15th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060. 12. Defendant, Creative Innovations Group, Inc. (“CIG”), at all times relevant to this action, is a Florida corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business located at 11 N.E. 15th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060. 13. Defendant, Tzvi Milshtein, at all times relevant to this action, is a resident of the State of Florida and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, at all times relevant to this action, served as “Development Manager” and/or “Manager” of Nunka Corporation and executed the Exclusive Distributor Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein is, among other things, a member of the Enterprise described in Counts I through IV below.

  • 5. 14. Defendant, Uwe Hinrichsen, at all times relevant to this action, is a resident of the State of Florida and is otherwise sui juris. This Defendant is an officer of Defendants Nunka, AMM, Medevice, Neurocrest, and 16MAX. Defendant Uwe Heinrichsen is, among other things, a member of the Enterprise described in Counts I through IV below. 15. Defendant, Ulrike Hinrichsen, at all times relevant to this action, is a resident of the State of Florida and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant Uwe Hinrichsen is, among other things, a member of the Enterprise described in Counts I through IV below. 16. Defendant, Jurgen Krupa, at all times relevant to this action, is a resident of the State of Florida and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant Uwe Hinrichsen is, among other things, a member of the Enterprise described in Counts I through IV below. 17. Defendant, Thomas Corbin, at all times relevant to this action, is a resident of the State of Florida and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant Thomas Corbin is, among other things, a member of the Enterprise described in Counts I through IV below. 18. Defendant, Roy Milshtein, at all times relevant to this action, is a resident of the State of Florida and is otherwise sui juris. This Defendant is an officer of 16MAX. Defendant Roy Milshtein is, among other things, a member of the Enterprise described in 5 Counts I through IV below. 19. Defendant, Natalie Milshtein, at all times relevant to this action, is a resident of the State of Florida and is otherwise sui juris. This Defendant is an officer of 16MAX. Defendant Natalie Milshtein is, among other things, a member of the Enterprise described in Counts I through IV below. 20. Defendant, Leor Milshtein, at all times relevant to this action, is a resident of the State of Florida and is otherwise sui juris. This Defendant is an officer of 16MAX.

  • 6. Defendant Leor Milshtein is, among other things, a member of the Enterprise described 6 in Counts I through IV below. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21. Jurisdiction over this action is conferred on this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1) and 1338. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the counts based on Florida law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 22. Venue is proper within this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and/or (c) in that, inter alia, Defendants reside, do business and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Further, a substantial part of the events on which Plaintiff’s claims are based occurred in this District. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS History of Solicitation of Medical Device to Public 23. On or about December 7, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a 510(K) Summary prepared on behalf of Defendant AMM LLC for a device called an “E-Pulse.” The E-Pulse was described as a miniaturized, battery-powered unit designed to administer auricular point stimulation treatment over a 96-hour period. A copy of the 510(K) summary is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 24. This E-Pulse device later became to be known for marketing purposes as the “Krest device” or “Krest system” in or about 2012. 25. On July 4, 2012, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein posted a video to Youtube entitled “Patient with Krest device” with a post stating that “Patient with MS using the Krest device with great results.” See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To203wPfX6s (last visited October 1, 2014).

  • 7. 26. Defendants were seeking investments for the Krest device through Defendant CIG. Defendant Uwe Hinrichsen is listed as a corporate officer of CIG and Defendant Tzvi Milshtein served as manager. CIG dissolved in April 2012. A copy of the Krest web page from Gust.com and the Florida Department of Corporations listing for CIG is 7 attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “C”. 27. Near or toward the end of CIG’s corporate life, on or about January 5, 2012, Defendant Uwe Hinrichsen registered a company in Florida called Neurocrest, Inc. at the same Pompano address as CIG. 28. Defendant Neurocrest Inc., through its corporate officers, Defendants Uwe Hinrichsen and Tzvi Milshtein, operated a website at www.neurocrest.com to sell, market and solicit investors for the “Krest2020” which used the same patent as the Krest device and E-Pulse. 29. On or about November 18, 2012, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein placed an advertisement on go4funding.com soliciting investments from business people to start a weight loss business in each state through the use of a non-invasive device which caused the user to feel no hunger signals and lose weight with no side effects. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein promised “early stage exclusivity” to these prospective investors. A copy of this advertisement is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. 30. In or about November 2012, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein also began to solicit for investments in the aggregate amount of $3,000,000 for the Krest device and, upon information and belief, a related device called the LuvSlim system on behalf of “Apollo Devices, Inc.” (Apollo). A copy of the Apollo Devices, Inc. Strategic Business and Marketing Plan (the “Apollo Plan”) is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”.

  • 8. 31. The Apollo Plan states that Apollo is a “Florida-based business which intends to market and sell its line of non-invasive neuro-technology (“NINT”) to a wide range of individual users, physicians, weight loss centers, pain management clinics, and hospitals.” A review of the Florida Department of Corporations reveals that the only company registered as “Apollo Devices, Inc.” was administratively dissolved in 1985. 32. Notwithstanding the fact that no such corporation exists, Defendants Tzvi Milshtein and Uwe Henrichsen, among other individuals named herein, solicited investments at www.apollodevices.com for the Krest system. The Apollo Plan concedes that Apollo Devices, Inc. has not yet begun normal business operations but intended to do 8 so “upon the successful raising of capital.” 33. The 41-page Apollo Plan informs potential or actual investors in Apollo Devices, Inc., that Management of Apollo expects to achieve sales of $51 million a year, with a pre-tax profit of $15 million, and sets forth a clear path for investors to achieve a return on their investment. The Apollo Plan includes an aggressive marketing strategy, a plan to create a franchise system, and a distribution strategy wherein Apollo would use third-party shipping providers and work closely with Apollo franchisees in order to ensure that they have proper inventories of the NINT devices to use within their businesses. 34. The Apollo Plan further provided potential investors with an Organizational Budget, a Personnel Expense Breakdown, and detailed Financial Proformas. As to the “Critical Risks and Problems,” Apollo marketed to potential investors that the development, financing, marketing, management, valuation, and other risks were either low or moderate.

  • 9. 35. The Apollo Plan informs potential investors that Apollos’ Management Risk is “Low/Moderate” because “Company founder, Tzvi Milshtein, is experienced, educated, and knowledgeable regarding all aspects of the Company’s operations and NINT 9 products.” 36. Defendants continue to utilize and solicit investments on the website at www.apollodevices.com and the latest copyright information on the fully operational website states: “© 2013 Apollo Devices. All Rights Reserved.” Facts Specific to Meeting with Plaintiff 37. In or about April 2013, Adam Anschel, owner of Marpay, made initial contact with Defendant Tzvi Milshtein by phone and email after doing a Google search for the P-stim and finding information on the E-Pulse and/or Krest device online. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein convinced Mr. Anschel that getting in on the ground floor with the Medical Device would bring significant returns and opportunities as a distributor. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein also promised Mr. Anschel access to 3rd and 4th generations of the patent including such devices utilizing magnets and for weight loss. 38. In or about July 2013, Mr. Anschel executed a mutual confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement with Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”. 39. In or about August 2013, Mr. Anschel requested a product sample of the E-Pulse device. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein responded that he required $250,000 be placed in an escrow account before a sample would be provided. Plaintiff did not agree to place said monies in the escrow account at that time.

  • 10. 40. Later in or about August 2013, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein proposed to Mr. Anschel that Plaintiff could serve as an exclusive distributor for the Medical Device. As part of that proposal, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein agreed that his company would manufacture and sell the Medical Device to Plaintiff. As part of this deal, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein gave Plaintiff three options: (A) buy the intellectual property for $36,000 plus $4 royalty; (B) buy the intellectual property for $120,000 with a $1 royalty; or (C) make Plaintiff a distributor and Defendants Nunka and Medevice would manufacture the Medical Device to be purchased at $40 per unit. 41. In August of 2013, Mr. Anschel visited Defendant Tzvi Milshtein at his office on Las Olas Blvd. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in order to see the device in person and have a P-stim and an E-Pulse device placed on his ear for comparison evaluation. Both P-stim and E-Pulse are FDA Class II devices approved as “electro-acupuncture devices” that can only be prescribed by a physician and inserted into a patients’ ear by a licensed physician or a licensed acupuncturist. These devices have needles which pierce the skin directly to the nerves in the ear. Mr. Anschel expected a physician or Dr. Corbin to be present, but this was not the case. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein took it upon himself to put Mr. Anschel at risk and practice medicine without a license applying the P-stim to one ear and a Neurova to the other. Mr. Anschel was informed by Defendant Tzvi Milshtein that it “was OK” for a layperson Defendant Tzvi Milshtein to apply the devices without a 10 medical license. 42. In or about September 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant Tzvi Milshtein orally agreed that Plaintiff would serve as an exclusive distributor of the Medical Device. Based on that

  • 11. representation and oral agreement, Plaintiff began to search for additional partners, dealers and customers for the Medical Device. 43. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein was calling the device the “E-Pulse” at that time, which is how it was FDA registered. Plaintiff and Defendant Tzvi Milshtein agreed that the name needed to be changed. Plaintiff developed the name “Neurova” for the device, and Defendant Tzvi Milshtein agreed that this would be the new name. 44. Mr. Anschel was dealing directly with Defendant Tzvi Milshtein throughout the process of becoming the exclusive distributor for the Medical Device. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein induced Plaintiff to believe that it was dealing with the corporate entities Nunka and Medevice, and these were the entities that Plaintiff believed owned the patent rights to the Medical Device and for whom Defendant Tzvi Milshtein was soliciting their 11 investment. 45. However, Defendants Tzvi Milshtein and Uwe Heinrichsen did not incorporate Nunka, AMM and Medevice, until October 2013. More specifically, on October 2, 2013, Defendant Medevice was incorporated in Florida. Eight days later, on October 10, 2013, Defendant AMM was incorporated in Florida. Seven days after that, on October 17, 2013, Defendant Nunka was incorporated in Florida. All three corporations used the same Pompano address, and Defendant Uwe Hinrichsen serves as a listed officer to all three corporate entities. 46. In or about October 2013 and prior to any contract signing by Plaintiff, Mr. Anschel inquired about the IP purchase “options A & B” originally presented to Plaintiff as referenced in Paragraph 40. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein informed Mr. Anschel that “These options were no longer available”. The parties then began to discuss terms of an

  • 12. agreement with respect to Option C in Paragraph 40 that would make Plaintiff the exclusive distributor and Defendants Nunka and Medevice would manufacture the Medical Device to be purchased at $40 per unit. 47. After the material terms of the agreement were orally agreed upon, Plaintiff began to look for its own distributors, dealers, and customers for the Medical Device which would be the main profit generator for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was successful in this endeavor and, on October 16, 2013, personally signed a Mutual Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and Non-Circumventure Agreement with an investment group in Texas. A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”. 48. On or about October 23, 2013, Plaintiff overnighted $30,000 to Defendant Tzvi Milshtein as a down payment on the first wave of Medical Devices totaling 2,500 units. 49. On or about October 28, 2013, just five (5) days after receiving the first payment from Plaintiff, the domain www.cuvaslar.com for the “Cuvaslar” device was registered with godaddy.com. Cuvaslar is the device owned by Defendant Medvantage which is part of the enterprise discussed in Counts I through IV below and owned and/or operated by Defendants Tzvi Milshtein and Uwe Heinrichsen. A copy of the investment solicitation for Cuvaslar and domain registration are attached hereto as Exhibit “H”. 50. On or about October 31, 2013, Plaintiff and Defendants Nunka and Medevice entered into the Exclusive Distributor Agreement attached as Exhibit “A” which outlined the terms of their manufacturer-distributor relationship. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein promised that product would arrive for Plaintiff within 30 days from the date the payment of the remaining balance of $20,000 that was due under the Exclusive Distributor 12 Agreement.

  • 13. 51. On or about that same day, October 31, 2013, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein approved the Neurova name and logo which was developed and paid for by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also negotiated and purchased the domain www.neurova.com which was owned at the time by a third-party owner. A copy of the domain transfer agreement is attached hereto as 13 Exhibit “I.” 52. Shortly after the deal was signed and the logo was finalized in October 2013, Plaintiff notified Defendant Tzvi Milshtein of the potential deal Plaintiff had negotiated with the Texas investment group. At all material times, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein knew that Mr. Anschel had negotiated a non-circumvention agreement with the Texas investment group. 53. On or about November 11, 2013, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein requested the contact information of the Texas investment group to set up a meeting in Dallas, Texas. Between the months of November 2013 and December 2013, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein continuously made attempts to circumvent Plaintiff and its owners by trying to negotiate a deal directly with the Texas investment group. Once Defendant Tzvi Milshtein made contact with the Texas investment group, he continuously pitched the Texas group for investment opportunity for the 3rd generation “weight loss” device as well as the Medvantage Cuvaslar device. 54. On or about December 19, 2013, the owners of Plaintiff paid $20,000 to complete the down payment for the first 2,500 units of the Medical Device. 55. That same month, in or about December 2013, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein met with members of the Texas investment group in Texas and demanded that Mr. Anschel not attend the meeting or Plaintiff would suffer financial consequences.

  • 14. 56. During this time, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein was soliciting investors for other products. On December 11, 2013, and again on February 5, 2013, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, as CEO of Defendant Medvantage, published a Powerpoint presentation seeking investors for the Medvantage Cuvaslar device, on Slideshare.com and then 14 Scribd.com. 57. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein was also continuously making day-to-day operations for Plaintiff more and more difficult by creating roadblocks on a regular basis, for example, refusing to adhere to committed times for product delivery, failing to correct product flaws, and failing to agree to a training program. These intentional delays by Defendant Tzvi Milshtein cost Plaintiff significant lost revenues and the ability to achieve acceptable market share. 58. In or about early January 2014, the Texas investment group submitted at least two (2) alternate distribution contract proposals directly to Defendant Tzvi Milshtein circumventing Plaintiff. 59. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein verbally informed Plaintiff of these proposals, which had the effect of diminishing Plaintiff’s role in the Exclusive Distributor Agreement attached as Exhibit “A”. Despite numerous requests by Plaintiff, neither Defendant Tzvi Milshtein nor the Texas investment group provided a copy of these proposals to Plaintiff. 60. At all material times hereto, Plaintiff was operating a website as the exclusive distributor of Neurova with approval from Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice. In fact, Plaintiff purchased the domain www.neurova.com from a private dealer for $2,500 attached as Exhibit “H.” Due to the “delay” in production of Neurova, Plaintiff was forced to include information on its website

  • 15. 61. On or about January 9, 2014, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein sent a text message to Mr. Anschel stating “Pls do not change the delivery date for neurova on your website. What will take place at the end of january is a more accurate date for february. What you should respond to any question from dealers is that the first group of devices are sold out and the second group will be in februsry.” A copy of the text message exchange is attached hereto as Exhibit “J”. This was a fabrication of the truth. It also acknowledged Defendant Tzvi Milshtein’s, Nunka and Medevice’s product delays at Plaintiff’s expense. 62. In or about January 2014, Mr. Anschel was notified by a prospective dealer, Adam Fuller, that Defendant Nunka and Defendant Corbin, who was acting as medical director and/or Chief Science Officer of Defendant Nunka with respect to the Medical Device, was circumventing the Exclusive Distributor Agreement with Plaintiff by attempting to sell Neurova directly to the public at a lower price ($150 per unit). A copy of the text message exchange is attached hereto as Exhibit “K”. 63. On or about January 29, 2014, Plaintiff and Defendant Tzvi Milshtein met in Phoenix, Arizona. At the meeting, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein induced Plaintiff to pay the balance of $50,000 in advance for the initial order of Neurova devices by promising to Plaintiff that the initial order of the Medical Device would be shipped to Plaintiff within 15 30 days. 64. In or about February 2014, communications between Plaintiff and Defendant Tzvi Milshtein began to break down. Notwithstanding Defendant Tzvi Milshtein’s promises, no Medical Devices were delivered to Plaintiff. 65. On or about March 5, 2014, a Neurova training application video was filmed and posted. Plaintiff partially funded the video based on threats by Defendant Tzvi Milshtein

  • 16. that the agreement would be cancelled. In the video, Defendant Corbin allows a non-medical professional, i.e., Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, to apply the Neurova needles further violating the law and embarrassing Plaintiff. 66. On or about April 29, 2014, Plaintiff signed a Distributor Agreement with “Neurova LLC” in Texas making that entity the exclusive distributor in Texas for $150,000 (“Texas Agreement”). A copy of the Texas Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “L”. Defendants, Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice, knew, at all material times, of the existence of the Texas Agreement and other distribution deals that Plaintiff 16 was generating. 67. In or about May 2014, the Neurova devices were finally received by Plaintiff. Soon after the Medical Devices started shipping, Plaintiff began hearing complaints from doctors and dealers regarding the size of the needle, missing caps, loose caps, missing parts, non-working units with bad batteries, and needles falling off the wire harness. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein had previously represented that “hundreds” of tests on Neurova had been conducted. 68. On or about June 11, 2014, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein sent Plaintiff an email stating that “We will attend to the reconciliation of the first 2,500 units shipped as soon as we can, as mentioned in our prior emails we are in a very busy stage of development, and all of our crew is working to complete a stage prior to submitting our development to the FDA consultant. We promise to attend to the quantification issues you have.” A copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit “M”. 69. Further, in the same email dated June 11, 2014, it became clearer to Plaintiff that Defendant Tzvi Milshtein was pressing Plaintiff for more and more information related to

  • 17. Plaintiff’s clients, dealers and distributors so that Defendant Tzvi Milshtein could sell Neurova directly to these entities and circumvent Plaintiff as exclusive distributor as they 17 had done with the Texas investment group. 70. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, through email and over the phone, specifically requested a detailed report of the dealers, doctors, and sales people Plaintiff was engaged with for the sale of Neurova and associated business as well as an account of all Medical Devices sold in March, April and May 2014. 71. On or about June 18, 2014, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein sent Plaintiff an email stating that Plaintiff could no longer enter into exclusive distributorships, such as the one with Neurova LLC in Texas, despite that term not being in the original deal. Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice knew that Plaintiff relied on these agreements to generate profits. A copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit “N”. 72. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein specifically stated “Any new dealer you may want to do business with must be presented to Nunka prior to any approval by Marpay.” Defendant Tzvi Milshtein knew of the value of this exclusive dealer tool as he advertised this concept in 2012 for potential investors. In fact, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein planned to implement this industry standard practice for the benefit of his companies after he removed Plaintiff as exclusive distributor. 73. On or about June 24, 2014, Defendants Nunka and Medevice, the purported owners of the patent, assigned the patent of the Medical Device then known as Neurova to a corporation opened in Florida in January 2014 by the Milshtein family – including Defendants Roy, Natalie, and Leor Milshtein – called “16Max Corporation” named herein as a Defendant with a principal place of business at the same address as CIG,

  • 18. Neurocrest, Nunka, Medevice, etc. Defendants Roy, Natalie and Leor Milshtein are, upon information and belief, relatives of Defendant Tzvi Milshtein and were named officers of 18 Defendant 16Max Corporation. 74. Upon information and belief, Defendants Nunka and Medevice no longer had patent rights on the Medical Device to which they had a contract with Plaintiff to be the exclusive distributor as of June 2014. Plaintiff was never informed of this assignment. A copy of the Florida Department of Corporations entry for 16Max Corporation and the patent assignment are attached hereto as Exhibit “O”. 75. On or about June 25, 2014, Plaintiff participated in a conference call with dealer Rick Maly, his customer Dr. Schiffman, as well as Defendants Tzvi Milshtein and Corbin. During the conference call, Defendants Tzvi Milshtein and Corbin took a stance that the experienced Dr. Schiffman did not know what he was doing or how to apply Neurova, despite Dr. Schiffman having much experience with the P-stim device. Defendants Tzvi Milshtein and Corbin were embarrassingly condescending and rude to the dealer, and Dr. Schiffman. Defendants Tzvi Milshtein and Corbin also denied that there were any problems with the Neurova needles. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein had promised to have a “Neurova application gun” available by this time since he brought it to the March 4, 2014, conference in Phoenix, Arizona. The “Neurova application gun” was never shown nor mentioned again. 76. On or about June 28, 2014, Plaintiff met with Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Uwe Hinrichsen, and Corbin to try to reconcile the issues between the parties and for product training to be performed by Defendant Nunka in Florida. These Defendants again hid the fact that, upon information and belief, Neurova was no longer a patent owned by

  • 19. Defendants Nunka and Medevice. Despite this fact, Defendants committed to send $98,000 worth of inventory to Plaintiff. Plaintiff paid Defendant Tzvi Milshtein the 19 $98,000 at the meeting. 77. Although Plaintiff paid for the shipment of inventory, it was never received by Plaintiff and there is no indication that this inventory was ever manufactured. Upon information and belief, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein and the other individual Defendants comprising the enterprise in Counts I through IV below converted the funds paid by Plaintiff to develop their new company Defendant 16Max Corporation and other products including Cuvaslar. 78. Moreover, at the June 28, 2014, meeting, the “Neurova tweezers” were unveiled by Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice to assist with application of the Neurova device needles. This was the first time Plaintiff was made aware of the tweezers and told they would be available to ship in about two weeks. During this meeting there was also a training session led by Defendant Corbin in which Neurova devices were applied to several persons present including Mr. Anschel and his partner Jonathan Silberstein. At this time under Defendant Corbin’s supervision, Dr. Corbin allowed a non-medical professional (Defendant Uwe Hinrichsen) to apply the needles to Messrs. Anschel and Silberstein and others putting their safety at risk and in direct violation of Fla. Stat. §457.101 et seq. which provides for criminal liability to non-licensed persons acting as acupuncturists. See Section 457.116. 79. Throughout the month of July, 2014, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, continued to pressure Plaintiff into giving up information related to its partners, clients, dealers, distributors, and doctor clients despite sending no product to Plaintiff to distribute.

  • 20. 80. In or about July 2014, Plaintiff informed Defendant Tzvi Milshtein of a very large 5,000 unit potential deal in the Middle East. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein signed a non-circumvention agreement with Plaintiff and the prospective distributor named Products for Doctors. Despite Plaintiff having no restrictions from selling internationally, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein again changed the agreement and insisted international orders go through Defendants Nunka and Medevice, and that Defendant Tzvi Milshtein would pay Plaintiff an undetermined commission to be determined after the sales were consummated. Repeated attempts by Plaintiff to Defendant Tzvi Milshtein to inquire about the status of this international transaction were not responded to, and Defendant Tzvi Milshtein also refused to discuss a commission for Plaintiff as promised. 81. Between June 2014 and August 2014, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein pressured Plaintiff into paying significant sums of money and threatened to cancel the Exclusive Distributor Agreement on multiple occasions. 82. In August 2014, Defendants Nunka and Medevice, through Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, unilaterally terminated the Exclusive Distributor Agreement with Plaintiff. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein and the other Defendants circumvented the distributor agreement with Plaintiff and sold directly to the clients, dealers, doctors and distributors whose contact information was provided to who Plaintiff thought was Defendants Tzvi 20 Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice. 83. Plaintiff learned of an announcement made to Plaintiff’s customers that these subsequent sales of the Medical Device would proceed without Plaintiff’s involvement. Upon information and belief, Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice continue to sell the Neurova device on their website www.nunkacorp.com. As mentioned

  • 21. previously, Plaintiff also learned that these Defendants and Defendant Corbin were selling Medical Devices to the public since at least January 2014, thereby circumventing the Exclusive Distributor Agreement for months and revealing the intent of these Defendants to honor their agreement with Plaintiff. 84. To date, the $98,000 worth of Medical Device inventory has not been shipped to Plaintiff. Moreover, $23,000 in unearned “royalties” – paid by Plaintiff because of threats by Defendant Tzvi Milshtein that the Defendants Nunka and Medevice would cancel the Exclusive Distributor Agreement – was simply stolen by Defendants. 85. Between October 2013 and August 2014, Plaintiff paid Defendant Tzvi Milsthein for the benefit of all Defendants a total of at least $281,170.12. In addition to these monies, Plaintiff suffered significant consequential or special damages in lost profits, loss of ability to earn income, and damage to reputation based on actions and inaction by 21 Defendants as alleged in detail below. 86. At all material times, Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice have represented to Plaintiff that Neurova had met all appropriate FDA, Federal and State licenses. Plaintiff relied on this representation when signing the Exclusive Distributor Agreement. Yet, upon information and belief, these Defendants never obtained appropriate Florida licenses pursuant to Fla. Stat. §499.015, for a medical device manufacturer thus jeopardizing Neurova production schedules, as well as the reputation and financial viability of Plaintiff. 87. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this Amended Complaint or said conditions precedent have been waived prior to bringing this action.

  • 22. COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF RICO 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, 1962(a) 88. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 22 above as if fully set forth herein. 89. Beginning in or about 2009 and continuing through and including the date of the filing of this Amended Complaint, Defendants and others known and unknown, have associated in fact and therefore constitute an enterprise (hereinafter also referred to as the “Enterprise”). 90. The unlawful conduct described in in this Count evidences similar intents, results, accomplices, and methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated and not isolated incidents, so as to sufficiently constitute a racketeering activity. 91. The Enterprise has engaged in numerous instances of unlawful conduct arising from its operation in Florida. The instances of the Enterprise’s unlawful conduct include but are not limited to: (a) Knowingly obtaining or using or endeavoring to obtain or use, the property of another with intent to deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property; (b) Making or disseminating or causing to be made or disseminated before the general public, or any portion thereof, a misleading advertisement; (c) Engaging in a scheme to defraud and, in furtherance of that scheme, communicating with any person with the intent to obtain property from that person; (d) Engaging in a scheme to defraud and obtaining property thereby;

  • 23. (e) With criminal intent, received proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity in the acquisition of any title to or any right, interest or equity in real property or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise; (f) Through a pattern of racketeering activity acquired or maintained, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real property. (g) Be employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or participate, either directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a pattern of 23 racketeering activity. (h) To conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of subsection 1961(a-d). 92. In furtherance of the affairs of the enterprise, the Enterprise, and others known and unknown committed the acts described in this count below: 93. The officers, directors and/or managerial agents named herein were acting on behalf of the Enterprise, in addition to acting individually, in conducting the affairs of the Enterprise, authorized or engaged in conduct in violation of RICO. 94. The Enterprise, and others known and unknown, in Florida, did knowingly obtain or use, or endeavor to obtain or use, the property of another (Plaintiff) with intent to deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. 95. The Enterprise, and others known and unknown, in Florida, did make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public, or any portion thereof, a misleading advertisement. 96. At various times and places set forth below in this Count, the Enterprise did receive income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity to

  • 24. use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, an enterprise which is engaged in, or in the activities of which affect interstate and foreign commerce in violation of section 1962(a) of RICO (“prohibited activities”). 97. At various times and places set forth below in this Count, the Enterprise, and others known and unknown, conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of the Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws set forth in Section 1961(5) (“pattern” as defined) and 1962(a) and (c). 98. During the five (5) calendar years preceding the date of the filing of this lawsuit, the Enterprise did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts itemized in the RICO laws at Section 1961, and did so in 24 violation of RICO Section 1962(a). 99. The Enterprise did commit two (2) or more of the offenses itemized below in a manner in which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten a continuing threat of their respective racketeering acts in violation of RICO Section 1962(a). 100. Predicate Act #1 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about October 23, 2013, the Enterprise requested and received $30,000 via overnight courier with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds. 101. Predicate Act #2 (Wire Fraud): On or about October 31, 2013, members of the Enterprise entered into an agreement containing false and misleading statements from Plaintiff.

  • 25. 102. Predicate Act #3 (Wire Fraud): On or about January 9, 2014, a member of the Enterprise, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, sent a text message to Plaintiff containing 25 false and misleading statements. 103. Predicate Act #4 (Wire Fraud): On or about January 10, 2014, a member of the Enterprise, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, sent a text message to Plaintiff containing false and misleading statements. 104. Predicate Act #5 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about May 15, 2014, the Enterprise requested and received $17,500 via overnight courier with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds. 105. Predicate Act #6 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about May 28, 2014, the Enterprise requested and received $50,000 via overnight courier with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds. 106. Predicate Act #7 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about June 9, 2014, the Enterprise sent a request for and received $13,100 in funds via wire transfer from Plaintiff with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds. 107. Predicate Act #8 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about June 9, 2014, the Enterprise sent a request for and received $13,100 in funds via wire transfer from Plaintiff with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds. 108. Predicate Act #9 (Wire Fraud): On or about June 9, 2014, a member of the Enterprise, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, sent an email to Plaintiff containing false and misleading statements.

  • 26. 109. Predicate Act #10 (Wire Fraud): On or about June 11, 2014, a member of the Enterprise, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, sent an email to Plaintiff containing false 26 and misleading statements. 110. Predicate Act #11 (Wire Fraud): On or about June 18, 2014, a member of the Enterprise, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, sent an email to Plaintiff containing false and misleading statements. 111. Predicate Act #12 (Wire Fraud): On or about June 20, 2014, a member of the Enterprise, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, sent an email to Plaintiff containing false and misleading statements. 112. Predicate Act #13 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about June 20, 2014, the Enterprise sent a request for and received $50,000 in funds via three separate wire transfers from Plaintiff with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds. 113. Predicate Act #14 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about July 3, 2014, the Enterprise sent a request for and received $9,961.12 in funds via wire transfer from Plaintiff with the criminal intent to deprive Plaintiff of those funds. 114. Predicate Act #15 (Wire Fraud): On or about July 11, 2014, a member of the Enterprise, Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, sent an email to Plaintiff containing false and misleading statements. 115. Predicate Act #16 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about July 24, 2014, the Enterprise sent a request for and received $7,240 in funds via wire transfer from Plaintiff with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds.

  • 27. 116. Predicate Act #17 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about July 28, 2014, the Enterprise sent a request for and received $1,500 in funds via wire transfer from Plaintiff with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds. 117. Predicate Act #18 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about August 6, 2014, the Enterprise sent a request for and received $23,000 in funds via check from Plaintiff with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds. 118. Predicate Act #19 (Wire Fraud/Theft): On or about June 20, 2014, the Enterprise sent a request for and received $11,000 in funds via wire transfer from Plaintiff with the criminal intent to deprive the Plaintiff of those funds. COUNT II VIOLATIONS OF RICO 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, 1962(b) 119. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 27 above as if fully set forth herein. 120. Beginning in or about 2009 and continuing through and including the date of the filing of this Amended Complaint, Defendants, and others known and unknown, have associated in fact and therefore constitute the Enterprise. 121. At various times and places enumerated in paragraphs 100 through 118 above, Defendants did acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of a RICO enterprise of individuals who were associated in fact and who did engage in, and whose activities did affect interstate and foreign commerce. 122. During the five (5) calendar years preceding the date of the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants constituting the Enterprise did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts itemized in the RICO laws at

  • 28. Section 1961, and did so in violation of RICO Section 1962(b). These activities are found labeled as Predicate Acts #1-19 and alleged in paragraphs 100 through 118 of this 28 Amended Complaint. 123. All Defendants did commit two (2) or more of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities in violation of RICO Section 1962(b). These activities are found labeled as Predicate Acts #1-19 and alleged in paragraphs 100 through 118 of this Amended Complaint. COUNT III VIOLATIONS OF RICO 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, 1962(c) 124. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth herein. 125. Beginning in or about 2009 and continuing through and including the date of the filing of this Amended Complaint, Defendants and others known and unknown, have associated in fact and therefore constitute the Enterprise. 126. At various times and places enumerated in paragraphs 100 through 118 above, Defendants did associate with a RICO enterprise of individuals who were associated in fact and who did engage in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce. 127. During the five (5) calendar years preceding the date of the filing of this lawsuit, did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts itemized in the RICO laws at Section 1961, and did so in violation of

  • 29. RICO Section 1962(c). These activities are found labeled as Predicate Acts #1-19 and alleged in paragraphs 100 through 118 of this Amended Complaint. 128. Defendants did commit two (2) or more of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities in violation of RICO Section 1962(c). These activities are found labeled as Predicate Acts #1-19 and alleged in paragraphs 100 29 through 118 of this Amended Complaint. COUNT IV VIOLATIONS OF RICO 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, 1962(d) 129. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth herein. 130. Beginning in or about 2009 and continuing through and including the date of the filing of this Amended Complaint, Defendants, and others known and unknown, have associated in fact and therefore constitute the Enterprise. 131. At various times and places enumerated in paragraphs 100 through 118 above, Defendants did conspire to conduct and participate in a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO Sections 1962(b) and (d). 132. At various times and places enumerated in paragraphs 88 through 106 above, Defendants did conspire to conduct and participate in a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO Sections 1962(c) and (d). 133. During the five (5) calendar years preceding the date of the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants constituting the Enterprise did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts itemized in the RICO laws at

  • 30. Section 1961, and did so in violation of RICO Section 1962(d). These activities are found labeled as Predicate Acts #1-19 and alleged in paragraphs 100 through 118 of this 30 Amended Complaint. 134. All Defendants did commit two (2) or more of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities in violation of RICO Section 1962(d). These activities are found labeled as Predicate Acts #1-19 and alleged in paragraphs 100 through 118 of this Amended Complaint. COUNT V CONVERSION 135. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth herein. 136. Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice have taken possession of Plaintiff’s monies. 137. These Defendants, in taking possession of Plaintiff’s monies, intended and still intend to exercise ownership over said monies. 138. Plaintiff, by contract and by demand, have real ownership of said monies. 139. These Defendants’ ownership of said monies is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s right to possession. 140. Plaintiff has made multiple demands by email, phone and regular mail to return the funds paid by Plaintiff to these Defendants or to provide the Medical Device product to be purchased with said funds or honor the Exclusive Distributor Agreement.

  • 31. 141. These Defendants have retained Plaintiff’s monies despite having no legal right of possession over said monies and have not shipped the Medical Devices the monies 31 were intended to purchase. COUNT VI BREACH OF CONTRACT/BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 142. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth herein. 143. Plaintiff and Defendants Nunka and Medevice entered into the Exclusive Distributor Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 144. Plaintiff performed all duties and obligations required of Plaintiff under the Exclusive Distributor Agreement, primarily providing Defendants Nunka and Medevice with monies on a monthly basis to obtain the Medical Devices from these Defendants which product would be distributed to Plaintiff’s customers. 145. Defendants Nunka and Medevice breached the Exclusive Distributor Agreement by failing to fulfill any of their duties and obligations under said contract including providing Plaintiff with Neurova products to distribute in any quantity let alone the quantity called for under the Exclusive Distributor Agreement. 146. These Defendants further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when entering into and performing a contract by fraudulently inducing Plaintiff into signing the Exclusive Distributor Agreement with the intent to retain Plaintiff’s monies with no intent to perform these Defendants’ obligations under the Exclusive Distributor Agreement.

  • 32. 147. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Nunka and Medevice’s breach of the Exclusive Distributor Agreement, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount Plaintiff has paid under the contract plus incidental damages as a result of, inter alia, lost sales to its customers, dealers, and distributors and lost profits. COUNT VII UNJUST ENRICHMENT 148. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 32 above as if fully set forth herein. 149. Plaintiff conferred a benefit of at least $281,170.12 upon Defendants. 150. Defendants have appreciated the benefit of the $281,170.12. 151. Defendants have accepted and retained the benefit of the $281,170.12. 152. Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of the retention of these monies without a legal right of possession of said monies. COUNT VIII FRAUD 153. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth herein. 154. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein, as enumerated in paragraph 1 through 87 and 100 through 118 above, made several false statements concerning material facts, including, but not limited to, that the Neurova devices would be provided to Plaintiff to distribute to its customers; and that the Defendants would not circumvent Plaintiff and sell directly to the public, or Plaintiff’s customers, in direct contravention of the Exclusive Distributor Agreement.

  • 33. 155. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein made these false statements concerning material facts 33 with actual knowledge that they were false. 156. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein made these false statements with the intent to persuade Plaintiff to act in providing monies to the corporate Defendants Nunka and Medevice under the pretense that these Defendants would fulfill their obligations under the Exclusive Distributor Agreement, when in fact, Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice had no intention of fulfilling their obligations under the Exclusive Distributor Agreement. 157. Plaintiff relied on the false statements of Defendant Tzvi Milshtein and were injured as a result of said reliance. 158. Defendant Tzvi Milshtein made all of the false statements in bad faith and at all times in dealing with Plaintiff. COUNT IX REPLEVIN 159. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth herein. 160. This is an action to recover possession of personal property located in Florida. 161. A description of the property sought is the monies paid to Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice between October 2013 and August 2014, which, upon information and belief, is located in the bank account of these Defendants. 162. Plaintiff is entitled to the property pursuant to the Exclusive Distributor Agreement attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit “A”. 163. The property has been wrongfully detained by these Defendants.

  • 34. 164. These Defendants came into possession such property by fraudulently inducing the Plaintiff to provide these amounts to these Defendants via check and wire transfer under the guise that the monies were to be used to obtain Neurova devices to distribute to 34 its customers, dealers and distributors. 165. The property was not taken for any tax, assessment, or fine pursuant to law nor was it taken under an execution or attachment against Plaintiff’s property. COUNT X TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP 166. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth herein. 167. As the exclusive distributor for Defendants Nunka and Medevice, Plaintiff was engaged in multiple business relationships with its customers, dealers, and distributors including with Neurova LLC and Products for Doctors. 168. Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Uwe Heinrichsen, Ulrike Heinrichsen, Tom Corbin, Nunka, and Medevice had express knowledge of said business relationships as Plaintiff was purportedly under the obligation to notify Defendants of each potential deal for the Medical Devices before each sale contract was executed. 169. These Defendants committed intentional and unjustified interference with Plaintiff’s advantageous business relationships by circumventing the Exclusive Distributor Agreement and by selling directly to Plaintiff’s clients, customers, dealers, doctor clients and distributors.

  • 35. 170. Plaintiff was damaged as a result of this tortious interference in many ways, including but not limited to, losing the benefit of the sales under the Exclusive Distributor Agreement to its prospective customers including the $150,000 distributor deal with 35 Neurova LLC. COUNT XI CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES (FLA STAT. §772.104) 171. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 and paragraphs 100 to 118 above as if fully set forth herein. 172. Defendants constituting the Enterprise defined herein have, with criminal intent, received proceeds derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of criminal activity to use or invest, whether directly or indirectly, any such proceeds derived from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any title to, or any right, interest, or equity in, real property or in the establishment or operation of any enterprise. 173. All Defendants have, through a pattern of criminal activity, acquired and/or maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of an enterprise and/or real property. 174. As a result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages. 175. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §772.104, Plaintiff demands three-fold the actual damages it has sustained and Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees. COUNT XII FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION 176. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth herein.

  • 36. 177. Plaintiff developed the name Neurova (Infringing Mark) for the Medical Device and paid for and created the logo for Neurova (Infringing Logo). 178. Plaintiff had the name Neurova injected into the mold for the production of the 36 sample devices. 179. Plaintiff and Defendant Tzvi Milshtein agreed that Defendant Tzvi Milshtein would pay Plaintiff for the purchase of the Neurova name but Defendants failed to pay. 180. Defendants Nunka, Medevice and 16MAX’s unauthorized use of the Infringing Mark and Infringing Logo, constitutes a false designation of origin and false description, and falsely represents to the public that the services advertised, sold and offered for sale by these Defendants are authorized, endorsed, sponsored or otherwise approved by Plaintiff. 181. These Defendants with knowledge of such falsity, offered or caused to be advertised, sold and offered its product in connection with the Infringing Mark and Infringing Logo. 182. The actions of Defendants complained of herein were done with full knowledge of Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Roy Milshtein, Natalie Milshtein, and Leor Milshtein who directed and controlled such acts. 183. Plaintiff has been and will be irreparably damaged by said false designations, false descriptions, and false representations in that consumers are likely to be induced into dealing with these Defendants in the mistaken belief that Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s Infringing Mark and Infringing Logo are authorized, endorsed, sponsored by or otherwise approved by Plaintiff.

  • 37. 184. These Defendants’ acts constitute violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham 37 Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 185. By reason of the acts of these Defendants herein alleged, Plaintiff has suffered and, unless these Defendants are restrained from continuing their wrongful acts, will continue to suffer serious and irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT XIII VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“FDUTPA”) 186. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above as if fully set forth herein. 187. All Defendants’ fraudulent and illegal actions to obtain monies of the Plaintiff with no intent to fund or provide anything of value in violation of the Exclusive Distributor Agreement constitutes unfair and deceptive conduct. 188. Defendants Nunka, Medevice and 16MAX’s use of the Infringing Mark and Logo also constitutes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in contravention of FDUTPA. 189. Plaintiff was aggrieved by the conduct of these Defendants and has a result suffered monetary damages and irreparable harm. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury lawfully convened.

  • 38. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Marpay Technologies, Inc., hereby prays for the 38 following relief: As to Counts I – IV (RICO) A. That this Honorable Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants, jointly and severally, have received income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in or establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) (prohibited activities). B. That this Honorable Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that Defendants have conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at Section 1961(5) (“pattern” defined) and 1962, supra. C. That all Defendants and their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action and permanently thereafter, from receiving any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

  • 39. D. That all Defendants and their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action and permanently thereafter, from conducting or participating, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO laws at Section 39 1961(5) and 1962, supra. E. That all Defendants and their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action and permanently thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in furtherance of the RICO enterprise as alleged in Counts I-IV, supra. F. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering activity in violation of Section 1962(a) – (d) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and Federal law(s). G. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants for Plaintiff’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits or advantages attributable to all violations of Section 1962(a) – (d), according to the best available proof. H. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) damages under authority of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), for any gains, profits or advantages attributable to all violations of Section 1962(a) – (d), according to the best available proof. I. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained by Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants’ several violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(a) – (d), according to the best available proof.

  • 40. J. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff their costs of the lawsuit incurred herein, including but not limited to, all reasonable attorney’s fees. K. That this Honorable Court award such other relief as deemed just and proper 40 under the circumstances. As to Count V (Conversion) Plaintiff requests entry of judgment for Plaintiff and against the Defendants Tzvi Milshtein, Nunka and Medevice for the monies converted, plus interest and any such other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. As to Count VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XIII Plaintiff requests entry of judgment for Plaintiff and against the Defendants named in these Counts for actual damages, consequential damages, loss of profits, prejudgment interest, and where applicable under law or contract, attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff further requests any further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. As to Count XI (772.104) Plaintiff requests entry of judgment for Plaintiff and against the Defendants for the sum of at least $843,510.36 which constitutes three-fold actual damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. Plaintiff further requests any further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. As to Count XII (Federal Unfair Competition) A. That this Honorable Court find that the Defendants named in Count XII have engaged in unfair competition in violation of the laws of the United States;

  • 41. B. That this Honorable Court temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoin, restrain, and forbid Defendants and all of its principals, servants, officers, directors, partners, agents, representatives, shareholders, employees, affiliates, successors, and assignees and all others acting in privity, concert or participation with these Defendants 41 from: (i) imitating, copying, duplicating, or otherwise making any use of Plaintiff’s Neurova Infringing Logo and Infringing Mark, or any mark confusingly similar to or likely to dilute the distinctiveness of Plaintiff’s mark in any manner; (ii) manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling or otherwise using any printed material which bears a copy or colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s Neurova Infringing Logo and Infringing Mark; (iii) using any false designation of origin or false description which can or is likely to lead the trade or public, or individual members thereof, to mistakenly believe that any product advertised, promoted, offered or sold by Defendants is sponsored, endorsed, connected with, approved by or authorized by Plaintiff; (iv) causing likelihood of confusion or injury to Plaintiff’s business reputation and to the distinctiveness of Plaintiff’s Neurova Infringing Logo and Infringing Mark by any unauthorized use of the same; (v) further using Plaintiff’s Neurova Infringing Logo and Infringing Mark or confusingly similar variations thereof including using it in or as part of any product names, menus, billboards, labels, slogans, advertising, marketing and/or media material, web page text, domain name or other communication;

  • 42. (vi) using Plaintiff’s Neurova Infringing Logo and Infringing Mark as a keyword, search word, meta-tag, as any part of a uniform source locator, as any part of an email address or as any part of the description of a web site in any submission for registration of any Internet site with a search engine or index; and (viii) assisting, aiding or abetting another person or business entity engaging or performing any of the activities enumerated in sub-paragraphs (i) through 42 (vii) above; C. That this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring these Defendants and all of its principals, servants, officers, directors, partners, agents, representatives, shareholders, employees, affiliates, successors, and assignees and all others acting in privity, concert or participation with these Defendants, to deliver up all goods or products, signs, articles, items, and promotional, advertising, and any other printed materials of any kind bearing Plaintiff’s Neurova Infringing Logo and Infringing Mark or any other mark confusingly similar to or likely to dilute the distinctiveness of said logo and mark. D That this Honorable Court direct these Defendants to account for all products and materials bearing Plaintiff’s Neurova Infringing Logo and Infringing Mark or any other mark confusingly similar to or likely to dilute the distinctiveness of said logo and mark, and to surrender all such products and materials to the Court for destruction; E. That this Honorable Court award Plaintiff actual damages in an amount to be proved at trial and/or as otherwise provided by law. F. That this Honorable Court order an accounting by these Defendants of any profits derived in any way from Defendants’ wrongful acts, and order Defendants to pay to

  • 43. Plaintiff profits and all damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of these Defendants’ 43 trademark infringement G. That this Honorable Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiff punitive damages in a sum to be determined at trial on the basis of, inter alia, these Defendants’ deliberate and intentional infringement; H. That this Honorable Court award Plaintiff pre-judgment interest and any such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances. Dated: December 9, 2014 Respectfully submitted, WASCH LAW LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Marpay Technologies, Inc. 2500 N. Military Trail, Suite 465 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Telephone: 561-693-3221 Facsimile: 561-404-1104 eservice@waschlaw.com By: /s/ Adam G. Wasch___________ Adam G. Wasch Florida Bar No. 071082 awasch@waschlaw.com

  • This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/01/2015 10:39 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/nunka-corp-and-16max/pompano-beach-florida-33060/nunka-corp-and-16max-tzvi-milshtein-roy-milshtein-natalie-milshtein-leor-milshtein-uw-1198864. 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. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

    Search for additional reports

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

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

    Updates & Rebuttals

    REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
    1Author
    0Consumer
    0Employee/Owner

    #1 Author of original report

    This Lawsuit Has Been Settled

    AUTHOR: - ()

    This lawsuit has been settled on December 18th, 2015 with a confidential settlement agreement betweeen all parties.

    Respond to this report!