Quality Telecom Consultants v. ERC Specialists, D. Utah No. 2:24-cv-00720, Complaint (Doc. 1, Sept. 28, 2024)

Summary

A complaint, Quality Telecom Consultants, Inc. v. ERC Specialists, LLC, Mark Sullivan and other named individual defendants, Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB, Document 1, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, filed September 28, 2024. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants induced it to file an inflated and incorrect Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) claim with the Internal Revenue Service, with the intent to collect a contingency fee. It asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), including Count One under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and under §§ 13-11a-3, 13-11a-4 of Utah's Truth in Advertising/Deceptive Trade Practices Statute. It alleges an agreement entered April 18, 2023 and demands a jury trial.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Quality Telecom Consultants v. ERC Specialists, D. Utah No. 2:24-cv-00720, Complaint (Doc. 1, Sept. 28, 2024).” Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/quality-telecom-consultants-v-erc-specialists-d-utah-no-2-24-cv-00720-12e7d014d6/, SHA-256 941dbe56778ee73067bc14b3f66a24343fa415cf0dce8bae13e9a86e1a4dd9b9.

Full text

Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.1 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

QUALITY TELECOM §
CONSULTANTS, INC. §
§
Plaintiff, §
v. § Case No. _______________________
§
ERC SPECIALISTS, LLC, a Utah §
limited liability company, MARK §
SULLIVAN, an individual, JUSTIN §
ATKINSON, an individual, JOSH § PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL
ZIEGLOWSKY, an individual, JACOB § COMPLAINT
DAVIS, an individual, CHANDLER §
CHAVIS, an individual, GERI BOHN, an §
individual, ROCKY CROFTS, an §
individual, & ROE CORPORATION(S), §
§
Defendants. §

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Quality Telecom Consultants, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) by and through

its attorneys of record, and files this Complaint and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), for Defendants’ participation in fraudulent activities,

including (but not limited to), the preparation of Plaintiff’s Employee Retention Tax Credit

(“ERTC”) claim. Using telephone, mail, internet and wire, Defendants’ knowingly induced

Plaintiff to file an inflated and incorrect ERTC claim with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”),

using inflated and fraudulent numbers that Defendants calculated and prepared, with the intent to

charge and collect an unconscionable and illegal contingency fee from Plaintiff. Instead of

conducting an appropriate accounting analysis to determine if Plaintiff qualified to claim the

ERTC, Defendants willfully disregarded the standard of care for accountancy and prepared

1
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.2 Page 2 of 16

incredibly inflated claims with no backup justification, and advised Plaintiff to file said claims

under the guise of good faith accountancy.

2. The additional causes of action incident to this complaint are for violations of §§

13-11a-3, 13-11a-4 of Utah’s Truth in Advertising/Deceptive Trade Practices Statute, professional

negligence, and related causes of action to address the damages caused to Plaintiff by Defendants.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, QUALITY TELECOM CONSULTANTS, INC., is at all times relevant

herein, a domestic California corporation with its principal offices and place of business in

Rocklin, CA.

4. Defendant, ERC SPECIALISTS, LLC, (“ERCS”) is a Utah limited liability

company with its principal place of business at 560 E. Timpanogos Circle, Orem, UT 84097. At

all times relevant herein, ERCS was actively advertising, marketing, promoting, and retaining

clients from their headquarters located in Orem, Utah.

5. Defendant, MARK SULLIVAN, (“Sullivan”) is an individual who, upon

information and belief, is a resident of Utah.

6. Defendant, JUSTIN ATKINSON, (“Atkinson”) is an individual who, upon

information and belief, is a resident of Utah.

7. Defendant, JOSH ZIEGLOWSKY, (“Zieglowsky”) is an individual who, upon

information and belief, is a resident of Utah.

8. Defendant, JACOB DAVIS, (“Davis”) is an individual who, upon information and

belief, is a resident of Utah.

9. Defendant, CHANDLER CHAVIS, (“Chavis”) is an individual who, upon

information and belief, is a resident of Utah.

2
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.3 Page 3 of 16

10. Defendant, GERI BOHN, (“Bohn”) is an individual who, upon information and

belief, is a resident of Eagle Mountain, Utah. Bohn is a Certified Payroll Professional (CPP)

licensed by the American Payroll Association (APA), practicing in the state of Utah.

11. Defendant, ROCKY CROFTS, (“Crofts”) is an individual who, upon information

and belief, is a resident of Ogden, Utah. Crofts is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of

Utah, and an active member of the State Bar of Utah.

12. Defendant, ROE CORPORATION(S), (“ROE Corp.”) represent the collective

names and capacities, whether they be individual(s), corporation(s), or agents(s), of any individual

named Defendants herein. Additionally, ROE Corp. represents the collective names and capacities,

whether they be a corporation(s), affiliate(s), director(s), officer(s), employee(s), agent(s),

supplier(s) or licensor(s), etc. of Defendant, ERCS, by and through its referral/affiliate program.

ROE Corp. Defendant(s), should any exist, are currently unknown or have not yet been confirmed,

as of the filing of this Complaint. Upon information and belief, ROE Corp. Defendant(s) are

responsible for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the claimed breached duties, self-

dealings, omissions, and engagements in any activity, as defined in the paragraphs below.

Therefore, Plaintiff sues said Defendant(s) by such fictitious name, and will seek leave to amend

this complaint to show the true names and capacities of ROE Corp. Defendant(s), at such time that

they are ascertained. ROE Corp. Defendant(s), until otherwise defined, are presumed to reside and

conduct business within the state of Utah.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331 based upon federal question. Plaintiff is bringing civil claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

Racketeer, Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and related claims.

3
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.4 Page 4 of 16

14. Should Plaintiff’s claims under federal question be dismissed, this Court has further

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000.00 and the parties are of different states. Plaintiff is a resident of California, and all

Defendants are assumed to be residents of or incorporated within the State of Utah.

15. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), in that all Defendants

are residents of, or incorporated within, the State of Utah, in the judicial district in which this court

is located.

16. Venue is further proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), in that a substantial part of

the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in the State of Utah, in this judicial

district, and/or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is presumed to be

situated in the State of Utah, in this judicial district.

GENERAL OVERVIEW AND ALLEGATIONS

17. When Plaintiff’s business operations were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, it

began to explore potential options for relief. One of those options was the COVID-19-related

Employee Retention Tax Credit (“ERTC”), a benefit provided under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,

and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act of 2020.

18. The ERTC is a refundable tax credit for certain eligible businesses and tax-exempt

organizations that have employees and were affected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

19. To claim the ERTC retroactively, an employer files a Form 941-X for each payroll

tax quarter in which it is determined eligible, with Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). If claimed

correctly, the IRS would determine the claim to be an overpayment of tax for the specified

quarter(s) and would issue a refund check to the employer.

4
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.5 Page 5 of 16

20. Plaintiff does not specialize in the preparation of tax returns and therefore sought

out assistance, or received unsolicited contact from a professional in determining its eligibility to

claim the ERTC.

21. On April 18, 2023, Plaintiff, by and through its principal, entered into a contract

with Defendants, for ERCS to perform services with the overall purpose of determining Plaintiff’s

eligibility to claim the ERTC (the “Agreement”). This contract was transmitted from the state of

Utah, where all Defendants reside, to the state of California, where Plaintiff resides, for electronic

signature via the internet, using DocuSign.

22. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants marketed ERCS as a company

that “Specializes in Maximizing ERC Funding for Small Businesses” on its company website. In

an effort to bolster its reputation and maliciously inflate the value of its services, Defendants, used

online advertisements to make misleading representations to potential clients. Specifically,

Defendants’ online advertisements represent that it had specialized knowledge and skillsets to

conduct a proper qualification analysis. Some of these statements included:

“We evaluate your claim in every way possible to ensure we
maximize your credit.”

“Our team strictly focuses on ERC allowing us to be the experts and
resulting in more funding for your business.”

“While the general qualifications for the ERC program seem simple,
the interpretation of each qualification is very complex. Our
significant experience allows us to ensure we maximize any
qualifications that may be available to your company.”

“At ERC Specialists we have decades of payroll experience, which
has allowed us to specifically focus to understanding and
maximizing the ERC program”

23. Further, Defendants, encouraged potential clients (or rather, instilled fear in

potential clients) to not consult with a CPA regarding their eligibility for the ERTC. This was

5
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.6 Page 6 of 16

accomplished by making statements and displaying fake client testimonials on the ERCS website1,

all of which implied that a CPA would be incorrect in determining that the potential client’s

business did not qualify for the ERTC. Some of these statements included:

“No need to be the guinea pig for your CPA. We average 10-20%
more funding than a CPA not familiar with the program.”

“When I heard about the ERC program I reached out to my CPA.
30 minutes later he called and said I didn't qualify. Out of curiosity,
I had ERC Specialists see if I qualified. Turns out I received the ERC
for 7 of my 9 employees. Highly recommended. - Scott Moore”

“The challenge is the ERC credit is taken on your payroll returns
and not through your business income tax returns, which is what
most CPA's handle. Because of this most CPA's don't process this
credit”

24. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants’, named

and unnamed herein, advertisements, statements, and representations regarding their services,

expertise, and client satisfaction, were intentionally false and misleading.

25. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants, named

and unnamed herein, lacked any more knowledge, skill, or ability to determine eligibility for the

ERTC, over an ordinary tax preparer, CPA, or layperson.

26. The ERTC is only available to certain employers that paid qualified wages to some

or all employees after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2022 (during the COVID-19

pandemic), and who met the requirements for eligibility.

27. However, depending on the employer’s industry, the basis claimed for the credit,

and the specifics for how an employer was impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, the

determination as to whether or not a business is eligible to claim the ERTC, which quarters it is

1
Some of these testimonials were even made using the identities of individuals financially
incentivized through the ERCS “affiliate” program.

6
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.7 Page 7 of 16

eligible in, and the amount in which it can claim, can range from a simple review to a complex

qualification analysis.

28. Defendants provided an online intake questionnaire for Plaintiff to complete,

regarding its potential for eligibility to obtain the ERTC. Plaintiff, by and through its principal,

completed this form on or about April 18, 2023. A simple review of the responses provided in the

questionnaire to Defendants would indicate to anyone (especially self-proclaimed “experts”) that

further analysis is required, as the responses on their face are wholly insufficient to determine a

valid ERTC claim.

29. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not

conduct any meaningful analysis of Plaintiff’s eligibility to receive the ERTC, and failed to

accurately ascertain the basis for Plaintiff’s eligibility to receive the ERTC, the quarters Plaintiff

was eligible for the ERTC, and the amount of the ERTC that Plaintiff was entitled to receive. In

fact, the last line of the Agreement executed by Plaintiff and Defendant Sullivan, reads as follows:

“BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, THE CLIENT HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS AUTHORIZED THE
COMPANY TO FILE THE FOREGOING TAX
DOCUMENTS WITH THE IRS WITHOUT FURTHER
CONSULTATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE
FILING OF SAID DOCUMENTS”2

This is a clear indication that Defendants never intended to consult with Plaintiff to obtain further

information, beyond what was provided to them in the intake questionnaire attached to the

Agreement.3

2
(emphasis added).
3
Interestingly, in 2024 the IRS identified some of the signs of “ERC Scam Promoters” to include
“anyone who says you qualify for ERC based on supply chain issues without asking for specific
information about how your business or organization was affected, your supplier's situation and
documentation.” See, https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-
employee-retention-credit#eligibility.

7
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.8 Page 8 of 16

30. Based upon the representations made by Defendants as to the accuracy of their

qualification analysis, Defendant ERCS, by and through all other Defendants named and unnamed

herein, induced Plaintiff to allow Defendant ERCS, to file the Form 941-X on behalf of Plaintiff,

without further discussion.

PLAINTIFF’S CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE
(Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c))

31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 through 30 set forth

above.

32. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, inclusive of all leadership, principal agents, and

others known and unknown to Plaintiff, were members and associates of an "enterprise"

(hereinafter referred to as the “Enterprise”), as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). That is, they are a

group of individuals associated in fact, although not a legal entity. The Enterprise consisted of (i)

ERCS, the entity; (ii) all affiliate entities, shell corporations, escrow agencies, and more that are

unnamed herein (collectively referred to as ROE Corp.); (iii) individuals employed by and

associated with all entities previously mentioned; and (iv) all others known and unknown (also

encompassed under the reference to ROE Corp.).

33. Plaintiff alleges that the Enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose

members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the

Enterprise. The Enterprise was engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate commerce in that

ERCS and all other Defendants named and unnamed herein, advertised and marketed their services

and company(s) to businesses nationwide. The Enterprise operated primarily in the District of

Utah.

8
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.9 Page 9 of 16

34. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and all others known and unknown, deliberately

participated in unlawful, fraudulent, and deceptive activities, and conspired to commit these

activities, to conduct the affairs of the Enterprise.

35. Plaintiff alleges that the purpose of the Enterprise included preserving, protecting,

promoting, and enhancing the power, reputation, and brand of ERCS, all individual Defendants,

and all ROE Corp. affiliates, whether known or unknown to Plaintiff, to enrich the members of the

Enterprise at the expense of Plaintiff.

36. Plaintiff alleges that the purpose of the Enterprise was to undertake a financial

scheme to collect a contingency fee for their “services”, that related to their provision of a

fraudulent and/or vastly inflated value for Plaintiff’s ERTC claim.

37. Defendants’ conduct, and the conduct of each Defendant named herein, constitutes

racketeering as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Specifically, Congress has defined “racketeering

activity” to be “any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United

States Code”4, inclusive of: Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343).

38. Defendants in this case engaged in multiple instances of mail fraud, wire fraud, and

monetary transactions in property derived from unlawful activity by filing fraudulent ERTC claims

with the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of Plaintiff and accepting monetary payment from

Plaintiff for these unlawful services.

39. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have knowingly conducted and/or participated,

directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the above-described Enterprises through a

“pattern of racketeering activity” as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).

4
18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B).

9
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.10 Page 10 of 16

40. Plaintiff alleges that such racketeering activity consists of repeated violations and

the conspiracy to commit violations of Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §

1343).

41. These predicate acts were part of a scheme and were not isolated events as

Defendants filed multiple fraudulent claims on behalf of Plaintiff with the IRS, and Defendants

accepted payment across state lines in the amount of $297,000 for their “services” to Plaintiff.

Further, Plaintiff alleges that the commission of these predicate acts were premeditated, as is

described in paragraphs 26 through 30 of this complaint.

42. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was

financially injured by having to retain a separate and professional tax consulting firm to determine

that the claims filed by ERCS were fraudulent.

43. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was

financially injured by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to ERCS for what they believed to

be valid ERTC claims, and financially planning for the use of this refund in their ordinary course

of business which ultimately had to be returned to avoid facing harsh penalties.

44. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was

financially injured by having to retain counsel to assist them in the filing of this suit and all

prelitigation attempts to have Defendants return Plaintiff’s fee.

45. Section 1962(c)5 provides relief against parties who engage in a pattern of

racketeering activity, and Defendants have civil liability to Plaintiff under this section of the U.S.

Code.

5
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

10
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.11 Page 11 of 16

46. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) states that “Any person injured in his business or property by

reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter [18 USCS § 1962] may sue therefor in any

appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the

cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee”. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable

under this provision.

COUNT TWO
(Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act Violations - Utah Code Ann. § 76–10–1603(3))

47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 through 46, set forth

above.

48. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct, and the conduct of each Defendant

named herein, consisted of a pattern of unlawful activity as utilized in § 76–10–1605. Specifically,

the Utah State Legislature has defined a “Pattern of unlawful activity” to be “engaging in conduct

which constitutes the commission of at least three episodes of unlawful activity, which episodes

are not isolated, but have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods

of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics”.6 For the purposes

of this definition, “Unlawful activity” means “to directly engage in conduct or to solicit, request,

command, encourage, or intentionally aid another person to engage in conduct which would

constitute any offense described by the following crimes or categories of crimes”7. These crimes

or categories of crimes include (but are not limited to): Making a written false statement under

6
Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1602(2).
7
Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1602(4).

11
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.12 Page 12 of 16

Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-5048; Theft by deception under Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-4059; and Any act

illegal under the laws of the United States and enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B)10.

a. Written False Statement (Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-504).

49. Plaintiff alleges Defendants engaged in multiple instances of making written false

statements in official matters with the intent to deceive a public servant11, through the creation and

submission to the IRS of Plaintiff’s ERTC claims using IRS Form 941-X.

50. Plaintiff alleges Defendants had or had reason to know that Plaintiff did not qualify

for the ERTC, as described in paragraphs 26 through 30 set forth above.

51. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, despite knowing they were submitting a false

claim for refund on behalf of Plaintiff to the IRS, proceeded to file said claim(s), and therefore,

made a written false statement to an employee of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and/or an

employee of the IRS based out of the State of Utah.

52. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had the intent to have the above public servant

process the fraudulent claim in the course of their normal government function.

b. Theft by Deception (Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-405)

53. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in instances of theft by deception by

obtaining property (payment) from Plaintiff, by Defendants’ use of deception through "puffing"12

the worth of their services both verbally and through false advertisements, with the purpose of

depriving Plaintiff of money.

8
Id. ¶ (rrr).
9
Id. ¶ (hh).
10
Id. ¶ (iii).
11
For purposes of § 76-8-504, "Public servant" means a person hired or paid by a public entity to
perform a government function. Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-101.5(16)(a)(iii).
12
Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-405(1)(a).

12
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.13 Page 13 of 16

54. Based on facts previously stated in paragraphs 22 through 25 above, Plaintiff

further alleges that Defendants intentionally puffed their worth for the purpose of obtaining money

from potential customers under fraudulent pretenses.

55. Plaintiff alleges that at the times relevant herein, Defendants advertised and misled

potential customers to believe that they had “Advisory Board Members” consisting of the State of

Utah Attorney General (Sean Reyes), the Former U.S. Attorney General (Matt Whitaker), and

more highly credible individuals, to “puff” their worth. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants

intentionally puffed their worth in this manner for the purpose of obtaining money from potential

customers under fraudulent pretenses.

c. Act(s) Illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B)

56. Lastly, as described in paragraphs 1 through 46 set forth above, Defendants

engaged in Racketeering which is an act illegal under the laws of the United States and enumerated

in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B).

57. In summary, Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for violation of the Utah Pattern of

Unlawful Activity Act. Section 76-10-1605 of the code provides civil remedies to persons injured

by a pattern of unlawful activity. Defendants individually have civil liability to Plaintiff under this

section, and should be awarded two times the damages sustained, costs of this suit, and reasonable

attorney fees.13

13
Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-10-1605(1), (2).

13
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.14 Page 14 of 16

COUNT THREE
(Truth in Advertising Violations – Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-4a(3)(1))

58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges paragraphs 1 through 57, set forth

above.

59. Deceptive trade practices occur when, in the course of a person's business, vocation,

or occupation that person: (b) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the

source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services; (c) causes likelihood of

confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, association with, or certification by

another; and (i) advertises goods or services or the price of goods and services with intent not to

sell them as advertised.14

60. Based on facts and allegations previously stated in paragraphs 21 through 25 and

49 through 52, set forth above, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants intentionally mislead

Plaintiff into believing that Defendants would perform a comprehensive analysis of whether or not

Plaintiff qualified to claim the ERTC.

61. Based on facts and allegations previously stated in 53 through 55 set forth above,

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants intentionally mislead Plaintiff into believing that

Defendants were backed by government officials, leaders, and more, and were a team inclusive of

certified payroll administrators, and attorneys, creating a more reliable appearance.

62. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly advertised a service that they had no

intention of providing, in that they marketed themselves as capable of conducting a better analysis

than a CPA, for claiming the ERTC. Plaintiff further alleges that in reality, Defendants had no

intention of conducting said analysis, had no intention of communicating with Plaintiff to gather

14
Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-11-4a(3)(1)(b), (c), (i).

14
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.15 Page 15 of 16

additional information relevant to its claim, and had no intention of filing a valid legal ERTC claim

with the IRS.

63. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants advertised a guarantee on their website that they

had no intention of upholding, to induce prospective clients into entering into an agreement with

them. At the time relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ website read

the following: “our fee is covered by our 100% Money Back Guarantee”.

64. In summary, Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for violation of the Utah Truth in

Advertising/Deceptive trade practices statute. Section 13-11a-4 of the code provides civil remedies

to persons injured by deceptive trade practices. Defendants have civil liability to Plaintiff under

this section and should be awarded damages sustained, pre- and post- judgment interest, costs, and

reasonable attorney fees.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all causes of action stated herein.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, by and through undersigned

counsel, respectfully request that upon final trial of this cause, the Court enter a judgment against

Defendants, each of them jointly and individually, with respect to each individual count alleged

herein, inclusive of respective damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff further requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendants, each of them

jointly and individually, for pre-judgment and post-judgement interest, at the maximum rate

allowed by law.

Plaintiff further requests that the Court enter judgement against Defendants, each of them

jointly and individually, for Exemplary damages in such amount as the finder of fact may award

15
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JCB Document 1 Filed 09/28/24 PageID.16 Page 16 of 16

at its discretion and all such other and further relief, legal and equitable, special or general, to

which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Dated: September 20, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kigan Martineau
KIGAN MARTINEAU
Utah Bar No. 15299
Benzion and Martineau
162 N 400 E bldg A, # 101
St. George, UT 84770
Telephone: (435) 351-1788
Kigan@4theinjured.com

/s/ Janine Campanaro
JANINE M. CAMPANARO
PHV Admission Pending
Utah Bar Admission Pending
Zerbe, Miller, Fingeret, Frank & Jadav
3009 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1700
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: (832) 388-3944
jcampanaro@zmflaw.com
vdharmaraj@zmflaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.utd.151009.1.0.pdf
Size: 307,236 bytes
SHA-256: 941dbe56778ee73067bc14b3f66a24343fa415cf0dce8bae13e9a86e1a4dd9b9
Our copy: gov.uscourts.utd.151009.1.0.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com