in the circuit court for the state of oregon for the ...media.oregonlive.com › business_impact ›...

1 – COMPLAINT

Buckley Law P.C.

5300 Meadows Road, Suite 200

Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035

Telephone (503) 620-8900 ~ Facsimile (503) 620-4878

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page -

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Capacity Commercial Group, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Brian M. Owendoff, an individual,

Defendant.

Case No. COMPLAINT Breach of Contract; Intentional Interference with Economic Relations; Fraud NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ARBITRATION Amount in Controversy: $425,000.00 ORS 21.160(1)(c)

Plaintiff Capacity Commercial Group, LLC (“CCG”), by and through their counsel of

record, the law firm of Buckley Law P.C., hereby states and alleges as follows:

1.

CCG is an Oregon limited liability company with its principal place of business at 805

SW Broadway, Suite 700, Portland, County of Multnomah, State of Oregon.

2.

CCG provides customized, professional real estate services that include: brokerage,

consulting; project management; development services, strategic planning, and other real estate

services provided to landlords, tenants, buyers, sellers, investors and developers of commercial

real estate.

3.

Defendant Brian M. Owendoff (“Owendoff”) is an individual residing in Multnomah

County, Oregon. From September 2011 until June 2015, Owendoff worked as an independent

contractor pursuant to a contract with CCG.

8/31/2015 4:34:54 PM15CV23200

2 – COMPLAINT

Buckley Law P.C.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page -

4.

In September 2011, Owendoff and CCG entered into an Independent Contractor

Agreement (the “Agreement”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A to this

Complaint. The contents of the Agreement are incorporated into this Complaint as if stated in

full herein.

5.

The Agreement requires, among other things, that Owendoff “work diligently and [use

his] best efforts to sell commercial and industrial real estate, lease commercial real estate,

…solicit additional listings and customers and otherwise promote the professional real estate

business of [CCG].” The Agreement also requires Owendoff to promptly submit “all proposed

real estate transactions” to CCG and, consistent with ORS Chapter 696, document and file all

such transactions with CCG. The intent of the parties as shown through the agreement was that

Owendoff would promote the professional real estate business of CCG which included, among

other things, consulting services and the development of a multifamily and development

services group.

6.

Oregon Real Estate laws require all real estate licenses to be under the supervision of

one firm and managing broker. From September 2011 until June 2015, Owendoff’s real estate

license was located at CCG. This placed responsibility on CCG to make sure that all real estate

activity with which Owendoff was involved was in compliance with Oregon Real Estate law.

CCG’s responsibilities included reviewing agreements, proposal, deal files, etc. CCG is

expected to have all deal files in compliance with Oregon Real Estate Laws and are subject to

random audits. Owendoff was aware at the time he entered into the Agreement that all of his

Professional Real Estate Activities were to be run under the supervision and management of

CCG as the managing broker.

3 – COMPLAINT

Buckley Law P.C.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page -

7.

Owendoff worked as an independent contractor under the Agreement and provided a

variety of professional real estate services for CCG Clients. These services included consulting

services along with brokerage and development work.

8.

Despite the obligation to run all real estate activity through CCG according to the terms

of the Agreement and Oregon Real Estate Law, Owendoff solicited and engaged in professional

real estate activity with potential clients of CCG without involving CCG in the deal.

9.

The deals that Owendoff solicited and engaged in without CCG’s knowledge and

without compensation to CCG were the kind of deals contemplated by the parties as being

included within the terms of the Agreement. More specifically, the parties anticipated that

Owendoff would provide real estate consulting services to current and future clients and that

fee generation for both Owendoff and CCG would come through hourly consulting, brokerage

commission and/or percentage of development fees based on profitability and achievement of

client goals. Owendoff provided those services to individuals and companies without running

those deals through CCG and profited from them.

10.

In June 2015, CCG discovered that Owendoff was knowingly and willfully soliciting

and engaging in professional real estate activity outside of his work for CCG and in violation of

the terms of the Agreement. At that time, CCG properly terminated the Agreement with

Owendoff and demanded payment for the portions of revenue which should have flowed to

CCG from Owendoff’s side deals. Owendoff to date has yet to repay any portion of that

revenue to CCG.

/ / /

/ / /

4 – COMPLAINT

Buckley Law P.C.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page -

11.

Following the termination of the Agreement, Owendoff contacted one of CCG’s clients,

BDC/NW Irving, LLC (“BDC”). BDC had engaged CCG through Owendoff to provide

assistance with a development known as “Pearl West.” Owendoff contacted BDC to tell them

that he would no longer work with BDC unless BDC terminated their agreement with CCG.

12.

Around the same time, Owendoff began sending emails to CCG apparently designed to

intimidate CCG into taking a course of action which Owendoff deemed favorable to him,

including but not limited to agreeing to release materials related to BDC and to release BDC

from their contract with CCG.

13.

These attempts to intimidate included language such as “Morally bankrupt clueless

lying Mormon dies immediately from bankruptcy & greed. FUCK YOU PUSSY” (all caps in

original). This email was clearly targeting one of the CCG principals who Owendoff knows to

adhere to the Mormon faith. Additional emails followed referencing “DEAD MEN” and

making slanderous allegations concerning the marital fidelity of one of the CCG principals.

14.

Out of concern for their safety and the safety of their employees and clients, CCG

reported the above described behavior to the Portland Police Department and contacted

Owendoff through legal counsel asking that the emails stop. Despite these efforts, Owendoff

continued sending threatening and harassing emails.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract)

15.

CCG re-alleges paragraphs 1-14 above.

5 – COMPLAINT

Buckley Law P.C.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page -

16.

The Agreement is a valid and enforceable agreement between CCG and Owendoff.

17.

CCG has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement and all contingencies to

Owendoff’s performance have been met.

18.

Owendoff breached the Agreement in at least the following ways:

A. by engaging in the type of professional real estate activities contemplated by the

Agreement without the knowledge or participation of CCG and without

providing CCG any compensation for revenue received from those activities;

B. by failing to work diligently and use best efforts to sell commercial and

industrial real estate, lease commercial real estate, solicit additional listings and

customers and otherwise promote the professional real estate business of CCG;

C. by failing to submit all real estate transactions to CCG;

D. by soliciting potential clients of CCG for real estate services for the sole benefit

of Owendoff;

E. by breaching the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; and .

F. By violating Oregon Real Estate law.

19.

As a result of Owendoff’s breach of the Agreement as described above, CCG has

suffered monetary loss of not less than $300,000.00, to be more specifically proven at trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Interference with Economic Relations)

20.

CCG incorporates paragraphs 1-19 above.

6 – COMPLAINT

Buckley Law P.C.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page -

21.

CCG had a business relationship with BDC. Specifically, BDC had a contractual

arrangement with Owendoff through CCG related to a project known as “Pearl West.”

22.

Owendoff intentionally interfered with that relationship by wrongful means and with a

wrongful motive. Owendoff, with full knowledge of the existing contract, leveraged his unique

knowledge of the work done, to pressure BDC into terminating the agreement with CCG.

Owendoff refused to provide services to BDC unless BDC terminated its agreement with CCG.

Owendoff also sent harassing and intimidating emails in an attempt to pressure CCG. CCG was

in position to perform under the agreement even following the termination of the Agreement

with Owendoff. BDC, feeling they could not move forward without Owendoff’s cooperation,

terminated its agreement with CCG.

23.

Owendoff interfered with the contract between CCG and BDC for the purpose of

financially harming CCG and in retaliation for CCG terminating the Agreement with

Owendoff.

24.

As a result of Owendoff’s intentional interference, CCG has suffered monetary loss of

not less than $125,000, to be more specifically proven at trial.

25.

As described above, Owendoff continues to send threatening and harassing emails to

CCG apparently aimed at intimidating CCG into abandoning its claims or releasing its clients

and their property to Owendoff. This ongoing behavior has resulted in irreparable harm for

which no adequate remedy at law exists. Therefore, CCG requests injunctive relief in the from

of an order directing Owendoff to stop sending threatening and harassing emails to CCG.

7 – COMPLAINT

Buckley Law P.C.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page -

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Fraud)

26.

CCG incorporates paragraphs 1-25 above.

27.

Owendoff solicited and engaged in professional real estate activities that should have

been for the benefit of CCG as described above.

28.

Owendoff intentionally withheld information about the above described activity and

misled CCG into believing that Owendoff was running all professional real estate activity

through CCG.

29.

Specifically, Owendoff and CCG had a process in place where Owendoff was to report

on all ongoing Professional Real Estate deals, including those deals “in the pipeline.”

Owendoff regularly reported current and potential deals to CCG, but consistently failed to

report numerous deals despite representing to CCG that he had provided a complete list of

ongoing and potential deals.

30.

CCG relied on Owendoff’s statements and omissions to their detriment in determining

and paying compensation for Owendoff and in structuring its approach to the market place.

31.

As a result of Owendoff’s fraud, CCG has suffered monetary loss of not less than

$300,000, to be more specifically proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Capacity Commercial Group, LLC prays for judgment as follows:

8 – COMPLAINT

Buckley Law P.C.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page -

1. On plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief (Breach of Contract), a judgment against

defendant in an amount of money damages to be proven at trial, but not less than $300,000 plus

prejudgment interest;

2. On plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief (Intentional Interference with Economic

Relations), a judgment against Defendant, in an amount of money damages to be proven at

trial, but not less than $125,000, plus prejudgment interest and an injunction ordering

Owendoff to cease sending harassing and intimidating emails to CCG, its principals and

employees;

3. On plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief (Fraud), a judgment against defendant in

an amount of money damages to be proven at trial, but not less than $300,000;

4. On all claims, plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney fees as provided by

contract and equity; and,

5. For such further relief as the court may deem equitable.

DATED August 31, 2015.

BUCKLEY LAW P.C.

By: s/ Joshua P. Stump

Joshua P. Stump, OSB No.: 974075



Phone: 503-620-8900

Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Trial Attorney: Joshua P. Stump

OSB No.: 974075

Exhibit APage 1 of 10

in the circuit court for the state of oregon for the ...media.oregonlive.com › business_impact ›...

Documents