Elderly US Veteran Scammed out of Life’s Saving

Robert Romer, an 88 year old disabled Korean war veteran was scammed out of his entire life’s savings. The defendants SEDRICK WARNERGER HODGENS, NUBIA VIANNEY BEJARANO DE HODGENS and MONINA DAIZ GUERRA are being sued in California Superior Court for Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Negligence, Money had and Received, Conversion, Elder Abuse, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Accounting.

Robert (Bob) Romer is an disabled 88 year old decorated US war veteran. After serving his country in Korea, Bob became a successful real estate developer in California and Hawaii.  Sadly, Bob was scammed out of $4.2 million dollars by the defendants.  Defendant Sedrick Hodgens stated he will spend all of Romer’s money on his own personal legal fees and to start a new life in South America.

Bob has no money to cover his own legal fees to recover his life’s savings or money for his ongoing medical care. Attorney Randal Whitecotton of Whitecotton Law is representing Mr. Romer.  Attorney Whitecotton filed the civil case below in California Superior Court Central District on April 8, 2019.

See Mr. Romer interview with Attorney Randal Whitecotton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiK0YRaRcBE&t=19s

Mr. Romer’s good friend 83 year old Bob Hutton, a retired US Army Veteran, set up a GoFundMe account to assist Bob with his legal and medical expenses.  Anti-Corruption Digest asks our readers to kindly help Bob if possible.  This is a very good and vetted cause. https://www.gofundme.com/robert-romer-legal-fees

Randal A. Whitecotton
(California State Bar № 152950)
WHITECOTTON LAW CORPORATION
18632 Beach Boulevard
Suite 220
Huntington Beach, California 92648
+1 949 438 2200

rwhitecotton@whitecottonlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff,

Robert Romer

 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Central Judicial District - Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street, California 90012 

ROBERT ROMER,
an individual, Plaintiff, verses SEDRICK WARNERGER HODGENS,
an individual,
NUBIA VIANNEY BEJARANO
DE HODGENS, an individual,
MONINA DAIZ GUERRA, an individual, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.

Case Number:  -Unlimited Jurisdiction –
(Damages exceeding $25,000.00) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. Fraud (Against Hodgens);
2. Fraug (Against Guerra);
3. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud;
4. Intentional Misrepresentation;
5. Negligent Misrepresentation;
6. Negligence;
7. Money had and Received;
8. Conversion;
9. Elder Abuse;
10. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
11. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; 12. Accounting Demand for Jury Trial

Plaintiff, Robert Romer (Plaintiff), complains and alleges:

1. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Robert Romer (also, herein after referred to as “Plaintiff”) is competent adult individual, and a residence within the Los Angeles County, State of California.
3. Plaintiff Robert Romer is also an elder, as defined under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Protection Act, being born in 1930, with a current age of 89 years old.
4. Plaintiff Robert Romer is retired veteran, having served in the United States Armed forces during the Korean conflict.
5. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens is a competent adult individual residing in Los Angeles County and knowingly and intentionally engaged in the acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims herein.
6. Defendant Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens is a competent adult individual residing in Los Angeles County, is the spouse of Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens, and knowingly and intentionally engaged in the acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims herein.
7. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra is a competent adult individual, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff Robert Romer, was a married woman, married to Louie Corveu Pagtakhan. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra also fraudulently wed Plaintiff Robert Romer, while still being married to Louie Corveu Pagtakhan.  Furthermore, Defendant Monina Daiz knowingly and intentionally engaged in the acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims herein.
8. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE are unknown to Plaintiff at this time and therefore said Defendants are sued by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believed and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally and/or equitably responsible in some manner for the events, transactions, occurrences, conditions, and happenings alleged herein and caused injuries and damages thereby to the Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.  Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these fictitiously named defendants when they are ascertained.  Defendant and DOES are referred to collectively herein as “Defendants.”
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned the Defendant corporations, either specifically or fictitiously named, were and now are corporations, existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, were or are now foreign corporations licensed to do business in the State of California, or are foreign corporations doing business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, among other counties.
10. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that each DOE Defendant and each named Defendant was the agent, employee, principal, partner, or servant of each other remaining Defendant, and that each said Defendant’s acts and omissions as herein alleged were performed within the course, scope, and authority of said agency, employment, office, partnership, or service and with the permission, knowledge, and consent of each other remaining Defendant. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that at the time and place of the incident described each of the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees became liable to Plaintiff for one or more of the reasons described and thereby proximately caused Plaintiff to sustain damages as described herein.
11. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that each DOE Defendant and each named Defendant is tortuously, negligently, carelessly, recklessly, or otherwise responsible in some manner, directly or indirectly, wholly or partially, for the events and happenings herein referred to, and proximately caused injury, loss, and damages to Plaintiffs by their acts and omissions as herein alleged.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that each of the Defendants, whether specifically named or designated herein as a Doe, were the agents, representatives, servants, employees, principals, joint-venturers, co-conspirators, management companies and / or representatives of each of the remaining co-Defendants, and, in doing the acts hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course and scope of said agency, employment, joint-venture, conspiracy, re-insurance agreement, co-insurance agreement, management company agreement and / or service with the approval, knowledge, authority, acquiescence and / or ratification of each of the remaining Defendants.  All of the acts and conduct herein and below described of each and every corporate Defendant was duly authorized. Ordered and directed by the respective and collective Defendant corporate employers, and the officers and management-level employees of said corporate employers.  In addition hereto, said corporate employers participated in the aforementioned acts and conduct of their said employees, agents and representatives, and each of them; and upon completion of the aforesaid acts and conduct of said corporate employees, agents and representatives, the Defendant corporations respectively and collectively ratified, accepted the benefits of, condoned, lauded, acquiesced, authorized and otherwise approved of each and all of the said acts and conduct of the aforementioned corporate employees, agents and representatives.
13. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14. Jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles and arises under California Code of Civil Procedure, § 410.10, et seq.. The Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Article VI § 10, of the California Constitution, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts.”
15. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum ($25,000.00) of this Court.
16. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, § 395, because Defendants Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens are residents of Los Angeles County.
17. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, § 395 and § 393(a) [for the Claim arising under The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Protection Act] because the transactions, occurrences, exposures, and breaches which Defendants are alleged to be liable in this action all arose in Los Angeles County, California.

3. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4. Plaintiff Robert Romer was a real estate developer and the owner of property in Kona, Hawaii, including the Sea Village development, a 52+ unit condominium resort.
5. In 2013, Plaintiff Robert Romer was visiting in Hong Kong and met Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra. At this first encounter, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra represented herself to be single and was working as a domestic helper. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was a citizen of the Philippines, where she grew up.  Most of her family also live in the Philippines.
6. Plaintiff Robert Romer and Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra continued seeing each other, developing a relationship, particularly since Plaintiff Robert Romer maintained a residence and was planning to retire in the Philippines. When Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s work contract ended in Hong Kong, Plaintiff Robert Romer invited Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra to the return back to the Philippines and live with him, as Plaintiff Robert Romer believed they were in an honest, sincere, caring and bona fide relationship.
7. Upon return back to the Philippines, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra began inquiring about Plaintiff Robert Romer’s assets including any financial and real estate holdings. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was particularly interested in the Hawaiian Sea Village property and its worth.  She would ask Plaintiff Robert Romer about the development and why he was not selling it.
8. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Robert Romer, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was familiar with the Hawaiian Sea Village development. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra had visited Hawaii even before meeting Plaintiff Robert Romer and had learned of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s real estate holdings and financial worth.
9. Thereafter, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra continued to inquire about selling the Sea Village development. She represented to Plaintiff Robert Romer that their relationship would benefit from the sale, by having additional funds and to be free on any concerns in maintaining or operating that development.  She also asserted that the extra funds would create a perfect relationship for them to live out their lives together.
10. Eventually Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s representations and relenting inquiries persuaded Plaintiff Robert Romer to part with his Hawaiian real estate holdings. In October 2014, Plaintiff Robert Romer acquiesced to Defendant Monina Daiz Guerrra’s demands and sold his shared in his Kona, Hawaiian Sea Village condominium development.
11. Through 2014, Plaintiff Robert Romer and Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra continued their relationship, traveling within the Philippines and throughout Asia.
12. In November 2013, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s family home was devastated by Typhoon Yolanda. In 2014, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra persuaded Plaintiff Robert Romer to visit her home town in Balanagiga, Eastern Samar.  In viewing the damage to the town and based on Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra representations that they would be a family, Plaintiff Robert Romer built a family home for Plaintiff Robert Romer and Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra to live, along with an additional residence for the Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s family.  Plaintiff Robert Romer also built an additional building for Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s family to operate their business.
13. The Hawaiian Sea Village development sale finalized in February 20, 2015, which netted Plaintiff Robert Romer $4,859,865.61.
14. On September 29, 2015, Plaintiff Robert Romer and Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra were married. The marriage was arranged by Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra and her friend, Vanessa.  They quickly organized an unostentatious and simple wedding;  the wedding was not performed in public at a chapel or temple, but rather Plaintiff Robert Romer’s residential unit.  The ceremony was limited to a priest and a couple of Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s friends.
15. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Robert Romer and specifically hidden by Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra to Plaintiff Robert Romer, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was already married and was not single at the time of her September 28, 2015 marriage to Plaintiff Robert Romer. Rather, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra then and currently still is married to Louie Corveu Pagtakhan.
16. Prior the Plaintiff Robert Romer’s September 30, 3015 wedding, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra acknowledged that she was married to Louie Corveu Pagtakhan, but claimed that he had died. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra provide a false death certificate of Louie Corveu Pagtakhan, to support her false claim.
17. Louie Corveu Pagtakhan at all relevant times, was not deceased, dead and buried, but rather remained the spouse of Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra.  Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra knew Louie Corveu Pagtakhan was not dead and at all relevant times, remained married to him (Philippine law does not have a provision or recognize divorce).
18. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Robert Romer, at the time of the wedding, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra also produced what appears to be a fraudulently created Marriage of Certificate:  the Marriage Certificate listed Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra as a widow, which was untrue;  the location of the marriage was listed as Quezon City, whereas the wedding ceremony was conducted at Plaintiff Robert Romer’s residential unit, in Makati City;  the certificate was issued on September 29, 2015, one day before the actually ceremony, by the local civil registrar of the city of San Miguel, Bulacan, a place were neither Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra or Plaintiff Robert Romer ever resided or that Plaintiff Robert Romer even ever visited.
19. In 2015, after their purported marriage (illegal or otherwise), Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra and Plaintiff Robert Romer were introduced to Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens, while he was in Makati City. Makati City is in the Philippines’ Metro Manila region and the country’s financial hub.  As both Americans in Makati City, with real estate development and financial backgrounds, Plaintiff Robert Romer and Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens struck up a friendship, enjoying mutual interests and spending time with each other, including lunches and dinners, with Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens inviting Plaintiff Robert Romer and Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra over to his family home and vise verse.
20.  Shortly after meeting, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens become extremely more intimate with Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, evolving to sexual liaisons, despite both of them being married to other partners.
21. In early 2016, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens informed Plaintiff Robert Romer that he had learned that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra had taken around $500,000,00 from Plaintiff Robert Romer’s account, without his knowledge or permission. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens premised the discovery upon his belief that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was seeking to abscond with Plaintiff Robert Romer’s remaining funds.
22. After Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ revealed the information to Plaintiff Robert Romer, Plaintiff Robert Romer learned that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s presented death certificate of Louie Corveu Pagtakhan was in fact fraudulently created by Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra (or others working on Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s behalf).  Plaintiff Robert Romer ended the relationship with Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, in or around May 2016.  Their dissolution case is now in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Philippines.
23. Despite such knowledge, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens continued with his sexual liaisons and relationship with Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra.
24. During the same time, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens advised Plaintiff Robert Romer that under the laws and statutes of the Philippines, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra could take all of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s assets. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens further advised Plaintiff Robert Romer, that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra could walk into any bank where funds were located and withdraw all such funds, without Plaintiff Robert Romer’s knowledge or consent.
25. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens then proposed to Plaintiff Robert Romer, that Plaintiff Robert Romer should transfer all of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds to him, to simply hold in an account, for safe keeping. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens offered his help as a friend and feigned concern, further advising Plaintiff Robert Romer that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was on the immediate verge of taking all of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s money, and misinformed him, that under Philippine Law, Defendant Guerra would be able to easily do this.
26. In furtherance of the arrangement, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens picked up Plaintiff Robert Romer on June 5, 2016 and drove him to Bank of the Philippines Island. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens then offered to hold Plaintiff Robert Romer’s money in his and his wife’s (Defendant Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens) account, agreeing to return any and all of the funds wherein Plaintiff Robert Romer would so request.
27. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens was a financial advisor and investor and held himself out as having expertise in the financial investing and advising, including in the Philippines. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens was claim and exerted knowledge of Pilipino law, including marital law and the rights of spouses to each other’s financial assets.
28. Based on Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ representations and revelations that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra had taken $500,000.00 of his funds, Plaintiff Robert Romer agreed to Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ offer to protect Plaintiff Robert Romer’s fund. On June 5, 2016, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens requested a bank note / check payable to him, from Plaintiff Robert Romer for $2,016,462.17.  Based on their agreement, Plaintiff Robert Romer agreed and provided Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens with the $2,016,462.17 bank check, transferred said amount from his accounts to Defendants Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens’ account.
29. In furtherance of the agreement, on June 9, 2016, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens again picked up Plaintiff Robert Romer and drove him to Bank of the Philippines Island, where Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens requested that Plaintiff Robert Romer wire an additional $2,000,000.00 from his account to Defendants Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens’ account, for protection and safekeeping. Based on Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ representations, Plaintiff Robert Romer did wire said funds, as requested.  During both visit to the Bank of the Philippines Island, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens told Plaintiff Robert Romer not to bring anyone else, as this was for Plaintiff Robert Romer’s own protection.  At the same time, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens took Plaintiff Robert Romer’s bank records, depriving Plaintiff Robert Romer of full knowledge of the funds amount and what was transferred.
30. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Robert Romer, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens did not hold Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds in Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ account. Rather, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens invested an unknown portion of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds, for his own use, without Plaintiff Robert Romer’s knowledge or permission, and has, to this date, refused to return the money.
31. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens further represented to numerous outsiders that he was “Mr. Romer’s financial advisor, and they had to go through him to request any money of Mr. Romer’s.”
32. Plaintiff Robert Romer further learned that Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ representation of Philippine law was also false, and that Defendant Guerra would not have been able to access Plaintiff’s money in his separate accounts.
33. Since July 2016, Plaintiff Robert Romer has requested from Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens, the return of the funds. Other than an occasional monthly payment of a couple thousand dollars, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens refuses to relinquish any of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds back to Plaintiff Robert Romer.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud

(against all Defendants and DOES 1-10, inclusive)

46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.
47. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens represented to Plaintiff Robert Romer, that his funds were in jeopardy from Plaintiff Robert Romer’s illegitimate wife, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra.
48. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens further represented to Plaintiff Robert Romer that Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens would hold Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds, merely as a favor of a friend and out of concern for Plaintiff Robert Romer’s financial wellbeing, and would return the funds upon request from Plaintiff. Furthermore, he never informed Plaintiff he would be “investing” the money.
49. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ representations were in fact false as Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra could not just abscond with Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds, and it was simply a ruse to obtain Plaintiff’s money.
50. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens also had no intention of holding Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds for Plaintiff Robert Romer’s benefit. Rather, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens made the representations with the intent to scare Plaintiff Robert Romer into thinking his funds were jeopardy.  Stating that he was his financial advisor and trusted friend, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens convinced Plaintiff Robert Romer to transfer Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds to him.  Instead, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ intent was to invest and use those funds, for his own personal profit, with no intent of returning any of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds back to Plaintiff Robert Romer.
51. Given his age and trusting nature, Plaintiff Robert Romer did believe in Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ representation, based on his wrongful assumption that Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens was his friend and was acting on Plaintiff Robert Romer’s best interest.  Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens also had informed Plaintiff Robert Romer that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra had stolen $500,000.00 without his knowledge and Plaintiff Robert Romer relied on Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ projected expertise in financing, financial advisement and the prior success of the sale.
52. Plaintiff Robert Romer was further unfamiliar with Filipino law. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens claimed he had experience with the relevant laws; Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens also claimed he had facilitated other prior similar financial transactions. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens further stated knowledge, expertise and friendship would protect Plaintiff Robert Romer’s assets. Plaintiff Robert Romer therefore reasonably believed the Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens would be true to his word and representations.
53. Plaintiff Robert Romer was harmed, as Defendants Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens continued to hold and use Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds, despite Plaintiff Robert Romer’s numerous requests for the return of his funds.
54. Had Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens not advised Plaintiff Robert Romer of the false information that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra could abscond with his funds, had not offered to help Plaintiff Robert Romer with the false promise that Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens would safely hold Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds, Plaintiff Robert Romer would never have transferred his fund to Defendants Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens’ account
55. Plaintiff Robert Romer’s reliance on the misrepresentations, non-disclosures, and false promises was reasonable and justified in that he believed in the honesty and integrity of the Defendants. Defendants actively participated in making false representations, failed to disclose true material facts to Plaintiff Robert Romer, and made promises without intent to perform, and/or authorized, ratified, and affirmed the conduct of each of the other Defendants in making the false representations, non-disclosures, and promises without intent to perform.
56. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud, deceit, non-disclosures and false promises, Plaintiff Robert Romer has sustained general, special, consequential and incidental damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, the exact amount of which will be established according to proof at trial.
57. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants was undertaken pursuant to a common plan and scheme. The conduct of the Defendants was intentional misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, non-disclosure and concealment of material facts. The misrepresentations and non-disclosures were made by the Defendants, and each of them, for the purpose of defrauding plaintiffs in violation of their legal rights, or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff Robert Romer to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the Plaintiff Robert Romer’s rights, justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages.  Plaintiff Robert Romer is entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial.  Defendants participated in defrauding Plaintiff Robert Romer and/or authorized and ratified the misconduct of other Defendants and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud

(against Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra and DOES 11-15, inclusive)

58. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.
59. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra equivocally professed her love for Plaintiff Robert Romer on numerous occasions, in public and private, during and continuing after 2014.
60. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra represented that the sale of the Hawaiian Sea Village development would be in the best interest of their relationship and long term life together. However, those representations were false, as Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra had no intent to engage in any long term relationship with Plaintiff Robert Romer.
61. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s false representations were based on her knowledge of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s Hawaiian real estate holdings, through her visit to Hawaii prior to meeting Plaintiff Robert Romer. Upon learning of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s assets, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra intent was to lure Plaintiff Robert Romer into a false relationship with the sole purpose of absconding with Plaintiff Robert Romer’s liquidated funds.
62. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra knew at the time she made her representations to Plaintiff Robert Romer that such was false, because her underlying intent was to find a wealthy person, convince him of her confidence and devotion, although she never intended to have a committed relationship with Plaintiff Robert Romer ad Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was already married.
63. Plaintiff Robert Romer relied on Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s representation that the sale of the property would further the promise of a committed, long term relationship
64. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra further exchanged vows, at her wedding to Plaintiff Robert Romer on September 30, 2015. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra further represented that she was in love with Plaintiff Robert Romer, would be a devoted wife, as a partner for the rest of their lives, for the best interest of each other.
65. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s wedding vows and other marital promises were in fact a sham, as a part of a scheme to take advantage of Plaintiff Robert Romer. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra knew she was still married at the time she met Plaintiff Robert Romer and throughout her evolving and continued relationship with Plaintiff Robert Romer.
66. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra continued with her deceit, never informing Plaintiff Robert Romer that she was married, but instead instilling wedding plans, while Plaintiff Robert Romer rebuilt her family residence, and their business structures.
67. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, in concert with others, arranged the wedding with Plaintiff Robert Romer, with as little public fanfare, as not to reveal the false nature of the illegal wedding. In furtherance of her scheme to abscond with Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra created or caused to be created a false death certificate of her legal husband, Louie Corveu Pagtakhan and a false marriage certificate
68. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra continued with the deceit after the September 30, 2015 marriage to Plaintiff Robert Romer, never informing him that she could not legally marry him, as she was still married. Instead, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra continued with the deceit by claiming to be legally married as to access Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds for her sole own use and benefit.
69. At all times Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra professed her love, she knew she was still married and could not legally marry Plaintiff Robert Romer.
70. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra never intended to follow any marital promises to Plaintiff Robert Romer, foremost, because she knew any marriage to Plaintiff Robert Romer was illegal. The sole purpose of any marital promises was to entice Plaintiff Robert Romer to provide for her and her family financially, including but not limited to Plaintiff Robert Romer re-building her family residence, their family business and a new home for her and Plaintiff Robert Romer.
71. Plaintiff Robert Romer did believe Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s promises, believing that they were in love and were married. Throughout their travel time and living together prior to getting married, Plaintiff Robert Romer reasonably believed Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra intended to live a life partners.
72. Plaintiff Robert Romer was lured into providing financial support, under the guise of getting marriage, to Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, and even built houses for her and her family. Had Plaintiff Robert Romer known Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s’ true marital status, would never have married nor associated with Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra.
73. Plaintiff Robert Romer’s reliance on the misrepresentations, non-disclosures, and false promises was reasonable and justified in that he believed in the honesty and integrity of his alleged wife. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra actively participated in making false representations, creating false documents, failed to disclose true material facts to Plaintiff Robert Romer, and made promises without intent to perform, and/or authorized, ratified, and affirmed the conduct of each of the other Defendants in making the false representations, non-disclosures, and promises without intent to perform.
74. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud, deceit, non-disclosures and false promises, Plaintiff Robert Romer has sustained general, special, consequential and incidental damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, the exact amount of which will be established according to proof at trial.
75. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s aforementioned conduct was undertaken pursuant to a common plan and scheme. The conduct of the Defendant was intentional misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, non-disclosure and concealment of material facts. The misrepresentations and non-disclosures were made by Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, for the sole purpose of defrauding Plaintiff Robert Romer in violation of his legal rights, or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff Robert Romer to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the plaintiffs’ rights, justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages.  Plaintiff Robert Romer is entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

(Against Defendants and DOES 1-10, inclusive)

76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.
77. After the sale of Kona, Hawaii, Sea Village development, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens realized that Plaintiff Robert Romer had $5,000,000.00 profit. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens further knew Plaintiff Robert Romer was elderly, susceptible to undue influence, was not well versed in Pilipino law or financial investments.   Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens devises a scheme to take advantage to Plaintiff Robert Romer’s age, lack of financial and legal expertise.
78. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens further knew that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra needed financial assistance, after being introduced to Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra. During the relationship together, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra further agreed to work together to convince Plaintiff Robert Romer to part with his profits, through the above outlined transfer of funds, initiated by the illegitimate marriage scheme.
79. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra carried out their scheme, by Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra taking enough money from Plaintiff Robert Romer to raise suspicion, that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was going to continue to take his remaining funds. Those acts lead to Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens convincing Plaintiff Robert Romer to transfer his funds to Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Defendant Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens.
80. Prior to Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens offering to hold Plaintiff Robert Romer’s money, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens consulted with his spouse, wherein he and Defendant Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens agreed to take Plaintiff Robert Romer’s money through transferring the funds into their account. Once the funds were received, Defendants could abscond with the funds, with no recourse from Plaintiff Robert Romer.
81. Defendants’ intent was to abscond with as much of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds as possible, with Defendants agreeing to distribute Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds amongst themselves.
82. Despite Plaintiff Robert Romer’s request for the return of his funds from Defendants, Defendants refuses to return the funds.
83. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud, deceit, non-disclosures and false promises, Plaintiff Robert Romer has sustained general, special, consequential and incidental damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, the exact amount of which will be established according to proof at trial.
84. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants was undertaken pursuant to a common plan and scheme. The conduct of the Defendants was intentional misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, non-disclosure and concealment of material facts. The misrepresentations and non-disclosures were made by the Defendants, and each of them, for the purpose of defrauding plaintiffs in violation of their legal rights, or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff Robert Romer to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the Plaintiff Robert Romer’s rights, justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages.  Plaintiff Robert Romer is entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial.  Defendants participated in defrauding Plaintiff Robert Romer and/or authorized and ratified the misconduct of other Defendants and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Misrepresentation

(Against all Defendants and DOES 16-20, inclusive)

85. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporate all preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.
86. After Plaintiff Robert Romer sold his Kona, Hawaiian SeaVillage condominium development, Defendants made the misrepresentations as set forth above. These misrepresentations included, but are not limited to representations that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was in love, wanted to have a marital relationship; that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was a widower; that Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Defendant Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens would hold Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds for Plaintiff Robert Romer’s benefit, based on further false representations that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra could and would abscond with all of his funds.
87. Those representations were false, as hereinabove described, including Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra already being married and Defendants having no intention of returning any of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s entrusted funds.
88. Defendants made such representation, with the sole intent to induce Plaintiff to rely on their representations,
89. Defendants omitted from the statements it made material facts, the disclosure of which was necessary, (1) in order to make its other statements not misleading; (2) because they were known materials facts; (3) because Defendants knew that it had exclusive knowledge that was not accessible to Plaintiff; and (4) because it was reasonable for Plaintiff to expect disclosure of such facts. These omissions include but are not limited to the following: (1) that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was already married and could not enter into another legal marriage; (2) that Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, under Pilipino law, could not simply abscond with all of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds without his knowledge or permission.
90. The representations were conveyed directly to Plaintiff Robert Romer by Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, and Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens.
91. At all times Defendant either had actual or constructive notice of the true facts but nonetheless intentionally or recklessly concealed these facts from Plaintiff Robert Romer.
92. Defendants made those representations and omitted material facts with the intent to defraud Plaintiff and to induce Plaintiff Robert Romer to marry Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, provide substantial financial support to Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra and her family, and to transfer the remaining funds to Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Defendant Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens’ account.
93. At the time Plaintiff Robert Romer entered and continued into a relationship with Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, Plaintiff Robert Romer did not know, or have reason to know, that Defendants were making false and misleading representations and had omitted material facts. Plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance upon the truth of the representations which misled Plaintiff as to the nature and extent of the facts concealed. Plaintiff was justified in his reliance, as Defendants held themselves out as caring friends and / or professional advisor, and Plaintiff had no reason to doubt such representations.
94. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud, deceit, non-disclosures and false promises, Plaintiff Robert Romer has sustained general, special, consequential and incidental damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court, the exact amount of which will be established according to proof at trial.
95. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants was undertaken pursuant to a common plan and scheme. The conduct of the Defendants was intentional misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, non-disclosure and concealment of material facts. The misrepresentations and non-disclosures were made by the Defendants, and each of them, for the purpose of defrauding plaintiffs in violation of their legal rights, or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff Robert Romer to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the Plaintiff Robert Romer’s rights, justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages.  Plaintiff Robert Romer is entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial.  Defendants participated in defrauding Plaintiff Robert Romer and/or authorized and ratified the misconduct of other Defendants and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Misrepresentation

(against All Defendants)

96. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in all preceding paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
97. As an alternative to Plaintiff’s cause of action for Intentional Misrepresentation, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misrepresentations were made negligently, if not intentionally.
98. The above outlined representations made by Defendants were not true.
99. Regardless of its actual belief, Defendants made the representations without any reasonable grounds for believing them to be true.
100. Defendants failed to exercise due care in ascertaining the accuracy of the representations made to Plaintiffs.
101. Defendants made the representations for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to rely upon them, and to act or refrain from acting in reliance thereon.
102. Plaintiffs were unaware of the falsity of the representations and acted in reliance upon the truth of those representations and were justified in relying upon those representations.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence

(against All Defendants)

103. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in all preceding paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
104. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants owed Plaintiff Robert Romer a duty not to engage in acts, omissions or other conduct which would cause the Plaintiff to suffer damages or harm. Defendants owed a duty not to induce Plaintiff into a false relationship, ending in marriage, knowing that the marriage was illegal, and the relationship was a sham, only to take advantage and exert undue influence for Plaintiff Robert Romer to transfer his funds to Defendants
105. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, negligently, carelessly, and unlawfully acted and failed to act, thereby breaching the duty of care owed to the Plaintiff Robert Romer, as alleged herein.
106. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff Robert Romer have suffered damages, general and special, in an amount which will be established according to proof at trial.

///

///

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Common Count – Money Had and Received

(against Defendants Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens and Does 21-25)

107. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in all preceding paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
108. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Defendant Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens received money that was intended to be used for the benefit of Plaintiff Robert Romer, for the safe keeping.
109. Defendants did not use that the money for the benefit of Plaintiff. Rather, Defendants have been using Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds for their own investment, use and enjoyment, without Plaintiff Robert Romer’s permission.
110. Plaintiff Robert Romer has requested the return of the funds given to Defendants that were to be held for safe keeping.
111. No part of the transferred funds has been repaid, although return has been demanded, leaving the balance due, owing, and unpaid to Plaintiff Robert Romer in the amount of [$amount] plus interest at the legal rate from and after [date].

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Conversion

(against all Defendants and Does 21-25)

112. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in all preceding paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
113. After the time of their sham marriage, Defendant Guerra had access to Plaintiff’s accounts.
114. In 2015 and 2016, Defendant Guerra withdrew from Plaintiff’s accounts about $500,000.00, without Plaintiff’s knowledge or permission.
115. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Defendant Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens received money that was intended to be used for the benefit of Plaintiff Robert Romer, for the safe keeping.
116. Plaintiff Robert Romer’s has an ownership or right to possession of the funds that he transferred to Defendants account.
117. Defendants converted those funds to their own use, by investing funds, using and / or spending Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds.
118. Plaintiff Robert Romer has never given permission to Defendants to use his aforementioned funds for their own personal use and pleasure.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Elder Abuse – Financial (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610, et seq.)

(against All Defendants)

119. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in all preceding paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
120. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra appropriated and obtained Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds through their scheme, without Plaintiff Robert Romer’s permission or knowledge.
121. In addition to taking advantage of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s age, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s exerted undue influence over Plaintiff Robert Romer by falsely creating death certificate for her current husband, falsely creating a marriage certificate, under a guise to create a marital relationship with Plaintiff Robert Romer.
122. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s illegal marriage was a scheme for Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra to take portion of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s money, then working with Defendants Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens to take the remaining portion of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds.
123. Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens also appropriated and obtained Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds through their scheme, without Plaintiff Robert Romer’s permission or knowledge.
124. The whole purpose of Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens’ scheme was to defraud Plaintiff Robert Romer of his funds, including but not limited to the guise of a void marriage.
125. In addition to taking advantage of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s age, Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens exerted undue influence over Plaintiff Robert Romer by Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens engaging in sexual relations with Plaintiff Robert Romer’s wife, devising a scheme for Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra to take portion of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s money, ultimately ending with Plaintiff Robert Romer transferring his life savings to Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens for alleged safekeeping, against Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra.
126. Defendants knew at the time they met Plaintiff Robert Romer that Plaintiff Robert Romer was elderly, susceptible to undue influence and would suffer extreme hardship, stress and anxiety should his financial means be cut off.
127. As a direct result Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens’ acts, Plaintiff Robert Romer has been deprived of funds necessary to sustain basic living standards.
128. As a direct result of Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens’ acts, Plaintiff Robert Romer has and continues to suffer anxiety, stress and mental anguish over his financial uncertainty.
129. As a direct and proximate result of the abuse, Plaintiff Robert Romer has sustained general, special, consequential and incidental damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, the exact amount of which will be established according to proof at trial.
130. Defendant’s aforementioned conduct was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff Robert Romer to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the Plaintiff Robert Romer ’s’ rights, justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
131. Defendant’s aforementioned conduct was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff Robert Romer to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the Plaintiff Robert Romer’s rights, justifying an award of attorney fees and costs, per statute.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(against All Defendants)

132. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in all preceding paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
133. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s aforementioned scheme of seducing Plaintiff Robert Romer into marriage, when she was already married, to facilitate that taking of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s money, is extreme and outrageous conduct by the Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, intending to cause, or acting with reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress.
134. Defendant Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens and Defendant Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens’ conduct and aforementioned scheme of taking Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds is extreme and outrageous conduct by the Defendants, intending to cause, or acting with reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress.
135. As a direct result of the Defendants’ acts, Plaintiff Robert Romer suffered severe or extreme emotional distress.
136. Defendants’ acts and conduct constitutes financial abuse, as defined by the California Welfare & Institutions Code, 15610.30.
137. Defendants’ acts and conduct were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages.
138. As a proximate result of the acts, Plaintiff Robert Romer suffered humiliation, mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, all to Plaintiff’s damages in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff has further suffered physical injuries of fatigue, weakness, weight loss, and increased high blood pressure.
139. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiff Robert Romer suffered mental suffering, as defined by the California Welfare & Institutions Code, 15610.53, including fear, agitation, confusion, severe depression, and other forms of serious emotional distress that was brought about by Defendants depriving behavior, made with malicious intent to agitate, confuse, frighten, or cause severe depression or serious emotional distress of Plaintiff Robert Romer.
140. In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively, with the meaning of California Welfare & Institutions Code, 15657.5 and California Civil Code, § 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof.
141. Under California Welfare & Institutions Code, 15657, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
142. Under California Welfare & Institutions Code, 15657.5, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff’s pain and suffering.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

(against Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra and Does 26 – 30)

143. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in all preceding paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
144. Innate in all marriages are the obligations of mutual respect, fidelity, and support, creating a fiduciary duty between the parties to the marriage. The same principles apply in Philippine law (Civil Code of the Philippines, Title V, Article 109)
145. Upon their September 30, 2015, Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff Robert Romer, and / or at a minimum, a duty of care not to injure Plaintiff Robert Romer.
146. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra breached her duty to Plaintiff Robert Romer by entering into a marriage, with Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra remained married to Louie Corveu Pagtakhan.
147. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra breached her duty to Plaintiff Robert Romer by representing to Plaintiff Robert Romer, that Louie Corveu Pagtakhan was not her spouse any more, as he had died, which Plaintiff Robert Romer knew to be false.
148. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra breached her duty to Plaintiff Robert Romer, by creating a fake and falsified death certificate for her spouse, Louie Corveu Pagtakhan
149. As a direct and consequential result of Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra’s breach, Palintiff Robert Romer entered into a marriage with Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra, while Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra was still married to Louie Corveu Pagtakhan.
150. As a result of the bigamous marriage, Plaintiff Robert Romer suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress including, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. The extent of this serious emotional distress was such that an ordinary, reasonable person would be unable to cope with it.
151. Defendant Monina Daiz Guerra false promises, representations and falsely created documents was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Robert Romer’s severe emotional distress.
152. As a proximate result of the acts, Plaintiff Robert Romer suffered physical injuries of fatigue, weakness, weight loss, asthmatic attacks and increased high blood pressure.
153. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiff Robert Romer suffered mental suffering, as defined by the California Welfare & Institutions Code, 15610.53, including fear, agitation, confusion, severe depression, and other forms of serious emotional distress that was brought about by Defendants depriving behavior, made with malicious intent to agitate, confuse, frighten, or cause severe depression or serious emotional distress of Plaintiff Robert Romer.
154. Under California Welfare & Institutions Code, 15657, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
155. Under California Welfare & Institutions Code, 15657.5, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff’s pain and suffering.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Accounting

(Against Defendants Sedrick Warnerger Hodgens and Nubia Vianney Bejarano De Hodgens)

156. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in all preceding paragraphs above inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
157. Defendants have never accounted for the funds received by Defendants which were and continue to be wrongfully withheld and taken from Plaintiff Robert Romer.
158. As a result of the wrongful withholding and taking of Plaintiff Robert Romer’s funds, Plaintiff Robert Romer has been unable to use or invest those profits.
159. As a result of Defendants aforesaid wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff Robert Romer has been injured and damaged and demand the equitable remedy of accounting
160. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert Romer prays for a Judgment, to include:

1. incidental and consequential damages in an amount to be established according to proof at trial, but not less than $15,000,000;
2. general damages in an amount to be established according to proof at trial;
3. special damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
4. investigative and expert fees and costs;
5. punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
6. interest at the statutory rate;
7. costs of suit incurred herein;
8. attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the contract and California law;
9. statutory damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
10. such other such relief as the Court considers just and proper.
11. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Robert Romer demands a Trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury,

DATED:  April 8, 2019

WHITECOTTON LAW CORPORATION

RANDAL WHITECOTTON,

Attorney for Plaintiff,

Robert Romer