ROKSO Home  |  ROKSO FAQs & Policies  |  About Spamhaus  |  FAQs
ROKSO
The Register of Known Spam Operations
Suavemente/SplitInfinity/Innova Direct

Evidence Menu:

Suavemente/SplitInfinity/Innova Direct Index


Country: United States
State: CA
Operating under many names, Suavemente/Critical.net/Critical.mx has provided spam support services for years. It offers the appearance of a normal ISP but--over and over again--it provides extensive services to spammers. Typical spam set-ups include large "snowshoe" ranges. Hijacked IP address space and GRE tunneling to "hide" the servers.


Suavemente/SplitInfinity/Innova Direct SBL Listings History
Current SBL Listings
Archived SBL Listings

Magnum Enterprises / mediatrec.com : LEGAL: Suavemente vs Mike Vickers et al


Timothy P. Dillon, SBN 190839
Nadya Y. Spivack, SBN 222595
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 775
San Diego, CA 92122-4609
Telephone: (858) 587-1800
Facsimile: (858) 587-2587
Attorneys for Suavemente, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SUAVEMENTE, INC. ) Case No.:
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT
)
MIKE VICKERS, an individual; JOHN ) JURY DEMANED
SLOTA, an individual; MONTROSE & )
QUINN, LLC, a Florida limited liability )
company; JAMES LANE, an individual; )
BURBANK MAGIC, LLC, an unknown )
limited liability company; INFIRMA )
MARKETING, LLC, an unknown limited
liability company; IDEA ENGINE LLC, an
unknown limited liability company; ARGYLE
ROAD PROMOTIONS, LLC; an unknown
limited liability company; DAUFUSKIE
ONLINE VENTURES, LLC, an unknown
limited liability company; AFFILIATE SOUP
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, an unknown limited
liability company; PRODUCTION MEDIA,
LLC, an unknown limited liability company;
WILLIAMS, PEREZ & WITHERS, LLC, an
unknown limited liability company;
SHINBONE ALLEY MEDIA PARTNERS,
LLC, an unknown limited liability company;
ELECTRIC AVENUE ADVERTISING, LLC,
an unknown limited liability company;
GREAT DADES IDEAS, LLC, an unknown
limited liability company; TRANSMYSSION
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, an unknown limited
liability company; LENCOLN MEDIA LLC,
an unknown limited liability company;
RONDA RIVERS PARTNERS, LLC, an
unknown limited liability company; MONROE
PROMOTION SYSTEMS, LLC, an unknown
limited liability company; WEDDINGTON
PRODUCTIONS, LLC, an unknown limited
liability company; CUMMINGS & NELSON,
LLC, an unknown limited liability company;
EVERGLADES ONLINE MEDIA, LLC, an
unknown limited liability company; JAMES
FREEPORT ONLINE OFFERS, LLC, an
unknown limited liability company;
VOYAGER INTERACTIVE, INC., an
unknown limited liability company; TERRA
INFIRMA MARKETING, LLC, an unknown
limited liability company; FLORIDA IDEA
ENGINE, LLC, an unknown limited liability
company; and GLENWOOD PRODUCTION
MEDIA, LLC, an unknown limited liability
company

Whereas, Plaintiff, Suavemente, Inc. ("Suavemente"), alleges:
1. Plaintiff, Suavemente, is a corporation, who is now and at all times mentioned herein,
was a business organization of unknown form organized and existing under the laws of the State of
California, with its principal place of business located at Chula Vista, California.
2. Defendant, Mike Vickers ("Vickers"), is an individual, who is now and at all times
mentioned herein, is a resident of Florida.
3. Defendant, John Slota, an individual ("Slota"), is an individual, who was at all times
mentioned herein, a resident of Florida.
4. Defendant, James Lane, an individual ("Lane"), is an individual, who was at all times
mentioned herein, a resident of Florida.
5. Defendant, Montrose & Quinn, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a limited
liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
6. Defendant, Burbank Magic, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a limited
liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
7. Defendant, Infirma Marketing, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a limited
liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
8. Defendant, Idea Engine, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a limited
liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
9. Defendant, Argyle Road Promotions, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a
limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
10. Defendant, Daufuskie Online Ventures, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is
a limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
11. Defendant, Affiliate Soup Technologies, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is
a limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
12. Defendant, Production Media, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a limited
liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
13. Defendant, Williams, Perez & Withers, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is
a limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
14. Defendant, Shinebone Alley Media Partners, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned
herein is a limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in
Florida.
15. Defendant, Electric Avenue Advertising, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein
is a limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in
Florida.
16. Defendant, Great Dades Ideas, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a limited
liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
17. Defendant, Transmyssion Technologies, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is
a limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
18. Defendant, Lencoln Media, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a limited
liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
19. Defendant, Ronda Rivers Partners, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a
limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
20. Defendant, Monroe Promotion Systems, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is
a limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
21. Defendant, Weddington Productions, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a
limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
22. Defendant, Cummings & Nelson, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a
limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
23. Defendant, Everglades Online Media, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a
limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
24. Defendant, James Freeport Online Offers, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein
is a limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in
Florida.
25. Defendant, Voyager Interactive, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a
limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
26. Defendant, Terra Infirma Marketing, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a
limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
27. Defendant, Florida Idea Engine, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein is a
limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in Florida.
28. Defendant, Glenwood Productions Media, LLC, is now ant all times mentioned herein
is a limited liability company of unknown origin with its principal place of business located in
Florida.
29. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Slota, Vickers and Lane were at all times the
sole and dominating shareholder of each and every LLC listed above and that there is such unity of
interest between Slota, Vickers, Lane and each of the above named LLCs such that any individuality
and separateness has ceased between Slota, Vickers, Lane and each of the above-named LLCs.
30. Each defendant individually, or through its authorized agents participated in the
actions alleged herein either by causing the actions to occur, or authorizing, controlling, directing, or
having the ability to authorize, control or direct, and/or assist, participated in, or otherwise
encouraged, the unlawful conduct alleged herein. Each of the defendants know or consciously
avoided knowing, that other defendants had or would engage in a pattern or practice that violated the
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 as well as the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act.
31. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §1331 as the causes of
action arise under the Federal Controlling the Assault if Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing
Act of 2003 ­ "Can Spam", 15 USC §7702 et seq.
32. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants, who have engaged in
business activities in and directed to San Diego, California, have committed a tortuous act within the
state, and have used personal property in this state.
33. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 USC §1391(b)(2) in that a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claims pled herein occurred in San Diego County, the causes of action
arose in San Diego County, and work was performed in San Diego County.
34. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants regularly solicit business from
residents of the State of California.
35. Suavemente brings this action to halt and remedy defendants' practice of sending
millions of misleading and deceptive unsolicited commercial email messages, or "spam."
36. Suavemente owns, leases, maintains, and operates interactive computer services that
enable its customers to, among other things, access the internet and exchange electronic mail
("email") on the Internet. Suavemente owns and maintains computers and other equipment, including
specialized computers or "servers" that process email messages and otherwise support its email
services. Suavemente maintains this equipment in San Diego, California and California, among
other states. Email sent to and from Suavemente's customers is processed through and stored on
these computers. Suavemente is an internet service provider ("ISP") as defined by 15 USC §7702.
Suavemente's computers and computer systems are "protected computers" under the federal
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 USC §1030(e)(2).
37. The United States Congress passed the CAN-SPAM Act in 2004. In so doing,
Congress provided four specific purposes of the Act: "(i) prohibit senders of electronic mail (email)
for primarily commercial advertisement or promotional purposes advertising or promotional purposes
from deceiving intended recipients or Internet service providers as to the source or subject matter of
their email messages; (ii) require such email senders to give recipients an opportunity to decline to
receive future commercial email from them and to honor such request; (iii) require senders of
unsolicited commercial email (UCE) to also include a valid physical address in the email message
and a clear notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation; and (iv) prohibit businesses
from knowingly promoting or permitting the promotion of their trade or business through email
transmitted with false or misleading sender or routing information."
38. As Congress recognized, the growth is unsolicited commercial electronic mail imposes
significant monetary costs on providers of Internet access services that carry and receive such mail, as
there is a finite volume of mail that such providers can handle without further investment in
infrastructure. The sheer volume of spam is threatening to overwhelm not only the average
consumer's in-box, but also the network systems of Internet access service providers.
39. Plaintiff has invested substantial time and money in efforts to protect itself and its
equipment from spam and the spammers who promote and profit from spam, as well as in efforts to
protect its registered users worldwide from receiving spam.
40. Plaintiff has clearly articulated policy prohibiting the use of its services for junk email,
spamming, or any unsolicited messages. Plaintiff's policies also prohibit automated queries of any
sort, harvesting or collection of email addresses. Plaintiff's policies, memorialized in its User Terms
and Agreement also prohibit automated queries of any sort, harvesting or collection of email
addresses, and any use of the services that is not personal and non-commercial.
41. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all relevant times, Defendants knew their
activities were in violation of the law.
42. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants send, or caused, spam to be sent to
Plaintiff.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CONTROLLING THE ASSAULT OF NON-SOLICITED
PORNOGRAPHY AND MARKETING ACT OF 2003 "CAN-SPAM" (15 USC §7704)
43. Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.
44. Defendants initiated the transmission, to protected computers, of commercial email
messages that contained, or were accompanied by, header information that is materially false or
materially misleading.
45. Defendants' actions were willful and knowing.
46. Defendants intentionally paid for or provided other consideration to, or induced,
another person to initiate a commercial electronic mail message on its behalf with actual knowledge,
or by consciously avoiding knowing, whether such person is engaging, or will engage, in a pattern or
practice that violates the CAN-SPAM Act.
47. As a result of defendants' actions, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
proven at trial.
48. Defendants' actions violated 15 USC 7704, and entitle Plaintiff to injunctive relief,
statutory damages and aggravated damages because of defendants' willful and knowing violation of
the CAN-SPAM Act.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONTROLLING THE ASSAULT OF NON-
SOLICITED PORNOGRAPHY AND MARKETING ACT OF 2003 ­ "CAN-SPAM" (15 USC
§7704)
49. Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.
50. Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of initiating, to protected computers,
commercial email messages that:
a. Failed to contain a functioning return email or other Internet-based mechanism, clearly
and conspicuously displayed, that a recipient could use to submit a reply email message or other form
of Internet-based communication requesting not to receive future commercial e-mail messages from
that sender at the email address where the message was received; and
b. Failed to include a clear and conspicuous identification that the message was an
advertisement or solicitation, failed to provide a clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity to
decline to receive further commercial electronic mail messages from the sender; or failed to provide a
valid physical postal address of the sender.
51. Defendants' actions were willful and knowing.
52. Defendants intentionally paid for or provided other consideration to, or induced,
another person to initiate a commercial electronic mail message on its behalf with actual knowledge,
or by consciously avoiding knowing, whether such person is engaging or will engage, in a pattern or
practice that violations the CAN-SPAM Act.
53. As a result of defendants' actions, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
proven at trial.
54. Defendants' actions violated 15 USC §7701 and entitle Plaintiff to injunctive relief,
statutory damages and aggravated damages because of defendants' willful and knowing violation of
the CAN-SPAM Act.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
CONVERSION
55. Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.
56. Defendants have willfully interfered with and converted Plaintiff's personal property,
without lawful justification, as a result of which Plaintiff has been deprived of possession and use of
its property.
57. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
proven at trial.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
TRESSPASS TO CHATTELS
58. Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.
59. The computers, computer networks and computer services that constitute Plaintiff's
emails system are the personal property of Plaintiff.
60. On information and belief, defendants were aware that their actions were specifically
prohibited by Plaintiff's Terms of Service and/or were on notice that their actions were not authorized
by Plaintiff in any way.
61. Defendants have knowingly, intentionally and without authorization used and
intentionally trespassed upon Plaintiff's property.
62. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
proven at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
63. Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth above.
64. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a contract titled User Terms and Agreement.
65. Plaintiff's User Terms and Agreement specifically stated that the use of spam emails
in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act are in breach of Plaintiff's User Terms and Agreement.
66. Plaintiff at all times performed the terms of the contract in the manner specified by the
contract.
67. Defendant has failed and refused, and continues to refuse to tender its performance as
required by the contract in that Defendant must abide by the User Terms and Agreement.
68. Defendants' failure and refusal to perform its obligations have damaged Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
1. That Court award Plaintiff actual damages, liquidated damages and statutory damages,
in an amount to be proven at trial;
2. That the Court award Plaintiff its attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein; and
3. That the Court grant Plaintiff punitive damages;
Dated: December 10, 2007 Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________________
Timothy P. Dillon, Esq.,
Attorney for,
Suavemente, Inc.


The Register of Known Spam Operations (ROKSO) collates information and evidence on entities with a history of spamming or providing spam services, and entities affiliated or otherwise connected with them, for the purpose of assisting ISP Abuse Desks and Law Enforcement Agencies.
The address of this ROKSO record is: https://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence/ROK8436/

The above consists of information in the public domain. The Spamhaus Project makes every effort to avoid errors in information in the ROKSO database, and will correct any errors as soon as it is able to verify the correction, but accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions, or liability for any loss or damage, consequential or otherwise, incurred in reliance on the material in these pages. The Spamhaus Project makes no warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the Information in ROKSO records. The information in the ROKSO database is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice of any kind.

For information on contacting the ROKSO Team regarding any factual errors in this record, see the ROKSO FAQs.
© 1998-2016 The Spamhaus Project Ltd. All rights reserved.
Legal  |  Privacy