1
COMPLAINT
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
27
William O’Brien (Bar No. 99526)
wobrien@onellp.com
ONE LLP
301 Arizona Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 866-5157
Facsimile: (310) 943-2085
Christopher W. Arledge (Bar No. 200767)
carledge@onellp.com
ONE LLP
4000 MacArthur Blvd.
West Tower, Suite 1100
Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone: (949) 502-2870
Facsimile: (949) 258-5081
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Robin Singh Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a.
TestMasters
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Case No. _______________
COMPLAINT FOR:
1. False Advertising
(Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500)
2. False Representations
(15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
3. Unfair Competition
(Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
4. Common-Law Unfair Competition
[Unlimited Jurisdiction]
Plaintiff, Robin Singh Educational Services, Inc., doing business as TestMasters
(“TestMasters”), alleges:
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
1. For over a year, Defendant David Hall has been lying to consumers of LSAT
preparation services about his achievements and qualifications as an LSAT preparation
provider. By engaging in a deliberate campaign of dishonesty, Hall has tricked consumers
2
COMPLAINT
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
27
into paying money to his company, Velocity Test Prep, based on a fictional record of his
own performance on the LSAT. Hall even forged official LSAT documents to convince
consumers that he had earned three perfect LSAT scores and had accomplished the coveted
feat of answering every question on the exam correctly. By trumpeting these false claims
on the Internet, Hall has duped thousands of consumers into believing that he achieved
remarkable things that he really did not. Indeed, these false claims have been a centerpiece
of Velocity’s efforts to attract business. Through this lawsuit, TestMasters seeks to stop
Hall’s ongoing lies, prevent further lies, and correct the misimpressions that he has created
among test preparation consumers. TestMasters also seeks fair compensation both for itself
and for the consumers that Hall has misled.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted in this
Complaint under Article VI, §10 of the California Constitution because the causes of action
below are not given by statute to other trial courts or administrative agencies. TestMasters’
Second Cause of Action, for violations of the federal Lanham Act, is subject to the
concurrent jurisdiction of this Court and the federal courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a); 15
U.S.C. § 1121. The amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, so this is not a Limited Civil
Case.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled in
California and have performed the acts giving rise to this case in California.
4. Venue is proper in Riverside County because Defendant Hall resides there
and Defendant Velocity has its principal place of business there. Further, much if not all of
Defendants’ unlawful conduct giving rise to this lawsuit has occurred in Riverside County.
Defendants have also been unjustly enriched there.
THE PARTIES
5. Plaintiff, Robin Singh Educational Services, Inc., is a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and doing business under
3
COMPLAINT
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
27
the name TestMasters. Headquartered in Los Angeles County, TestMasters provides test
preparation goods and services throughout the United States—including Riverside
County—and in several foreign countries. A major part of TestMasters’ business is
preparing aspiring law students to take the Law School Admission Test (“LSAT”).
TestMasters has complied with the applicable laws regarding the recordation and
publication of a fictitious business name statement.
6. Defendant David Hall is an individual who resides in Riverside County.
Hall is in the business of teaching LSAT preparation courses and selling LSAT preparation
videos and materials.
7. Defendant Velocity Test Prep LLC is a limited liability company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in
Riverside County. Hall uses Velocity as the vehicle for his test preparation business.
8. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Hall
owns and controls Velocity and that all conduct of Velocity alleged in this Complaint was
either personally carried out by Hall or was directed, supervised, controlled, and ratified by
Hall personally.
9. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that all of
Hall’s conduct alleged in this Complaint was conducted on behalf of Velocity and in the
course and scope of Hall’s employment by Velocity.
10. TestMasters does not know the true names and capacities of the Defendants
sued as Does 1 through 20 (“Does”) and therefore sues them using fictitious names.
TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the Does
participated in, directed, supervised, controlled, or ratified the conduct complained of
below or is legally responsible in some manner for that conduct, and that TestMasters’
damages as alleged below were proximately caused by Does.
11. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that, in doing
the things alleged in this Complaint, each Defendant acted as the employee, agent, joint
4
COMPLAINT
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
27
venturer, or co-conspirator of each other Defendant and acted with the consent and
ratification of each other Defendant.
TESTMASTERS’ HARD-EARNED SUCCESS IN TEST PREPARATION
12. Building a successful test preparation business is difficult and takes many
years of hard work. Consumer trust is paramount, because college and graduate school
applicants rely on such businesses to prepare them for entrance exams that are important to
their futures. The choice of a test preparation provider can have significant effects on a test
taker’s scores, which are of critical importance for obtaining admission to a desired school.
In turn, obtaining academic credentials from a respected institution are important to a test
taker’s career prospects after graduation. With the stakes so high, prospective test takers
often insist on confirmation of a test preparation provider’s expertise and experience before
they will consider relying on that provider to prepare them for the LSAT.
13. Robin Singh, the founder and owner of TestMasters, has been providing test
preparation services for the LSAT for more than twenty years. TestMasters owes its
genesis and much of its success to Singh’s mastery of the LSAT and the concepts it tests.
He has objectively proven his expertise by achieving what no one else has even
approached: a world-record twelve perfect LSAT scores.
14. Test preparation consumers enroll with TestMasters to obtain Singh’s unique
personal insight into the LSAT, as expressed in his lecture materials, written explanations,
instructional videos, and other educational tools. They trust Singh’s company to prepare
them for this test because of his own LSAT score record and his company’s history of
producing remarkable student score increases.
15. Singh’s extraordinary performance on the LSAT was a key factor in enabling
him to attract enough business to get started in the test preparation market. Even today,
Singh’s score record remains a significant distinguishing factor in the minds of many
consumers selecting an LSAT preparation service.
5
COMPLAINT
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
27
16. Building on this distinction, Singh hires only top LSAT performers to teach
his LSAT preparation courses. To qualify as a TestMasters instructor, each applicant must
score in the 98
th
percentile or higher on a real LSAT administered by the Law School
Admission Council (“LSAC”) and must complete a week-long training program personally
overseen by Singh. TestMasters even posts the official LSAT score reports of every
instructor on its website.
17. Through many years of hard work, and the success of its students on the
LSAT and other examinations, TestMasters has built a successful and well-known test
preparation company teaching many thousands of students annually throughout the United
States and in several foreign countries. TestMasters is currently the second-largest LSAT
preparation company in the world. It is regarded by many as the best in the business and
has enjoyed significant media exposure, adulation from consumers, and even praise from
competitors.
HALL’S FALSE STATEMENTS TO CONSUMERS
18. Knowing that LSAT preparation consumers look to proven expertise and the
benchmark set by Singh—but not wanting to invest time building goodwill through
legitimate means—Hall has decided to jump-start his business by lying about his own
performance on the LSAT. Specifically, Hall has used the Internet to disseminate false
claims and counterfeit documents concerning his achievements and qualifications as an
LSAT preparation provider. And he has succeeded in gaining the attention of thousands of
unsuspecting consumers, all to his financial benefit.
19. In addition to Velocity’s own website at velocitylsat.com, Hall has focused
his marketing effort on the website Top-Law-Schools.com, an Internet discussion board
that is popular with prospective law students who are studying for the LSAT.
20. On both Velocity’s website and Top-Law-Schools.com, Hall has repeatedly
represented to consumers that he achieved a perfect score of 180 on the September 2009
LSAT. He has also represented that he did not miss even a single question on the exam.
6
COMPLAINT
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
27
21. Achieving a perfect LSAT score of 180 is extraordinarily difficult; less than
0.1% of all test takers obtain perfect scores. But answering every test question correctly is
a feat even more rare, something that Robin Singh has accomplished only once in his entire
career. By advertising that he achieved a perfect score on the September 2009 LSAT—and
did so without missing any questions—Hall sought to distinguish himself from his
competitors as a consummate LSAT expert and inspire consumer confidence in the
superiority of Velocity’s test preparation services.
22. But in fact, Hall did not answer every question correctly on the September
2009 LSAT and did not achieve a perfect score of 180. His real score was 177, and he
missed four questions, not zero. Hall’s claims to the contrary were false and misleading.
HALL’S FORGERY OF OFFICIAL LSAT DOCUMENTS
23. In an attempt to add legitimacy to his false claims, Hall forged—and then
presented to consumers—official documents produced by the LSAC, the organization that
administers the LSAT. One such document forged by Hall was his official LSAC score
report for the September 2009 LSAT.
24. Using a computer program called “GIMP” (GNU Image Manipulation
Program), Hall created an elaborate forgery of his September 2009 LSAT score report and
disseminated it to LSAT preparation consumers. The forgery falsely stated that Hall had
achieved a perfect score of 180 on the September 2009 LSAT. It falsely identified the
answers he gave in response to the 101 questions asked on the test. It falsely identified the
“Number of Credited Responses” (correct answers given) as 101. And it falsely identified
the “Number of Responses Not Credited” (wrong answers given) as 0.
25. In truth, Hall’s actual score for the September 2009 LSAT was 177, not 180;
he provided a different set of answers given in response to the 101 questions; his “Number
of Credited Responses” was 97, not 101; and his “Number of Responses Not Credited” was
4, not 0.
7
COMPLAINT
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
27
26. Hall also used GIMP to doctor a screenshot of his LSAT score history on the
LSAC’s website. Again, the manipulated screenshot falsified Hall’s score on the
September 2009 LSAT as a perfect 180, when in fact his score was 177.
27. Hall published the falsified LSAT score report and falsified LSAC screenshot
on both Velocity’s website and Top-Law-Schools.com. The forgeries are shown below:
False LSAT Report Forged by David Hall
8
COMPLAINT
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
27
HALL’S CONTINUED CAMPAIGN OF FRAUD AND FORGERY
28. A centerpiece of Hall’s Internet marketing campaign has been his repeated
claim that he achieved three perfect scores of 180 on the LSAT. Using that false claim,
Hall has been enormously successful at drawing attention to himself and Velocity, building
credibility and goodwill, and generating business from unsuspecting test preparation
consumers.
29. For example, Hall published on Velocity’s website, on a page entitled “Meet
Dave Hall,” a statement that he had “three perfect LSAT scores . . . under his belt.”
30. On or about July 28, 2011, Hall made the following post on Top-Law-
Schools.com, starting a discussion thread entitled “Three 180s and I’m taking your LSAT
questions” (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=161914
&start=150 (visited Feb. 19, 2012)):
False LSAC Screenshot Forged by David Hall
9
COMPLAINT
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
27
31. Early in the discussion thread started by Hall, he again represented to
consumers: “My highest score is 180. I got 180 at three different [test] administrations.”
32. Hall’s representations to consumers that he achieved three perfect LSAT
scores are false because they depend on another false claim—that he obtained a perfect
score on the September 2009 LSAT. As explained above, Hall did not achieve a perfect
score on that exam.
33. Hall has explicitly wedded his false claim of achieving three perfect LSAT
scores to the false claim that he answered all 101 questions on the September 2009 LSAT
correctly. For example, Hall said in an interview published on the website “The
Standardized Genius,” “[In] September of 2009, … I got my third (and final) 180, and for
the first time did so without missing any questions.” (http://standardizedgenius.com/how-
to-get-3-straight-180s-on-your-lsat-an-interview-with-lsat-test-prep-guru-dave-hall (posted
Aug. 19, 2011; visited April 10, 2012)(emphasis added).)
34. When challenged by Internet posters on Top-Law-Schools.com to verify his
claim of having three perfect LSAT scores, Hall first attempted to evade their inquiries.
But when that failed, he sought to silence his questioners via forgery.
False Claim by David Hall that He Has “Three 180s”
10
COMPLAINT
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
27
35. In a posting on August 3, 2011, Hall concocted a false story about consulting
his wife regarding the calls for proof of his remarkable score claims. According to Hall’s
story, his wife told him to provide the requested proof of his three perfect LSAT scores
because it would only take “like, 30 seconds,” but Hall decided not to do so because it
would only lead to further demands from those unwilling to accept the supposed truth: that
he really had received the scores he reported to consumers. Hall even compared those
skeptical of his claims to people who clamored for President Obama to release his official
birth certificate but who then refused to accept its validity once he did so. (http://www.
top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=161914&start=200 (viewed Feb. 15,
2012).)
36. But far from having deliberated about whether to supply proof of his score
claims, Hall knew very well that he could not do so. No such proof existed, since Hall’s
claim of having received three perfect scores was fictional.
37. When questions persisted about Hall’s LSAT record, he escalated his efforts
to deceive consumers. This time, he engaged in outright forgery.
38. In or about January 2012, Hall publicly posted what appeared to be a
screenshot of Hall’s LSAT score history from the LSAC website, purporting to show that
he had scored 180 on the LSAT three times. This image was posted on the Velocity
website at http://www.velocitylsat.com/sites/default/files/the_scores_ive_earned.png.
39. On or about January 25, 2012, Hall placed a link to this image on the Top-
Law-Schools.com website. The link was part of a discussion thread entitled, “How Many
People Get Perfect 180?” That thread included extensive discussion of Hall’s claimed
LSAT scores, including expressions of skepticism about Hall’s failure to document them.
(http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=103226&start=25 (viewed
Feb. 15, 2012).)
40. The purported image of Hall’s LSAT score history report shown on
Velocity’s website was false. In reality, there was no score history report showing that Hall
11
COMPLAINT
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
27
had earned three scores of 180, because he had not done so. Hall had forged the image
using his GIMP computer software.
41. When Hall linked to the falsified screenshot on Top-Law-Schools.com, he
specifically addressed Internet poster “Jeffort,” who had written, “We’ll see if Dave’s score
claims are real. They might be, but I’m skeptical. All it takes to prove true is a scan and
post of the one page LSAC Candidate IRR from the last LSAT he took. It will have his
complete official testing/score history in the table on the left side of the page. If he does
that and it checks out I will have great respect for the man, if he doesn’t I will stick with
my current doubts and suspicions.” Confident that his forgery would end the discussion,
Hall replied, “Now, please stop saying misleading things about me. I’ve no idea who you
are or why you’re so cynical, but it would be decent of you to knock it off.” (http://www.
top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=103226&start=25 (visited April 30,
2012).)
42. But because the falsified image did not have Hall’s name on it, it failed to
satisfy the Internet posters questioning his claim to have achieved three scores of 180.
Faced with ongoing questions, Hall produced a much more elaborate forgery. As explained
above, Hall next used GIMP to manufacture an entire LSAT score report complete with a
phony score of 180, a phony table of the answers he had given to all 101 questions, a phony
“Number of Credited Responses,” and a phony “Number of Responses Not Credited.”
43. Hall used this forged report to convince LSAT preparation consumers of his
false claim that he had obtained three perfect LSAT scores, and of his further false claim
that he had correctly answered every question on the September 2009 LSAT.
44. When an Internet poster on Top-Law-Schools.com supplied test-taker
statistics published by the LSAC that indicated that Hall could not have scored a 180 on the
September 2009 LSAT—and accordingly that his score report must have been falsified—
Hall continued to insist that his claims and the supporting documentation were true and
accurate.
12
COMPLAINT
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
27
45. For example, Internet poster “lovejopd” asked, “So, what’s Dave’s official
LSAT scores?” Hall responded, “My scores are as I’ve presented them to you; I didn’t lie.”
Hall then went on to state that the people questioning his score claims must have a
“vendetta” against him. (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=
161914&start=775 (viewed April 30, 2012).)
THE SUCCESS OF HALL’S FRAUDULENT SCHEME
46. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
thousands of consumers and prospective consumers of test preparation goods and services
have seen and believed Defendants’ false and misleading statements, or have seen and
believed Defendants’ forged documents.
47. Numerous Internet posters on Top-Law-Schools.com have trusted and relied
on Hall’s false claims. For example:
(a) Internet poster “emciosn” published on July 28, 2011: “No wonder he
got three 180’s.”
(b) Internet poster “HYSnNothingLess” published on August 11, 2011:
“Three 180s? You must have been in the zone.”
(c) Internet poster “InGoodFaith” published on January 31, 2012: “He got
three perfect scores.”
(d) Internet poster “bernaldiaz” published on December 4, 2011: “Dave
Hall has taken it [the LSAT] four times. First time he fucked up and got
a 179, and he has received 3 consecutive 180’s since then. The LSAC
will no longer let him sit for the test.”
(e) Internet poster “fromIrvine.CA” published on August 3, 2011: “I just
wasted 20 minutes making an account to vouch for Dave being a real
(awesome) human who is legitimately here to help you all with his real
180’s -_-!”
13
COMPLAINT
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
27
(f) Internet poster “iiibbystar” published on August 3, 2011: “Isn’t it
obvious Dave got three 180’s from the way he has been answering our
LSAT questions?”
(g) Internet poster “happyshapy” published on February 4, 2012: “His IRR
is posted on Velocity LSAT’s website. Go look for it yourself.”
(h) Internet poster “dissonance1848” published on February 5, 2012: “Dave
Hall’s LSAT reports seem legit.”
(i) Internet poster “Geetar Man” published on January 31, 2012: “I know I
sure believe it”
48. Hall’s false score claims accomplished their intended purpose of promoting
Velocity’s LSAT preparation services. The discussion thread that Hall began by posting
“Three 180s and I’m taking your LSAT questions” has been viewed more than 33,000
times.
49. Hall’s false score claims have generated a huge amount of free publicity for
Velocity. These false claims have caused others to lionize Hall as an LSAT “guru.” For
example, the LSAT-focused website called “The Standardized Genius” featured an
interview with Hall entitled “How to Get 3 Straight 180’s on Your LSAT: An Interview
With LSAT Test Prep Guru Dave Hall.” In that interview, Hall promoted himself and
Velocity while repeating his lie about having earned three 180’s and falsely claiming to
have done so “without missing any questions” in September 2009. (http://standardized
genius.com/how-to-get-3-straight-180s-on-your-lsat-an-interview-with-lsat-test-prep-guru-
dave-hall (posted Aug. 19, 2011; viewed April 10, 2012).)
14
COMPLAINT
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
27
50. Hall has used his false LSAT score record as the number one reason why
prospective LSAT takers should use Velocity’s products and services. On Velocity’s
website, Hall gives the following answer to the question, “What makes Velocity better than
the other guys?”:
Here’s why we think Velocity LSAT is great:
1. Dave Hall wrote and teaches all of the material, based on
his own experience with the LSAT. Here’s why that
matters to you: Dave has earned his perfect scores on this
test the same way you’ll succeed - by working for them.
So when he talks about succeeding on the test, you can be
Excerpt of Hall Interview Falsely Claiming He Earned “3 Straight 180ʼs”
15
COMPLAINT
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
27
sure that he knows what he’s talking about, both in terms
of the work you’ll put in and in terms of outcome.
* * *
(http://www.velocitylsat.com/frequently-asked-questions (visited April 10,
2012)(emphasis added).) In reality, the “work” Hall did to “earn” his claimed
perfect scores included forging official LSAT documents.
51. Hall’s false story about achieving three 180’s and answering every question
correctly on the September 2009 LSAT has inspired comparisons of Hall to the all-time
perfect LSAT score record-holder, TestMasters’ founder and owner, Robin Singh. On
information and belief, Hall concocted his false story with the intention of generating such
comparisons and capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill of Singh and TestMasters.
Hall was successful in this effort. For example, early in Hall’s discussion thread on Top-
Law-Schools.com, a poster asked, “Are you sure you aren’t related to Robin Singh?” Hall
replied, “No way! He’s the one I wanted to beat.” (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums
/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=161914&start=25 (posted July 28, 2011; viewed Feb. 15, 2012).)
52. In addition, the writer for The Standardized Genius website commented:
“I hadn’t even known that anyone other than Testmaster’s
Robin Singh had scored a 180 that many times. . . . Intrigued, I
perused through and began to read the contents of [Hall’s] thread
[on Top-Law-Schools.com].”
(http://standardizedgenius.com/how-to-get-3-straight-180s-on-your-lsat-an-interview-with-
lsat-test-prep-guru-dave-hall (posted Aug. 19, 2011; viewed April 10, 2012)(emphasis
added).)
53. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
consumers have relied on Hall’s false claims in purchasing his LSAT preparation products
and services. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
Defendants have profited from their premeditated falsehoods—including through increased
16
COMPLAINT
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
27
visibility of and goodwill for Velocity Test Prep and increased sales.
54. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that it has
been damaged by Defendants’ misconduct. Such damage includes, but is not limited to,
lost profits from business that has been diverted from TestMasters to Velocity by
Defendants’ false claims and forgeries.
55. Defendants have also damaged TestMasters by causing it to lose goodwill
built up through many years of hard work. Specifically, Defendants’ false claims about
Hall’s performance on the LSAT devalued Singh’s accomplishment of obtaining numerous
perfect LSAT scores, and eroded TestMasters’ ability to distinguish itself from competitors
on that basis.
56. In addition, Defendants’ false statements and forged documents harm
TestMasters and the entire test preparation industry by undermining consumer trust in the
truthful claims of TestMasters and other ethical competitors. TestMasters, as an industry
leader that legitimately promotes the superior LSAT performance of its founder and
instructors, has the most to lose if consumers decide that they cannot trust claims about
LSAT scores and cannot even trust what appear to be official LSAT score records.
57. TestMasters has not yet ascertained the exact amount of its damages, but
TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the amount equals at
least $150,000.
HALL HAS FURTHER MISLED CONSUMERS
WITH A FALSE PURPORTED CORRECTION
58. On February 24, 2012, TestMasters contacted Hall and warned him of
possible legal action. In response, Hall removed only some of the falsehoods he had
published, and disclosed only some of the true facts that he previously misrepresented. In
addition, despite receiving ample opportunity to do so, Hall has failed to post prominent,
clear, specific, and comprehensive corrections to his false claims and forgeries.
17
COMPLAINT
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
27
59. Instead, Hall’s purported corrections contain additional false and misleading
statements calculated to further confuse and deceive consumers. For example, Hall claims
that he made his previous false statements about his LSAT scores in “Good Faith” and
genuinely “believed . . . that [he] earned three perfect LSAT scores.” He claims that he
was “certain” that he “had not only earned a 180 [on the September 2009 LSAT, but] had
also not missed any questions.” And he even claims that his forgeries were “righteous”
because he sincerely believed the false information they contained. On information and
belief, Hall’s claims of sincerity and good faith are completely false; he made his false
statements and falsified the supporting documentation with full knowledge that his claimed
score of 180 on the September 2009 LSAT was fictitious, and with the intention of
deceiving consumers of test preparation services.
60. In addition to containing false and misleading statements, Defendants’
purported corrective postings are deficient in at least the following other respects:
(a) The purported corrections have not been disseminated widely enough or
with sufficient prominence to reach most of the consumers who have been misled by
Defendants. For example, the corrective posting on Velocity’s website is not readily
visible to website visitors, but is instead accessible only via a link near the bottom of a
subsidiary page. Also, on information and belief, Defendants have not directly notified
past and present customers who have relied on, and been deceived by, Defendants’
misrepresentations.
(b) Defendants’ purported corrections are not clear and readily
understandable, but are instead confusing and convoluted. On information and belief,
Defendants have intentionally tried to obscure the true facts and discourage readers from
discovering them. For example, Hall warns near the outset of his corrective posting, “What
follows is a long-form recounting, . . . a little bit of history, a little bit of soap opera . . . .
Some of you will find it interesting, some of you won’t. . . .” (http://www.top-law-
schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183119 (posted April 19, 2012; visited April
18
COMPLAINT
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
27
20, 2012).) Hall then proceeds to bury key facts about his fraudulent conduct. It is not
until the twenty-sixth paragraph of Hall’s purported correction that he admits he
manufactured a false LSAT score report.
(c) Defendants’ purported corrections fail to specifically and
comprehensively identify and correct the numerous false and misleading statements that
Defendants have disseminated over their long campaign of deceit. As a result, consumers
have been left unaware of the full extent of Defendants’ falsehoods. Full disclosure of
those false statements is particularly important because such disclosure would reveal the
utter implausibility of Hall’s present protestations that he acted in good faith in misstating
his LSAT score history while forging official documents to support his misstatements.
61. Moreover, Hall has not thoroughly removed even admittedly false statements
from the Internet as requested by TestMasters. On the contrary, his false claims—
including his claim of having scored “three 180s”—live on in hundreds if not thousands of
Internet postings and in the minds of thousands of test preparation consumers. Hall and
Velocity continue to profit from their false statements and forged documents. Meanwhile,
both TestMasters and consumers continue to be harmed.
DISCOVERY OF ADDITIONAL FALSE CLAIMS
62. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
Defendants have made additional false and misleading statements on the Internet,
including, but not limited to, statements about the achievements and qualifications of Hall
and Velocity, and statements about the LSAT scores and score improvements of Velocity
students.
63. In light of Hall’s known track record of forgery and fraud, TestMasters is
informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that additional statements by Defendants
will be found to be false or misleading during discovery in this case. TestMasters will seek
to amend its complaint as appropriate to allege such newly discovered falsehoods.
19
COMPLAINT
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
27
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(False Advertising in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500)
64. TestMasters repeats here the allegations of Paragraphs 1-63 of the
Complaint.
65. As was alleged above, Defendants Hall, Velocity, and Does have
disseminated false and misleading statements and representations and forged documents
(collectively, “False Representations”) and have caused such False Representations to be
disseminated by others as well.
66. This dissemination of the False Representations has occurred over the
Internet, as alleged above. In addition, TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that
basis alleges, that the False Representations have been disseminated in other ways as well,
such as by oral statements to customers and prospective customers of Defendants, and in
emails.
67. The False Representations concern Hall and Velocity’s professional services
and concern circumstances and matters of fact connected with the proposed performance or
disposition of such services.
68. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
Defendants have disseminated the False Representations, and caused them to be
disseminated, with the intent to perform test preparation services and sell test preparation
products and to induce the public to enter into obligations relating to such products and
services as a result of the False Representations—including, without limitation, to induce
the public to enter into contracts to purchase test preparation products and services from
Defendants.
69. The False Representations are untrue and misleading and are known to
Defendants to be untrue and misleading. Further, any person in the position of Defendants
should know by the exercise of reasonable care that the False Representations are untrue
and misleading.
20
COMPLAINT
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
27
70. Defendants’ conduct in disseminating the False Representations, and causing
them to be disseminated, has violated California Business and Professions Code § 17500 et
seq.
71. TestMasters has been actually injured by the False Representations.
TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that it has lost profits from
business that has been diverted from TestMasters to Velocity by the False Representations
and that the False Representations have diminished TestMasters’ reputation and goodwill.
72. TestMasters has been injured or will be further injured by having to expend
time and money to correct the False Representations.
73. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
customers have been deceived by the False Representations into purchasing test preparation
products and services from Defendants. This Court should order Defendants, under
Business and Professions Code § 17535, to restore to consumers all money and property
that Defendants acquired from them by means of the False Representations.
74. The False Representations have caused and are causing irreparable injury to
TestMasters and to consumers of test preparation products and services. TestMasters is
informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the False Representations will result
in further irreparable injury if Defendants are not enjoined to cease, desist from, retract, and
correct the False Representations. This Court should issue such an injunction under
Business and Professions Code § 17535.
75. Defendants should be required to pay TestMasters’ attorneys’ fees and
litigation expenses under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. This action is likely
to result in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest and confer a
significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons. The necessity and
financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make an award of attorneys’ fees
appropriate, and the fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of any other
recovery.
21
COMPLAINT
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
27
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(False Representations in Violation of the Federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
76. TestMasters repeats here the allegations of Paragraphs 1-63 of the
Complaint.
77. As was alleged above, Defendants Hall, Velocity, and Does have made and
used false and misleading descriptions of fact and false or misleading representations of
fact, including forged documents (collectively, “False Representations”). Defendants’
False Representations have violated the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
78. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
Defendants’ False Representations have been used in interstate commerce, including sales
of Velocity’s test preparation products and services outside of California and over the Internet.
79. Defendants’ False Representations have been made in the course of
commercially advertising and promoting Defendants’ test preparation products and
services.
80. Defendants’ False Representations misrepresent the nature, characteristics,
and qualities of Defendants’ goods, services, and commercial activities.
81. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
Defendants have profited from their False Representations—including through sales of
their test preparation products and services. Defendants should be required to disgorge all
such profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(1).
82. TestMasters has been injured by Defendants’ False Representations. For
example, TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that it has lost
profits from business that has been diverted from TestMasters to Defendants by the False
Representations and that the False Representations have diminished TestMasters’
reputation and goodwill. In addition, TestMasters has been damaged in the amount
reasonably required for corrective advertising to offset the false beliefs created by
Defendants’ False Representations. TestMasters has not yet ascertained the exact amount
22
COMPLAINT
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
27
of its damages, but TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the
amount equals at least $150,000. TestMasters is entitled to an award of all such damages
under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(2).
83. Defendants’ False Representations have been willful, and the circumstances
of this case justify an award of treble or other enhanced damages under 15 U.S.C. §
1117(a).
84. Defendants’ False Representations have caused and are causing irreparable
injury to TestMasters. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
the False Representations will result in further irreparable injury if Defendants are not
enjoined to cease, desist from, retract, and correct the False Representations. TestMasters
is entitled to such an injunction under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a).
85. This is an exceptional case, and TestMasters should recover its attorneys’
fees and litigation expenses under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
86. TestMasters repeats here the allegations of Paragraphs 1-85 of the
Complaint.
87. Defendants’ conduct as alleged above, including their false and misleading
statements and representations and forgery, constitutes unlawful, unfair and fraudulent
business acts and practices (collectively, “Unfair Competition”), in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
88. Defendants’ Unfair Competition is fraudulent because it is likely to
mislead—and, on information and belief, it has misled—consumers of test preparation
products and services.
89. Defendants’ Unfair Competition is unfair because the harm to test
preparation consumers, to TestMasters, and to other honest test preparation competitors
23
COMPLAINT
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
27
from Defendants’ false and misleading representations and forged documents far outweighs
any utility that such representations and documents could possibly have.
90. Defendants’ Unfair Competition is unlawful for reasons including its
violation of the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and its violation of California
Business and Professions Code § 17500’s prohibition against false statements.
91. As alleged above, TestMasters has suffered injury in fact from Defendants’
Unfair Competition and has lost money and property as a result of the Unfair Competition.
TestMasters is therefore entitled to sue under Business & Professions Code §17204.
92. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
consumers have been deceived by Defendants’ Unfair Competition into purchasing test
preparation products and services from Defendants. This Court should order Defendants to
restore to consumers all money and property that Defendants acquired from them by means
of the Unfair Competition.
93. Defendants’ Unfair Competition has caused and is causing irreparable injury
to TestMasters and to consumers of test preparation products and services. TestMasters is
informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Unfair Competition will result in
further irreparable injury if Defendants are not enjoined to cease, desist from, retract, and
correct their Unfair Competition. This Court should issue such an injunction under
Business and Professions Code § 17203.
94. Defendants should be required to pay TestMasters’ attorneys’ fees and
litigation expenses under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. This case is likely
to result in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest and confer a
significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons. The necessity and
financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make an award of attorneys’ fees
appropriate, and the fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of any other
recovery.
24
COMPLAINT
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
27
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against All Defendants for Common-Law Unfair Competition)
95. TestMasters repeats here the allegations of Paragraphs 1-85 of the
Complaint.
96. Defendants’ conduct as alleged above, including their false and misleading
representations and forgery, constitutes common law unfair competition (the “Unfair
Competition”). TestMasters has been injured by Defendants’ Unfair Competition. For
example, TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that it has lost
profits from business that has been diverted from TestMasters to Defendants by the Unfair
Competition and that the Unfair Competition has diminished TestMasters’ reputation and
goodwill. In addition, TestMasters has been damaged in the amount reasonably required
for corrective advertising to offset the false beliefs created by Defendants’ Unfair
Competition. TestMasters has not yet ascertained the exact amount of its damages, but
TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the amount equals at
least $150,000.
97. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
Defendants have profited from their Unfair Competition—including through sales of their
test preparation products and services. Defendants should be required to disgorge all such
profits.
98. Defendants’ Unfair Competition has caused and is causing irreparable injury
to TestMasters. TestMasters is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the
Unfair Competition will result in further irreparable injury if Defendants are not enjoined to
cease, desist from, retract, and correct the Unfair Competition.
99. Defendants’ Unfair Competition has been fraudulent, oppressive, and
malicious. TestMasters is entitled to exemplary or punitive damages under California Civil
Code § 3294 in an amount according to proof.
25
COMPLAINT
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
27
100. Defendants should be required to pay TestMasters’ attorneys’ fees and
litigation expenses under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. This case is likely
to result in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest and confer a
significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons. The necessity and
financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make an award of attorneys’ fees
appropriate, and the fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of any other
recovery.
DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT
TestMasters requests the following relief from each Defendant:
1. Preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants, and their
officers, agents, servants, employees, licensees, subsidiaries, and all other persons or
entities acting or attempting to act in active concert or participation with them or on their
behalf, from disseminating any false or misleading statements or documents, including but
not limited to the False Representations alleged above;
2. Preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring Defendants to clearly,
prominently, and effectively retract and correct their false and misleading statements and
forged documents, including but not limited to the False Representations alleged above;
3. General and special damages in an amount according to proof, but not less
than $150,000;
4. Disgorgement of all profits derived by Defendants from their improper conduct;
5. Restitution to consumers and an accounting of all amounts received by
Defendants because of their improper conduct;
6. A determination that Defendants’ misconduct has been willful and that this
case is exceptional under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
7. Treble damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
8. Exemplary and punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294 in an
26
COMPLAINT
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
27
amount according to proof;
9. Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), California
Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and any other applicable statutes or doctrines;
10. Cost of suit;
11. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded; and
12. Any other relief that is just and proper under the circumstances.
Dated: May 7, 2012 ONE LLP
William J. O’Brien
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Robin Singh Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a.
TestMasters