Amended Cross Complaint No Fee

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 4, 2020

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 28 JENNIFER D. RHODES (NO. 244141) RHODES&CO. A Professional Corporation 4 Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415/766-3595 Facsimile: 415/789-4525 Attorney for Defendant and Cross-complainant, Nilufer Koechlin SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PAUL BATTAGLIA, Plaintiff, v. NILUFER KOECHLIN, Defendant. NILUFER KOECHLIN, Cross-complainant, v. PAUL BATTAGLIA, Cross-defendant. Case No. 20CV303769 AMENDED Cross-Complaint for: 1) Fraud 2) Fraud 3) Fraud 4) Fraud 5) Fraud 6) Breach of Contract 7) Declaratory Relief 8) Breach of Oral Contract 9) Conversion 10) Interference with Contract 11) Abuse of Process 12) Extortion 13) Unjust Enrichment 14) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/24/2021 8:20 PM Reviewed By: R. Tien Case #20CV373069 Envelope: 6510735 \DOOQGUI-PUJNv-a NNNNNNNNNr-Ir-b-‘r-Ar-r-Ar-AHHH OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. At all times relevant herein mentioned, Cross-defendant PAUL BATTAGLIA, herein after “BATTAGLIA” was a resident 0f the County 0f Santa Clara and entered a contract With and committed acts against Cross-complainant in the County 0f Santa Clara, and elsewhere 2. At all times relevant herein mentioned, Cross-complainant NILUFER KOECHLIN, herein after “KOECHLIN” was and is a resident 0f the County 0f Santa Clara. 3. When the parties met 0n December 26, 2013, KOECHLIN was recently widowed from her dear late-husband and it was her first night out in town with friends. BATTAGLIA wooed KOECHLIN With stories 0f his successful career and high education. He told her that he was an attorney, having graduated from University 0f California at Los Angeles School 0f Law, and a VP and partner in a company in Taiwan wherein his job was t0 open new locations and run all operations for Starbucks Coffee in Taiwan. He also said that he was a partner in a restaurant in New York, where he would be flying the following day for a meeting related t0 the restaurant. 4. On 0r about December 26, 2013, BATTAGLIA told KOECHLIN that he lived at the St. Regis hotel in San Francisco because he traveled frequently for business, including significant time in Taiwan for his job. BATTAGLIA claimed that he owned a home and a car in Taiwan; he also said that he had a housekeeper and cook there and spends at least one week per month at his home in Taiwan for his job. 5. On 0r about December 26, 2013, When KOECHLIN told BATTAGLIA that the prior year her husband died in a cycling accident, BATTAGLIA asked her how much she received from her late husband’s life insurance. While KOECHLIN found this socially awkward, it did not seem concerning because BATTAGLIA was a successful businessman - 0r so he said. 6. On 0r about December 26, 2013, BATTAGLIA told KOECHLIN that he had never been married and that he did not have children. 7. The parties began dating 0n January 11, 2014. A Whirlwind romance ensued and -1- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O by March 2014 BATTAGLIA moved his belongings into KOECHLIN’S home in Los Gatos. 8. BATTAGLIA perpetuated the fagade 0f his career and success for the entirely 0f the parties’ relationship. Nearly Without exception, BATTAGLIA routinely travelled for approximately one week per month for his “job” in Taiwan. BATTAGLIA also told the parties’ friends and family the same story about his employment and role opening Starbucks stores in Taiwan and portrayed himself as a successful businessman who travelled regularly for work. BATTAGLIA told KOECHLIN that as part 0f his contract with Starbucks, he receives an unlimited Starbucks card and that his sister used $20-3O daily 0n his Starbucks card. 9. BATTAGLIA portrayed himself as a man 0fmeans Who lived a luxurious lifestyle, purchasing expensive tickets t0 sporting events and travel. He also created an image t0 fit the part 0f well-spoken, well-dressed, and well-traveled businessman. 10. As the parties maintained separate bank accounts and did not share banking 0r access t0 their financial information With one another, KOECHLIN did not have occasion t0 see BATTAGLIA’S actual finances. 11. The first year after BATTAGLIA moved in, KOECHLIN paid nearly all the household expenses as a gracious host. BATTAGLIA made nominal contributions such as occasional groceries and a few trips Which KOECHLIN considered gifts. 12. On 0r about March 18, 2015, BATTAGLIA informed KOECHLIN that the Warriors attempted t0 charge his credit card for his season tickets but there was a problem With his banking that needed t0 be resolved in Taiwan. BATTAGLIA asked t0 borrow KOECHLIN’S credit card t0 pay the Warriors billing office and promised t0 repay her. KOECHLIN paid for BATTAGLIA’S Warriors season tickets relying 0n his promise t0 repay her. The following month, BATTAGLIA made the first payment t0 KOECHLIN. The parties later agreed that BATTAGLIA would reimburse KOECHLIN in full and occasionally give KOECHLIN Warriors tickets in exchange for the use 0f her credit card t0 pay BATTAGLIA’S season tickets for the Golden State Warriors and San Jose Sharks. -2- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O 13. On 0r about March 3 1, 2015, BATTAGLIA approached KOECHLIN regarding a joint venture related t0 Wine. He wanted t0 purchase and resell lots 0f Wine but did not have the capital for this venture. BATTAGLIA told KOECHLIN that all his assets and capital were tied up in Taiwan (Which would become an ongoing story). BATTAGLIA proposed to KOECHLIN that if she provided capital, BATTAGLIA would purchase and resell the Wine, and the parties would split the profits. This offer is evidenced in an email from BATTAGLIA t0 KOECHLIN dated March 31, 2015 and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (See Exhibit A) KOECHLIN accepted BATTAGLIA’S offer and paid for approximately $46,000 0f Wine from March through May 14, 2015. 14. BATTAGLIA purchased and resold wine With the capital provided by KOECHLIN. However, BATTAGLIA failed t0 pay KOECHLIN her share 0f the profits 0r repay this capital. 15. On 0r about May 2, 2015, KOECHLIN learned that BATTAGLIA had used her credit card and forged a check t0 himself by taking these items from her purse without her knowledge 0r consent. KOECHLIN confronted BATTAGLIA and expressed that this was unacceptable. BATTAGLIA assured KOECHLIN that his use 0f her check and credit card were limited t0 the instances that she discovered and that he would not d0 it again. 16. On 0r about May 14, 2015, disappointed in BATTAGLIA’S deceit, failure t0 live up t0 their agreement regarding the Wine venture, and failure t0 contribute t0 the parties” monthly expenses in any meaningful way, KOECHLIN requested protection for her investment and requested that BATTAGLIA contribute t0 their living expenses. As a result, the parties entered into a second agreement wherein KOECHLIN would n0 longer be a partner in the Wine business and BATTAGLIA would repay her $46,000 investment and any other funds she loaned him. In addition, BATTAGLIA agreed t0 commence paying $2000 per month t0 assist With househOId expenses and other bills. The parties agreed that if they were t0 separate, and BATTAGLIA had any outstanding loan t0 KOECHLIN, she would keep the contents 0f her Wine cellar. This written agreement was memorialized in an email -3- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O from BATTAGLIA to KOECHLIN 0n May 14, 20 1 5 and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (Exhibit B) 17. BATTAGLIA failed t0 pay KOECHLIN the $46,000 capital loan for the wine purchases and subsequent loans. 18. On various occasions between March 2015 and August 2018, KOECHLIN paid BATTAGLIA’S season tickets for the Golden State Warriors and San Jose Sharks based 0n their oral agreement. BATTAGLIA made various payments t0 KOECHLIN but failed t0 repay her in full. 19. BATTAGLIA’S contribution was but a small fraction 0f the cost 0f his lifestyle. However, as BATTAGLIA spent a significant amount 0f time in Taiwan (allegedly for his job) and represented that his assets and savings were tied up in Taiwan, KOECHLIN did not push for a greater contribution. However, in 20 1 9, When KOECHLIN purchased an additional property in Santa Cruz and her expenses increased, the parties agreed that BATTAGLIA’S contribution t0 household expenses and bills would increase t0 $3500 per month. At n0 time did the parties enter into any other agreement regarding sharing KOECHLIN’S homes and/or assets. Most months BATTAGLIA gave KOECHLIN the agreed upon contribution; his payments were always in cash. 20. KOECHLIN owned three properties When she met BATTAGLIA: 1) her primary residence 0n Placer Oaks Rd. in Los Gates; 2) her vacation home in Lake Tahoe 0n Hansel Ave. and 3) a townhouse on Casitas Bulevar in Los Gates Where her aunt and sister live. She had plans t0 renovate two 0f these properties. In August 2019, KOECHLIN also purchased a beach house in Santa Cruz. In June 2020, she purchased a house 0n Frank Ave. Where her sister currently resides. BATTAGLIA did not contribute t0 the purchase 0f any 0f these properties and he did not pay the carrying costs 0r d0 the renovations. All renovations were conducted by an architect and a contractor, paid for by KOECHLIN. At n0 time did KOECHLIN promise or gift BATTAGLIA an ownership interest in any 0f her properties. 21. KOECHLIN owned various vehicles during the relationship. At n0 time did -4- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O KOECHLIN promise 0r gift BATTAGLIA an ownership interest in any 0f her vehicles. 22. Periodically BATTAGLIA borrowed funds from KOECHLIN under the guise that his assets were tied up in Taiwan and usually repaid her Within weeks. Throughout the entire relationship, BATTAGLIA maintained that he was employed by Uni-President opening Starbucks stores in Taiwan. He continued t0 g0 0n business trips regularly for one week 0f each month and claimed t0 have a good income. At n0 time did he inform KOECHLIN 0f a change in his alleged career orjob. As late as July 2020, BATTAGLIA wrote to KOECHLIN, “I actually make a really good living” and “I make more than most.” 23. On 0r about August 21, 2015, after another unauthorized charge t0 KOECHLIN’S credit card, BATTAGLIA repented and told KOECHLIN that he would never use her credit card again without authorization. During both the May and August 2015 conversations regarding the unauthorized use 0f her credit card and check, BATTAGLIA omitted the material fact that he had wrongfully used KOECHLIN’S credit card and forged additional checks beyond the instances that KOECHLIN had discovered. Thereafter, BATTAGLIA failed t0 disclose his unauthorized uses 0fKOECHLIN’S checks and credit card. 24. On 0r about August 28, 2015, upon doing a Google search 0f the woman Who KOECHLIN believed t0 be BATTAGLIA’S eX-girlfriend, KOECHLIN learned that BATTAGLIA was married. BATTAGLIA said he was divorced. He apologized for being untruthful about his marital status and explained that he was embarrassed. KOECHLIN later discovered that BATTAGLIA was not divorced. 25. On 0r about March 21, 2018, KOECHLIN learned that BATTAGLIA is the father 0f a child When a text 0f a photo 0f a young girl 0f approximately 10 years 01d, appeared 0n KOECHLIN’S daughter’s iPad stating, “I miss you Daddy.” KOECHLIN confronted BATTAGLIA and he denied having a child. He later said that he was a sperm donor in Taiwan. KOECHLIN later contacted the child’s mother and learned that the mother was BATTAGLIA’S eX-girlfriend and neither 0fBATTAGLIA’S stories were true. 26. The parties” relationship began t0 deteriorate. BATTAGLIA became increasingly -5- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O controlling and aggressive. He had frequent outbursts that escalated into abusive behavior. On multiple occasions, BATTAGLIA asked KOECHLIN t0 combine their assets and she refused. 27. On July 4, 2020, the parties separated and BATTAGLIA moved into KOECHLIN’S Santa Cruz beach house temporarily While looking for new accommodations. On July 5, 2020, he told KOECHLIN that he would not be staying long; around that time BATTAGLIA also told KOECHLIN’ s family that he was moving out ofher Santa Cruz home that week. 28. For approximately two weeks the parties discussed their relationship. During this time, BATTAGLIA again proposed that the parties combine their assets 0r allow him t0 invest in KOECHLIN’S assets, and KOECHLIN again refused. 29. On July 19, 2020, the parties separated permanently. Initially, BATTAGLIA told KOECHLIN that he would stay only briefly in Santa Cruz While he sought new accommodations. 30. On 0r about July 26, 2020, BATTAGLIA changed his tune. He told KOECHLIN that he would not move out 0f her Santa Cruz home unless she paid him $215,000 and gave him title t0 her Mini Cooper. KOECHLIN then asked BATTAGLIA t0 vacate the beach house n0 later than October 1, 2020. BATTAGLIA proceeded t0 harass KOECHLIN, g0 t0 her Los Gatos home despite her request for distance, and refused t0 leave her Santa Cruz property unless KOECHLIN paid him the funds he demanded. 31. On 0r about August 1, 2020, BATTAGLIA went t0 KOECHLIN’S Los Gatos residence, snuck in through the back yard, entered her house Without permission, and refused t0 leave. KOECHLIN had t0 call the police and obtain a restraining order. 32. On September 1, 2020, BATTAGLIA threatened t0 file a lawsuit against KOECHLIN unless he paid her $502,000. Thereafter, he filed multiple baseless legal actions against KOECHLIN, making numerous material misrepresentations and perjuring himself repeatedly, including three requests for retraining orders, two in Santa Clara County and one -6- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O in Santa Cruz County (all 0f which have been denied t0 date) and this frivolous civil suit making exorbitant demands based 0n fabricated facts. In BATTAGLIA’S second request for a restraining order in Santa Clara County, he misrepresented t0 the Court that there was n0 restraining order protecting either party When there was a restraining order protecting KOECHLIN. 33. BATTAGLIA finally moved out 0fKOECHLIN’S Santa Cruz property 0n January 19, 2021 after she filed an unlawful detainer action, and the parties reached a stipulation. BATTAGLIA held KOECHLIN’S Santa Cruz property hostage for over six months, depriving her and her daughter 0f its use and enjoyment. 34. During BATTAGLIA’S unlawful possession 0f KOECHLIN’S property, he also attempted t0 evict the lawful tenant, E. Huntsman (“Tenant”) in KOECHLIN’S guesthouse by posting a Notice t0 Vacate 0n her door falsely claiming that he was the owner 0f the property and threatening t0 pursue legal action and have her removed if she didn’t vacate the property. As a direct result 0f BATTALIA’S interference, KOECHLIN’S tenant left the property for several weeks and KOECHLIN lost rents. 35 . In recent months, KOECHLIN learned that BATTAGLIA’S fraud was greater than she had imagined. His marital status and paternity status were not the only lies perpetrated by BATTAGLIA. On October 17, 2020, KOECHLIN learned from the National Student Clearinghouse that BATTAGLIA does not hold a degree from University 0f California Los Angeles School ofLaw. BATTAGLIA is also not listed With the California State Bar as ever being a licensed attorney in California. 36. On information and belief, BATTAGLIA was not a VP and partner at Uni- President in Taiwan and BATTAGLIA also did not have a home, car, housekeeper, 0r significant assets in Taiwan. The reality is that BATTAGLIA does not have a law degree 0r the job he claimed; he illegally resells wine for money. He is also a convicted felon. 37. After separation, KOECHLIN also discovered several additional instances between February 2014 and July 2020 wherein BATTAGLIA forged KOECHLIN’S checks -7- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O and used her credit card Without authorization by apparently taking these items from her purse Without her knowledge 0r consent. 38. But for BATTAGLIA’S material misrepresentations about his character, life history, education, and employment, KOECHLIN would not have engaged in a relationship With BATTAGLIA. She would not have allowed him t0 live With her; she would not have entrusted him With her daughter; she would not have granted him access t0 her belongings; and she would not have allowed him t0 gain emotional proximity, trust, and confidence. KOECHLIN has since learned that BATTAGLIA has a history 0f seducing women and later abusing, harassing, and attempting t0 take their property. 39. On information and belief, BATTAGLIA engages in and has engaged in a pattern and practice in his romantic relationships wherein he woos and defrauds women with false representations about his background, his employment, his intentions and his love and affection for the purpose of depriving them oftheir property. In BATTAGLIA’S relationships prior to KOECHLIN, BATTAGLIA exhibited his modus operandi. 40. On information and belief, when BATTAGLIA met KOECHLIN in December 0f 2013, Joanne Kinzer had recently ended a relationship with BATTAGLIA, and he was still harassing Ms. Kinzer. Ms. Kinzer provided a declaration under penalty ofperjury in support 0f KOECHLIN’S request for a restraining order wherein she states, “he [BATTAGLIA] continued t0 harass me and my family for a few months, but then subsided just prior t0 the time he moved in With Ms. Koechlin in March 0f2014.” BATTAGLIA swept Ms. Kinzer her off her feet at a time When she was vulnerable because her mother had been diagnosed With cancer. BATTAGLIA put his name 0n Ms. Kinzer’s utilities Without her authorization When she was moving t0 a new apartment. When Ms. Kinzer separated from BATTAGLIA, he attempted t0 enter her apartment claiming that he had legal rights because the utilities were under his name. BATTAGLIA did not live With Ms. Kinzer 0r pay her rent. Ms. Kinzer called the police. Ms. Kinzer writes, “Thankfully, I never gave Mr. Battaglia a key t0 my apartment. The situation was alleviated when the police reviewed my lease and confirmed I was the only -8- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O one listed and saw that I feared for my safely if he was permitted in. However, this did not stop Mr. Battaglia from telling the police outlandish lies and demanding that he had rights t0 enter my apartmen .” 4 1. On information and belief, prior t0 Ms. Kinzer, BATTAGLIA was in a relationship With Aisha Pascua. A restraining order was entered protecting Ms. Pascua from BATTAGLIA When they separated. BATTAGLIA was abusive t0 Ms. Pascua; he spit in her face, put his hands around her neck and restrained her 0n the bed. Ms. Pascua recently testified in a deposition stating, “I moved out and stayed With my parents Where he harassed me and continued t0 d0 so even after I pleaded him t0 stop.” BATTAGLIA made threats that he would get Ms. Pascua fired and ruin her credit. He also refused t0 leave the apartment Where the lease was under Ms. Pascua’s name. For months after Ms. Pascua moved out, BATTAGALIA “said he was protected under tenancy rights and he simply refused t0 leave” forcing Ms. Pascua t0 pay rent t0 avoid credit harm. When wooing Ms. Pascua three years earlier, BATTAGLIA told Ms. Pascua that he had graduated from UCLA law school and he owned Starbucks in Taiwan, Where his money was tied up. 42. On information and belief, prior t0 Ms. Pascua, BATTAGLIA was in a relationship With Emily Yeh Hsuan (“‘Ms. Yeh”). BATTAGLIA married Ms. Yeh When she was eighteen years 01d, and he was in college. Ms. Yeh testified that BATTAGLIA was not truthful and things “started not adding up.” When Ms. Yeh separated from BATTGALIA, he attempted t0 steal her vehicle. BATTAGLIA claimed the vehicle was “community property” even though it was given t0 Ms. Yeh by her parents before they met. BATTGALIA refused t0 return the vehicle key and said he would “take What was his.” Ms. Yeh testified, “I saw him jumping out from behind another car, I mean, it was so scary t0 the point that I had t0 get my car key rekeyed, and for a while I parked my car elsewhere...” BATTAGLIA also had a temper. BATTAGLIA pushed, slapped, and shoved Ms. Yeh. On one occasion BATTAGLIA choked her and pinned her up against a wall and a neighbor called the police. When the police knocked 0n the door, BATTAGLIA had already gone. -9- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud) 43. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 44. On 0r about December 26, 2013, BATTAGLIA knowingly and affirmatively made false representations t0 KOECHLIN regarding his marital and paternity status. 45. BATTAGLIA intended to induce KOECHLIN t0 alter her position and commence a romantic relationship With him, allowing him access to her personal life, home, family, assets, and belongings t0 her risk and injury. 46. But for the material misrepresentations made by BATTAGLIA regarding his marital and paternal status in December 2013, KOECHLIN would not have entered a romantic relationship With BATTAGLIA, granting him loans and access t0 her home, assets, and personal belongings. 47. KOECHLIN justifiably relied on BATTAGLIA’S misrepresentations. 48. Cross-defendant’s conduct was intentional, despicable, malicious, and done for the purpose 0f inducing Cross-complainant’s reliance and action against her interest. 49. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0fthe Cross-defendant’s wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an exact amount which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant will seek leave 0f Court t0 amend this complaint when the same is ascertained 0r will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 50. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the Cross- defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as t0 entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth -10- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud) 5 1. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 52. On 0r about December 26, 2013, BATTAGLIA knowingly and affirmatively made false representations t0 KOECHLIN regarding his education, career, assets, and professional position in life. 53. BATTAGLIA intended t0 induce KOECHLIN t0 alter her position and commence a romantic relationship With him, allowing him access t0 her personal life, home, family, assets, and belongings t0 her risk and injury. 54. KOECHLIN justifiably relied 0n BATTAGLIA’S misrepresentations. 55. But for the material misrepresentations made by BATTAGLIA regarding his education, career, income, assets, and professional position in life, KOECHLIN would not have entered a romantic relationship With BATTAGLIA, granting him loans and access t0 her home, assets, and personal belongings. 56. Cross-defendant’s conduct was intentional, despicable, malicious, and done for the purpose 0f inducing Cross-complainant’s reliance and act against her interest. 57. As a direct, legal, and proximate result ofthe Cross-defendant’s wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an exact amount which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant Will seek leave 0f Court t0 amend this complaint When the same is ascertained 0r will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 58. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the Cross- defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as t0 entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f -11- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud) 59. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 60. At various times from January 2014 through July 2020, BATTAGLIA knowingly and affirmatively made false representations t0 KOECHLIN regarding his love and affection. 61. BATTAGLIA intended t0 induce KOECHLIN t0 alter her position t0 commence and remain in a romantic relationship With him so that he may later deprive her 0f her assets and property. 62. KOECHLIN justifiably relied 0n BATTAGLIA’S misrepresentations. 63. But for the material misrepresentations made by BATTAGLIA regarding his love and affection, KOECHLIN would not have entered 0r remained in a romantic relationship With BATTAGLIA, granting him loans and access t0 her home, assets, and personal belongings. 64. BATTAGLIA’S fraud was part 0f a pattern 0f practice wherein he wooed vulnerable women into romantic relationships and later attempted t0 take 0r wrongfully use their property. 65. Cross-defendant’s conduct was intentional, despicable, malicious, and done for the purpose 0f inducing Cross-complainant’s reliance and action against her interest. 66. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0fthe Cross-defendant’s wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an exact amount which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant will seek leave 0f Court t0 amend this complaint when the same is ascertained 0r will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. -12- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O 67. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the Cross- defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as t0 entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud) 68. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 69. On multiple occasions in 2015, BATTAGLIA knowingly and affirmatively made false representations t0 KOECHLIN regarding his unauthorized use of her credit card and checks and omitted material information regarding said use. 70. BATTAGLIA intended t0 induce KOECHLIN t0 alter her position and not terminate a romantic relationship With him, allowing him access to her personal life, home, family, assets, and belongings t0 her risk and injury. 71. KOECHLIN justifiably relied 0n BATTAGLIA’S misrepresentations. 72. But for the material misrepresentations and omissions made by BATTAGLIA regarding his unauthorized use 0f KOECHLIN’S credit card and forgery 0f her checks, KOECHLIN would not have remained in a romantic relationship With BATTAGLIA, granting him continued access t0 her home, assets, and personal belongings. 73. Cross-defendant’s conduct was intentional, despicable, malicious, and done for the purpose 0f inducing Cross-complainant’s reliance and action against her interest. 74. As a direct, legal, and proximate result ofthe Cross-defendant’s wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an exact amount which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant Will seek leave -13- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O 0f Court t0 amend this complaint When the same is ascertained 0r will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 75. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the Cross- defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as t0 entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud) 76. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 77. On 0r about September 2, 2020, BATTAGLIA posted a Notice t0 Vacate 0n the door 0f KOECHLIN’S Tenant wherein BATTAGLIA knowingly and affirmatively made false representations t0 Tenant claiming t0 be the property owner and threatening legal action and removal if Tenant failed t0 vacate the property. 78. BATTAGLIA intended t0 induce Tenant t0 vacate the property t0 KOECHLIN’S damage. 79. Tenant justifiably relied 0n BATTAGLIA’S misrepresentations. As a direct result, Tenant left the property for several weeks and KOECHLIN lost rents. 80. But for the material misrepresentations by BATTAGLIA t0 Tenant, KOECHLIN would not have lost rents due t0 Tenant vacating the property for several weeks. 8 1. Cross-defendant’s conduct was intentional, despicable, malicious, and done for the purpose 0f inducing Cross-complainant’s reliance and action against her interest. 82. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0fthe Cross-defendant’s wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an exact amount which is unknown at this time, but -14- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant will seek leave 0f Court t0 amend this complaint when the same is ascertained 0r will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 83. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the Cross- defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as t0 entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach 0f Contract) 84. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 85. On 0r about March 3 1, 2015, BATTAGLIA made KOECHLIN an offer regarding a Wine venture. This is evidenced in an email from BATTAGLIA t0 KOECHLIN dated March 3 1, 20 1 5 and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (See Exhibit A) KOECHLIN accepted this offer and proceeded t0 provide capital as agreed. 86. On 0r about May 14, 2015, disappointed in BATTAGLIA’S failure to live up t0 their agreement, and failure t0 contribute t0 the parties’ monthly expenses in any meaningful way, KOECHLIN requested protection for her investment and requested that BATTAGLIA contribute t0 their living expenses. This written agreement is memorialized in an email from BATTAGLIA t0 KOECHLIN 0n May 14, 2015 and is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (Exhibit B) 87. The contract states, “This document serves as a contract between Nilufer Koechlin and Paul Battaglia entered into 0n May 14, 2015. This contract is in regards t0 the $46,000 that Nilufer Koechlin has invested in Wine. Should their relationship terminate at any time -15- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O With any debts outstanding, regardless 0famount, Paul Battaglia would give Nilufer Koechlin all 0f the Wine that is at the home they currently share. In addition, Paul Battaglia agrees t0 pay Nilufer Koechlin $2000/m0nth t0 assist With household expenses and other bills. This money is separate from the $46,000 that Paul Battaglia owes Nilufer Koechlin. This contract has been entered into willingly by both parties. Paul Battaglia May 14, 2015” 88. KOECHLIN performed by providing capital as is acknowledged in the email dated May 14, 20 1 5. BATTAGLIA failed t0 perform and repay debt t0 KOECHLIN. BATTAGLIA is now demanding the contents 0f the Wine cellar in breach 0f the parties’ contract. Cross- defendant has also made legal claims asserting rights t0 the wine in the cellar. 89. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the Cross-defendant’s breach, Cross- complainant has been damaged in an amount Which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant Will seek leave 0f Court t0 amend this complaint When the same is ascertained 0r Will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, in the alternative, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief) 90. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 91. There is an actual controversy relating t0 the legal rights and duties 0f the respective parties as it relates t0 the agreement entered 0n 0r about May 14, 2015 as set forth in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. 92. The issue 0fthis controversy is the legal right t0 the wine located in KOECHLIN’S cellar at the time 0f the parties’ separation. 93. Cross-complainant prays for declaratory judgment as t0 the rights and obligations 0f the parties under the agreement entered 0n 0r about May 14, 2015, granting KOECHLIN -16- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O legal right t0 the wine located in her cellar based 0n BATTAGLIA’S failure to repay KOECHLIN the capital provided in 2015, and further monies loaned. EIGTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach 0f Oral Contract) 94. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 95. In late May 2015, BATTAGLIA made KOECHLIN an oral offer wherein he promised t0 reimburse KOECHLIN in full and occasionally give KOECHLIN Warriors tickets if she provided her credit card t0 the Golden State Warriors and San Jose Sharks for payment 0fBATTAGLIA’S season tickets. KOECHLIN agreed and at various times between March 2015 and August 2018 KOECHLIN paid for BATTAGLIA’S season tickets. 96. At various times between April 2015 and May 2019, BATTAGLIA repaid KOECHLIN and gave her Warriors tickets. However, there is a significant balance outstanding. BATTAGLIA has failed t0 pay KOECHLIN for approximately $50,000 0f season tickets incurred pursuant t0 this agreement. 97. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the Cross-defendant’s breach, Cross- complainant has been damaged in an amount Which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant Will seek leave 0f Court t0 amend this complaint When the same is ascertained 0r Will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, in the alternative, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion) 98. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 99. At various times between February 2014 and July 2020, BATTALIA converted -17- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O KOECHLIN’S property by forging her checks and using her credit card Without her authorization by apparently taking these items from her purse Without her knowledge 0r consent 100. At all relevant times, KOECHLIN was the lawful owner 0fher checks, credit cards and the funds used t0 pay for said check and credit transactions. 101. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the Cross-defendant’s wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an amount Which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant Will seek leave 0fCourt t0 amend this complaint when the same is ascertained 0r Will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 102. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the Cross-defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as to entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth belovv. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Interference with Contract) 103. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 104. On 0r about September 2, 2020, BATTAGLIA knowingly and wrongfully posted a formal Notice t0 Vacate 0n the door OfKOECHLIN’s Tenant, falsely claiming t0 be the property owner and demanding that she vacate the property. 105. At this time, KOECHLIN was in an economic relationship With Tenant that was likely t0 benefit KOECHLIN in the form 0f rents received. 106. BATTAGLIA was aware 0f this economic relationship and intended t0 -18- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O disrupt it. 107. As a direct result 0f BATTALIA’S interference, KOECHLIN’S Tenant left the property for several weeks and KOECHLIN lost rents. 108. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the Cross-defendant's wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an amount Which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant Will seek leave 0fCourt t0 amend this complaint when the same is ascertained 0r Will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 109. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the Cross-defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as t0 entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Abuse 0f Process) 110. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 111. On 0r about September 2, 2020, BATTAGLIA willfully used a part 0f the legal eviction process by posting a formal Notice t0 Vacate 0n the door 0f KOECHLIN’S Tenant falsely claiming t0 be the property owner and threatening further legal action and removal if she did not vacate the property. 112. BATTAGLIA used this legal process for a purpose for Which it is not intended - t0 harass and damage the property owner, KOECHLIN. 113. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the Cross-defendant’s wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an amount Which is unknown at this time, -19- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant Will seek leave 0fCourt t0 amend this complaint When the same is ascertained 0r Will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 114. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the Cross-defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as t0 entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Extortion) 115. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 116. On 0r about September 2, 2020, BATTAGLIA knowingly and wrongfully posted a formal Notice t0 Vacate 0n the door ofKOECHLIN’S Tenant falsely claiming t0 be the property owner and threatening further legal action and removal if she did not vacate the property. 117. As a direct result 0f BATTALIA’S threats, KOECHLIN’S tenant left the property for several weeks and KOECHLIN lost rents. 118. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the Cross-defendant's wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an amount Which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant Will seek leave 0fCourt t0 amend this complaint when the same is ascertained 0r Will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 119. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the -20- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O Cross-defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as to entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment) 120. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 121. Between March 2014 and July 2020, KOECHLIN conferred various benefits upon BATTAGLIA, including but not limited t0 use and enjoyment 0f her property and assets, monetary loans, companionship, social status, and domestic services. In addition, BATTAGLIA wrongfully took monies from KOECHLIN Without her knowledge 0r consent. 122. The benefits conferred were at KOECHLIN’S expense, including her time, effort, and monies. 123. It would be unjust for BATTAGLIA t0 retain the monies that were loaned and/or taken from KOECHLIN. In addition, it would be unjust for BATTAGLIA t0 receive KOECHLIN’S services and use 0f enjoyment 0f her property and assets at n0 cost. 124. Cross-defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense 0f Cross- complainant and shall make restitution accordingly. 125. As a direct, legal, and proximate result 0f the Cross-defendant’s wrongful conduct, Cross-complainant has been damaged in an amount Which is unknown at this time, but Which is beyond the jurisdictional minimum 0f this Court. Cross-complainant Will seek leave 0fCourt t0 amend this complaint when the same is ascertained 0r Will conform t0 proof at the time 0f trial. 126. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the -21- \DOOQQUI-PUJNr-a NNNNNNNNND-Ir-‘r-‘v-Ar-‘r-Av-ay-‘p-xp-a OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O Cross-defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as to entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set forth below. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction 0f Emotional Distress) 127. Cross-complainant hereby incorporates all the previous allegations contained in all previous paragraphs as if set forth herein in full. 128. KOECHLIN has suffered severe emotional distress as a direct result 0f BATTAGLIA’S outrageous conduct, including but not limited t0 defrauding KOECHLIN as it relates t0 BATTAGLIA’S false love and affection, marital and paternity status, education and professional status, forgery of her checks, unauthorized use 0f her credit card, harassment, interfering With third party contracts, breaching agreements, and wrongful attempts t0 deprive her 0fproperty and assets. 129. BATTAGLIA’S conduct was intenticmal, despicable, malicious, and done for the purpose 0f causing emotional distress. 130. As a direct result 0f BATTAGLIA’S outrageous conduct, KOECHLIN has suffered physical, emotional, and psychological damage including but not limited t0 anxiety, weight loss, and loss 0f sleep. In December 2020, KOECHLIN commenced therapy due t0 this emotional distress and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. 131. In doing the acts herein alleged, the Cross-defendant acted With malice, oppression and in conscious disregard 0f the rights 0f the Cross-complainant. The acts 0f the Cross-defendant were such as t0 be so outrageous as t0 entitle Cross-complainant t0 punitive and exemplary damages against Cross-defendant in an amount t0 be determined at the time 0f trial. WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as hereinafter more fully set -22- \DOOQGUI-PUJNv-a NNNNNNNNNr-Ir-b-‘r-Ar-r-Ar-AHHH OOQQUI-RUJNHOGOOQQUI-waP-‘O forth below. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Cross-complainant prays for judgment as follows: 1. 2 3. 4 For general damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial, Which is at least $300,000; For special damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial, Which is at least $1,000,000; For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial; For declaratory reliefthat the Wine in the cellar at Cross-complainant’s home is her sole property; For restitution for the loss and enjoyment 0f her property; For costs 0f suit; For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper, and the law provides. Dated: May 23, 2021 Respectfully submitted, RHODES & CO. Jegniger l; gfiodes Counsel for Cross-complainant -23- EXHIBIT A ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Paul Battaglia Date: Tue, Mar 31, 201 5 at 9:02 AM Subject: hi To: Nilufer Koechlin Hi Honey, Iwanted to ask you something, but | don't like putting you on the spot, so | wanted to give you the chance to read it and be able to make a determination. Iworry about you and your health. | hear you stress about work and it kills me inside. | don't want you to be stuck in a place where you are unhappy. | want to take that burden away from you. | want to start a venture, and there is no way that | can do it without your support- both financial and mentally. If we launched a wine selling business (really nothing more than buying up other people's cellars and sending them to auction), we can easily make $5-7,000 / week. | have studied this and researched it almost obsessively and know where to find the deals and how to sell the wine- last week's trip to hawaii proved that. That was $7,000 profit in one deal- and there are so many more that are available to take advantage of. There is another deal right now in Chicago that is a minimum of $21,000 in wine available for $12,000. With no more than $30,000 we could get this thing off the ground- in 2 months we will have doubled the money- on that i am 100% positive. | will keep each and every receipt to prove that | don't know if you are in a position with your investments to come up with $25,000- but if you are, i really would like to give this a shot. | hope that you believe in me- | would never let you down. | can't do it without you. And if you are serious about quitting by end of the year, | would like to start this sooner than later, so that we can generate some serious traction with it, and you can leave work with greater peace of mind. All of this is going straight to auction- i have even negotiated reduced auction fees from K&L for the volume that we would be consigning. If you can do this, | would appreciate it- | know | would be good at it, and Iwould be easing your burden. Please let me know if you have the financial ability to contribute. Iwould fly out tomorrow to Chicago and get the deal that is there, and come back thurs- he has already set it aside for me. Unlike the last deal, this would simply be a cashier's check. All we need to do is one big deal a week and we are offsetting your salary. Please let me know your thoughts. here is a link to the deal in Chicago: http://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7& t=1 13235 | love you. Love, paul EXHIBIT B ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Paul Battaglia Date: Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:47 PM Subject: promissory agreement between Paul Battaglia and Nilufer Koechlin To: mvariba@vahoo.com This document serves as a contract between Nilufer Koechlin and Paul Battaglia entered into on May 14, 2015. This contract is in regards to the $46,000 that Nilufer Koechlin has invested in wine. Should their relationship terminate at any time with any debts outstanding, regardless of amount, Paul Battaglia would give Nilufer Koechlin all of the wine that is at the home they currently share. In addition, Paul Battaglia agrees to pay Nilufer Koechlin $2000/month to assist with household expenses and other bills. This money is separate from the $46,000 that Paul Battaglia owes Nilufer Koechlin. This contract has been entered into willingly by both parties. Paul Battaglia May 14, 201 5