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
COMPLAINT
Monica Main
Address
City, ST ZIP Code
Phone | Fax
Email
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MONICA MAIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VICTORIA STRAUSS; JOHN AND JANE
DOES 1-10; AND ABC CORPS 1-10,
Defendants
Case No.:
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, MONICA MAIN (“Plaintiff”), by way of Complaint, hereby alleges:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Plaintiff is a resident of
California and, upon information and belief, Defendant Victoria Strauss is a resident of
Massachusetts, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any and all
state law claims which are alleged within this Complaint, because diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is hereby satisfied.
3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Plaintiff resides in this
District and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in
this district.
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
COMPLAINT
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff, Monica Main is a resident of California with an address of INSERT
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Victoria Strauss is a resident of Massachusetts.
6. Defendants, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 are heretofore unidentified individuals who
are owners, operators, writers, employees, agents, servants, or contributors of the website
“Writer Beware Blog.”
7. Defendants, ABC CORPS 1-10 are heretofore unidentified business entities who are
owners, operators, supporters, managers, directors, or executives of “Writer Beware
Blog.”
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
8. Plaintiff is an entrepreneur with over 25 years of real-world experience in all types of
businesses and investments.
9. Plaintiff is a best-selling author on Amazon.
10. Plaintiff also runs a series of websites and workshops which are aimed at providing
individuals with business and investment advice.
11. Plaintiff runs the website “MonicaMain.com” which is dedicated to teaching individuals
on numerous business and investment topics, including teaching individuals about
income real estate, financial freedom, and promoting financial freedom.
12. Plaintiff is also the author of book “The Lost Secret” which is consistent with the goals
set forth above.
13. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Judith McNaught, an author, as a partner for
Plaintiff’s business and lawful enterprise.
14. However, on September 3, 2021, Defendant Victoria Strauss published an article “Very
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
COMPLAINT
Weird Solicitation Alert” Monica Susan Main” containing libelous, defamatory, untrue,
and false remarks regarding Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s business, as well as Plaintiff’s
relationship with Judith McNaught.
15. Indeed, the article falsely and baselessly claims that Plaintiff has engaged in a “scheme”
which is a “figment, a take-the-money-and-run of some sort”.
16. Despite the numerous accusations and allegations, Defendant admits that she doesn’t
“know the answer, at least not yet.”
17. Defendant claims within this article that “Monica Main has a rap sheet.”
18. Defendant further sets forth disparaging and misleading information about Plaintiff
personally, which includes dedicating a portion of the article to Plaintiff’s “short sting in
federal prison, a personal bankruptcy, and a devastating two-year civil lawsuit with the
government.”
19. To make matters worse, Defendant identifies written consent by Judith McNaught for
consent to registration of a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO.
20. With respect to the above, Defendant baselessly and purposely misleads within the
article, stating: “Anyone out there with a signed McNaught book?”
21. Furthermore, Defendant then even disparages Plaintiff’s brand name and partnership,
stating “Whatever else one might make of all of this, or guess about what’s really going
on here, it’s just very, very sad that the name of such a beloved author has been attached
to such a sketchy, tacky, unprofessional venture. Judith McNaught deserves better.”
22. The allegations of Defendant are false and were made with knowledge of their falsity and
with intent to defame Plaintiff and cause monetary and financial loss.
23. Numerous individuals have read and believed the lies, untruths, deception, libel, and
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
COMPLAINT
defamatory comments of Defendant’s article.
24. The veracity of the comments is unclear and possible that Defendant has fabricated same
in an attempt to further the defamatory statements and fabricate the article’s recognition
as legitimate.
25. For example, commentor “Margaret S. Hamilton” states: “It looks like a scam and I
pitched it.”
26. For example, commentor Pauline Tso states: “I would think that just because this person
has filed a trademark application for McNaught’s name doesn’t necessarily mean she has
McNaught’s permission to do that. If I’m correct, I’d hope McNaught’s agent pursues
legal action.”
27. No legal action has been taken by McNaught.
28. Other commentors have taken the article as fact, stating: “I applaud you for your tenacity
in finding the truth.”
29. Other commentors have understood Defendant’s article to mean that Plaintiff has
engaged in patent wrongdoing. For example, “Anonymous” stated: “using a senior
citizen’s name like this screams of elder abuse by someone.”
30. In another example, “Anonymous” stated: “This looks like elder financial abuse.”
31. Another commentor, Miranda, stated: “This is obviously a scam by someone using her
name, thinking that she will never find out.”
32. The website is available publicly on the internet and is accessible all across the world.
33. In December 2021 and January 2022, Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist notices to Victoria
Strauss and Writers Beware, requiring them to remove the defamatory statements in good
faith, but they rejected Plaintiff’s olive branch, forcing her to file this lawsuit.
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
COMPLAINT
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIF
DEFAMATION – 28 U.S.C. § 4101
34. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 30 of
this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
35. Under longstanding American law, a person is injured when a defamatory statement “that
would subject him to hatred, contempt or ridicule” is published to a third party. Milkovich
v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 13, 110 S. Ct. 2695, 111 L. Ed. 2d 1.
36. A public figure plaintiff must show the falsity of the statements at issue in order to
prevail in a suit for defamation. See Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964)
(reading New York Times for the proposition that “a public official is allowed the civil
defamation remedy only if he establishes that the utterance was false”). See also Herbert
v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 176 (1979) (“The plaintiff must focus on the editorial process
and prove a false publication attended by some degree of culpability).
37. A crucial element of defamation is actual malice as opposed to relying on a biased
source. In 1964, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United
States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel
only if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers and
not rely on one biased source. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge
that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not" without relying on a biased source. This decision was later
extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the
case of private individuals.
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
COMPLAINT
38. Actual malice and bias are evident when Defendant removed a comment from its website
that was posted by an attorney in January 2022 based on actual facts. Defendant did not
want readers of the website to know the truth regarding the whole situation, but to
continue relying on the lies peddled by Defendant.
39. Defendants, including Defendant Victoria Strauss, did so defame, slander, and commit
libel as to Plaintiff.
40. Defendants, including Defendant Victoria Strauss, have caused damage to the reputation
of Plaintiff.
41. Defendants, including Defendant Victoria Strauss, have caused emotional distress to
Plaintiff.
42. Defendants, including Defendant Victoria Strauss, have presented Plaintiff in a false
light, have resulted in criticism of Plaintiff, have dishonored Plaintiff, and have
condemned Plaintiff.
43. Defendants, including Defendant Victoria Strauss, acted with the knowledge of the falsity
of the allegations which give rise to this lawsuit.
44. Defendants, including Defendant Victoria Strauss, have acted with the intent to defame
Plaintiff and to cause monetary and financial loss of the Plaintiff.
45. The false statements giving rise to this lawsuit were published with malice.
46. Plaintiff has been damaged by these false statements because they subject Plaintiff to
hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
47. Plaintiff has been damaged by these false statements because the statements injured
Plaintiff in her business and profession.
48. Plaintiff has been damaged by these false statements because the statements attribute
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
COMPLAINT
conduct, characteristics, motives, intents, and actions to Plaintiff which are false and
intended to anger, incite, or discourage individuals from trusting Plaintiff or utilizing
Plaintiff’s professional services.
49. Plaintiff has been damaged by the loss of good-will, fame, reputation, and Plaintiff’s
name has been tarnished as a result of Defendant’s conduct.
50. Plaintiff has been damaged by the loss of business and monetary payments which would
have been received had Defendant’s defamatory comments not been present on the
internet.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendants, including Defendant
Victoria Strauss, as follows:
1. Awarding Plaintiff all compensatory damages including consequential and incidental
damages as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, in an amount to be determined at Trial.
2. Awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, including filing and any motions,
expenses, or other costs.
3. Requiring Defendant to delete the defamatory article from the Writer Beware Blog.
4. Requiring Defendant to publish a public apology retracting the defamatory statements.
5. Granting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from making
further defamatory remarks, comments, and articles.
6. Such further relief as this Court deems proper and just.
PRAYER FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, MONICA MAIN, prays for a Jury Trial on all issues so triable.
DATE: 1/27/2024
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
COMPLAINT
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )