Fasinating reading in 23 parts on LOW CARB EXAMINER

I love that Judge

To all Ducks

Today, October 29, 2010, Judge Rick Brown of the Riverside County Superior Court entered a verdict for the plaintiffs in a certified national class action lawsuit. The court entered a verdict against Heidi Diaz the owner of the diet website Kimkins.com for fraud and false advertising. The court awarded the class members restitution in the amount of $1,824,210.39. The court also awarded an additional $500,000 in punitive damages as well as attorney fees. The court then issued a temporary restraining order to freeze all of the assets of Ms. Diaz.

Most notably, the court also imposed an injunction requiring Heidi Diaz to post on all of her websites that: (1) she lied about her weight loss; (2) she lied about her after diet pictures; (3) she lied about testimonials on her website; and (4) she lied about the photographs used with the testimonials to promote the Kimkins website.

An injunction was also issued to prevent Heidi Diaz from contracting, harassing or cyberbulling the plaintiffs and the witnesses. A formal judgment will be entered before November 19, 2010.

The original complaint was filed over three years ago on October 15, 2007. I want to thank everyone who supported the class action lawsuit. The Ducks were wonderful. I met a lot of great people and made a lot of new friends fighting for a good cause. Heidi Diaz lied on her website and made the fatal mistake of lying in the courtroom. You cannot trust Heidi Diaz. I anticipate more legal (illegal) maneuvering by Heidi Diaz to evade the judgment. We will be prepared and I will be relentless. Again, I thank all you.

John E. Tiedt
TIEDT & HURD

EDITED to add
hear John talk about the case on the Jimmy Moore podcast
to get to John’s part
start the podcast
left click on the left sife of the bar showing the time gone in the podcast.
slide it to the right until you get to 47:14 and John will start talking in detail about the case and the court hearing.

the DUCKs are ungagged and here is the judgement details.

Originally Posted on LCFs by Mom 2 Eli

Ok … I’m released to share!!!

The Court found in favor of the plaintiffs on all points.

We have a judgement based on fraud for $1.8 Million.

We have punitive damages for $500,000

We have injunctive relief, which includes she can not further lie to promote her diet. She can not use fake photos, success stories or testimonials to promote her diet.

While we won’t see a court ordered 404 message we got something even better.

Heidi must put a notice on ANY website she starts for any purpose, diet or otherwise, that explains that she lied, used fake success stories and testimonials, that she mislead, that she used deceptive practices. She is going to have to post a notice that explains that low calorie diets can be dangerous, with a list of possible adverse side effects (the wording of the notice is to be worked out between the lawyers and the judge). There is NO expiration of these notices.

The Judge included a PERMANENT restraining order wherein Heidi (or any of her socks) are prohibited against contacting in ANY form with any/all class members, class plaintiffs, lawyers, their families, their staffs (which includes me, Laura) for the rest of our lives.

Oh, all of her assets have been frozen until the judgement is entered and served.

This may be appealed, of course, but today, WE WON!!!!!

Every time I put one of those exhibits into John’s hand to stick up on the elmo I thought of all of you guys. Tons and tons of hours of digging and follow rabbit trails has paid off.

The DUCKs won!!!

Details have not been released other then 1.8 million.

Friday morning update seems those lawyers are still talking in the court room so we will just have to wait to toss the confetti pop the corks and celebrate the demise of that nutrtionally bankrupt diet website and the lying liar who lies being found guilty of fraud in the civil case.

Hope that Riverside DA is gathering all the testimony from the civil case to use in Kimmer’s criminal case they will be filing. The 5th can’t be invoked for testimony she already made. 🙂 

FYI UPDATE  DUCKs are gagged by John and can’t release the juicey court testimony yet BUT a verdict will be rendered Friday OCt 29th At 10:30 AM  CA time so check the blogs for updates and LCFs Kimkins section for all the details when John turns our brave court veteran DUCKies loose!

I know everybody is anxiously awaiting news from Riverside about how the kimkins.con court case is going.
Here’s what I want to know?

Did Kimmer AKA Heidi Diaz show up? Yes she did
Has she lost weight sisnce the infamous red dress deposistion? Nope she hasn’t

Any last minute legal trickery by Kimmer’s side?

How did grans testimony go?
Are the attending DUCKS holding up okay?

DId the reporter who did the show about Kimkins.con report on the trial starting?

for those wanting the fastest updates check out the Kimkins court update topic at LCFs

here is a copy of the official notice. If anybody wants to opt out so they can sue Kimmer AKA Heidi Diaz, or  kimkins,con independantly of the class for damages it tell you how near the bottom.

 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

 TO: EVERYONE WHO PURCHASED A MEMBERSHIP TO KIMKINS.COM THROUGH THE KIMKINS.COM WEB SITE (www.kimkins.com) FROM JANUARY 1, 2006 TO OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT THAT IS CURRENTLY PENDING IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, IN RIVERSIDE, CALILFORNIA.

INTRODUCTION

1. On May 20, 2009, the Riverside County Superior Court, located in Riverside, California, issued an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action.

2. The plaintiffs are six individuals who bought memberships to kimkins.com through the kimkins.com Website (www.kimkins.com) from January 1, 2006 to October 15, 2007. The defendants are Heidi Diaz, an individual, and Kimkins (also known as Kimkins.com), a business entity that conducts business in Corona, California.

 3. The plaintiffs contend that Diaz and Kimkins.com induced them into buying memberships for kimkins.com through false and misleading information provided on the Kimkins.com Web site. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., which authorizes courts to provide relief from unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices. The plaintiffs also contend that Diaz and Kimkins.com violated common law prohibitions against fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

4. This notice provides you with information regarding the litigation, including the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants and the current status of the litigation. This notice also provides you with information regarding the court’s class-certification order.

THE LITIGATION

The Plaintiffs’ Claims

5. This lawsuit is based on the plaintiffs’ claims that Diaz and Kimkins used unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices to induce them into buying memberships to Kimkins.com. This lawsuit is also based on the plaintiffs’ claims that the false and misleading information contained on the kimkins.com Web site constituted fraud or negligent misrepresentation by Diaz and Kimkins.

6. Here’s a list of the kinds of misconduct that the plaintiffs have alleged: • that Diaz and Kimkins concocted a false persona, “Kim Drake” or “Kimmer” to sell memberships to Kimkins.com • that Diaz and Kimkins misled potential members into believing that “Kim Drake” was real by using photos of real women and then falsely claiming that the photos depicted “Drake” • that Diaz and Kimkins posted lied about “Drake’s” purported weight loss • that Diaz and Kimkins provided false or misleading information to Women’s World magazine • that Diaz and Kimkins fabricated 41 “success stories” and published on the Kimkins.com Web • that Diaz and Kimkins made up celebrity endorsements • that Diaz and Kimkins misused labels and metatags to steer Internet traffic to the Kimkins.com Website, in violation of the law • that Diaz and Kimkins misled potential members into believing that they were buying lifetime memberships, when in fact Diaz and Kimkins.com terminated memberships at their whim • that Diaz and Kimkins intended to mislead potential members and assumed that potential members would rely on her misrepresentations. The Defendants’ Position

7. Diaz and Kimkins have denied all allegations of wrongdoing and liability, and they continue to deny that they have done anything wrong. Diaz and Kimkins also have asserted various affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims.

THE COURT’S CLASS-CERTIFICATION ORDER

8. In an order filed May 20, 2009, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Court certified for class treatment the plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief, including disgorgement of the subscription fees paid to Diaz and Kimkins by the plaintiffs and the members of the class.

 

 9. The certified class is defined as all individuals who purchased the Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007. THE COURT HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINIONS REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

10. The Court ordered that this notice be provided to advise class members that this case is pending and that the Court has certified the case to proceed as a class action. You should not consider this notice or its mailing to be a statement by the Court that the plaintiffs are right or that their claims will prevail.

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLASS MEMBERS

11. You do not need to do anything to remain a member of the class. If you bought a Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007—including either of those dates—you are automatically included in the class. Your rights will be represented by the plaintiffs and their attorneys. You will not be personally responsible for any attorney fees or for the any of the costs of this litigation.

 OPT OUT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

12. You have the opportunity to opt out of the class action lawsuit as detailed herein. If you incurred a personal injury as a result of using the Kimkins.com aka Kimkins Diet, you have a right to opt out. Notices to opt must be sent to jtiedt@tiedtlaw.com or mailed to Tiedt & Hurd at 980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209, Corona, California 92879.

WHERE TO GO & WHOM TO CONTACT SHOULD YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION

13. This notice provides only a brief summary of this litigation. For further details, you should take one or both of the following steps: • Review the documents in the Court’s file for this lawsuit. Many of these documents may be viewed or obtained on-line at the following URL: http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/ . You also may review the Court’s file in person by going to the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the Riverside Superior Court, during regular business hours. The Clerk’s office is located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California 92501. • Write a letter to the attorneys who are representing the plaintiffs and whom the Court has appointed to represent the class. Here are their names and their contact information: John E. Tiedt & Marc S. Hurd Tiedt & Hurd 980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209 Corona, California 92879 Michael L. Cohen Michael L. Cohen, a PLC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100 Los Angeles, California 90017 Ray Moore Moore Winter McLennan LLP 701 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 200 Glendale, California 92103-4232 If you decide to contact one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, please do so in writing. To make it easier for them or one of their staff members to respond, however, your letter should include both your e-mail address and your telephone number. There are estimated to be as many as 40,000 members in the class. So please, DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE COURT BY E-MAIL. DATE: ___________________________, 2009 ____________________________________ Hon. _________________________, Presiding Judge

The Judge left nothing to the imagination nor interpretation for Heidi realted to what has to be posted on the Kimkins.con website and where.

 

COURTS SUBSEQUENT RULING ON 11/02/09 @ 08:00 FOR DEPARTMENT RIDST
11/02/2009 – 8:00 AM DEPT. 05

HONORABLE MARK E JOHNSON, PRESIDING
CLERK: M. MARTINEZ
COURT REPORTER: NONE
COURT SUBSEQUENTLY RULES:
ORDER REGARDING CLASS THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER REGARDING
CLASS NOTICE. THE NOTICE SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS:
HEIDI DIAZ AND KIMKINS.COM ARE DEFENDANTS IN A LAWSUIT THAT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED AS A NATIONWIDE
CLASS ACTION: JEANESSA FENDERSON, ET AL. V HEIDI DIAZ, ET AL., CASE NO. RIC483005, PENDING IN THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA. TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE LAWSUIT,
PLEASE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK:
THE TEXT SHOULD BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED ON THE LOWER HALF OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE KIMKINS.COM
WEB SITE. IT SHOULD BE 12 POINT, TIMES NEW ROMAN FONT WITH A BOX AROUND IT AS ABOVE.
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING RE: MINUTE ORDER
NOTICE SENT TO MICHAEL L COHEN A PROFESSIONALLAW CORP ON 11/02/09
NOTICE SENT TO MOORE WINTER MCLENNAN LLP ON 11/02/09
NOTICE SENT TO TIEDT & HURD ON 11/02/09
NOTICE SENT TO LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY P PEABODY ON 11/02/09
NOTICE SENT TO LAW OFFICES OF COTTLE & KEMP ON 11/02/09
NOTICE SENT TO COTTLE & KEEN ON 11/02/09

Kimmer, AKA Heidi Diaz, has been ordered by the judge to post on the Kimkins.con site the notice telling member who wish to opt out of the class action settlement what they need to do.

the final wording of this message will be approved in court on OCT 29 2009

 

Can’t wait to see how Kimmer spins this one after telling the kimkins.con membership that the class action suit was denied just one month ago.

 

it will also be posted on one of the DUCKs blogs

Kimmer has been posting inside the kimpire that the summary judgement was denied.

However the word denied never appears in the ruling. The judge said the motions were premature and the following needed to be done.

the court ordered Kimmer’s side to meet with John on OCT 15th in DEPT 5 of the court to discuss a method to notify potential class reps ( that would be all memebers of kimkins.con before Oct of 07), extent of damages incurred, and details of opting out for those who don’t want to be covered by the judgement should they wish to sue for damages too.

it is a far cry from being denied.
here is a copy of court order so everybody can see it

there’s a new message out about the kimkins Fraud class action case.
This is not a binding legal action yet.