PS sucks

Unethical VC Company, Momentum Capital Ventures
Being Sued After Defrauding Their Client:
Goldner vs
Momentum Capital Ventures
https://www.facebook.com/MomentumCapitalVenturersVsGoldner/

How David Goldner's Artwork & Belongings Ended Up With
The Scofflaw Corporate Whores
at Public Storage...

Momentum Capital Ventures Lawsuit
Text below taken directly from the lawsuit, Momentum Vs Goldner...

        In May of 2014, PLAINTIFF started soliciting multiple Venture Capital Company’s interested in funding Film and TV Production, with the goal of finding a funding source for one or more of the several different production projects PLAINTIFF was trying to develop at that time.  The First Project was a short Science Fiction film done as a 3D Animation, and is titled “Threshold of Oblivion”.  This was a production that PLAINTIFF had already been working on and investing his own money in for several months already.  The Second Project was a full length feature Science Fiction Action Script titled “Mind T.A.P.”, that PLAINTIFF had written and hoped to direct himself.  And the third project was an Erotic Art Based Reality Show called “The Pin Up” that would feature beautiful women and GOLDNER’S Erotic Hand Painted Pin Up Photography, something that had been GOLDNER’S specialty since the 1980’s when PLAINTIFF was shooting for Playboy Magazine.
        The first week in May 2014, PLAINTIFF started to promote these three projects on line with the hope of finding VC funding and was quick to realize that his Erotic Reality Show “The Pin Up” was the one project out of the three that got the most attention, and the most response back from potential VC Funders as well as veteran Producers and Production Companies that had access to Production Funding, or at least claimed to, including a contact on May 22nd, 2014 from DEFENDANTS in response to a posting PLAINTIFF had put up on Facebook. 
        Momentum Capital Ventures LLC wrote to PLAINTIFF: "What is the investment amount you seek?"  This message was PLAINTIFF’S first contact with DEFENDANTS and the first of many correspondents via email as well as via phone, that PLAINTIFF had with JOSHUA SODAITIS and his partner JUSTIN LEE at MOMENTUM CAPITAL VENTURES.
        PLAINTIFF sent JOSHUA SODAITIS and MOMENTUM CAPITAL VENTURES several communications over the next few days, including the budget breakdown he had created to shoot the Pilot, the written concept for the show and what would be involved, and an array of examples of GOLDNER’S Playboy work and his unique Hand Painted Pin Up Art. 
        GOLDNER was looking for $100,000. in funding in order to be able to shoot the pilot he had budgeted at 30 to $35,000, then quickly get it out into the market place to potential clients, while still having enough production funding to be able to keep moving forward and start shooting the first several episodes that he planned to shoot back to back in order to save money and time, and do so as the Pilot and Teasers from the Series was solicited and sold to more venues and broadcasters.
        At the same time, PLAINTIFF was excited about receiving “A Letter of Intent to Broadcast The Pin Up” from one of the independent Broadcast stations he had pitched the concept to, a letter that we will be submitting as evidence, that PLAINTIFF was sent from MADDY GTV, a fast growing broadcast station on the Roku Cable System.  PLAINTIFF had solicited them as a possible broadcaster for his reality show because the bulk of MADDY GTV’s programming was Reality TV.  As well, the Program Director at MADDY GTV loved The Pin Up’s erotic concept because MADDY GTV was licensed to broadcast nudity, and they very quickly agreed in writing with their Letter of Intent to air GOLDNER’S Pilot and the Series “The Pin Up”, once PLAINTIFF had the content ready for broadcast.  PLAINTIFF also secured his first sponsor for the show in those first few weeks of promotion, SAMY’S CAMERA, one of the biggest camera stores on the west coast who had agreed to supply all the equipment needed to help facilitate the production of “The Pin Up”.
        PLAINTIFF immediately and proudly sent out an email to the Funders and Producers he had been soliciting, and announced he had received a “Letter of Intent to air The Pin Up” and that he also had secured The Pin Up’s first sponsor, and in just the first few weeks of solicitation.
        MOMENTUM CAPITAL VENTURES responded back to PLAINTIFF and now seemed very interested in funding the production, but only under the condition that JOSHUA SODAITIS, JUSTIN LEE and one other partner would personally be involved in the production as Producers.
        PLAINTIFF was really only looking for funding, but actually like this idea because he felt MOMENTUM and the financial backing they said they could offer would be there to help the production expand into the future, if need be.  And since Executive Producers are usually the production funders on any production, PLAINTIFF believed DEFENDANTS would indeed help the production quickly proceed forward, and so PLAINTIFF did agree to have MOMENTUM as a production partner on this project and they proceeded to work out a deal.
        The following week, about the last week of May, 2014, MOMENTUM sent GOLDNER a Term Sheet to look over and consider for their venture.  But unfortunately, that first contract DEFENDANTS had sent to PLAINTIFF was so one sided in favor of MOMENTUM CAPITAL VENTURES, that PLAINTIFF rejected the contract out right.
        But DEFENDANTS were not deterred and continued to negotiate with PLAINTIFF, and the following week, about the first week of June, MOMENTUM and PLAINTIFF did indeed negotiate a more equal and equitable deal that PLAINTIFF could agree upon.  The new deal was still very much in MOMENTUM’S controlling favor since they were supplying the funding, but with a option for PLAINTIFF to at some future point acquire or buy back at market value the controlling aspects of the shows production.  DEFENDANTS told PLAINTIFF they would get him the new Term Sheet to sign as soon as possible.
        At this point, with PLAINTIFF’S verbal agreement with DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF did indeed stop soliciting for funding sources and started to excitedly move forward with making “The Pin Up” a reality, now contacting possible crew members for the show, Directors of Photography, Make-up Artists, stylists… these were production crew members who PLAINTIFF had worked with over the years and would now be on Camera as the Artist behind the scenes that help make it all happen, and would be part of the show and part of the creation of that weeks “Pin Up”.
        PLAINTIFF also started to work on the actual Pin Up concept he wanted to shoot for the pilot which was “A Mermaid in a Glass Fish Bowl” and would involve Photo Realistic 3D mixed with GOLDNER’S Erotic Photography of the first Pin Up Model they selected for the pilot.  PLAINTIFF has been a perpetual student all his life, always taking classes and full courses at Santa Monica College and had been back in school again enhancing his skills in 3D Animation and 3D Rendering, just prior to promoting these projects.
        PLAINTIFF not only wanted to be able to do 3D animations such as “Threshold of Oblivion”, one of the film projects he had been funding himself that he was now also trying to find outside funding for, but also wanted to bring his Painted Artwork into the 21st century with the blending of Photo Realistic 3D, including with his Erotic Pin Up Art, and had just custom built a $5000. computer specifically for doing 3D animation and rendering for his animation as well as to mix with his Painted Artwork, skills PLAINTIFF had been working at since 2003.
        One of the factors at hand that PLAINTIFF made very clear to DEFENDANTS was that ‘time was of the essence’ because the building PLAINTIFF’S live / work studio was currently in had been sold in the previous months and was about to be transferred to the new owner on July 1st, 2014.  And at that time, PLAINTIFF wants to make clear that he was already looking for other studios, but did still have the option to stay in that studio and sign a new lease with the new owners, but only planned to stay there if he was going to do the 3D Animation project.  PLAINTIFF very well knew that current studio would not be sufficient for the Reality Show, and told the new owners he would let them know either way if he was staying or would be leaving by June 15th.
        PLAINTIFF did soon after find a perfect building that had the size and character he was looking for, and was also within the budget he had set for the show.  As well, PLAINTIFF was able to persuade the real-estate agent to give him the first few weeks for free, (those last two weeks of June), agreeing to start the actual lease on July 1st, 2014.  PLAINTIFF promptly filled out an application and was quickly approved by the real-estate company and was immediately given a lease to sign, and we will be submitting that lease as evidence.
        PLAINTIFF’S actions were all part of moving forward on this production and he proudly kept his new partners at MOMENTUM, JOSHUA SODAITIS and JUSTIN LEE, fully apprised of his progress and up to date of everything he was doing regarding this new studio and planning the move, as he waited for them to send the new revised Term Sheet.
        On June 11th , PLAINTIFF finally did received the 2nd Term Sheet from DEFENDANTS and wants to note that the very first line of that contract stated: This Private Equity Agreement ("Agreement") is made and effective June 13, 2014.  And in speaking with DEFENDANTS on the phone in order to verify a few points of that 2nd contract, PLAINTIFF was told by DEFENDANTS that they would try to have the funds for PLAINTIFF on the 13th of June as well, knowing PLAINTIFF had to be out of his current live/work studio by the 15th of June. 
        PLAINTIFF therefore signed two copies of the Contract and immediately sent the copies back to DEFENDANTS for them to sign and then in turn, send PLAINTIFF back a signed copy for his records.
        At this point, PLAINTIFF herein insists there could be no doubt that he and MOMENTUM CAPITAL VENTURES had a solid deal.  This was a contract that DEFENDANTS had created and prepared themselves and therefore they very well had agreed to all the contractual terms, including the starting date of that contract on June 13th, 2014, and PLAINTIFF absolutely insists that under California Law as well as under the Legal Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, DEFENDANTS did indeed make a written contractual promise to PLAINTIFF and gave him no reason to believe otherwise when he signed the contract on the 11th of June, 2014.
        If  DEFENDANTS claim they did not have a deal with PLAINTIFF at this point, then PLAINTIFF insists he was Blatantly Lied To, Misled, Defrauded and Deceived by DEFENDANTS into believing that they did indeed have a contractual agreement that started on June 13th, 2014 and DEFENDANTS gave PLAINTIFF absolutely no reason to believe otherwise, at least for the next six weeks.
        PLAINTIFF insists that on June 13th, 2014, DEFENDANTS had a legal obligation to fulfill the contract they had entered into with PLAINTIFF under California Law as well as under the Legal Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, and again, never gave PLAINTIFF any reason to believe they did not have a contractual agreement, or that any of their actions or statements were not truthful and sincere. 
        Being that PLAINTIFF felt very secure and actually exuberant about this deal with DEFENDANTS and bringing this Reality Show idea to life, and having a lease in his hand for the new studio, PLAINTIFF did indeed give notice to the owners of his current building, making clear he was giving up that space and would try to be totally out by the 15th of June, then proceeded to pack up everything he owned for the move to that new venue.
        But then on the 13th of June, the day PLAINTIFF expected the funding from DEFENDANTS, they contacted him and he was told that their “investor” was very busy at the moment and they were trying to pin him down so they could get this deal done.
        PLAINTIFF insists that this was the first time he realized that DEFENDANTS did not actually have the funds secured themselves, and seemed to be still chasing investors, or at least this investor.  And PLAINTIFF insists that in the contract that reads: “Individual Investor will be acting Treasurer in addition to holding a board seat carrying 1 vote.”, so PLAINTIFF could only assume that the “investor” the contract referred to had agreed to this and was indeed secured and not someone still being sought after for funding.  And DEFENDANTS had those previous 10 days as they prepared that 2nd Term Sheet to make sure all production funding they were offering in the contract was actually secured before presenting that contract to PLAINTIFF.
        PLAINTIFF reminded DEFENDANTS again that time was of the essence because of his deadline to be out of his current studio in 2 days, on the 15th of June, 2014, and was quickly assured by DEFENDANTS that they were trying to make this happen right away, and apologized for the delay.
        Unfortunately for PLAINTIFF, the 15th of June, 2014, came and went and so did the excuses by DEFENDANTS about their “investor” and the funding for the show.  This put PLAINTIFF in a very bad situation with the new owners of the studio he was currently in, who wanted rent paid if PLAINTIFF was going to be staying after the 15th, as well as creating a problem with the real estate agent for the new studio, who PLAINTIFF needed to get a check to ASAP so he would not lose that space.
        DEFENDANTS then contacted PLAINTIFF and informed him that their investor had now suddenly backed out.  DEFENDANTS apologized and said this kind of thing happens, but did indeed tell PLAINTIFF not to worry, that they would find another investor, they said they just needed several more weeks to now do so.
        At this point, PLAINTIFF still could have made a deal with his new landlords to stay at his current studio for at least several more months since he had just about two months rent left in the bank after his term at school and after building the $5000. Computer for his 3D work, but DEFENDANTS never gave PLAINTIFF any reason not to trust them or not to believe that MOMENTUM was going to do exactly what they said they would do and facilitate the funding they had contractually promised, part of which was for a proper studio to shoot the show in and was in the budget he had sent to MOMENTUM.
        This was now the third week in June, and in trying to work with the situation DEFENDANTS had just put PLAINTIFF in, PLAINTIFF offered to put his entire live / work studio into storage for a few weeks and on his own dime, and then go camping in Yosemite for 3 or 4 weeks, something PLAINTIFF actually tries to do every year anyway, and in this case, was offering to do so in order to give DEFENDANTS the several more weeks they had asked for, in order to acquire the show’s funding, something PLAINTIFF very well assumed they were now contractually and ethically bound to do.
        At this point, DEFENDANTS could have backed out of their agreement and PLAINTIFF could have paid rent and stayed in that studio.  But DEFENDANTS were still confident they could find funding and gave PLAINTIFF no reason to believe they wanted to default on the funding and their contract, nor did they back out as production partners.  But PLAINTIFF was also very aware of the fact that he was still waiting for his copy of the contract to be sent back to him by DEFENDANTS, and PLAINTIFF had asked both DEFENDANTS multiple times to please send him his signed copy of the contract for his records, and was in return assured multiple times they would indeed get PLAINTIFF his copy.
        GOLDNER had advised the real estate company representing the new studio that he did indeed still want that studio and was just waiting for a check in order to give them the deposit they required on the building, at which time they informed PLAINTIFF that they hoped PLAINTIFF could get them the deposit, but unfortunately in the mean time, they had to continue to show the building to potential renters until they actually did get a deposit from PLAINTIFF.
        On the 26th of June, 2014, with PLAINTIFF relying on DEFENDANTS to actually do what they promised to do in their contract, PLAINTIFF did indeed move out of his studio at 1015 E. 8th street in downtown Los Angeles, and did put his entire live / work photography studio and 40 plus years of original photography & Artwork, into storage at a Public Storage, Inc., in the heart of the LA Arts District in downtown Los Angeles.  Then with his camping gear, his telescopes and his 2 dogs in tow, PLAINTIFF drove to Yosemite National Park in Northern California to try and relax as he camped out in the middle of the beautiful Sierras for the next several weeks, still excitedly and with full confidence that his new production partners, DEFENDANTS, would acquire the funding for their production.
        A few weeks into July 2014, PLAINTIFF contacted DEFENDANTS from Yosemite, to check on DEFENDANTS progress securing the funds, but was informed they were still looking and unfortunately had not as of yet found another funding source.  Corresponding with DEFENDANTS from Yosemite involved Driving about 35 miles from PLAINTIFF’S campsite that was up in the mountains, down into Yosemite Valley where there was cell towers and wi-fi.  So correspondence was only once or twice a week when going into the valley for supplies.  But PLAINTIFF did continue to ask about his copy of the contract he had never been sent, and does again mention this in an email he sent from Yosemite that we will present as evidence, and very well shows he was very much still expecting that copy to be sent to him and was getting curious why he still hadn’t received it.
        Then on July 23, Joshua Sodaitis sent PLAINTIFF an email that we will submit as evidence, stating that they still had not been able to find a funding source, and then casually claimed to PLAINTIFF that DEFENDANTS had never actually signed the contract, and was now, at this point in time, on July 23rd 2014, six weeks into our deal, denying that MOMENTUM CAPITAL VENTURES had any obligation to find funding for PLAINTIFF’S production, now with the Unethical and Deceitful Excuse that they didn’t actually sign the contract, and then DEFENDANTS dismissingly informed PLAINTIFF that Momentum had other obligations and would no longer be looking for funding for GOLDNER’S production.  PLAINTIFF was shocked to say the least considering they were not only to be funders per their own contract, but also production partners and at their own contractual request.  And that they were literally leaving him out in the woods!
        But what really disturbed PLAINTIFF was something very self serving that Joshua Sodaitis had written to PLAINTIFF in that Defaulting email of the 23rd of July, and very well shows that DEFENDANTS did indeed know they were leaving PLAINTIFF in a dire and detrimental situation, as JOSHUA SODAITIS apparently tries to lay the blame of MOMENTUMS Surprise Defaulting on their contract and the situation that they themselves had created for PLAINTIFF, was somehow squarely on GOLDNER himself, apparently for trusting Momentum Capital Ventures to actually honor the contract they created and had both very well agreed to.  Joshua Sodaitis wrote to PLAINTIFF in that email: “I have to say you have shaken my confidence, the lack of a back up plan and immobility that you did to yourself unfortunately, is what it is.” 
        PLAINTIFF insist that DEFENDANTS actions were Deceitful, Malicious and Blatantly Unethical for Defaulting on their own contract in the way that they did, leading PLAINTIFF to believe they had a signed deal for over six weeks, letting PLAINTIFF leave his studio and put all his belongings in storage, then Wrongfully Defaulting so far into the timeline of that agreement.  And then shamefully trying to castigate PLAINTIFF for not having a “back-up Plan” in case they Defrauded PLAINTIFF and Surprisingly Defaulted on their contract?
        PLAINTIFF must ask DEFENDANTS where was their back up plan for finding the funding they had contracted to get PLAINTIFF?  Apparently, their Back Up Plan was to Breach their Contract and Default and Defraud PLAINTIFF by telling him they didn’t actually sign the contract so they were now magically off the hook.
        PLAINTIFF concedes he is guilty of actually trusting DEFENDANTS to honor their word, as well as honor their own written contract that they themselves had created and presented to PLAINTIFF to sign and was very well led to believe they had signed as well. 
        PLAINTIFF insists DEFENDANTS Default was absolutely unethical and unjustified and we insist constitutes Gross Criminal Negligence on their behalf and by wrongfully defaulting as they did, DEFENDANTS did indeed Unethically Defraud PLAINTIFF with their actions, and did so at the extreme detriment of PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF’S Contractual rights.  PLAINTIFF insists DEFENDANTS did indeed leave him in a dire situation, and did so while dismissing their own scofflaw arrogance and their blatantly self serving excuse for their contractual default as the cause for the very situation they had created and were leaving PLAINTIFF in, as well as ignoring all their contractual obligations to PLAINTIFF and the production of “The Pin Up” that DEFENDANTS had fully agreed to be a part of as Producers and Production Partners.