JUDGE BAER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CINTAS CORPORATION, CINTASCORPORATION NO. 2, CINTASCORPORATION NO.3 and CINTASHOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiffs,

V.

UNITE HERE, CHANGE TO WIN,INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OFTEAMSTERS, BRUCE RAYNOR, AHMERQADEER, KEITH MESTRICH, ELIZABETHGRES, PETER DEMAY, KATIE UNGER,STEFAN ANTONOWICZ and DOES 1THROUGH 100,

pg CV Q185

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

Plaintiffs, Cintas Corporation, Cintas Corporation No. 2, Cintas Corporation No. 3, and

Cintas Holdings LLC (sometimes collectively referred to herein as "Plaintiffs" or "Cintas"),

through their attorneys, KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP, PLL and SQUIRE SANDERS

& DEMPSEY, LLP, allege as follows for their Complaint against Defendants UNITE HERE,

Change to Win, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Bruce Raynor, Ahmer Qadeer, Keith

Mestrich, Elizabeth Gres, Peter DeMay, Katie Unger, Stefan Antonowicz, and Does 1 through

100:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i

NATURE OF COMPLAINT ............................................................................................. 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................... 5 THE PARTIES AND THE ROLES OF THE DEFENDANTS ........................................... 6 I. THE PLAINTIFFS..................................................................................................... 6 II. THE DEFENDANTS ................................................................................................ 7 III. THE NON-PARTY PARTICIPANTS…………………………………………….. 13 IV. THE ENTERPRISES ................................................................................................ 13 FACTS RELATING TO DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL SCHEMES ............................... 14 I. BACKGROUND, FORMATION OF THE CONSPIRACY ................................... 14 A. A History of the “Corporate Campaign” ...................................................... 14 B. Extorting Companies for Union Recognition and Other Money, Property and Valuable Benefits is Defendants’ Regular Way of Conducting Business ...................................... 17 1. Angelica Corporation ........................................................................ 18 2. Sutter Health Network ...................................................................... 20 3. St. Mary’s Hospital / Superior Health Linen .................................... 22 4. Defendant CTW Member UFCW’s Campaign Against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ........................................................................ 23 5. Defendant CTW Member SEIU’s Campaign Against Wackenhut Corporation .................................................................... 25 6. Defendant CTW Member UFCW’s Campaign Against Smithfield Foods, Inc. ....................................................................... 28 C. Defendants Make Cintas a Target of Their Extortion Schemes ........................................................................................................ 29 1. Formation of the Conspiracy ............................................................ 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

ii

2. Announcement of the Campaign; Delivery of the Threat ....................................................................... 30 II. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES IN FURTHERANCE OF THEIR EXTORTION SCHEMES ....................................... 34 A. Interference With Cintas’s Business Relations……………………………. 34 1. Dissemination of False and/or Negative Information ....................... 35 2. Defendants’ Use of the Internet ........................................................ 38 a. The “Cintas Exposed” Website ............................................. 39 (1) Purported “Consumer Bulletins” .............................. 39 (2) Tools for Cintas Customers ...................................... 41 (3) “Customers Speak Out” ............................................ 43 b. The “Uniform Justice” Website ............................................ 44 c. Defendant Change to Win’s Website .................................... 46 d. Defendant Teamsters’ Website ............................................. 47 3. The “Not On My Track” Campaign .................................................. 48 4. Defendants Have Used Their Websites to Intentionally Interfere with Cintas’s Existing and Prospective Business Relations ............................................................................ 50 B. Efforts to Drive Down the Value of Cintas’s Stock ..................................... 52

1. Direct Communications With Cintas Shareholders………………… 53 2. Publication and Distribution of the Uniform Watch Newsletter…… 53

3. Defamation; False Accusations of Insider Trading………………... 55

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

iii

a. Richard Farmer’s Sale of Cintas Stock; Defendant UNITE HERE’s Attempt to Link That Sale to Inside Information............................................................ 55 b. Defendants UNITE HERE and Liz Gres Cause False and Defamatory Press Release to be Disseminated to National Wire Services in an Effort to Deflate the Price of Cintas Stock...................................................... 57 c. Defendant UNITE HERE Used the Engineered Drop in Stock Price as a Basis for Accusing Richard Farmer of Engaging in Illegal Insider Trading ..................................... 61 C. Violations of Federal Privacy Statutes .................................................... 64 D. Forgery and Impersonating Cintas Employees ....................................... 65 E. Theft of Cintas Property; Trespass; Misappropriation of Trade Secret ........................................................................................ 66 III. THE IMPACT ON CINTAS AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE .................... 70 IV. DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS CUMULATIVELY ARE IN VIOLATION OF LAW AND ESTABLISH A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY .................................................................... 71 FACTS RELATING TO DEFENDANTS’ TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ……………………………………………………………………… 73 I. DEFENDANT UNITE HERE’S WEBSITES …………………………………. 73 II. DEFENDANT UNITE HERE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CINTAS’S TRADEMARK RIGHTS ......................................................................................78 CAUSES OF ACTION ..................................................................................................84 COUNT ONE Violation of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants……………………… 84

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

iv

COUNT TWO Violation of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(c) Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants……………………………………85 COUNT THREE Violation of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(a) Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants……………………….… 86 COUNT FOUR Violation of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(b) Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants………………………….87 COUNT FIVE Violation of Ohio Corrupt Practices Act Ohio Revised Code § 2923.32(A)(1) Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants………………………….89 COUNT SIX Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a) Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants………..90 COUNT SEVEN Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants………..91 COUNT EIGHT Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants………..92 COUNT NINE Violation of Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A) Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants……….93 COUNT TEN Trademark Infringement, O.R.C. § 1329.65 and Ohio Common Law Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants……….95

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

v

COUNT ELEVEN Trademark Dilution, Ohio Common Law Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants……….95 COUNT TWELVE Violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.R.C. § 4165.02 Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants……….96 COUNT THIRTEEN Unfair Competition, Ohio Common Law Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants……….97 COUNT FOURTEEN Defamation, Ohio Common Law Against Defendants UNITE HERE and Liz Gres………………………………………….98 PRAYER FOR RELIEF …………………………………………………………………..99

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

1. This is an action for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1964 (including violations of the federal Hobbs

Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and the federal Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952); federal trademark

infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a); federal trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. §

1125(c); federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); violations of the federal

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); violations of the Ohio

Corrupt Practices Act, Ohio Revised Code §§ 2923.32 and 2923.34 (including extortion under

Ohio Revised Code § 2905.11 and forgery under Ohio Revised Code § 2913.31); trademark

infringement under Ohio Revised Code § 1329.65 and Ohio common law; trademark dilution

under Ohio common law; violations the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Revise

Code § 4165.02; unfair competition under Ohio common law; other tortious and deceptive

trade practices arising under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., and the

common law and statutes of the State of Ohio; and defamation under the common law of the

State of Ohio.

2. Cintas brings this action to put an end to Defendants’ extortionate conduct, to

vindicate Cintas’s right to control and operate its business free from Defendants’ extortion, to

protect Cintas’s valuable trademark rights, and to recover damages for the substantial

economic injury Cintas has sustained as a result of Defendants’ unlawful “corporate

campaign” and defamation against the company.

3. Cintas, a publicly traded company, is the largest uniform supplier in North

America. The company, along with its various affiliated companies, services more than

2

800,000 clients and operates more than 400 facilities across North America, including 11

manufacturing plants and seven distribution centers employing more than 34,000 people.

4. The Defendants in this case are three labor organizations and their operatives

who have made it clear that “organizing the unorganized” workers in various industries,

including laundries and uniform rental companies, is their “top priority.” [Exhibit 1].

5. By 2003, Defendants realized that Cintas’s tremendous success and rapid

expansion in the rental uniform business was jeopardizing Defendants’ ability to organize

workers in this sector of the economy. Defendants concluded that unionizing Cintas’s

employees was the only way to increase overall membership in this important business sector.

There was, however, a serious obstacle standing in the way of Defendants’ efforts to unionize

Cintas’s employees; that is, Cintas’s employees already enjoyed competitive wages and

healthcare and retirement benefits, and the overwhelming majority of Cintas’s employees

simply were not interested in becoming members of labor unions like Defendants UNITE

HERE and the Teamsters.

6. Faced with this reality, Defendants concluded they could never become the

official bargaining representative for Cintas’s employees through the normal democratic

processes specified in federal labor law (whereby employees petition the National Labor

Relations Board (“NLRB”) to hold a secret-ballot election in which employees freely decide

for themselves whether or not to join a union).

7. Unable to secure the voluntary support of a majority of Cintas’s employees,

Defendants devised a new strategy that focused on the company itself, rather than the

company’s employees. More specifically, Defendants developed an elaborate scheme to

extort concessions from Cintas’s management that would enable Defendants UNITE HERE

3

and the Teamsters to become the official bargaining representatives for Cintas’s employees

without providing those employees the opportunity to freely elect union representation

through a secret ballot election. Defendants conspired to extort from Cintas the so-called

“voluntary” recognition of Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters by inflicting

economic damage on the company until Cintas either agrees to Defendants’ demands or is

forced out of business. In doing so, Defendants made Cintas one of many victims in the long

pattern of similar extortion schemes that have been implemented by Defendants. Defendants

were joined and fortified in their schemes against Cintas and others in 2005 with the formation

of Defendant Change to Win.

8. Defendants’ extortion schemes involve a two-step process. First, Defendants

engage in a series of actions and tactics, most of which are illegal and/or tortious, designed to

cripple or materially interfere with Cintas’s business. Defendants’ tactics amount to a

campaign to exploit fear of economic loss to obtain property to which the Defendants are not

entitled. Defendants’ actions include, but are not limited to, interference with Cintas’s

existing and prospective business relations; interference with Cintas’s relationships with its

present and future shareholders; deliberate attempts to decrease the value of Cintas stock

through communications with investment advisors about Cintas’s business and labor practices;

constant dissemination of false, misleading, defamatory, damaging and/or negative

information about Cintas and its business practices to third parties damaging Cintas’s business

reputation; conducting illegal surveillance of Cintas’s employees in order to intimidate and

frighten employees from speaking out against the union; and willful infringement upon

Cintas’s trademark rights. Defendants have made it clear that they will “use every weapon in

4

[their] arsenal,” including “strategies that [they] have not used before,” [Exhibit 2] in order to

“break the back of this employer [Cintas].” [Exhibit 3].

9. Second, while pursuing the actions and tactics referenced above, Defendants

have made clear to Cintas’s management that Defendants’ campaign of extortion would cease

only on the condition that Cintas enter into a card check and neutrality agreement with

Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters. “Card-check neutrality” entails securing an

agreement from the employer that it will remain neutral on the matter of union representation,

meaning, for example, that the employer will not attempt to discuss the union with its

employees or dissuade its employees from seeking to join the union. In addition, the employer

agrees that if the union can obtain cards signed by a majority of eligible workers stating a

desire to join a union, the employer will recognize the union as the employees’ bargaining

agent without questioning the legitimacy of the signatures or how they were acquired. In

effect, “card check neutrality” results in a company’s entire workforce becoming members of

a union without the protection of NLRB oversight and without providing the employees the

opportunity to decide about union representation for themselves through a secret-ballot

election. Defendant Bruce Raynor, the General President of Defendant UNITE HERE, has

stated that “there’s no reason to subject [Cintas] workers to an election.” [Exhibit 4].

10. Defendants’ corporate campaign is designed to force Cintas to execute certain

labor agreements to which Defendants have no legal rights. Defendants’ campaign is further

designed to force Cintas to surrender to Defendants Cintas’s right to deal with its employees

directly and its right to conduct its business without union interference. Defendants’ campaign

is further designed to force Cintas to surrender to Defendants the great use and service of an

election process to which Cintas and its employees are entitled. Moreover, the signing of the

5

labor agreement is only the beginning of an ongoing relationship between Cintas and the

Defendant unions and, as such, it is likely that Defendants’ extortionate conduct will continue

even after their first goal of union recognition is achieved.

11. If Cintas gives in to Defendants’ demands, then Defendants’ ruthless corporate

campaign will temporarily end – at least against Cintas, and only for so long as Cintas

continues to give in to Defendants’ demands. If Cintas does not give in, then Defendants will

continue with their corporate campaign and their effort to destroy Cintas’s business.

12. But Cintas has remained strong and refuses to give in to Defendants’ unlawful

demands. Indeed, Cintas believes that unionization by extortion takes from Cintas and its

employees the advantages of a free and open election and, in turn, denies employees their

basic right of self-determination. Cintas has commenced this action to put an end to

Defendants’ extortionate conduct and to recover the compensation to which it is entitled under

federal and state law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1338(a) and (b), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), and 15 U.S.C. § 1121, as this is a civil action based

upon claims under the federal Lanham Act and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act. Subject matter jurisdiction also is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as this is

a civil action between citizens of different states in which the value of the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.

Supplemental jurisdiction over the state law causes of action is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367

because such state law claims are substantially related to those claims over which this Court

has original jurisdiction.

6

14. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, inter

alia, each Defendant has purposefully committed, within the State of New York, the acts from

which these claims arise and/or has committed unlawful acts outside New York, knowing and

intending that such acts would cause injury within the state. The Court also has general

personal jurisdiction over Defendants as each conducts continuous, systematic, and routine

business within this state and county.

15. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the

events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial district, and

because Defendants UNITE HERE, Change to Win, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Bruce Raynor, Ahmer Qadeer, Keith Mestrich, Elizabeth Gres, Peter DeMay, Katie Unger,

Stefan Antonowicz, and Does 1 through 100, transact business in this judicial district.

THE PARTIES AND THE ROLES OF THE DEFENDANTS

I. THE PLAINTIFFS

16. Plaintiff Cintas Corporation is organized and exists under the laws of the state

of Washington with its principal place of business located in Mason, Ohio.

17. Plaintiff Cintas Corporation No. 2 is organized and exists under the laws of the

State of Nevada with its principal place of business located in Mason, Ohio.

18. Plaintiff Cintas Corporation No. 3 is organized and exists under the laws of the

State of Nevada with its principal place of business located in Mason, Ohio.

19. Plaintiff Cintas Holdings LLC is organized and exists under the laws of the

State of Nevada with its principal place of business located in Mason, Ohio. Plaintiffs are

collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs” or “Cintas.”

20. Each of the Plaintiffs is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c),

and Ohio R.C. § 2923.31(G).

7

II. THE DEFENDANTS

21. Defendant UNITE HERE is an unincorporated labor association that, among

other things, negotiates terms and conditions of employment for the employees it represents.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant UNITE HERE, including its predecessors UNITE

(Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees) and HERE (Hotel Employees and

Restaurant Employees), is an unincorporated association consisting of more than two (2)

persons with its principal place of business located at 275 Seventh Avenue, 10th Floor, New

York, New York, 10001. Defendant UNITE HERE transacts business in interstate commerce

on a national scale, including in this judicial district. Defendant UNITE HERE claims to

represent more than 450,000 active members and more than 400,000 retirees throughout North

America. In exchange for fees in the form of union dues that are collected from its members,

Defendant UNITE HERE provides services related to the terms and conditions of

employment, as well as other products and services. Defendant UNITE HERE is a chartered

member of Defendant Change to Win, which is an affiliation of separate labor organizations

described more fully below. Defendant UNITE HERE has long sought to represent the

production workers in Cintas’s laundry facilities, but Defendant UNITE HERE currently is not

the collective bargaining agent for a majority of Cintas’s employees and, therefore, has no

right to engage in collective bargaining with, or make demands of, Cintas on behalf of these

unrepresented employees.

22. Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“Teamsters”) is an

unincorporated labor association having its principal place of business located at 25 Louisiana

Avenue NW, Washington DC 20001. With more than 1.4 million members, Defendant

Teamsters is one of the largest labor unions in the world. Defendant Teamsters is a chartered

member of Defendant Change to Win, and the Teamsters’ General President serves as a

8

member of Defendant Change to Win’s Leadership Council. Defendant Teamsters is, and at

all times mentioned herein has been, the “partner” of Defendant UNITE HERE in its corporate

campaign against Cintas. This partnership began on or around May 6, 2003 and has continued

thereafter when Defendants Teamsters and UNITE HERE agreed to “combine [ ] resources …

in a coordinated fashion to win union representation and good collective bargaining

agreements for Cintas employees.” A Coordinating Committee, comprised of three members

from each union, controlled the direction of the joint campaign. Defendant Teamsters pays

forty percent of the costs of the campaign against Cintas, with Defendant UNITE HERE

paying sixty percent. Defendant Teamsters transacts business in interstate commerce on a

national scale, including in this judicial district. Defendant Teamsters has long sought to

represent the drivers who deliver Cintas uniforms, but Defendant Teamsters currently is not

the collective bargaining agent for a majority of Cintas’s employees and, therefore, has no

right to engage in collective bargaining with, or make demands of, Cintas on behalf of these

unrepresented employees.

23. Defendant Change to Win (“CTW”) is an unincorporated labor association

having its principal place of business located at 1900 L Street NW, Suite 900, Washington,

DC 20036. Defendant CTW consists of seven separate labor organizations: Defendant

Teamsters, Laborers’ International Union of North America, Service Employees International

Union, (“SEIU”), United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, United Farm

Workers of America (“UFWA”), United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

(“UFCW”), and Defendant UNITE HERE. Defendant CTW was created in 2005 when each

of the labor organizations listed above disaffiliated from the American Federation of Labor

and Congress of Industrial Organizations (“AFL-CIO”) and joined Defendant CTW. In

9

exchange for fees in the form of a per capita tax on members, Defendant CTW provides

various services, including strategic and financial advice and assistance to its affiliated

member unions in an effort to increase union membership. The principal governing body of

Defendant CTW is a “Leadership Council” consisting of the principal officer of each affiliated

labor union, as well as three at-large members selected by the other members of the

Leadership Council. In addition to its Leadership Council, Defendant CTW operates what it

calls a “Strategic Organizing Center” which develops and implements organizing campaigns

for its affiliated unions. Defendant CTW describes its Strategic Organizing Center as a “hub

where Change to Win unions come together to integrate their organizing programs and to

launch large scale organizing campaigns” such as the wrongful corporate campaign being

waged against Cintas and others by Defendants CTW, UNITE HERE and the Teamsters.

[Exhibit 5]. Defendant CTW maintains that “at least 75 percent of [its] alliance’s resources

will be dedicated to organizing through the work of the Strategic Organizing Center.”

[Exhibit 6]. The CTW Leadership Council meets at least every two months, in part, to

coordinate the efforts of its Strategic Organizing Center. Defendant CTW transacts business

in interstate commerce on a national scale, including in this judicial district.

24. Defendant Bruce Raynor (“Raynor”) is, and at all times mentioned herein has

been, the General President of Defendant UNITE HERE. Raynor also is, and at all times

mentioned herein has been, a member of Defendant CTW’s Leadership Council. Defendant

Raynor transacts business on behalf of Defendants CTW and UNITE HERE in interstate

commerce on a national and international scale, including in this judicial district. Defendant

Raynor is an individual residing at 218 Jewett Road, Nyack, New York, 10960. Defendant

Raynor’s business address is 275 Seventh Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York, 10001.

10

25. Defendant Ahmer Qadeer (“Qadeer”) is Defendant UNITE HERE’s Deputy

Director of Strategic Affairs and is one of the chief architects of Defendants’ pattern of

racketeering activities against Cintas and others as averred herein, including, but not limited

to, overseeing all research and corporate campaign activities involving Cintas. In this regard,

Defendant Qadeer transacts business on a national scale, including within this judicial district.

Beginning on or around May 6, 2003 and continuing thereafter, Defendant Qadeer served as a

member of a “Coordinating Committee” which was comprised of three individuals from

Defendant UNITE HERE and three individuals from Defendant Teamsters. The purpose of

the Coordinating Committee was to control the direction of the extortionate activities against

Cintas that are described herein. Defendant Qadeer is an individual residing at 246

Westminster Road, Brooklyn, New York 11218-4343. Defendant Qadeer’s business address

is 275 Seventh Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York, 10001.

26. Defendant Keith Mestrich (“Mestrich”) has served as Defendant UNITE

HERE’s Director of Strategic Affairs and, more recently, as Special Assistant to the General

President, Defendant Bruce Raynor. Defendant Mestrich is one of the strategists behind

Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activities against Cintas and others as averred herein, and

in that regard, transacts business on a national scale, including within this judicial district.

Beginning on or around May 6, 2003 and continuing thereafter, Defendant Mestrich served as

a member of a “Coordinating Committee” which was comprised of three individuals from

Defendant UNITE HERE and three individuals from Teamsters. The purpose of the

Coordinating Committee was to control the direction of the extortionate activities against

Cintas that are described herein. Defendant Mestrich’s business address is 275 Seventh

Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York, 10001.

11

27. Defendant Elizabeth Gres (“Gres”) has served as an organizer for Defendant

UNITE HERE and the Organizing Director for the Cintas campaign. In her various roles with

Defendant UNITE HERE, she has had day-to-day supervisory responsibility for Defendants’

pattern of racketeering activities against Cintas and others as averred herein, and in that

regard, transacts business on a national scale, including within this judicial district. Beginning

on or around May 6, 2003 and continuing thereafter, Defendant Gres served as a member of a

“Coordinating Committee” which was comprised of three individuals from Defendant UNITE

HERE and three individuals from Defendant Teamsters. The purpose of the Coordinating

Committee was to control the direction of the extortionate activities against Cintas that are

described herein. Defendant Gres is an individual currently residing at 64 Calle Tapia, San

Juan, Puerto Rico 00911-1721. Defendant Gres’ business address is 275 Seventh Avenue,

10th Floor, New York, New York, 10001.

28. Defendant Peter DeMay (“DeMay”) previously has been in charge of

Defendant UNITE HERE’s Chicago office and has supervised and/or personally participated

in various acts that are part of Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activities against Cintas and

others as averred herein, and in that regard, transacts business on a national scale, including

within this judicial district. Defendant DeMay is an individual currently residing at 64 Calle

Tapia, Ocean Park, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00911. Defendant DeMay’s business address is

275 Seventh Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York, 10001.

29. Defendant Katie Unger (“Unger”) is an agent of Defendant UNITE HERE and

a principal operator behind the activities against Cintas and others as averred herein, and in

that regard, transacts business on a national scale, including within this judicial district.

Defendant Unger is the administrative contact listed on the registration papers for several of

12

the Internet domain names containing the CINTAS trademarks at issue in this case and used to

disseminate disparaging information in furtherance of the extortion schemes identified herein.

Defendant Unger’s business address is 275 Seventh Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New

York, 10001. (Defendants Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, Unger and DeMay are sometimes

referred to herein collectively as the “Individual Defendants”).

30. Defendant Stefan Antonowicz (“Antonowicz”) is an agent of Defendant

UNITE HERE and is one of the parties behind the activities against Cintas and others as

averred herein, and in that regard, transacts business on a national scale, including within this

judicial district. Defendant Antonowicz is the registrant of various Internet domain names at

issue in this case that have been used to disseminate disparaging information in furtherance of

the extortion schemes identified herein, including <uniformjustice.com> and

<uniformjustice.org>. Defendant Antonowicz conducts business at 542 Lattintown Road,

Marlboro, New York 12542.

31. Upon information and belief, the fictitiously named defendants sued herein as

Doe Defendants 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were in some manner responsible

or legally liable for the events, actions, transactions, and circumstances alleged herein. The

true names and capacities of these fictitiously named Defendants, whether individual,

corporate, associate, or otherwise, are at present unknown to Cintas, who will seek leave of

this Court to amend this Complaint to assert the true names and capacities of these fictitiously

named Defendants when their names and capacities have become known to Cintas. Upon

information and belief, the Doe Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees,

partners, joint-venturers, co-conspirators, owners, principals, or employees of the remaining

Defendants, and each or them are, and at all times herein mentioned were, acting within the

13

course and scope of their agency, partnership, employment, conspiracy, ownership, or joint

venture. Upon information and belief, the acts and conduct alleged herein of each Doe

Defendant were known to, authorized by, or ratified by Defendants UNITE HERE, the

Teamsters, CTW and/or the Individual Defendants.

32. Each of the Defendants is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c),

and under Ohio R.C. § 2923.31(G).

III. THE NON-PARTY PARTICIPANTS

33. The Service Employees International Union (the “SEIU”) is an unincorporated

labor association having its principal place of business located at 1800 Massachusetts Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20036. The SEIU is a chartered member of Defendant CTW.

34. The United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union (the

“UFCW”) is an unincorporated labor association having its principal place of business located

at 1775 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. The UFCW is a chartered member of

Defendant CTW.

35. Tom Woodruff is an individual and the Director of Defendant CTW’s Strategic

Organizing Center. He is also the Executive Vice-President of the SEIU. He has an office

located at 1900 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

IV. THE ENTERPRISES

36. Defendants, with the exception of Antonowicz, created, managed and/or

operated two enterprises to implement their extortion schemes: The “Extortion Enterprise” and

the “CTW Extortion Enterprise” (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Enterprises”).

37. The Enterprises each constitute an enterprise pursuant to 18 USC 1961(4) and

1962(c), and Ohio Revised Code § 2923.31(C), that engaged in and affected interstate

commerce in the United States.

14

38. The Enterprises continue to operate today and to affect the extortion schemes

against Cintas and others.

39. The Enterprises had continuity of structure and personnel because, from 2003

(in the case of the Extortion Enterprise) and 2005 (in the case of the CTW Extortion

Enterprise) through the current date, they featured a hierarchical structure wherein each of the

Defendants performed defined roles.

40. The Enterprises were separate and distinct from the pattern of racketeering in

which Defendants engaged because the Enterprises had goals other than just racketeering,

including, but not limited to, legitimate union organizing activities.

41. The Extortion Enterprise is an association-in-fact comprised of all Defendants

except Antonowicz. The Extortion Enterprise exists to provide a structure to the criminal

activities of its members. The role of each Defendant in the operation or management of the

Extortion Enterprise is generally set forth above with additional roles and actions described

further herein.

42. The CTW Extortion Enterprise is an enterprise operated and controlled, directly

or indirectly, by all Defendants except Antonowicz. The role of each of these Defendants in

the operation or management of the CTW Extortion Enterprise is set forth above with

additional roles and actions described further herein.

FACTS RELATING TO DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL SCHEMES

I. BACKGROUND, INFORMATION AND FORMATION OF THE CONSPIRACY

A. A History of the “Corporate Campaign”

43. Over the past 20 years, organized labor has been on a long downward slide.

According to Workforce Magazine, in 2002, only 13.2 percent of American workers were

15

unionized, down from nearly 36 percent in the early 1950s. Even within their own ranks,

unions have been bitterly divided over how to stem workers’ disenchantment with labor

unions. Some unions, including Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters, broke away

from the AFL-CIO in 2005 to form a rival organization called Change to Win. Unions

belonging to Defendant CTW tend to reject the democratic processes for unionization

embodied in federal labor law in favor of a more aggressive approach, which occurs outside

the control and supervision of the NLRB.

44. This more aggressive approach is often referred to as a “corporate campaign.”

A corporate campaign is a multifaceted attack on a target company designed to force the

company to recognize the union as the employees’ exclusive bargaining representative. The

corporate campaign has been described as:

a multifaceted and often long-running attack on the business relationships on which a corporation (or an industry) depends for its well-being and success. It is a highly sophisticated form of warfare in which a target company is subjected to diverse attacks -- legislative, regulatory, legal, economic, psychological -- the function of which is to so thoroughly undermine confidence in the company that it is no longer able to do business as usual. The union waging the campaign then offers to withdraw the pressure in return for substantial concessions. These concessions might include such items as agreement upon otherwise unacceptable contract terms, silence with respect to the company’s preferences regarding the unionization of its workforce (what the unions term “neutrality”), or even an agreement to recognize the union without a formal vote by the employees. The more sensitive a company is to its reputation, the more susceptible it is to public fears about the safety or propriety of its operations, or the more highly regulated its lines of business, the more vulnerable it is to such attacks.

See Jarol B. Manheim, Trends in Union Corporate Campaigns; A Briefing Book (2005) at 7.

45. Federal courts have recognized that such corporate campaigns can encompass a

wide and indefinite range of legal and illegal tactics. See, e.g., UNITE HERE v. Cintas

Corporation, 2006 WL 2859279 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2006) (finding that “[u]sing both legal and

illegal means, Unite has engaged since 2004 in a campaign” against Cintas).

16

46. A union engaged in such a corporate campaign invests substantial resources

towards activities, events, actions and conduct that have no direct relationship with the wages,

hours, benefits or working conditions of the employees of the targeted employer. For

example, Defendant UNITE HERE boasts that “over 50%” of its national budget is devoted to

such corporate campaigns, and Defendant CTW has publicly announced that “[a]t least 75

percent of our alliance’s resources will be dedicated to organizing.” [Exhibits 1, 6].

47. The philosophy of extorting an employer in this manner and without regard for

the level of employee interest in forming or joining a labor union is articulated in the article

“The Pressure is On: Organizing Without the NLRB,” which was written by a former UFCW

organizer, Joe Crump. In that article, Crump states: “Who do we really need to convince of

the advantages of being union? Employees or employers …. Organizing without the NLRB

means putting enough pressure on employers, costing them enough time, energy and money to

either eliminate them or get them to surrender to the union …. One of the concerns organizers

might have about waging economic war on an unorganized company is that it might turn

employees against the union. I look at it this way: If you had massive employee support, you

probably would be conducting a traditional organizing campaign.” [Exhibit 7].

48. The ultimate goal of a corporate campaign, such as Defendants’ scheme to

extort property and benefits from Cintas and others, is either to destroy the employer’s

business or to force the employer into so-called “voluntary” union recognition. As stated by

Crump, the former UFCW union organizer, success of a corporate campaign is defined in one

of two ways: “either a ratified, signed collective bargaining agreement with a previously non-

union employer or a significant curtailment of a nonunion operator’s business, including

shutting the business down. Neither of these outcomes will occur by relying upon the NLRB.”

17

49. As recently as August of 2007, at a dinner of labor activists in Chicago, Illinois,

which was hosted by Defendant CTW, a representative of CTW’s Strategic Organizing Center

described the purpose of a corporate campaign in the following manner: “It’s no longer

sufficient to use a strike or other work disturbance to pressure a company to do the right thing.

Increasingly, it’s necessary to pressure a company by causing a crisis of confidence among its

customers, shareholders, directors or other constituents.” [Exhibit 8].

B. Extorting Companies for Union Recognition and Other Money, Property and Valuable Benefits is Defendants’ Regular Way of Conducting Business

50. The extortionate corporate campaign against Cintas is only one component of a

much larger pattern of racketeering activity based upon extortion. Indeed, Cintas is not the

first company to be victimized by Defendants’ extortionate conduct.

51. Extortion by corporate campaign is the method by which Defendants and their

surrogates regularly conduct their business. Once an employer’s back is sufficiently “broken”

and it no longer can withstand the pressure of Defendants’ corporate campaign, the employer

“voluntarily” surrenders its property rights and executes a peace agreement with the union.

Once Defendants obtain what they want (i.e., card check neutrality and the right to deal

directly with employees), the corporate campaign abruptly ends and Defendants move on to a

new victim to extort. But because the execution of such a peace agreement represents only the

beginning of the relationship between the employer and the union, the “peace” achieved by the

agreement will continue to exist only for so long as the employer continues to give in to

Defendants’ demands.

52. Defendants’ modus operandi involves:

a. identifying a specific employer to target;

b. carefully planning a process for discovering and disclosing negative information about the target;

18

c. creating sham or surrogate entities through which to conceal their involvement and portray the conduct of those entities as spontaneous action by independent, socially-conscious third parties;

d. recruiting a handful of disgruntled and/or former employees of the target employer and publicly portraying them as representative of the target employer’s employees as a whole;

e. exploiting the genuine social and political concerns of third parties with diverse interests often completely unrelated to labor concerns, by tailoring allegations to specific audiences, including but not limited to: pandering to civil rights organizations by characterizing the target employer as “racist” or “sexist”; exposing the target employer’s alleged environmental violations to recruit the assistance of environmental groups in harassing the target; generating fear among consumers in general with salacious allegations of unsafe or unhealthy products and services being sold by the target; and

f. using the mails, wires, internet and all available media to relentlessly harass the target employer.

53. Cintas’s knowledge of Defendants’ extortionate tactics and objectives is

informed in part by other extortionate corporate campaigns conducted by Defendants. In

addition to Cintas, the past and present victims of Defendants’ extortionate conduct and

pattern of unlawful activity include, but are not limited to: Angelica Corporation; Sutter

Health Network; St. Mary’s Hospital; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; The Wackenhut Corporation; and

Smithfield Foods, Inc.

1. Angelica Corporation

54. Angelica Corporation (“Angelica”) is engaged in the business of operating a

linen management and laundry service business through approximately 35 facilities

throughout the nation. In early 2004, Defendant UNITE HERE and all or some of the

Individual Defendants launched a nationwide corporate campaign making it clear to Angelica

that all corporate campaign activities, including Defendant UNITE HERE’s attack on

19

Angelica’s customers, would stop as soon as Angelica gave in to Defendant UNITE HERE’s

demands relating to union recognition.

55. Unable to withstand Defendant UNITE HERE’s unlawful attack on the

company, Angelica gave in to the extortion demands and entered into a neutrality agreement

dated June 14, 2005. [Exhibit 9]. Once this “neutrality agreement” allowing for unionization

was signed, all corporate campaign activity against the company abruptly stopped.

56. Angelica and Defendant UNITE HERE even executed a written “National

Labor Peace Agreement” to “put an end to” the “protracted, nationwide corporate campaign

activities against” Angelica (the “LP Agreement”). The LP Agreement, signed on behalf of

Defendant UNITE HERE by Defendant Bruce Raynor, provides that: “Immediately upon

execution of this LP Agreement, the Union agrees to terminate its corporate campaign

activities … and to cease all adverse economic activity and adverse publicity of every nature

whatsoever against Employer ….” [Exhibit 9]. The LP Agreement defines “corporate

campaign activities (CCA)” to mean the following:

any Union communication or action directed toward third parties, either directly or through intermediaries, intended to, likely to or that is reasonably foreseeable to influence Angelica or affect Angelica’s actions or decisions. CCA includes actions or communications which: disparage the motives, actions or legitimacy of the Employer, including but not limited to its business, corporate structure, finances, safety record, environmental, consumer protection, or human rights records and labor relations policies, except as noted below. CCA also include actions or communications which denigrate or harm Angelica’s financial standing, reputation, business, customers, customer relations, vendors, vendor relations, operations, directors, employees or shareholders, intended to, likely to or that are reasonably foreseeable to influence Angelica or affect Angelica’s actions or decisions. “Third parties” includes the media, customers, vendors, shareholders, politicians, community organizations, advocacy organizations, clergy, financial institutions and any other stakeholder groups except Angelica employees represented by the Union.

[Exhibit 9].

20

57. In exchange for Angelica’s neutrality, the LP Agreement also provides that the

Union: (a) will not “support, condone, sponsor or advocate any slow downs, tie-up of

equipment, ‘inside game’ activities, or ‘work to rule’ campaigns” against Angelica; (b) “shall

not support, condone, sponsor or advocate any demonstrations, picketing, disruptions of work,

walk outs, strikes or sympathy strikes against” Angelica; (c) “shall not provide financial or

other support to any employees, other individuals, groups or attorneys bringing civil or

administrative actions against Angelica”; (d) “shall not sponsor, advocate, finance, condone or

support any employees, other individuals, or groups for any third parties to engage in any of

the activities prohibited” by the LP Agreement; and (e) shall, upon the occurrence of one or

more prohibited activities, “disavow the prohibited activity in a manner that communicates

this message to all employees at the Facility and to any parties toward whom such actions

were directed.” [Exhibit 9].

58. Thus, once Defendant UNITE HERE extorted the valuable benefits and

property it was demanding from Angelica, the union and its operatives ceased all negative

activity toward the company and moved on to victimize other companies using the same

tactics.

2. Sutter Health Network

59. Another target of one of Defendants’ extortion schemes was the not-for-profit

Sutter Health network of hospitals and doctors. For the past decade, the SEIU, which is

another one of Defendant CTW’s member labor organizations, has been conducting a

corporate campaign against Sutter Health.

60. Spending more than $2.5 million per year in member dues money on its

campaign against Sutter Health, SEIU has acted to disrupt healthcare services and embarrass

the Sutter Health network and its affiliated organizations. The goal of the campaign against

21

Sutter Health is virtually identical to the goal of the campaign against Cintas – to force Sutter

Health to sign certain labor agreements to which the SEIU is not legally entitled. The SEIU is

attempting to extort from Sutter Health the right to deal directly with Sutter Health employees.

61. SEIU has, among other things: (1) called for the State of California to take

away the tax-exempt, charitable status of Sutter Health; (2) tried to stop Sutter Health from

accessing the bond market to make repairs and improvements to Sutter-affiliated hospitals;

sent news releases to discourage investors from buying the bonds; (3) sent letters to

individuals who have donated money to Sutter-affiliated hospitals and urged them to no longer

donate; (4) mounted a publicity campaign to discourage leaders of a struggling sole

community provider hospital from becoming part of Sutter Health; the hospital took the

union’s advice, chose another system partner and was immediately closed down; the SEIU

took credit for helping to affect the decision, but remained quiet when the hospital closed; and

(5) forced the cancellation of a Sutter Delta Medical Center-sponsored community event

intended to raise money for critical breast cancer diagnostic equipment.

62. Defendant UNITE HERE, in connection with its corporate campaign against

Angelica, has conspired with and played a role in the SEIU campaign against Sutter Health.

As part of a nationwide campaign to organize Angelica’s non-union facilities, Defendant

UNITE HERE contacted Angelica’s customers, including Sutter Health. In a February 18,

2005 letter to Sutter Health, Defendant UNITE HERE discussed its labor dispute with

Angelica and warned that if Sutter Health continued to do business with Angelica, then the

hospital chain could face “service interruptions” in the form of delayed or halted delivery of

laundry. Defendant UNITE HERE suggested that Sutter Health could protect its interests by

meeting with the union, but Sutter Health declined to have any such meeting.

22

63. In April 2005, Defendant UNITE HERE responded to Sutter Health by sending

a postcard to Sutter Health’s past, present and prospective patients living in Northern

California. The front of the postcard had a picture of a sleeping infant and stated:

“Expecting? You may be bringing home more than your baby if you deliver at a Sutter

birthing center.” The back of the postcard further stated: “You will do anything to protect

your vulnerable newborn from infection – but your Sutter birthing center may not be taking

the same precautions. Reports have surfaced that Angelica, the laundry service utilized by

Sutter, does not ensure that ‘clean’ linens are free of blood, feces, and harmful pathogens.

Protect your newborn. Choose your birthing center wisely.”

64. Sutter Health sued Defendant UNITE HERE for its conduct and, after a three

week trial, a California Superior Court jury found the union committed libel, trade libel,

intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and unfair business practices in

violation of California law. The jury awarded Sutter Health millions in damages.

3. St. Mary’s Hospital / Superior Health Linen

65. Since March 2006, Defendant UNITE HERE has been seeking to organize the

workers at a company called Superior Health Linen. To force Superior Health Linen to

relinquish control of certain aspects of its business to the union and to give in to Defendant

UNITE HERE’s demands relating to union recognition, Defendant UNITE HERE launched

yet another corporate campaign against Superior Health Linen’s single largest client – St.

Mary’s Hospital (“St. Mary’s”), a Wisconsin based hospital that is owned by SSM Healthcare,

making St. Mary’s the victim of another one of Defendants’ extortion schemes.

66. The corporate campaign against St. Mary’s includes an Internet website with

the domain name <www.haveaheartstmarys.info>, which purports to be “an independent

website hosted by UNITE HERE! examining St. Mary’s Hospital’s social responsibility”.

23

[Exhibit 10]. Defendant UNITE HERE uses this website, as well as other methods, to

disseminate negative information about St. Mary’s and to issue boilerplate accusations similar

to the allegations leveled against Cintas. Defendant UNITE HERE repeatedly publicizes its

attacks on St. Mary’s for such things as its medical debt collection practices and its receipt of

charitable tax credits. [Exhibit 11]. Neither of these issues has anything to do with the

unionization of workers at Superior Health Linen. But, as is typical with Defendants’

extortion campaigns, their website, as well as their other methods of publication, are designed

to damage St. Mary’s business reputation in order to force another employer to surrender its

valuable property rights to the union.

4. Defendant CTW Member UCFW’s Campaign Against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

67. In addition to the extortionate campaigns being waged by Defendant UNITE

HERE and the Teamsters, Defendant CTW also has been actively involved in various other

extortionate corporate campaigns being waged by its other member labor organizations. As

noted above, Defendant CTW serves as the “hub where Change to Win unions” come together

to integrate their organizing programs and to launch large scale organizing campaigns” such as

the wrongful corporate campaign being waged against Cintas by Defendants UNITE HERE

and the Teamsters.

68. One such campaign is the well-publicized attack being waged against Wal-Mart

by Defendant CTW and the UFCW. Once labeled the “Justice@Walmart” Campaign, it now

is identified as “Wake-Up Walmart.” The UFCW registered and maintains a website,

<wakeupwalmart.com>, through which it disseminates disparaging information about the

company. [Exhibit 12]. Like the “Cintas Exposed” and “Uniform Justice” websites at issue in

this case and discussed below, the Wal-Mart website is designed to minimize the appearance

24

of the UFCW’s and Defendant CTW’s sponsorship and responsibility for the content of the

website. Also similar to the “Cintas Exposed” and “Uniform Justice” websites, the Wal-Mart

website panders to a panoply of diverse interests by offering alleged “facts” describing Wal-

Mart’s alleged misconduct in such areas as “crime,” “healthcare,” “discrimination” and “port

security.”

69. The campaign against Wal-Mart also includes publication of periodic press

releases containing boilerplate accusations that are strikingly similar to the allegations leveled

against Cintas and other targets of these extortionate corporate campaigns. The Wal-Mart

campaign-sponsored events likewise are similar to those used to injure Cintas and other target

companies. For example, a UFCW press release issued on December 6, 2006 announced a

“National Day of Action” called “Women and Families Deserve Better than Wal-Mart,” which

was designed to harass and damage publicly Wal-Mart’s business reputation. [Exhibit 13].

70. Similar “Day[s] of Action” have been held against Cintas. On April 23, 2003,

as part of a “National Day of Action in support of 17,000 Cintas laundry workers,” Defendant

UNITE HERE, “with support from Service Employees (SEIU) Local 32 BJ and UFCW Local

1500, held a spirited rally … in front of two separate Starbucks coffee shops” in New York

City. [Exhibit 14]. Defendant UNITE HERE and its fellow CTW members targeted

Starbucks because Cintas was Starbucks’ apron and mat supplier. According to news reports,

similar rallies took place at Starbucks locations across the country. According to Lauren

Cerand, a media outreach coordinator for Defendant UNITE HERE, “[w]e’re going to keep

doing this until Starbucks gets the message.” [Exhibit 14]. Similar “Days of Action” have

been held against other target companies, including Smithfield Foods, Inc., as recently as

December 2, 2006 and March 31, 2007. [Exhibits 15, 16].

25

5. Defendant CTW Member SEIU’s Campaign Against the Wackenhut Corporation

71. Another extortionate corporate campaign in which Defendant CTW is involved

is the campaign currently being waged against The Wackenhut Corporation (“Wackenhut”) by

the SEIU which, again, is one of Defendant CTW’s member labor organizations. Defendant

CTW supports and participates in the Wackenhut campaign by using the same tactics,

strategies and threats being used against Cintas and other targets of Defendants’ extortion

schemes.

72. Wackenhut is a leading security company in the United States, employing

approximately 32,000 security officers. In October of 2003, SEIU launched its malicious

corporate campaign against Wackenhut when the company refused the union’s organizing

demands. Like the campaign against Cintas, the ongoing offensive against Wackenhut

includes a continual barrage of anti-Wackenhut flyers, newsletters, website publications, and

public demonstrations. SEIU and its operatives aim their false and disparaging statements at

Wackenhut’s customers, potential customers, employees, the investment community,

governments, and the public at large, hoping to destroy Wackenhut’s relationships with its key

business stakeholders. Like the campaign against Cintas, SEIU’s corporate campaign is

designed to extort from Wackenhut certain labor agreements, property rights and benefits to

which the SEIU has no legal right.

73. The SEIU described its corporate campaign strategy in its Contract Campaign

Manual (Washington: Service Employees International Union, n. d.). This manual discusses

various ways the SEIU brings outside pressure on an employer to force the employer to agree

to the union’s demands:

26

Outside pressure can involve jeopardizing relationships between the employer and lenders, investors, stockholders, customers, clients, patients, tenants, politicians or others on whom the employer depends for funds. Legal and regulatory pressure can threaten the employer with costly action by government agencies or the courts. Community action and use of the news media can damage an employer’s public image and ties with community leaders and organizations.

74. Members of Defendant CTW who are engaged in these campaigns are well

aware that their conduct may be illegal. Stephen Lerner, director of the SEIU division

responsible for organizing security guards, explained: “We can’t engage in successful mass

organizing or protect collective bargaining if we operate within the confines of the law

because activities that allow us to exercise power are increasingly ineffective and/or illegal.”

Stephen Lerner Replies, Boston Review (Summer 1996), www.bostonreview.net/BR21.3/

BR21.3.html.

75. Defendant CTW’s involvement in these various extortionate corporate

campaigns is undeniable. In 2005, SEIU Vice President Tom Woodruff was picked to lead

Defendant CTW’s Strategic Organizing Center. Upon formation of Defendant CTW, he

explained that the “organizing campaign of one Union [in Defendant CTW] is the organizing

campaign of every union,” www.inthesetimes.com/article/2368 (October 26, 2005). In other

words, the corporate campaigns being waged against Cintas, Wackenhut and others are treated

by Defendants as the corporate campaigns of every member of Defendant CTW .

76. Victims of Defendants’ extortion schemes are not limited to just the target

companies. The SEIU’s senior staff member Megan Park explained in an August 9, 2004

email to new campaign workers:

Directions for Wackenhut Aggravation program:

27

These activities are intended to be corporate aggravation for the biggest national clients of the target employer - Wackenhut, security division. The events are not intended to necessarily gather public support or mobilize employees or even consumers . . . unless we see a real opportunity to do so . . . instead they are aimed at management of the national clients in order to get them to complain directly to Wackenhut and threaten to pull the contract. Better yet to get them to drop Wackenhut altogether and cho[o]se another security firm . . . So, instead of mobilizing workers we are using pressure to move management.

77. In an April 7, 2005 deposition, William Ragen, Deputy Director of SEIU’s

Property Services Division, stated “[t]he campaign will be over once” Wackenhut signs a

“card check-neutrality agreement” and “collective bargaining agreement” that are “pretty

much the same as we have with all the other major security contractors.”

78. Since May 2005, the SEIU has made false and misleading statements

disparaging Wackenhut to many of its current and potential customers, as well as others who

have the ability to affect Wackenhut’s business, including several in South Florida. The SEIU

has communicated disparaging information about Wackenhut to Wackenhut’s stakeholders. It

has mailed and faxed letters and flyers containing false and misleading statements about

Wackenhut. It has operated multiple websites that regularly malign Wackenhut, distributed

newsletters and taken out newspaper advertisements that disparage Wackenhut, issued fake

annual reports that criticize the company, and sent anti-Wackenhut letters to investors and

stock analysts. Through surrogates, including various local SEIU unions, it has distributed

flyers with negative information about Wackenhut and has organized public forums for the

purpose of criticizing Wackenhut.

79. On November 11, 2007, following the loss of some of its most valued

customers, and reported loss of multiple contracts and contract opportunities, Wackenhut filed

a RICO complaint in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That

28

complaint is predicated on extortion and over 150 racketeering acts in aid thereof (i.e., the

publication of 8 newsletters, 42 press releases, 6 websites, 4 advertisements, 6 reports, 51

letters, as well as the conduct of 4 public forums, 13 demonstrations, 6 literature distributions,

and two “street theatre” events “suggest[ing] Wackenhut impropriety”). A copy of the RICO

statement filed in the Wackenhut case is attached hereto as Exhibit 17.

6. Defendant CTW Member UFCW’s Campaign Against Smithfield Foods, Inc.

80. Defendant CTW is also involved in the campaign being waged against

Smithfield Foods, Inc. and Smithfield Packaging Company (collectively “Smithfield”) by the

UFCW which also is one of CTW’s member labor organizations. The corporate campaign

against Smithfield began in September 2005, with the formation of Defendant CTW and was

announced on numerous occasions, including in June 2006, when Defendant CTW member

UFCW announced “the largest manufacturing organizing drive by any union in over a

decade.”

81. These announcements were promptly followed by an intensive pressure

campaign. In an attempt to extort Smithfield’s “surrender,” the UFCW and Defendant CTW

have engaged in numerous activities, including but not limited to, demonstrating at grocery

stores causing the removal of Smithfield’s products from store shelves; depriving Smithfield

of marketing opportunities; and disrupting product marketing by disparaging Smithfield at

public protests at Paula Deen events across the country.

82. The extortionate conduct of the UFCW and Defendant CTW against Smithfield

is the subject of a RICO lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia. See Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial

Workers International Union, et. al, Case No. 3:07cv641. The amended complaint detailing

29

the extortionate acts in that campaign is appended hereto as Exhibit 18. On January 31, 2008,

the Court denied the union defendants’ motion to dismiss the case and ruled that Smithfield’s

RICO claims could proceed. A jury trial in the Smithfield case is scheduled to commence on

October 6, 2008.

C. Defendants Make Cintas a Target of Their Extortion Schemes

1. Formation of the Conspiracy

83. Cintas is the largest uniform supplier in North America. Defendants UNITE

HERE and the Teamsters have long sought to unionize Cintas because of the potential millions

of dollars of dues revenue it could generate. Because Cintas is an “industry giant,” Defendant

UNITE HERE and the Teamsters would obtain a significant political and financial windfall

from winning the right to represent Cintas’s employees.

84. The unionization of Cintas is an equally important prize to Defendant CTW,

with whom Defendant UNITE HERE and the Teamsters have been affiliated since September

2005, because Defendant CTW would receive fees based upon the increased number of

members of its affiliated unions. Under Defendant CTW’s constitution, a per capita

assessment on each of the newly unionized employees is to be paid to Defendant CTW to fund

subsequent and ongoing campaigns.

85. Because Cintas’s employees already enjoy competitive wages and healthcare

and retirement benefits, the overwhelming majority of employees simply are not interested in

becoming members of labor unions like Defendants UNITE HERE or the Teamsters. Faced

with this reality, Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters concluded that they could never

become the official bargaining representatives for Cintas’s employees through the normal

democratic processes specified in federal labor law. That is, Defendants UNITE HERE and

the Teamsters concluded that they could not be successful if they adhered to the traditional

30

process by which employees petition the NLRB to hold a secret-ballot election in which

employees freely decide for themselves whether or not to join a union.

86. Unable to secure the voluntary support of a majority of Cintas’s employees,

Defendants conspired to use their significant resources to engage in a wide-spread campaign

of extortion against Cintas, similar to the extortionate campaigns waged against Defendants’

other targets. Defendants devised an elaborate scheme to extort concessions from Cintas’s

management that would enable Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters to become the

official bargaining representatives for Cintas’s employees without those employees ever being

able to freely decide the representation issue for themselves through a secret ballot election.

Defendants conspired to extort Cintas’s so-called “voluntary” recognition of the union by

inflicting severe economic damage on the company until Cintas either agrees to Defendants’

demands or is forced out of business.

87. Defendants UNITE HERE, Raynor, Mestrich, Qadeer, DeMay, Gres, Unger

and the Doe Defendants began planning their extortion scheme well in advance of any public

announcement of the campaign. For example, prior to the actual commencement of the

campaign Defendant UNITE HERE sponsored a “summit” meeting relating to its efforts to

organize the uniform and laundry industry. One topic of discussion at the summit related to

how Defendants could beat Cintas. Defendants, including Raynor, Mestrich, DeMay, Qadeer

and Unger, were in attendance at this summit meeting.

2. Announcement of the Campaign; Delivery of the Threat

88. Once the planning and preparation stage had been completed, Defendant

UNITE HERE and its operatives officially launched their attack on Cintas in early 2003.

89. Several months later, Defendant UNITE HERE and its operatives concluded

that to facilitate and execute their extortion plan more effectively, they needed the assistance

31

and cooperation of a larger and better-financed organization. With this in mind, Defendant

Mestrich contacted Jeff Farmer, Defendant Teamsters’s director of organizing, in the Spring of

2003 to explore the possibility of the two organizations collaborating. Ultimately, on or

around May 6, 2003, and continuing thereafter, Defendant UNITE HERE and Defendant

Teamsters formed a partnership whereby they agreed to “combine [ ] resources … in a

coordinated fashion to win union representation and good collective bargaining agreements for

Cintas employees.” [Exhibit 19]. Thus, on or around May 6, 2003, Defendant Teamsters

became a willing participant in Defendants’ Extortion Enterprise.

90. With the addition of Defendant Teamsters, a Coordinating Committee

comprised of three members from each union was appointed by Defendants to control the

direction of the joint campaign – i.e., the Extortion Enterprise. In addition to placing

individuals on the Coordinating Committee, Defendant UNITE HERE selected the

Coordinating Committee’s “Campaign Director” who controlled the day-to-day operations of

the campaign against Cintas. Defendant UNITE HERE paid, and continues to pay, sixty

percent of the costs associated with the campaign against Cintas; Defendant Teamsters pays

forty percent. [Exhibit 19].

91. Once Defendant Teamsters had formally joined the campaign, Defendants

sought to escalate their extortion scheme to a new level of aggressiveness. On or around

August 31, 2003, Defendant Raynor stated publicly that “[t]he next twelve months will be

much more aggressive than the previous months.” [Exhibit 20]. A few days later, on

September 1, 2003, Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters publicly announced that

they “have launched a bold new initiative called ‘Uniform Justice,’ that will support Cintas

workers’ efforts to earn a living wage and decent benefits. The joint organizing campaign is a

32

historic alliance between the two unions as workers that deliver Cintas uniforms are seeking to

become Teamsters members and production workers in laundry facilities are seeking to

become UNITE members.” [Exhibit 21]. Defendants announced their “bold new initiative” in

connection with a Labor Day rally being held in Cincinnati, Ohio, which was attended by

Defendant Bruce Raynor and a Teamsters representative, among others.

92. Keeping with their past corporate campaign modus operandi, Defendants’

“bold new initiative” was designed by Defendants to appear publicly as a social movement.

For example, Defendants’ press release stated: “On the national holiday honoring American

workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters joined workers at Cintas Uniform

Company in calling for the respect and justice they deserve …. Companies like Cintas have no

idea of [sic] true meaning of Labor Day…. They exploit their workers and use any means

necessary to thwart workers’ efforts to organize. The Teamsters and UNITE are here to say

‘no more.’ Cintas worker will achieve justice.” [Exhibit 21].

93. Despite their public rhetoric, Defendants never intended their campaign to be

an “organizing drive.” Instead, the corporate campaign was intended to mask Defendants’

unlawful conspiracy to extort valuable things and benefits from Cintas. Since the September

1, 2003 rally, Cintas has been subjected to a relentless barrage of activities designed to destroy

Cintas’s public image and inflict severe economic damage on the company and its business

reputation. Such conduct includes almost daily publication of misleading, negative and/or

damaging information about Cintas to countless third parties, as well as unlawful interference

with Cintas’s existing and prospective business relations. Like their other extortionate

corporate campaign schemes against other target companies, Defendants’ campaign against

Cintas is designed to force the company to enter into a card-check neutrality agreement with

33

Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters, which would require Cintas to surrender to

Defendants Cintas’s right to deal directly with its employees without union interference.

94. Falsely portraying Cintas as a company with “a long history of anti-unionism”

that “bullies, harasses, intimidates and terminates workers who want to join unions,” [Exhibit

22] Defendants have sought to paint Cintas as a company bent on racist, sexist, and illegal

acts. Defendants have made no secret of the fact that accomplishing their objective would

require them to “use every weapon in our arsenal,” including “strategies that we haven’t used

before,” in order to “to break the back of this employer” and “take this company down.”

[Exhibits 2, 3]. Defendant UNITE HERE assigned “50 organizers to the coordinated

campaign, . . . which will involve putting pressure on the company, suing them, getting sued,

picketing them, and picketing their customers . . . until at some point the company will agree

to card-check recognition . . . .”

95. With the formation of Defendant CTW in September of 2005, Defendants

formed a new enterprise through which they sought, and continue to seek, to extort valuable

property and benefits from Cintas and others. With the addition of the CTW Extortion

Enterprise, Defendants managed, and continue to manage, two enterprises to implement their

extortion schemes.

96. From the beginning of the corporate campaign against Cintas, Defendants have

communicated their threats to Cintas clearly and without equivocation. For example,

Defendant Bruce Raynor once boasted: “I think Cintas has a decision to make. Are they in

the business of serving shareholders and owners or fighting the union? You can’t do both.

We will set the stage so the company will not do both.” [Exhibit 23].

34

II. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES IN FURTHERANCE OF THEIR EXTORTION SCHEMES

97. Defendants have engaged in a wide-ranging campaign of extortion against

Cintas and numerous other victims. Defendants have conspired to bring unbearable public,

social and financial pressure on Cintas by repeatedly portraying in a misleading or negative

light Cintas’s business and operating practices, unlawfully interfering with Cintas’s existing

and prospective business relations, knowingly and maliciously publishing misleading,

negative and/or damaging information about Cintas to financial analysts, customers, and the

general public, interfering with Cintas’s annual shareholder meetings, and taking other actions

designed to interfere with Cintas’s business. Defendants’ specific tactics include, but are not

limited to, the following:

A. Interference With Cintas’s Business Relations

98. A key component of Defendants’ extortion scheme and conspiracy is their

intentional interference with Cintas’s existing and prospective business relations. According

to Defendant Peter DeMay, Defendants have had to “use strategies that we haven’t used

before, including reaching out to [Cintas’s] customers.” [Exhibit 2]. Of particular interest to

Defendants are minority-owned small business customers of Cintas, to whom Defendants

provide false, negative or misleading information in an attempt to convince them that they are

“getting ripped off disproportionately” by Cintas. Defendants are “linking up with small

business, trying to link up with small business associations and other [similar] things because

we have to use every weapon in our arsenal in order to take this company down.” [Exhibit 2].

99. Interference with Cintas’s existing and potential customer base is of vital

importance to Defendants’ extortion scheme. As further explained by Defendant Peter

DeMay, “getting those contracts pulled – it is a huge public relations hit to this company and

35

they can’t – it is stuff that can help to drive their stock price down.” [Exhibit 2]. This goal is

so important that Defendants, particularly Peter DeMay, have even encouraged college

students and others not officially affiliated with Defendants to “wage war” against Cintas “and

do so independently because you have a lot less constraints than we do as a union, legal

constraints.” [Exhibit 2].

100. None of the Defendants is the collective bargaining agent for a majority of

Cintas’s employees and, as such, they simply have no legal right to make demands of Cintas

on behalf of any of these unrepresented employees. None of the activities or events described

below constitutes legitimate union organizing activity, nor are they conducted in the context of

a traditional labor dispute.

101. To implement their schemes, Defendants utilized numerous tactics, including,

but not limited to:

1. Dissemination of False, Misleading and/or Negative Information

102. Since the beginning of their conspiracy, Defendants have made numerous

misleading and/or negative statements disparaging Cintas to its current and potential

customers, shareholders, as well as others who have the ability to affect Cintas’s business.

Defendants have communicated disparaging information about Cintas to Cintas’s stakeholders

by mailing and faxing letters and flyers containing misleading and/or negative statements

about Cintas, distributing newsletters, posting press releases, creating web pages and sending

anti-Cintas letters to investors and stock analysts.

103. For example, in or about November 2003, Defendant UNITE HERE distributed

a report entitled “The Dirty Truth Behind The Uniforms.” [Exhibit 24]. The report was

distributed to the Fair Labor Association, the Workers Rights Consortium, and several

universities, including Miami University (of Ohio), Vanderbilt University, Stanford

36

University, and the University of Michigan. Contained in this “report” are various negative

statements about Cintas, all of which were designed to impugn Cintas’s reputation as a

responsible employer. Such statements include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. that “[i]n the name of profit, Cintas cuts corners and breaks the law”;

b. that “Cintas uses overseas factories in Haiti – where workers are paid below the legal minimum wage, forced to work overtime, and have no access to clean drinking water – to cheaply manufacture uniforms that are sold in the United States”;

c. that “[s]ystemic discrimination against women and minorities pervades Cintas Corp”;

d. that “[w]hen Cintas employees try to exercise their rights, the company responds by violating those rights”;

e. that, “[i]n Chicago, IL, Cintas employees with 20 years seniority are paid $6.15 an hour, below the federal poverty line, to mend and embroider uniforms.”

104. Also in 2003, Defendants distributed false information to alleged “socially

responsible” investment companies holding shares of Cintas stock, including Walden Asset

Management and Domini Social Investments, regarding the working conditions at a Haitian

vendor doing business with Cintas. Based on the false information regarding working

conditions, these shareholders were deceived into believing that Cintas was doing business

with a foreign “sweatshop” in violation of Cintas’s Vendor Code of Conduct, and proceeded

to raise such concerns at Cintas’s Annual Shareholders Meeting. Defendants then proceeded

to publicize these false and erroneous allegations to various state officials and the investment

community -- all in an attempt to discredit Cintas and interfere with its business.

105. In 2005, Defendants distributed false information regarding Cintas and its

Servicemaster account (involving Chem-Lawn, Tru-Green & Terminex). The flyers, reports,

and handbills, among other materials, produced for the purpose of distributing this information

37

erroneously announced that the chemicals in Servicemaster’s dirty laundry were causing

health problems for Cintas employees because Cintas was not providing proper safeguards and

training to protect its employees. Specifically, the flyers reported that: “In a national survey

by UNITE, 78% of Cintas workers that handle uniforms from Terminix and TruGreen

Chemlawn reported problems with their vision and their eyes. Also: 38% reported abdominal

problems, 55% reported skin problems, and 60% reported headaches.” They also reported that

Cintas refuses to provide its employees with MSDS sheets for the chemicals that its customers

use.

106. In or about September 2005, Defendants posted an article in a union magazine

titled “Are Teamsters Wearing Cintas Uniforms?” The article highlights a quote from Richard

Volpe, then Eastern Region Vice President and Director of the Bakery and Laundry

Conference, which says: “No Teamster should have to wear a uniform made, cleaned, or

delivered by workers that are treated so poorly.” The article spells out that “Cintas employees

work in an environment where racial and sexual discrimination are tolerated, health and safety

violations are commonplace and an unfair pay system keeps workers struggling to make ends

meet. Any attempts at unionization are met with union-busting consultants, unjust firings and

other intimidation tactics.” The article then tells companies to refuse to do business with

Cintas.

107. Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters also have published an article

entitled “The ‘Spirit’ is the Problem: Systemic Racial & Gender Discrimination at Cintas

Corporation,” which contains numerous misleading, negative and damaging statements about

Cintas. [Exhibit 25]. Even the title of the article itself constitutes a less than subtle attack on

Cintas’s Chairman of the Board, Richard T. Farmer, who had previously published a memoir

38

entitled “The Spirit is the Difference.” A copy of Defendants’ article is readily available to

the public on Defendant Teamsters’ website. [Exhibit 26].

108. In addition to the foregoing, Defendants have repeatedly staged “newsworthy”

events and promoted them through press releases to the media that contain misleading,

negative or damaging information regarding Cintas. Defendants have repeatedly disseminated

their negative press releases to numerous print and television media outlets so that

Defendants’ role in the spread of such information is not apparent or is minimized. In this

way, the information contained therein appeared to have originated from an objective and

legitimate media source. Defendants’ endless stream of press releases is designed to have a

cumulative effect on the public. Specifically, Defendants hope that their many accusations

and allegations against Cintas, if repeated often enough and in enough places, will result in the

general public believing not only the information being disseminated, but that Defendants’

“Uniform Justice Campaign” is a worthy and legitimate cause. In fact, the publication of each

and every press release is specifically calculated by Defendants to further articulate and

emphasize their threat to destroy Cintas’s business unless the company acquiesces in their

demands.

109. Appendix B to this Complaint details many of the flyers, newsletters, press

releases, letters and other correspondence and communications disseminated by Defendants.

Each of these communications was made in furtherance of Defendants’ extortion schemes.

Each of these communications caused a new and independent injury to Cintas.

2. Defendants’ Use of the Internet

110. As described herein, the Internet has become a key tool in Defendants’

extortion schemes. Defendants have wrongfully used the Internet to publish and circulate

39

misleading, disparaging and/or negative information about Cintas and its business practices to,

among others, Cintas’s employees, customers, shareholders, and the general public.

a. The “Cintas Exposed” Website

111. The first website at issue is called “Cintas Exposed”. Cintas Exposed, which is

located at <www.cintasexposed.com>, was created and hosted by Defendant UNITE HERE to

compete unfairly with Cintas and to profit from the establishment of the website by, among

other things, disparaging Cintas and its business practices, products and services, confusing

Cintas’s customers, diverting customers, sales and profits away from Cintas, and portraying

Cintas in a bad light to the general consuming public. [Exhibit 27]

112. The target audience of the Cintas Exposed website is Cintas’s existing and

potential customers. The website is specifically designed to encourage consumers and other

companies not to conduct business with Cintas. [Exhibit 28]. To achieve that goal, Defendant

UNITE HERE’s website utilizes several tactics to disseminate negative and misleading

information, in some instances jointly with “mailers”:

(1) Purported “Consumer Bulletins”

113. Defendant UNITE HERE devotes considerable time and resources to

disseminating various marketing materials designed to disparage Cintas and to promote

Defendant’s website. Many of these disparaging marketing pieces, which improperly contain

the CINTAS trademark, are misleadingly characterized as “Consumer Bulletins,” which can

be found on the Cintas Exposed website. [Exhibit 29].

114. One such Consumer Bulletin is entitled “Are Cintas’s ‘Deceptive Sales

Practices’ Costing Your Business?” [Exhibit 30]. This marketing piece encourages readers to

access the Cintas Exposed websites to find tools to “safeguard” and “protect” their “Business

Against Cintas’s ‘Dirty Laundry.” In addition to being available to the public on the Cintas

40

Exposed website, this marketing piece was and is being distributed to Cintas’s existing and

prospective customers and business relations.

115. Another such Consumer Bulletin is entitled “Have you been deceived by

Cintas’s Trial Products?” [Exhibit 31]. This marketing piece, which clearly is designed as a

mailer to Cintas’s existing customers, provides the reader with purported quotes from other

“unhappy” Cintas customers who claim to have had problems with Cintas’s sample products.

The mailer also provides the reader with information and guidance to “Protect yourself against

Cintas’s deceptive trial promotions.” More specifically, the mailer instructs Cintas’s

customers to check their weekly invoices, “object to unauthorized products and services,”

“demand notification of changes in products and services,” “refuse so-called trial products and

services,” and to “know your contract.” Finally, the mailer encourages the reader to visit the

Cintas Exposed website to share their own stories about Cintas. In addition to being available

to the public on the Cintas Exposed website, this marketing piece was and is being distributed

to Cintas’s existing and prospective customers and business relations. Defendants’ mailer also

unlawfully incorporates the CINTAS trademark.

116. Another of Defendant UNITE HERE’s marketing pieces is entitled “Did you

give Cintas a blank check?” [Exhibit 32]. In this mailer, Defendant UNITE HERE states that

the “standard Cintas contract says that prices on: mats, mops, soap, towels, emblem fees,

locker fees, make-up charges, the service charge, size change charges can be raised any time,

and by any amount, just by changing” the customers’ bills. This purported “Consumer

Bulletin” then encourages Cintas’s customers to “Take Action” by visiting the Cintas Exposed

websites “to find out more of what’s behind the fine print” of Cintas’s contracts. In addition

to being available to the public on the Cintas Exposed website, this marketing piece was and is

41

being distributed to Cintas’s existing and prospective customers and business relations.

Defendant UNITE HERE’s mailer also unlawfully incorporates the CINTAS trademark.

117. Another of Defendant UNITE HERE’s marketing pieces is entitled “Trapped in

a Cintas Contract” [Exhibit 33]. In this mailer, Defendant UNITE HERE makes various false,

disparaging and negative statements about Cintas including: “Cintas promises the right to

cancel service, but unhappy customers are struck with hefty fees if they cancel;” “Cintas says

their agreements are ‘No Risk,’ but hundreds of former Cintas customers discovered in court

that Cintas sues customers who try to walk away;” “It’s not a receipt or an order form. Cintas

deceptions trap customers in rigid 5-year contracts;” and “Customers find themselves

unknowingly locked into contracts with services they may not want.” Defendant UNITE

HERE then encourages Cintas’s customers to “Take Action” by visiting the Cintas Exposed

website “for explanations of the Cintas contract terms and tools to help protect your business

from Cintas;” and by calling “866-XPOSEDC to tell us your Cintas story.” Defendant UNITE

HERE then states that Cintas’s “Customers are taking action: Thousands of Cintas customers

have found that they may be ‘Paying for Nothing with Cintas extra charges; and “Customers

have started standing up to Cintas ‘Customer Disservice’ using tools from

www.CintasExposed.org.” In addition to being available to the public on the Cintas Exposed

website, this marketing piece was and is being distributed to Cintas’s existing and prospective

customers and business relations. Like Defendant UNITE HERE’s numerous other mailers,

this mailer also improperly incorporates the CINTAS trademark.

(2) Tools For Cintas Customers

118. Also contained on the Cintas Exposed website is a section offering purported

“Tools for Cintas Customers” to help them “handle your problems with Cintas.” [Exhibit 28].

42

119. One such “tool” is a “complaint letter” generator, which Defendant UNITE

HERE instructs Cintas’s customers to use to “put your complaints in writing – the only way to

make them count with Cintas.” [Exhibit 34]. This section of the website encourages

customers to complain to Cintas about its services and provides a form for customers to

generate such a complaint letter. The form even goes so far as to provide examples of things

about which to complain. Defendant UNITE HERE further instructs customers to send the

complaint letter by registered mail and to keep a copy of same for their records.

120. The next “tool” provided by Defendant UNITE HERE is a “cancellation letter”

generator, which Defendant instructs Cintas’s customers to use to “cancel Cintas service …

when Cintas doesn’t fix your problems.” [Exhibit 35]. Like Defendant UNITE HERE’s

complaint letter, Defendant provides detailed instructions for drafting and sending the

cancellation letter on the customer’s letterhead.

121. The next “tool” provided by Defendant UNITE HERE is a “stop auto-renewal

letter” generator, which Defendant claims will “Block Cintas from extending your contract for

another year.” [Exhibit 36]. Again, Defendant UNITE HERE provides detailed instructions

for drafting and sending this letter on the customer’s letterhead. Attached hereto as Exhibit 37

is a letter generated with Defendant UNITE HERE’s letter generator for a fictitious Cintas

customer called “ABC Company.”

122. The next “tool” provided by Defendant UNITE HERE is a “convenient log to

track your Cintas problems.” Defendant UNITE HERE instructs Cintas’s customers that

“Keeping records of your problems with Cintas is important if you want Cintas to pay

attention – or if you want to cancel service.” A true and accurate copy of Defendant’s log,

which unlawfully incorporates the CINTAS trademark, is attached hereto as Exhibit 38.

43

123. The next “tool” provided by Defendant UNITE HERE is its advice for

“fighting price hikes.” [Exhibit 39]. Such advice includes: “Check your weekly invoice -

Look for increases and unexplained charges;” “Object to increases in prices - often Cintas will

back down if you complain;” “Demand notification and explanation of every price hike;”

“Know your contract – some mat, bathroom and other facility service customers may have the

right to reject increases;” and “If you choose to continue service and sign a new agreement at

any point, demand limitations on when, how often, and how much Cintas can raise your

prices.”

124. The next “tool” provided by Defendant UNITE HERE is to “Know your

contract.” Defendant states that “Cintas contracts make it hard to stop service unless you

follow their rules. They automatically renew unless you act. They allow Cintas to increase

your costs without notice.” [Exhibit 40]. Defendant UNITE HERE then provides two sample

contracts to download with purported “explanations” of the fine print. [Exhibit 41].

(3) “Customers Speak Out”

125. Also contained on Defendant UNITE HERE’s Cintas Exposed website is a

forum in which Cintas customers and employees are encouraged to “tell their stories” about

Cintas. Contained in those stories are various statements about Cintas and its business

practices which are misleading and/or negative. [Exhibit 42]

126. In one such posting labeled “Advice from a former Cintas Driver,” posted

September 20, 2007, an individual identified only as “Stephen” from “Dallas” states that “The

real scoop on Cintas is their inability to process uniforms without them being stolen by

employees, lost in the plant while the customer pays for them or has to fight to not pay for

them, or just the fact that Cintas is incapable of doing their job in the Plant …. They are the

44

worst company to work for and care nothing about their customers. They are money hungry

and thats all they care about.” [Exhibit 43].

127. In another posting dated January 30, 2007, Defendant UNITE HERE permits

someone claiming to be a Cintas customer from Ransomville, New York to state: “I’m trying

to get out from under their deceptions ….” This statement appears under the following

heading which was added by Defendant UNITE HERE: “Spreading the word so others won’t

face this again, posted January 30, 2007.” [Exhibit 44].

128. In another posting dated June 6, 2007, Defendant UNITE HERE permitted

someone claiming to be a Cintas customer from Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania to state the

following: “They tried to deceive me about the contract .… They tried to charge my employee

for stuff they say he ripped …. They’re a monopoly in the area.” This statement appears

under the following heading which was added by Defendant UNITE HERE: “Cintas started

tacking on more and more fees and I’m not going to take it.” [Exhibit 45].

129. In another posting dated July 17, 2007, Defendant UNITE HERE permitted

someone claiming to be a Cintas customer from New Hamburg, Ontario, to make a statement

under the following heading: “From the very start, wrong color and dirty mats – and threats.”

But the statement provided by the purported customer makes no mention of “threats” and, as

such, Defendant UNITE HERE’s heading creates the false impression that Cintas “threatens”

its customers. [Exhibit 46].

b. The “Uniform Justice” Website

130. Although Defendants maintain that their Uniform Justice campaign is an

initiative designed to “support the Cintas workers' efforts to earn a living wage and decent

benefits,” the “Uniform Justice” campaign actually is one of the primary means through which

45

Defendants initiated and continue to carry out their extortion scheme against Cintas. [Exhibit

47].

131. The “Uniform Justice” campaign has been fabricated by Defendants to appear

publicly as something more akin to a “social movement” or an employee-driven movement

designed to improve working conditions at Cintas – that is, something that would have great

appeal to the general public. In reality, however, the campaign is nothing more than another

mechanism by which Defendants have been, and are, extorting valuable things and benefits

from Cintas. Defendants’ Uniform Justice campaign is supported by a website with the

domain name <uniformjustice.org>.

132. While the Cintas Exposed website is designed to interfere with Cintas’s

existing and prospective business relations by providing negative and misleading information

to Cintas’s customers, Defendants’ Uniform Justice website has a different target audience –

Cintas employees. Although this website merely is another vehicle through which Defendants

disseminate disparaging information about Cintas, it is intentionally designed to minimize the

appearance of Defendants’ sponsorship and responsibility for the website’s content. That is,

neither UNITE HERE’s nor the Teamsters’s name is emphasized or displayed often. Instead,

the website features disgruntled or misguided Cintas employees who provide testimony about

how terrible it is to work for Cintas. The website is designed to create the impression that

Uniform Justice is an initiative started and fueled by Cintas’s employees’ desire for better

working conditions, rather than a union instituted corporate campaign to expand union

membership, regardless of employee interest in such membership.

133. Much like the Cintas Exposed website provides “tools” to Cintas’s customers,

Defendants’ Uniform Justice website provides “tools” to Cintas’s employees. [Exhibit 47].

46

Such “tools” include a “health and safety” survey which clearly is designed to solicit

information from disgruntled employees that can be used by Defendants in their extortion

scheme. [Exhibit 48].

c. Defendant Change to Win’s Website

134. Since its creation in 2005, Defendant CTW also has used the Internet to further

Defendants’ extortion scheme and conspiracy. Defendant CTW owns and operates a website

on the Internet having the domain name of <changetowin.org>. [Exhibit 49].

135. One of the purposes of Defendant CTW’s website is to publicize and promote

the various extortionate corporate campaigns being waged by its member labor organizations.

Some of the campaigns being featured and promoted by Defendant CTW include: (1) Uniform

Justice, one of the names for the extortionate corporate campaign being waged against Cintas;

(2) Wake Up Wal-Mart; (3) Justice at Smithfield; (4) Hotel Workers Rising, which is a

campaign being waged by Defendants CTW and UNITE HERE against various hotels,

including the Crowne Plaza; (5) Ports Protection, which is a campaign being waged by

Defendant CTW and the Teamsters to organize harbor truck drivers; and (6) Driving Up

Standards Together, which is aimed at FirstGroup/FirstStudent, the largest operator of transit

buses in the United Kingdom. [Exhibits 49, 50].

136. In addition to promoting and featuring the various corporate campaigns in

which it is involved, Defendant CTW’s website also is used to disseminate misleading and/or

negative information about Cintas and its business practices. Much like Defendant UNITE

HERE’s websites, Defendant CTW’s website is an important component of Defendants’

extortion scheme and conspiracy.

47

137. On its website, Defendant CTW features Cintas as a member of its Corporate

Hall of Shame. This “Hall of Shame” is designed to impugn or destroy Cintas’s reputation.

For example, in “Count #1” of its hall of shame indictment, Defendant CTW accuses Cintas of

“Creating Poverty Level Jobs.” In “Count #2” of its hall of shame indictment, Defendant

CTW accuses Cintas of “Corporate Greed and Excess.” In “Count #3” of its hall of shame

indictment, Defendant CTW accuses Cintas of “Discriminating Against Women, People of

Color, and Members of the Military Greed and Excess.” In “Count #4” of its hall of shame

indictment, Defendant CTW accuses Cintas of “Putting Workers and Communities at Risk.”

In “Count #5” of its hall of shame indictment, CTW accuses Cintas of “Breaking U.S. Laws.”

[Exhibit 51].

138. In addition to publishing its own negative information about Cintas in an effort

to damage Cintas’s reputation, Defendant CTW’s website also contains hyperlinks to the

Uniform Justice website operated by Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters.

d. Defendant Teamsters’s Website

139. Defendant Teamsters also maintains a website which is used to further

Defendants’ extortion schemes against Cintas and others. Like Defendants UNITE HERE and

CTW, Defendant Teamsters uses its website, <teamster.org>, to publish and circulate

misleading and/or negative information about Cintas and its business practices. [Exhibit 52].

140. For example, when one searches Defendant Teamsters’s website using the term

“cintas” as a search term, no less than 73 results are obtained (as of February 18, 2008). Such

search results include links to various articles and press releases, including: (1) “Unions Gain

Fan Support to Ask NASCAR to End Business With Cintas, Kentucky Speedway;” (2)

“Uniform Giant Discriminating Against Women and Minority Employees;” (3) “Civil Rights

48

Leaders Call on Government to Investigate Charges of Discrimination at Cintas;” and (4)

“Daily Review: Cintas Faces Discrimination Complaints.” [Exhibit 53].

141. Also included in the search results for “cintas” is a link to a false and

defamatory press release entitled “Federal Government Charges Cintas With Widespread and

Major Violations of Law.” [Exhibit 54]. This defamatory press release originally was issued

by Defendant UNITE HERE, and is the subject of the defamation claim asserted by Cintas

herein. By continuing to post this defamatory Press Release on its own website, Defendant

Teamsters has wrongfully republished the defamatory statements contained in the Press

Release with actual knowledge of their falsity.

142. Defendant Teamsters’s website also is being used specifically to promote the

Uniform Justice campaign against Cintas. As stated on its website, “[i]n September 2003, The

Teamsters and UNITE HERE launched a bold new initiative called “Uniform Justice …. The

joint organizing campaign is a historic alliance between the two unions as workers that deliver

Cintas uniforms are seeking to become Teamsters members and production workers in the

laundry facilities are seeking to become UNITE HERE members.” Defendant Teamsters’s

website also provides a link by which readers can access the official Uniform Justice website.

[Exhibit 55].

3. The “Not On My Track” Campaign

143. Stock car racing is one of the most popular sports in the United States.

Through an agreement with the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing

(“NASCAR”), Cintas and NASCAR have created a partnership that makes Cintas the

“Preferred Uniform of NASCAR.” This significant business agreement, which runs through

2009, includes Cintas First Aid as the Preferred First Aid Supplier of NASCAR.

49

144. Cintas has been a NASCAR partner since 1996 supplying all 13 racing series,

including the NEXTEL Cup, with uniforms. Cintas does it all from design and manufacturing

to personally measuring each Official in the Cup, Busch and Truck series for their uniforms.

Cintas also supplies the Officials with their Series hats, windshirts, jackets, luggage and work

day apparel as they travel from track to track each week. When an Official waves the

checkered flag, he or she is wearing a Cintas uniform.

145. To promote its partnership with NASCAR, Cintas owns and operates a website,

<cintasracing.com>, that is devoted entirely to NASCAR racing. Cintas also offers a free

Cintas NASCAR eNewsletter to anyone who chooses to subscribe. [Exhibit 56].

146. Recognizing that NASCAR is one of Cintas’s most valuable and profitable

customers, Defendants, as a part of their scheme to extort valuable property and benefits from

Cintas, have attempted to destroy the relationship Cintas has cultivated with NASCAR.

147. To enable it to disseminate to NASCAR fans disparaging information about

Cintas and its business practices, as well as to convince NASCAR fans to turn against Cintas,

Defendant UNITE HERE initiated its “Not On My Track” Campaign. [Exhibit 57]. This

campaign employs such colorful slogans as “Cintas Stains NASCAR” and “Race Naked”

(which encourages drivers to race naked rather than wear a Cintas uniform). Campaign

operatives also attend NASCAR races to distribute anti-Cintas literature and to encourage

NASCAR fans to “tell us why you think NASCAR should give Cintas the boot.” [Exhibit 58].

148. In connection with this campaign, Defendant UNITE HERE owns and operates

yet another anti-Cintas website, <notonmytrack.info>, which purports to be “an independent

website hosted by UNITE HERE, a labor union that, with the Teamsters, is organizing Cintas

50

workers.” Neither Defendant Teamsters nor Defendant UNITE HERE represents any

NASCAR workers. [Exhibit 57].

149. The primary purpose of this website is to disseminate negative information

about Cintas to NASCAR fans. To support its assertion that “Cintas doesn’t deserve such a

profitable partnership with NASCAR,” Defendant UNITE HERE’s website is littered with

disparaging allegations against Cintas and its business practices. For example, the website

contains the following statement: “NASCAR Clamps Down on Cheating. Cintas Isn’t Playing

by the Rules. This season NASCAR is renewing its efforts to ensure that races are as fair as

possible. Fairness, honesty and integrity are keystones to the NASCAR nation, but Cintas

workers say the company isn’t following the rules.” [Exhibit 57].

150. The “Not On My Track” website also is used to collect names for one of

Defendant UNITE HERE’s petitions against Cintas. As stated on the website, “From coast to

coast, NASCAR fans are trying to get NASCAR out of Cintas uniforms. Sign the NOT ON

OUR TRACK petition to tell NASCAR CEO Bill France that you’d rather race naked than

wear Cintas.” [Exhibit 58].

4. Defendants Have Used Their Websites To Intentionally Interfere With Cintas’s Existing and Prospective Business Relations

151. Although Cintas has not yet been able to determine the exact number of its

customers who have terminated their contracts after viewing the false, misleading and

negative information contained on Defendants’ various websites, there can be no question that

some customers are taking the bait.

152. On or about July 21, 2004, Cintas’s Olathe, Kansas facility received a non-

renewal of contract letter from one of its customers, Lees Auto & Transmission; the phrase

51

“http://www.cintasexposed.org/forms.php” was printed at the bottom of this cancellation

letter.

153. On or about February 17, 2005, in Ontario, Canada, a potential customer who

had committed to signing a contract with Cintas refused to do so after reading the information

contained on the Cintas Exposed website.

154. On or about April 6, 2005, once again at Cintas’s Olathe, Kansas facility, a

customer, Weinberg Dodge, explained its decision to cancel Cintas’s services by providing a

Cintas representative with a page printed from the Cintas Exposed website.

155. On or about August 30, 2007, Cintas’s Lexington, Kentucky facility lost at

least one customer who was coached by the Defendants’ website on how to terminate its

contract with Cintas.

156. On or about September 6, 2007, in Fort Wayne, Indiana, one of Cintas’s long

standing customers told a Cintas service manager that she had learned all sorts of bad things

about Cintas by visiting the Cintas Exposed website.

157. It also has become apparent that some of Cintas’s competitors, either on their

own or in concert with Defendants, are using Defendants’ websites, especially the Cintas

Exposed website, to gain a competitive advantage over Cintas. In Houston, Texas, for

example, after hearing that Cintas’s sales representatives beat one of Cintas’s well-known

competitors out of three very competitive new deals, the competitor’s sales representative

returned to the customer and encouraged its personnel to visit the Cintas Exposed website.

Similarly, a marketing representative for one of Cintas’s other competitors told one of Cintas’s

customers to visit the Cintas Exposed website.

52

158. On or about January 7, 2005, a Cintas representative at the company’s Torlake,

Canada facility was informed that an account was being cancelled because of what the

customer “learned” after three of Cintas’s competitors directed the customer to the Cintas

Exposed website.

159. Also, on or about March 9, 2007, in Cumberland, Maryland, a Cintas customer

submitted a “No Auto Renewal” form taken from the Cintas Exposed website. This “No Auto

Renewal” form, however, clearly had been faxed by one of Cintas’s competitors to the

customer, as demonstrated by the fact that the competitor’s name, fax number and date

appeared on the form. Various competitors’ business cards and marketing materials also have

been spotted at Cintas’s customer locations with “www.cintasexposed.com” handwritten

across them.

B. Efforts to Drive Down the Value of Cintas’s Stock

160. Another key element of Defendants’ extortion scheme was, and is, to drive

down Cintas’s stock price as a way of both hurting the company and undermining shareholder

support for company management. According to the testimony of one former UNITE HERE

operative, Defendant Qadeer’s “department” was charged with responsibility for driving down

Cintas’ stock price. In fact, Defendant Qadeer’s department had at one time prepared a report

detailing how much money Defendants believed they had cost Cintas by stopping

development and negatively impacting the price of Cintas stock.

161. In the words of Defendant Peter DeMay, a long-time UNITE lead organizer

and a key player in the union’s corporate campaign against Cintas: “[We will try] to really

make a scandal [and] really work hard on driving down the stock price [and] making this

difficult for the company.” [Exhibit 2]. Defendant DeMay has also stated publicly that

getting Cintas’s customers to terminate their contracts is of vital importance because “it is a

53

huge public relations hit to this company and they can’t – it is stuff that can help to drive their

stock price down.” [Exhibit 2].

162. To achieve their goal of driving down Cintas’s stock price, Defendants have

utilized numerous tactics, including, but certainly not limited to:

1. Direct Communications With Cintas Shareholders

163. Defendants have forwarded to Cintas’s shareholders various misleading,

negative and/or derogatory communications. For example, in September 2006, Defendant

UNITE HERE sent a communication through Wachovia Securities to certain shareholders that

advised these Cintas shareholders to reconsider their choices in the company proxy and

specifically referenced, and misrepresented, the Farmer family’s use of the corporate jet for

personal use. [Exhibit 59].

164. On another occasion, in May 2007, Defendant UNITE HERE sent to various

Cintas shareholders a letter relating to the drop in Cintas’s stock price and highlighting the

poor growth performance of Cintas in recent years.

2. Publication and Dissemination of the Uniform Watch Newsletter

165. In addition to the various communications outlined above, Defendant UNITE

HERE has attempted to impugn or destroy Cintas’s reputation with individual and institutional

shareholders of Cintas stock, as well as within the investment community generally, by

disseminating a series of highly exaggerated, derogatory and/or negative publications about

Cintas, entitled Uniform Watch.

166. All issues of Uniform Watch were generated and distributed by Defendant

UNITE HERE’s Office of Corporate and Financial Affairs. On numerous issues of the

newsletter, Defendants Qadeer and Unger are listed as contact persons.

54

167. Defendant UNITE HERE, Qadeer and Unger published Uniform Watch solely

for the purpose of causing individual and institutional shareholders, so-called “sell side”

investment analysts who cover Cintas and file reports on the company, and the investment

community generally, to lose confidence in Cintas’s officers and directors, as well as Cintas’s

business practices, and thereby drive down the value of Cintas’s stock and with it, the

confidence that such shareholders have in Cintas’s officers and directors and well as the

company’s future business prospects.

168. In their issues of Uniform Watch, Defendants UNITE HERE, Qadeer and

Unger made numerous derogatory, negative and misleading statements about Cintas including,

but not limited to, the following:

a. that Cintas has responded to employees’ efforts to unionize by committing numerous violations of labor law, which include “threats and intimidation of union supporters, discrimination against union supporters and illegal firings;” and

b. that OSHA had fined Cintas over $12,000 for violations of federal construction job safety standards after the accidental death of a Cintas employee in San Antonio, Texas, and that the accident “raises questions about Cintas’s ability to manage its facilities and to create unfair processes for its managers to follow”;

c. that Cintas’s chairman, Richard Farmer, “reportedly contributed over $721,000 to the Republican Party in an effort to have OSHA’s ergonomics measure over-turned.”

d. that discrimination charges had been filed against Cintas and stated that Cintas may be subject to tens of millions of dollars of liability for committing what it described as “widespread race and gender discrimination”;

e. that “[i]n the light of Enron’s collapse and other recent accounting scandals, Cintas’s choice to maintain such a potentially conflicted oversight committee raises questions about the company’s financial disclosures.”

55

169. Each publication of Uniform Watch constituted a wrongful act in furtherance of

Defendants’ extortion schemes and conspiracy. Each publication caused a new and

independent injury to Cintas by way of injury to its reputation, loss of goodwill and/or specific

lost business and business opportunities. The issues of Defendants’ anti-Cintas Uniform

Watch newsletter are identified more fully in Appendix A.

3. Defamation; False Accusations of Insider Trading

170. Defendant UNITE HERE’s efforts to artificially “drive down Cintas’s stock

price” and thereby “create a scandal” have caused Cintas severe and long lasting damage. One

way in which Defendants sought to achieve their goal was the intentional and malicious

dissemination of false and defamatory material to third-parties, including stock analysts who

follow Cintas.

171. In or around January of 2004, Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres devised and

executed an elaborate scheme to drive down Cintas’s stock price and to create a scandal by

embarrassing Cintas’s founder, Mr. Richard Farmer, by accusing him of engaging in illegal

“insider trading.”

a. Richard Farmer’s Sale of Cintas Stock; Defendant UNITE HERE’s Attempt to Link That Sale to Inside Information

172. On the morning of January 6, 2004, Richard Farmer, Cintas’s founder,

Chairman of the Board, and the company’s largest individual shareholder, concluded the sale

of a significant portion of his shares of Cintas stock. The sale was announced to the public in

a press release issued by Cintas on the morning of January 6, 2004. The release reported that

Mr. Farmer had sold 4.5 million shares of Cintas stock and had adopted a plan to sell another 3

million shares throughout the remainder of 2004. The release stated that these sales were “in

accordance with the Farmer family estate planning and charitable goals.”

56

173. Within minutes of the Cintas announcement, Defendant Qadeer circulated the

Cintas press release to key members of his staff so that Defendant UNITE HERE could set

about trying to link up Farmer’s sale of stock with a National Labor Relations Board

(“NLRB”) complaint that Defendant UNITE HERE had previously helped initiate against

Cintas. Following the initial investigation by the NLRB’s regional boards, roughly two thirds

of the charges levied against Cintas were dismissed by the NLRB, or voluntarily withdrawn by

Defendant UNITE HERE. At the end of October 2003, the NLRB indicated that the

remaining charges were considered potentially to have merit and invited Cintas to commence

settlement discussions regarding those charges. As a party to the proceedings, Defendant

UNITE HERE was kept apprised of, and was allowed to comment on, the course of the

settlement discussions by the NLRB.

174. On December 31, 2003, the NLRB advised Defendant UNITE HERE that it

had concluded settlement agreements with Cintas on all but seven of the charges. Ultimately,

these remaining seven charges were the only charges included in the NLRB complaint

described above. These unresolved charges, though vigorously disputed by Cintas, were

insignificant in terms of the company’s financial health. The seven charges referenced only

four of Cintas’s over 300 facilities, and involved the alleged wrongful termination of only

three of Cintas’s approximate 27,700 employees. Cintas management knew that even if all

seven charges were found against Cintas, the result would have no material financial impact

on the company.

175. Significantly, Defendant UNITE HERE’s operatives in charge of the corporate

campaign against Cintas also knew that these charges were not materially significant and

could have no material financial impact on the company. Nevertheless, after learning of Mr.

57

Farmer’s sale of stock, Defendant UNITE HERE set about to issue a highly exaggerated and

defamatory press release to investors about the NLRB complaint, while the news of Mr.

Farmer’s stock sale was still fresh in the investors’ minds.

176. On the afternoon of January 6, 2004, within hours of learning of Mr. Farmer’s

stock sale, Defendant UNITE HERE inquired of the NLRB about when they would be

receiving a copy of the complaint. That same day, and without waiting to receive a copy of

the NLRB complaint, Defendant UNITE HERE revised an earlier-prepared version of a press

release discussing the NLRB’s actions in regards to Cintas. Defendant UNITE HERE finally

received a copy of the NLRB complaint at 9:55 a.m. on January 7, 2004. Within a few hours,

the press release was finalized and Defendant UNITE HERE caused it to be disseminated to

the national wire services.

b. Defendants UNITE HERE and Liz Gres Cause False and Defamatory Press Release to be Disseminated to National Wire Services in an Effort to Deflate the Price of Cintas Stock.

177. At 2:38 p.m. on January 7, 2004, Defendants UNITE HERE and Lis Gres sent

non-party PRN Newswire (“PRN”), a leading distributor of government and company press

releases, a highly misleading and false press release to be distributed to PRN’s “full national

distribution” (the “Press Release”). [Exhibit 60].

178. Because it was an established PRN customer, Defendant UNITE HERE was

able to submit the Press Release electronically, which expedited PRN’s ability to retransmit

the Press Release to the outside media. Accompanying Defendant UNITE HERE’s electronic

submission was a form that, among other things, identified Defendant Liz Gres, UNITE

HERE’s Organizing Director for Defendants’ extortion campaign against Cintas, as the

contact person, provided Defendant Gres’ phone number, and indicated that Defendant

UNITE HERE wanted the Press Release to be distributed to PRN’s “full national distribution.”

58

179. Per PRN’s standard practice, the Press Release was “logged in” and assigned to

an editor whose job was to strip out the text of the Press Release, reformat it according to

PRN’s standard formatting requirements, and add additional coding as necessary. The Press

Release was then transferred to non-party Natasha King, a PRN assignment editor, whose job

was to monitor incoming releases and make sure the party submitting the release has provided

all necessary information, including the source of the release.

180. King called Defendant Gres to inquire about the source of the Press Release.

King advised Defendant Gres what “source” meant and following the explanation, Defendant

Gres specifically told King that the Press Release was to be sourced to both Defendant UNITE

HERE and the NLRB. A few minutes later, at 3:08 p.m., King spoke with Defendant Ahmer

Qadeer, who confirmed that Defendant Gres was authorized to send the Press Release.

181. The Press Release was issued to PRN’s “full national distribution” list on

January 7, 2004, at 3:20 p.m.

182. The Press Release contained numerous false and defamatory statements.

Specifically, pursuant to Defendant UNITE HERE’s explicit instructions to PRN, the Press

Release identified the NLRB as a “Source” of the Press Release even though, as Defendants

UNITE HERE and Gres well knew, the NLRB neither knew of nor approved the issuance or

content of the Press Release. Indeed, the entire Press Release was constructed to make it

appear as if it came from the federal government. For example, the title of the Press Release

stated: “Federal Government Charges Cintas With Widespread and Major Violations of Law.”

Moreover, the Press Release falsely indicated that is emanated from “Washington, DC” even

though the Press Release actually came from Defendant UNITE HERE’s headquarters in New

York.

59

183. In addition, the Press Release stated that readers could obtain further

information by contacting Defendant UNITE HERE’s Liz Gres, who was identified in the

Release as the “Contact Person” for the NLRB, even though Defendant Gres worked for

Defendant UNITE HERE and had no affiliation whatsoever with the NLRB.

184. The Press Release also falsely stated that Cintas had engaged in “widespread

and major violations of law.” In truth, the NLRB never accused Cintas of such conduct and

clearly would not have done so in this situation. As set forth above, the NLRB complaint

consisted of only seven charges, which referenced only four of Cintas’s facilities (out of over

300), and involved the alleged wrongful termination of only three of Cintas’s employees (out

of approximately 27,000).

185. The Press Release also falsely stated that Cintas engaged in “threats, bribes,

and interrogation” of its employees and that Cintas “illegally fired” one of its employees “for

supporting the union.”

186. At all relevant times, Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres had actual

knowledge that the statements in the Press Release were false, but nonetheless disseminated

and published these statements with such knowledge or with reckless disregard of their truth

or falsity. In addition, these false statements are defamatory on their face in that they clearly

expose Cintas to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy.

187. Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres disseminated and published the false and

defamatory statements contained in the Press Release to third-parties, including Cintas’s

shareholders, customers and prospective customers, the investment community, and the

general public with the belief that if the investment community and the general public were

deceived into believing the NLRB (i.e., the federal government) had issued the Press Release

60

and that the accusations against Cintas were accurate, then Cintas’s stock price, as well as the

value of the company as a whole, would decline.

188. Consistent with Defendants UNITE HERE’s and Gres’s plan, numerous

investors and stock analysts who saw the Press Release were deceived into believing the

federal government had issued the Press Release and that the contents of the Press Release

were, therefore, true and accurate. Within minutes of the dissemination of the false Press

Release at 3:20 p.m. (EST), Cintas’s share price dropped by nine percent.

189. Similarly, the investment community as a whole, including Cintas’s

shareholders, were in fact deceived by Defendants’ false Press Release. Based on the

erroneous belief that the federal government had issued the Press Release and that Cintas had

been charged with “major and widespread” violations of federal labor law, trading activity in

Cintas stock increased dramatically and Cintas shares traded sharply lower. Had the investor

community known the true facts, the resulting decline in Cintas’s share would not have

occurred.

190. As a direct and proximate result of the false and deceptive Press Release, the

value of Cintas stock declined by approximately $330 million in market capitalization.

Furthermore, these false and defamatory statements proximately caused additional substantial

injury to Cintas’s business as well as its goodwill and reputation.

191. By purposefully disseminating and publishing false and defamatory

information and knowing that such information would seriously harm Cintas’s business,

Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres acted intentionally, knowingly, maliciously, and with the

intent to injure Cintas.

61

c. Defendant UNITE HERE Used The Engineered Drop in Cintas Stock Price as a Basis for Accusing Richard Farmer of Engaging in Illegal Insider Trading

192. Upon receiving news of Mr. Farmer’s January 6, 2004, sale of stock, Defendant

UNITE HERE developed a plan to use the NLRB complaint as a vehicle by which to try to

launch an SEC investigation against Mr. Farmer for so-called “insider trading.”

193. Crucial to Defendant UNITE HERE’s scheme was creating the impression that

the existence of the NLRB complaint was somehow “material nonpublic information” that

should have been publicly disclosed prior to Farmer’s sale of stock. But given the fact that the

NLRB complaint was not “material” from a financial point of view – a point that Defendant

UNITE HERE has acknowledged – the only way to make the NLRB complaint appear to be

“material” was to engineer a stock price drop through the issuance of a patently false press

release.

194. The problem for Defendants, however, was that distributing the false Press

Release solely under Defendant UNITE HERE’s name would not have had the desired effect.

Throughout 2003, Defendant UNITE HERE issued approximately 22 press releases about

Cintas and Defendants’ extortionate organizing campaign. But none of the prior press releases

issued solely under Defendant UNITE HERE’s name adversely affected Cintas’s stock price.

As a result, the only way to create the desired effect was to falsely identify the NLRB as a

“Source” of the Press Release.

195. The full dimension of Defendant UNITE HERE's bad faith attempt to smear

Richard Farmer is revealed in Defendant UNITE HERE’s September 22, 2004 letter to the

Securities Exchange Commission (the “SEC Letter”). [Exhibit 61]. The SEC Letter is a nine-

page, single-spaced letter, accompanied by over an inch of appendices and exhibits, in which

62

Defendant UNITE HERE urges the SEC to commence an “insider trading” investigation into

Mr. Farmer’s January 6th sale of Cintas stock.

196. At the heart of Defendant UNITE HERE’s accusations was that “Cintas

Chairman Richard Farmer sold millions of shares [of Cintas] at a time when Cintas executives

were in the possession of a non-public Complaint issued by the National Labor Relations

Board.” Tellingly, Defendant UNITE HERE’s entire argument that the NLRB complaint

constituted “material nonpublic information” under federal securities law was based upon the

stock drop that Defendant UNITE HERE itself had engineered: “By the rapid drop in share

price in the minutes following the issuance of UNITE’s press release, Cintas shareholders

demonstrated strongly that the Complaint against Cintas by the General Counsel was of

material interest.” [Exhibit 61].

197. Like its January 7, 2004 Press Release, Defendant UNITE HERE’s September

22nd SEC Letter was deceptive and contained false statements of fact. For instance, nowhere

in the SEC Letter does Defendant UNITE HERE acknowledge what it clearly knew at the

time, namely, that the NLRB complaint was insignificant to Cintas from a financial point of

view. Also, by September 22, 2004, Defendant UNITE HERE knew that all but one of the

charges (pertaining to two paragraphs in Cintas’s employee handbook) had been either

withdrawn by the NLRB or dismissed by the administrative law judge who had handed down

a written opinion on September 16, 2004 (six days before Defendant UNITE HERE submitted

its September 22nd Letter to the SEC). Defendant UNITE HERE clearly knew the outcome of

the administrative law judge’s decision as two of Defendant UNITE HERE’s in-house

attorneys – Ira Katz and Judiann Chartier – represented one or more of the workers whose

claims of wrongful termination were rejected by the judge.

63

198. In addition, using the same “bait and switch” tactics as it used in the January

7th Press Release, Defendant UNITE HERE deceived the SEC about the Press Release that

caused the sharp drop in Cintas’s stock price. Specifically, Defendant UNITE HERE told the

SEC that “[a]t 3:20 pm, UNITE issued a press release announcing the Complaint… . The

announcement was followed immediately by the dramatic increase in trading activity and stark

drop in share price described above.” The press release attached to the SEC Letter, however,

was not the false Press Release disseminated by PRN, as UNITE HERE well knew. Rather, it

was a “corrected” version of the Press Release that omitted the NLRB as a “Source.”

199. Defendant UNITE HERE’s issuance of the false Press Release, as well as their

dishonest effort to convince the SEC to launch an insider trading investigation against Farmer,

were two of many acts committed in furtherance of Defendants’ extortion scheme and

conspiracy.

200. Defendants UNITE HERE’s and Gres’s issuance of the false Press Release

caused significant damage to Cintas’s business reputation and goodwill and significantly

depressed the value of the company. Defendants’ Press Release and the resulting decrease in

the value of the company caused Cintas to sustain special damages. For example, on March

31, 2004, Cintas entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization which

provided for the merger of a company called Roadrunner Fire and Safety Equipment, Inc.

(“Roadrunner”) into one of Cintas’s subsidiary companies. The purchase agreement provided

that part of the purchase price would be paid by Cintas to the owners of Roadrunner in the

form of Cintas stock. Because the Press Release had caused the company to be significantly

devalued, Cintas was required to issue approximately 19,500 more shares of stock than it

would have had to issue had the Press Release not depressed the value of the company. As

64

such, Cintas has suffered special damages in the amount of $813,000, which represents the

value of the additional shares of stock Cintas issued to Roadrunner.

C. Violations of Federal Privacy Statutes

201. In order to contact Cintas employees, Defendant UNITE HERE and its

operatives compiled lists of names and addresses of presumed Cintas workers using a variety

of sources, including other workers, telephone and city directories, cross-directories, other

public records, Internet databases, raffles, and discarded company lists. Some union

operatives even secretly followed Cintas employees home to get their addresses. Defendant

UNITE HERE planned to visit thousands of Cintas employees in their homes.

202. Defendant UNITE HERE added to its lists of Cintas employee addresses by

unlawfully accessing motor vehicle records, which was a process the union referred to as

“tagging.” Defendant UNITE HERE used license plate numbers on cars found in Cintas

parking lots to access information relating to those license plate numbers contained in state

motor vehicle records. Defendant UNITE HERE operatives illegally utilized Westlaw, a

computer-assisted research database, for this purpose.

203. Defendant UNITE HERE maintained two Westlaw accounts that allowed

access to databases containing the motor vehicle information. One of these accounts was

maintained by Defendant DeMay, and was routinely accessed by Defendant Gres.

204. Several non-union Cintas employees discovered that Defendant UNITE HERE

was engaged in the foregoing activity and sued the union and some of its operatives for

violating the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”). On August 30, 2006, the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order finding

that Defendant UNITE HERE’s practices violated the DPPA. [Exhibit 62].

65

D. Forgery and Impersonating Cintas Employees

205. On information and belief, and commencing in the first part of 2003 and

continuing thereafter, Defendants have repeatedly contacted Cintas’s existing and/or

prospective customers in an effort to acquire proprietary business and customer information

and to attack Cintas, its business practices, and its treatment of employees. For instance,

various customers complained that Cintas employees contacted them to conduct “internal

audits” via the telephone. These customers have reported someone pretending to be from

Cintas called them, asked for the owner/manager, and then requested specific information

from their Cintas invoices, including: product, quantity, price, and total invoice amount.

206. On or about December 30, 2005, Defendants sent a letter to John Ward, the

Chief Executive Officer of The ServiceMaster Company (“ServiceMaster”). ServiceMaster

provides various services to residential customers through the well-known brands TruGreen

ChemLawn and Terminix. ServiceMaster is a customer for whom Cintas launders rental

towels, uniforms, rags, rugs, and mops used by TruGreen ChemLawn and Terminix

employees throughout the country, including Ohio. In this letter, which was also sent to

Cintas facilities throughout the country, various Cintas employees purportedly complained

they were being exposed to pesticides when they serviced TruGreen ChemLawn’s and

Terminix’s linens and towels. The letter asked Mr. Ward what actions he would take to ensure

that the chemicals used by his companies did not make Cintas employees sick. The letter was

purportedly signed by 33 Cintas employees. However, some of those signatures were

forgeries.

66

207. Specifically, the December 2005 letter was purportedly signed by, among other

Cintas employees, Jorge M. Amaya. Mr. Amaya has confirmed he did not sign the letter and

that the signature on the letter is not his signature.

208. Again in or around June/July of 2005, Defendants sent a letter to “Terminex or

TruGreen Chemlawn Manager”. This letter also contained various employee complaints of

chemical exposure. The letter requested MSDS sheets from the company. The letter was

purportedly signed by 27 Cintas employees. However, some of those signatures were

forgeries.

209. Specifically, the December 2005 letter was purportedly signed by, among other

Cintas employees, Elizabeth Laboy. Ms. Laboy has confirmed she did not sign the letter and

that the signature on the letter is not her signature.

210. By publishing and/or sending and/or delivering this letter in Ohio, Defendants

have committed the predicate act of forgery as defined in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2913.31.

Specifically, Defendants, with the purpose of defrauding the recipients of the letter, have

forged the writing of Mr. Amaya and Ms. Laboy without their authority and have “uttered”

that writing, knowing it to have been forged. Defendants’ conduct also served to further

Defendants’ extortion scheme and conspiracy. Defendants’ acts of forgery caused a new and

independent injury to Cintas.

E. Theft of Cintas Property; Trespass; Misappropriation of Trade Secret

211. On information and belief, Defendants have stolen confidential and proprietary

customer lists, employee lists and other proprietary business information from Cintas’s

facilities and from its employees’ personal and company vehicles. Defendants use the stolen

information to identify current Cintas customers in order to send them anti-Cintas literature

67

and to identify current employees to send them anti-Cintas and pro-union information and to

harass them at home.

212. The personal vehicles of Cintas employees have also been broken into and

vandalized. In April 2005, for example, a Cintas employee’s laptop was stolen from her

vehicle while it was parked at her work location. In August 2005, a vehicle belonging to a

sales representative was broken into at the employee’s apartment complex; the perpetrator

stole a Cintas bag, competitive binder, palm pilot and owners manual, but did not steal the

employee’s golf clubs, golf bag and expensive radar detector -- all of which were clearly

visible. In December 2005, two General Managers from Cintas’s Las Vegas location had their

vehicles broken into on the same night; only a work bag was stolen from both cars. Prior to

the commencement of Defendants’ extortionate corporate campaign, such thefts did not occur.

213. On numerous occasions, Cintas route trucks have been broken into and only

proprietary information has been stolen while other valuable items have been left behind. In

June of 2005, while a sales representative was installing a new account, someone broke his

vehicle window and stole a briefcase, sales materials, and laptop computer; the thief did not

take the portable DVD player that was also clearly visible. In August 2007, while servicing a

customer, a route driver’s clipboard and a folder containing his route sales sheet, a handwritten

credit memo, and information for his National Accounts was stolen from his route truck. In

November 2007, a series of seven invoices were stolen from a route driver’s truck while he

was servicing a gas station in rural Kentucky. Prior to the commencement of Defendants’

extortionate corporate campaign, such thefts did not occur.

214. Defendants have also trespassed and stolen property from various Cintas

locations and elsewhere. For instance, in September 2007, a suspicious individual entered the

68

Cintas location in Charlotte, North Carolina, traversed through the employee only areas, and

quickly exited upon being discovered. Later that day, a sales representative determined his

laptop was missing. On another occasion, in November 2006, a location sent via DHL certain

personnel and customer information to corporate headquarters for an accounting audit. The

receiving accountant received the box opened with various materials missing, including: the

internal control questionnaire; unapplied cash report; and AR cash receipts.

215. The foregoing acts of trespass, theft, vandalism, and misappropriation of

Cintas’s trade secrets, all are part of a coordinated effort by Defendants to further their

extortion schemes and conspiracy against Cintas.

216. Defendants have also lodged a campaign to gather confidential and proprietary

customer lists, employee lists and other proprietary business information by wrongfully

impersonating customers and Cintas employees over the telephone.

217. For instance, a Cintas human resources manger received a call at her home,

during which the caller identified herself as working for Merits Research on behalf of Cintas.

The caller asked questions relating to the employee’s satisfaction with Cintas’s benefits.

Cintas, however, had not hired any company to perform any such survey. Likewise, in

November 2007, a Grove City, Ohio employee received a call from someone claiming to be

Marco from the Cintas corporate office. “Marco” wanted to discuss safety and possible

improvements Cintas could make at the employee’s location. The employee later learned that

no survey calls were being conducted by Cintas at that time.

218. Various Cintas locations have also received phone calls from impersonators

who were clearly attempting to gather proprietary and confidential information. For instance,

in May 2005, the Mason, Ohio location received a call in the mailroom from an alleged Cintas

69

employee who claimed to be home ill; this person requested that the mailroom email her a

copy of Cintas’s telephone directory. In a February 2006 incident, a person claiming to work

at Cintas’s corporate headquarters called the Lexington, KY location and requested the names

of all SSRs and the Service Manger to whom each SSR reported. When an employee at the

location attempted to call the caller back, the number given by the caller was disconnected. In

July 2007, a Customer Representative at the Painesville, OH location received a call from

someone stating he was a customer who requested a copy of his company’s service agreement

on behalf of his boss. The Cintas employee wrote down the fax number provided by the

“customer,” but when the employee called the customer to confirm the request, the customer

had no knowledge of anyone calling for this information.

219. Defendants also regularly impersonate college students and contact Cintas

under the ruse of seeking corporate information for a school project. Most recently, on

February 1, 2008, a person claiming to be Eric Falcon, an employee with Kansas State

University, called the Kansas location requesting information to “update his records” and

asking various questions about Cintas and the Director of Operations job. Falcon refused to

provide a telephone number, but the Caller ID showed the call was made from Chicago,

Illinois. On another occasion, in November 2005, corporate headquarters received a call from

an alleged UCLA student who wanted to speak with the Regional Business Director of the

Western Region. The Cintas employee, after giving out the Business Director’s name, asked

the student for her number and her Professor’s name. Upon further research, the employee

was unable to locate a professor by the given name who was teaching the alleged course at

UCLA.

70

III. THE IMPACT ON CINTAS AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE

220. As the nation’s largest industrial uniform provider, Cintas does business

throughout the United States as well as internationally. Cintas operates 351 facilities in the

U.S. and Canada plus 14 manufacturing plants and seven distribution centers. In addition,

Cintas is a publicly held company traded over the NASDAQ National Market to shareholders

across the country.

221. The Defendants’ conduct as described herein has had a lasting and irreparable

effect on Cintas. In addition to the lost or reduced business and contracts, the Cintas brand

name and business reputation have been significantly tarnished. Defendants have caused

many of Cintas’s customers, business partners, investors, other stakeholders, and an

uncountable number of formerly loyal consumers, to believe that Cintas is a disreputable

company that operates an unsafe workplace, mistreats its workers and customers, and

regularly violates the law. This has caused a devastating loss of goodwill in the marketplace,

which is exactly what Defendants intended. Defendants have also caused Cintas to incur

significant expenses, including attorneys fees, to combat Defendants’ extortionate corporate

campaign.

222. It is clear from Defendants’ words and actions that they have no intention of

stopping their extortionate conduct against Cintas until they obtain the valuable property and

benefits they seek from Cintas. Without the Court’s intervention, Cintas will continue to

suffer significant harm at the hands of Defendants and their unlawful extortion scheme.

IV. DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS CUMULATIVELY ARE IN VIOLATION OF LAW AND ESTABLISH A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY

223. As described herein, Defendants have engaged in a wide-ranging campaign of

extortion against Cintas and numerous other victims. Defendants are not currently the

71

collective bargaining agent for the vast majority of Cintas’s employees and, as such, have no

legal right to engage in collective bargaining with, or make demands of, Cintas on behalf of

any of these unrepresented employees. None of the activities or events described herein

constitutes legitimate union organizing activity, nor are they conducted in the context of a

traditional labor dispute.

224. By engaging in the actions and conduct described, Defendants have violated the

Hobbs Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1951, which states that “[w]hoever in any way or degree

obstructs, delays or affects commerce … by … extortion or attempts so to do” has committed

a federal crime. The term “extortion” is defined as “the obtaining of property from another,

with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened … fear ….” 18 U.S.C. §

1951. Extortion under the Hobbs Act consists of the use of wrongful means to achieve a

wrongful objective. “Wrongful means” and a “wrongful objective” both exist whenever an

individual exploits economic fear to obtain property to which he or she has no lawful claim.

Activities that are otherwise lawful still can constitute wrongful means if the individual uses

that activity to obtain property to which he or she has no lawful claim.

225. By engaging in the actions and conduct described herein, Defendants have

violated the Travel Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1952, which states that “[w]hoever … uses the

mail or any other facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to … promote,

manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate to promotion, management, establishment, or carrying

on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs” an act so described, has committed a

federal crime. The term “unlawful activity” includes attempted extortion as defined under the

Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Defendants in this case have repeatedly used the mail,

72

especially electronic mail, and internal and other modes of travel and communication, to

promote, manage and facilitate their extortion conspiracy.

226. By engaging in the actions and conduct described, Defendants, with purpose to

obtain a valuable thing or valuable benefit, repeatedly exposed, or directly or indirectly

threatened to expose, matters tending to subject Cintas to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to

damage Cintas’s business repute, or to impair Cintas’s credit, and, as such, are chargeable with

extortion under Ohio law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. Ohio Rev.

Code Ann. § 2905.11.

227. The valuable things, valuable benefits and valuable property wrongfully

demanded by Defendants include, but are not necessarily limited to:

a. Cintas’s agreement to recognize Defendants UNITE HERE and the Teamsters as the exclusive bargaining agents of Cintas employees without evidence of support from a majority of Cintas employees;

b. Cintas’s relinquishment of substantial autonomy and control over its business operations;

c. Cintas’s relinquishment of its right to deal with its employees directly and without interference from third parties such as unions;

d. Resulting lucrative gain from union dues of tens of thousands of new union members employed by Cintas to be received by Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters and CTW to be used for current and future extortion campaigns;

e. Resulting contributions to Defendants’ pension plans and current and future extortion campaigns; and

f. Resulting increased salaries to the Individual Defendants.

228. Defendants have no lawful claim to the valuable things, valuable benefits or

valuable property listed above.

229. Each of the actions or events described herein was undertaken either by the

Defendants themselves, or by and through their co-conspirators and/or agents and with their

73

actual knowledge, approval and/or ratification, in furtherance of the unlawful conspiracy

alleged herein to extort valuable things, valuable benefits and valuable property from Cintas

and to acquire unlawfully an interest in Cintas, by interfering unlawfully with Cintas’s

relations with its shareholders, customers, and the general public and inflicting economic

damage upon Cintas. Defendants’ actions and events were not isolated, but were related in

that each has the same or similar purpose, participants, victims, with methods of commission

designed to obtain the same result.

230. As such, Defendants’ actions are part of a pattern of repeated conduct, directed

at Cintas, over a substantial period of time, commencing in or around January of 2003 and

continuing through and including the present. Defendants’ conduct continues to cause new

and independent injuries to Cintas. Each of Defendants’ acts posed a distinct threat of long-

term continued criminal activity because Defendants’ past conduct, by its nature, projects into

the future with a threat and likelihood of repetition. The actions taken by Defendants in

furtherance of this pattern reflect their regular way of conducting business.

FACTS RELATING TO DEFENDANTS’ TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

231. In addition to constituting wrongful conduct in furtherance of Defendants’

extortion scheme and conspiracy, Defendants’ conduct also violates Cintas’s protected

trademark rights (sometimes referred to herein as the “CINTAS mark”).

I. DEFENDANT UNITE HERE’S WEBSITES

232. Because of the national, and even international, reach of the Internet, Defendant

UNITE HERE has employed the Internet as a critical tool in its negative public relations

campaign against Cintas. Indeed, in addition to its official website, <www.unitehere.org>,

74

Defendant UNITE HERE maintains two additional websites that are devoted exclusively to

promoting its campaign against Cintas.

233. The first website at issue in this case has become known as the “Cintas

Exposed” website which is owned and maintained by Defendant UNITE HERE and is

discussed in some detail above in connection with Defendants’ extortion schemes. Although it

is not apparent from the domain name itself, the Cintas Exposed website is devoted in large

part to disseminating false and misleading information about Cintas and its business practices.

234. The <cintasexposed.COM> domain name was registered by Defendant UNITE

HERE on December 19, 2002, through the registrar known as Enom, Inc. The administrative

contact is listed as Defendant Katie Unger, and the technical contact is listed as Defendant

Stefan Antonowicz. [Exhibit 63].

235. The <cintasexposed.ORG> domain name was registered as “private” through

the registrar known as Domains by Proxy, Inc. but, similar to the <cintasexposed.COM>

website, the <cintasexposed.ORG> website was registered on December 19, 2002, the

administrative contact is listed as Defendant Katie Unger, and the technical contact is listed as

Defendant Stefan Antonowicz. Thus, upon information and belief, Defendant UNITE HERE

is the registrant of the <cintasexposed.ORG> domain name. [Exhibit 64].

236. The <cintasexposed.NET> domain name was registered by Defendant UNITE

HERE on December 19, 2002, through the registrar known as Enom, Inc. The administrative

contact is listed as Defendant Katie Unger, and the technical contact is listed as Defendant

Stefan Antonowicz. [Exhibit 65].

237. Defendant UNITE HERE registered the foregoing domain names, each of

which contains the CINTAS mark in the name itself, without the prior knowledge, permission

75

or consent of Cintas. Defendant UNITE HERE’s registration of these domain names in no

way trumps federal and state trademark laws, and registration does not itself confer any

trademark rights on the registrant.

238. The <cintasexposed.COM> and <cintasexposed.ORG> domain names share the

same homepage (collectively referred to herein as the “Cintas Exposed Homepage”).

Although it is not apparent from the domain names themselves, the website is very critical of

Cintas and, once an Internet user accesses the Cintas Exposed Homepage, he or she is

informed that the website purports to be “an independent source of consumer information

from Defendant UNITE HERE!” [Exhibit 27].

239. The <cintasexposed.NET> domain name does not share the same homepage as

the two domain names listed above. In fact, the <cintasexposed.NET> domain name shares

the same homepage as Defendant UNITE HERE’s official union website. In other words,

when an Internet user tries to access the <cintasexposed.NET> domain name, the user is taken

directly to Defendant UNITE-HERE’s website instead of the Cintas Exposed Homepage.

[Exhibit 66].

240. The Cintas Exposed Homepage contains hyperlinks to other web pages

contained in the website, including: (1) news and updates; (2) tools for Cintas customers; (3)

find a Cintas story near you; (4) tell your Cintas story; and (5) sign up for updates. It also

contains hyperlinks to numerous press releases and news articles, all of which contain,

misleading, negative and/or damaging information about Cintas. [Exhibits 27-28].

241. Also contained within the Cintas Exposed websites is a hyperlink which takes

the Internet user directly to the homepage of Defendant UNITE HERE’s official website,

76

<www.unitehere.org> (the “UNITE Homepage”), which primarily consists of inflammatory

union rhetoric, much of which is directed at Cintas. [Exhibit 67].

242. In addition to the union rhetoric, the UNITE HERE Homepage contains

numerous hyperlinks. [Exhibit 68]. One such hyperlink takes the Internet user to a webpage

entitled “UNITE HERE Store” where users may set up an account for purchasing Defendant

UNITE HERE merchandise. Such merchandise includes a wide range of items, including:

baseball caps ($8.00); tee-shirts ($10.00); polo shirts ($17.00); fleece jackets ($42.00); flags

($12.00); sweatshirts ($25.00); denim shirts ($34.00); dress shirts ($33.00); attaché bags

($10.00); fleece blankets ($15.00); coffee mugs ($4.50); varsity jackets ($208.00); and

numerous other items. The UNITE HERE Store has a wide selection of merchandise and, for

the most part, is operated in the same manner as other online retailers. [Exhibit 69]. Thus,

with just a couple of clicks of the mouse, an Internet user who accesses a domain name

containing the CINTAS mark will quickly find himself bombarded with union rhetoric and

offers of merchandise.

243. Another hyperlink takes the user to a webpage entitled “Buy Union,” the

purpose of which is to encourage consumers to purchase only union-made products and

apparel. [Exhibit 70]. This webpage contains the following statement: “Union members,

college students, and all kinds of folks are doing the right thing by deciding to wear clothing

made under decent conditions, in union shops instead of sweatshops. Click on the links below

to find union-made, sweat-free suppliers.”

244. Contained on this “Buy Union” webpage are four hyperlinks to other webpages

contained on Defendant UNITE HERE’s website, two of which are relevant here. [Exhibit

70]. The first is entitled “Union Made Work Uniforms (for union members like firefighters

77

who wear uniforms on the job).” Clicking on this hyperlink takes the Internet user to a

webpage containing two more hyperlinks: (1) “Click here for a list of union-made uniform

manufacturers;” and (2) “Click here for a list of union products dealers for postal uniforms.”

[Exhibit 71]. Clicking on these hyperlinks provides the user with a list (in PDF format) of

numerous “manufacturers of union-made uniforms” from whom the user may purchase union-

made uniforms. [Exhibit 72]. These providers of union-made uniforms are some of Cintas’s

competitors in the uniform industry. Thus, a website with a domain name containing the

CINTAS mark is being used to steer Internet users to Cintas’s competitors.

245. The second hyperlink on the “Buy Union” webpage is entitled “Union Made

Apparel and Products.” [Exhibit 73]. Clicking on this hyperlink takes the Internet user to a

webpage contained in Defendant UNITE HERE’s website which provides the user with a list

of numerous union manufacturers who deal in athletic uniforms, belts, briefcases and

handbags, denim jeans, dress coats and blazers, embroidered patches and emblems,

embroidering and screen printing of promotional items, flags and banners, gloves, hats and

caps, home furnishings, jackets coats and sweatshirts, men’s dress shirts, men’s suits, neckties

and scarves, plastic bags, school and band uniforms, suppliers of union made promotional

products, t-shirts and knit shirts, umbrellas, underwear, screen printers and distributors. These

providers of union-made apparel and products are some of Cintas’s competitors in the uniform

industry. Again, a website with a domain name containing the CINTAS mark is being used to

steer Internet users to the products of Cintas’s competitors.

246. As with any other website, the Cintas Exposed websites contain “metatags” that

are not immediately visible to an Internet user. Metatags are listed between the “opening” and

“closing” head tags. The first entry to appear after the opening head tag is the HTML “title

78

tag.” Whatever the webpage owner places in the title tag will appear in the reverse bar of the

user’s browser when the web page is viewed. For the Cintas Exposed websites, the title tag

appears as follows: “<TITLE>Cintas Exposed</TITLE>” and, thus, the reverse bar of the

browser will appear as “http://www.cintasexposed.com/.”

247. Defendant UNITE HERE’s use of the name “Cintas” in its title tag was no

accident. Indeed, a title tag is crucial for search engines. The text used in the title tag is one

of the most important factors in how a search engine may decide to rank the web page, and all

major crawlers will use the text of the title tag as the text they use for the title of a website in

its rankings.

II. DEFENDANT UNITE HERE’S INFRINGEMENT OF CINTAS’S TRADEMARK RIGHTS

248. Since at least 1968, Cintas has conducted substantial and continuing business

under the trade name “Cintas.” Cintas owns U.S. registrations for the following CINTAS

trademarks: CINTAS THE SERVICE PROFESSIONALS, Registration No. 3,166,081;

CINTAS COMFORT FLEX, Registration No. 3,169,446; CINTAS, Registration No.

2,461,471; CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY, Registration No. 2,466,399; CINTAS CLEAN

ROOM RESOURCES, Registration No. 2,372,514; CINTAS (Stylized), Registration No.

1,003,590; and CINTAS THE UNIFORM PEOPLE, Registration No. 999,324. [Exhibit 74].

These registrations are valid and subsisting and constitute prima facie evidence of the validity

of the registered marks. Cintas also has valid and enforceable rights in and to the trade name

“Cintas.”

249. The CINTAS mark is a coined word, inherently distinctive and famous among

the relevant consuming public. Cintas has used the CINTAS mark in connection with its

advertising activities, community awareness events, and to promote its image since 1972. As

79

a result of the long-term and continuous use of the CINTAS mark, the commercial sale of the

goods and services offered under the CINTAS mark, as well as the significant advertising and

promotional efforts made in connection therewith, the CINTAS mark enjoys significant

secondary meaning. The purchasing public has come to recognize and identify the CINTAS

mark and the goods and services offered thereunder as originating with Cintas. The CINTAS

mark has come to represent Cintas’s very substantial and valuable goodwill and reputation in

the uniform industry.

250. To exploit its own goodwill and to enable consumers to locate its products by

its most famous brand, Cintas has registered and maintains a number of domain names that

incorporate the CINTAS mark, including <cintas.com>, <cintasuniforms.com>, and

<cintasfirstaid.com>. [Exhibit 75]. The Cintas registered logo and the CINTAS mark are

both prominently displayed on the <cintas.com> website. [Exhibit 76]. Consumers who have

come to rely upon the CINTAS mark as an indicator of source for Cintas’s products and

services should be able to easily locate Cintas’s products and services by typing the word

“Cintas” into any Internet search engine.

251. Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Defendants may

have a very limited right to use the Internet to criticize Cintas or to use an expressive domain

name that is unlikely to cause confusion among Internet users as to the source of the

information. But any First Amendment rights Defendants may enjoy do not permit

Defendants to infringe upon Cintas’s protected trademark rights. The trademark issues raised

in this complaint have nothing to do with Defendants’ message; instead, Cintas’s complaint

challenges the unlawful way in which Defendants chose to communicate their message.

80

252. Defendants UNITE HERE, Katie Unger, Stefan Antonowicz and the Doe

Defendants could have chosen to provide their anti-Cintas commentary exclusively on

Defendant UNITE HERE’s official website, <www.unitehere.org>, or another anti-Cintas

website Defendants operate at <www.uniformjustice.com>. Use of either of these sites would

have made the source of the rhetoric and commentary (i.e., UNITE HERE) quite obvious to

Internet users, and only people who were looking for, or interested in, this type of union

rhetoric would access the websites. But Defendants were not satisfied with just having

websites that catered to and attracted only rank and file union members and supporters.

Indeed, Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger and Antonowicz wanted to attract a larger and

different audience for their message – an audience that otherwise would have no reason or

desire to access the union’s websites. In other words, Defendants wanted to communicate

with the people who were searching for a Cintas sponsored or affiliated website.

253. To attract such a broader and different audience, Defendants UNITE HERE,

Unger and Antonowicz needed to establish a website that would appear prominently in the

search results of Internet users, including Cintas’s customers and shareholder, who were

searching the web for “Cintas” sponsored or affiliated websites. Based upon other so-called

“gripe sites” currently on the web, Defendants could have chosen a domain name with an

obviously pejorative meaning (e.g., WeHateCintas.com). Even though such a pejorative

domain name would have incorporated the CINTAS mark, Defendants still might have been

entitled to some very limited First Amendment protection because the domain name itself

communicates a message. That is, any Internet user who came across a website like this

would know instantly, without even viewing the content of the website, that it was nothing

more than a gripe site and, more importantly, that the website was not associated with or

81

sponsored by Cintas. Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger and Antonowicz recognized that a

website with an obviously pejorative domain name would not allow them to reach the desired

target audience: that is, Defendants concluded that most Internet users looking for one of

Cintas’s official websites would not be interested in viewing such an obviously negative

website with a tasteless domain name. If anything, use of such an obviously negative domain

name would only slightly increase the audience to Defendants’ anti-Cintas message, if at all,

and, in all likelihood, Defendants would once again be “preaching to the choir.”

254. Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger and Antonowicz tried to solve their

communication problem by launching the “Cintas Exposed” websites. Defendants

intentionally inserted the CINTAS mark into the domain name so that the union’s anti-Cintas

website would prominently appear in search results when Internet users (like Cintas’s

customers, potential customers and employees) searched for “Cintas” and were looking to

access websites sponsored by or affiliated with Cintas. But instead of coupling the trademark

with an obviously negative term, Defendants chose to use an ambiguous term like “exposed,”

hoping it would confuse Internet users and, as a result of that confusion, attract Internet users

who would not realize that the Cintas Exposed websites are not affiliated with or sponsored by

Cintas. That is, Defendants anticipated that no one would believe that an obviously anti-

Cintas domain name (e.g., WeHateCintas.com) was sponsored by or associated with Cintas.

But the domain name <cintasexposed.com> is not quite as clear, and once an unsuspecting

Internet user has entered the website, Defendants are given the opportunity to distribute their

message and inflammatory rhetoric to a whole new audience – most of whom, upon

information and belief, are Cintas customers who never would have visited Defendant UNITE

HERE’s official website or any other obviously anti-Cintas website had they not been tricked

82

into doing so. By employing this tactic, Defendant UNITE HERE, Unger and Antonowicz is

improperly and intentionally using what courts have coined “initial interest confusion” by

Internet users. Such “initial confusion” about whether the “Cintas Exposed” websites are

official Cintas-sponsored websites is actionable against Defendants under federal and state

law, even if the confusion is only momentary.

255. In other words, Defendants’ use of the “Cintas Exposed” domain name for their

anti-Cintas websites is an example of a classic “bait and switch” scam. Defendants mislead

unsuspecting Internet users into accessing what they think is or could be a Cintas-affiliated

website (the “bait”), and then Defendants bombard the users with anti-Cintas information and

commentary (the “switch”).

256. Defendants’ bait and switch scam is even more apparent in the case of

Defendants’ <cintasexposed.NET> domain name. Indeed, the <cintasexposed.NET> domain

name shares the same homepage as Defendant UNITE HERE’s official union website.

[Exhibit 66]. Thus, when an Internet user tries to access the <cintasexposed.NET> domain

name, the user is taken directly to Defendant UNITE-HERE’s website, which has absolutely

no connection with the Cintas Exposed domain name. This is a classic bait and switch

scenario.

257. Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger and Antonowicz are unlawfully attempting

to increase traffic to their anti-Cintas websites by intentionally using a domain name that is

confusingly similar to Cintas’s other website domain names. The “Cintas Exposed” domain

name is not so obviously derogatory that an Internet user would immediately know that such

websites are not associated with Cintas.

83

258. Defendants’ intent to increase traffic to their anti-Cintas websites is further

demonstrated by the fact that Defendants have purchased the Cintas mark as a “keyword” on

search engines, which ensures their websites will appear more prominently, or rank higher,

than the expected search results when an Internet user types in “Cintas” as a search query.

Exhibit 77 hereto is an example of how Defendants purchased the Cintas keyword to increase

traffic to the <www.cintasexposed.org> website.

259. The Cintas Exposed domain names at issue use the entire “Cintas” mark and

are likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception among the consuming public. Such

confusion has been recognized repeatedly in connection with other websites employing the

ambiguous “exposed” term. Indeed, by way of example, in certain arbitration proceedings

mandated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, domain names very

similar to “Cintas Exposed” have been cancelled or transferred after it was determined that

they were confusingly similar to a protected trademark.

260. Defendants created the Cintas Exposed website to compete unfairly with Cintas

and to profit from the establishment of the websites by, among other things, disparaging

Cintas and its business practices, products and services, confusing Cintas’s customers,

diverting customers, sales and profits away from Cintas, and portraying Cintas in a bad light to

the general consuming public who, if not for the initial interest confusion created by the Cintas

Exposed domain names, would not have visited Defendants’ websites.

261. In addition to the “word” mark CINTAS, Cintas owns a federal registration for

a stylized design usage of the CINTAS mark. This mark is U.S. Registration No. 1,003,590, a

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 78. Cintas has been using this distinctive

stylization since 1972, and this logo has become distinctive and recognized as a source

84

indicator for Cintas goods and services. Cintas’s trademark registration for this stylized mark

is incontestable.

262. Without Cintas’s prior authorization, Defendants have adopted and used in

commerce the distinctive CINTAS logo on their websites. Use of the Cintas logo at these sites

goes well beyond any fair use need to name Cintas, and is actionable as an infringement of

Cintas’s registered marks. Defendants also have wrongfully used the Cintas logo in many of

the marketing pieces and flyers available on Defendants’ websites.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE

Violation of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer,

Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger, and the Doe Defendants)

263. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 262 as if fully set forth herein.

The Extortion Enterprise

264. Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer,

Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants, were and are associated with the

Extortion Enterprise and have conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the

management and operation of the affairs of the enterprise in relationship to Cintas through a

pattern of activity unlawful under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(A), to wit: multiple, repeated, and

continuous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (attempted extortion under the Hobbs Acts);

18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act violations); and Ohio Revised Code § 2905.11 (extortion and

attempted extortion).

85

The CTW Extortion Enterprise

265. Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres,

DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants, were and are associated with the CTW Extortion

Enterprise and have conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the management and

operation of the affairs of the enterprise in relationship to Cintas through a pattern of activity

unlawful under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(A), to wit: multiple, repeated, and continuous violations of

18 U.S.C. § 1951 (attempted extortion under the Hobbs Acts); 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act

violations); and Ohio Revised Code § 2905.11 (extortion and attempted extortion).

266. Each of the Plaintiffs has suffered substantial injury to its business or property

within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) by reason of the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)

committed by Defendants, including, but not limited to, lost or reduced sales, damage to

business reputation, substantial expense to combat Defendants’ conduct, including employer

expense and attorney fees, and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and business

opportunity with consumers and customers.

COUNT TWO

Violation of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(c)

(Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger, and the Doe Defendants)

267. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 266 as if fully set forth herein.

268. Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer,

Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants, were and are associated with the

enterprises and conspired within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C.

§ 1962(c), that is, the Defendants conspired to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in

86

the management and operation of the affairs of the Enterprises in relationship to Cintas

through a pattern of activity unlawful under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(A), to wit: multiple, repeated,

and continuous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (attempted extortion under the Hobbs Acts); 18

U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act violations); and Ohio Revised Code §2905.11 (extortion and

attempted extortion). All Defendants knowingly agreed to commit or participate in at least

two predicate acts in furtherance of their conspiracy.

269. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, each of the Plaintiffs has suffered

substantial injury to its business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c),

including, but not limited to, lost or reduced sales, damage to business reputation, substantial

expense to combat Defendants’ conduct, including employer expense and attorney fees, and

substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and business opportunity with consumers and

customers.

COUNT THREE

Violation of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(a)

(Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger, and the Doe Defendants)

270. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 269 as if fully set forth herein.

271. Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer,

Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger, and the Doe Defendants, conspired within the meaning of

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) that is, the Defendants conspired among

themselves that income in the form of union dues, other bargaining concessions and otherwise

would be received by Defendants directly or indirectly, from a pattern of activity unlawful

under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(A) in which all Defendants participated as principals within the

87

meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), 1961(5) and 1962(a), to wit: multiple, repeated, and

continuous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (attempted extortion under the Hobbs Acts);

18 U.S.C. § 1852 (Travel Act violations); and Ohio Revised Code § 2905.11 (extortion and

attempted extortion).

272. An object of the said conspiracy was and is that income, or the proceeds of

income, received by Defendants Change to Win, UNITE HERE and the Teamsters be used or

invested in the operation of the Enterprises for numerous legitimate and illegitimate purposes,

including, but not limited to, the conduct of additional extortionate corporate campaigns,

payment of salaries and fees to other Defendants for the purpose of engaging in further

corporate campaigns and otherwise, and the ongoing operation of the Enterprises. All

Defendants knowingly agreed to commit or participate in at least two predicate acts in

furtherance of their conspiracy.

273. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, each of the Plaintiffs has suffered

substantial injury to its business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c),

including, but not limited to, lost or reduced sales, damage to business reputation, substantial

expense to combat Defendants’ conduct, including employer expense and attorney fees, and

substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and business opportunity with consumers and

customers.

COUNT FOUR

Violation of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(b)

(Against Defendants UNITE HERE, the Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger, and the Doe Defendants)

274. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 273 as if fully set forth herein.

88

275. Cintas Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of

the State of Washington; Cintas Corporation No. 2 and Cintas Corporation No. 3 are

corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada; and Cintas

Holdings LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State

of Nevada. Each is an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4) and 1962(b),

which enterprises were engaged in activities affecting interstate commerce at all times relevant

to this Complaint.

276. Defendants conspired among themselves within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), that is, Defendants conspired among themselves to

acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Cintas enterprises

through a pattern of activity unlawful under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(A), to wit: multiple, repeated,

and continuous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (attempted extortion under the Hobbs Acts);

18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act violations); and Ohio Revised Code § 2905.11 (extortion and

attempted extortion).

277. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, each of the Plaintiffs has suffered

substantial injury to its business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c),

including, but not limited to, lost or reduced sales, damage to business reputation, substantial

expense to combat Defendants’ conduct, including employer expense and attorney fees, and

substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and business opportunity with consumers and

customers.

89

COUNT FIVE

Violation of Ohio Corrupt Practices Act Ohio Revised Code §§ 2923.32(A)(1) and 2923.34(A)

(Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants)

278. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 277 as if fully set forth herein.

279. Defendants UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer,

Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the Doe Defendants, were and are persons associated with

one or both of the Enterprises and have conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the

management and operation of the affairs of the Enterprises in relationship to Plaintiffs through

a pattern of unlawful activity.

280. UNITE HERE, the Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich,

Gres, DeMay, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants, conducted and participated in the

conduct of one or both of the Enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of corrupt activity as

defined by Ohio R.C. § 2923.31(I) which includes, but it not limited to, engaging in

“racketeering activity,” attempting to extort property from Cintas, forgery, theft, and receiving

and transporting property stolen from Cintas.

281. Pursuant to and in furtherance of these predicate violations, Defendants UNITE

HERE, Teamsters, Change to Win, Raynor, Qadeer, Mestrich, Gres, DeMay, Unger and the

Doe Defendants have committed multiple related acts of extortion, defamation, receipt and

transport of stolen property, and misappropriation of trade secrets.

282. Defendants committed these acts with malice, intent and knowledge, and a

wanton and reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and others.

90

283. The acts set forth in the allegations of the Complaint constitute a pattern of

corrupt activity consisting of at least two incidents of corrupt activity pursuant to Ohio R.C. §

2923.31(E).

284. Defendants have directly and indirectly conducted and participated in the

conduct of the affairs of the Extortion Enterprise and the CTW Enterprise, both of which exist

separate and apart from Defendants, through the pattern of racketeering activity described

above, in violation of Ohio R.C. §2923.32(A)(1).

285. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, each of the Plaintiffs has suffered

substantial injury to its business or property, including, but not limited to, lost or reduced

sales, damage to business reputation, substantial expense to combat Defendants’ conduct,

including employer expense and attorney fees, and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill

and business opportunity with consumers and customers.

COUNT SIX

Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a) (Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants)

286. Cintas avers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained

in paragraphs 1 though 285 as if fully set forth herein.

287. Defendants’ use of the “Cintas” mark in their domain names and their use of

the Cintas logo on their web pages, misappropriates the widespread recognition, reputation,

and goodwill associated with the CINTAS mark by consumers, and exploits consumers’

association of high quality products and services with the CINTAS mark. Defendants’ use is

likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to cause deception as to the nature,

characteristics, qualities, affiliation, connection, or association of Cintas’s products and

services among the relevant purchasing public.

91

288. Defendants’ use of the federally registered CINTAS marks in interstate

commerce constitutes infringement of the CINTAS marks in violation of Section 32 of the

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a).

289. Defendants’ acts of infringement are and have been deliberate, intentional,

willful and have been committed with full knowledge of Cintas’s rights in the CINTAS marks.

290. Cintas has and will continue to be injured as a result of the foregoing acts,

either by direct diversion of business from Cintas or by the lessening of the goodwill that the

CINTAS marks enjoy with the buying public, including, without limitation, consumers and

investors.

291. Defendants, by the acts described herein, have damaged Cintas in an amount to

be determined at trial and unlawfully derived profits and gains.

292. By reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts of infringement, Defendants have

caused and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Cintas and to the public

for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT SEVEN

Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants)

293. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 292 as if fully set forth herein.

294. The CINTAS marks are highly distinctive and have become famous within the

meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) well prior to Defendants’ first use of the term “Cintas.”

295. As a result of Cintas’s extensive use and promotion of the CINTAS marks, the

public has come to associate goods and services bearing the CINTAS marks with Cintas alone.

92

296. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the CINTAS marks as described herein

Defendants’ unauthorized use also dilutes the distinctiveness of the famous CINTAS marks by

diminishing the capacity of the CINTAS marks to identify and distinguish Cintas’s goods and

services and causing the CINTAS marks to lose their ability to serve as a unique identifier of

Cintas’s goods and services.

297. Defendants’ use of the CINTAS marks in the manner described herein dilutes

the distinctive qualities of the famous CINTAS marks and, therefore, constitutes trademark

dilution within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), as amended.

298. Defendants willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the CINTAS marks

and/or willfully intended to harm the reputation of the CINTAS marks. Defendants, by the

conduct alleged herein, have damaged Cintas in an amount to be determined at trial and

unlawfully derived profits and gains.

299. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue in their acts of

trademark dilution, thereby causing Cintas immediate and irreparable injury for which it has

no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT EIGHT

Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants)

300. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 299 as if fully set forth herein.

301. Defendants’ use of the CINTAS marks as described herein is likely to cause

confusion or mistake, or to deceive the consuming public as to the affiliation, sponsorship,

endorsement or approval, connection or association of Defendants and their message and

activities with the CINTAS marks and/or Cintas.

93

302. Defendants’ acts constitute false designation of origin, source or sponsorship,

and false representations in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Such acts by Defendants were

and continue to be knowing, willful and intentional.

303. Defendants’ unlawful acts have caused and continue to cause Cintas to suffer

damages in an amount to be proved at trial. Defendants’ unlawful acts have caused and

continue to cause irreparable injury to Cintas’s business reputation, its goodwill, and the

integrity of the CINTAS marks.

304. Cintas’s remedies at law cannot adequately compensate Cintas for the ongoing

injuries threatened by Defendants’ continuing conduct. Unless Defendants are restrained and

enjoined, Defendants will continue to commit unlawful acts, causing Cintas to suffer further

irreparable injury.

COUNT NINE

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A) (Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants)

305. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 304 as if fully set forth herein.

306. The CINTAS marks are and were distinctive at the time Defendants registered

the domain names <cintasexposed.com>, <cintasexposed.net> and <cintasexposed.org> for

their illicit purposes, and at all other times relevant herein.

307. The aforementioned domain names are confusingly similar to the CINTAS

mark and the company’s official website located at www.cintas.com.

308. Defendants, with a bad faith intent to profit within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.

§ 1125(d)(1)(B), have been using, and continue to use, the <cintasexposed.com>,

94

<cintasexposed.net> and <cintasexposed.org> domain names, all of which are confusingly

similar to the CINTAS mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(A).

309. Defendants registered the aforementioned domain names with the intent to

divert consumers from Cintas’s official website located at <www.cintas.com> to Defendants’

websites to harm the goodwill represented by the CINTAS mark for commercial gain and with

the intent to tarnish or disparage Cintas’s name, reputation, products, services, and the

CINTAS mark, and by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship,

affiliation, or endorsement of Defendants’ websites and their message.

310. Because the aforementioned domain names are confusingly similar to the

CINTAS mark and the company’s official website located at www.cintas.com, Defendants’

use of the subject domain names has, in fact, caused Cintas’s name, reputation, products,

services and the CINTAS mark to become tarnished and disparaged, and has caused

confusion, deception, and mistake by creating the false and misleading impression that the

Defendants’ websites are at authorized, associated with, sponsored by or connected with

Cintas, or has the sponsorship or approval of Cintas.

311. Defendants’ actions demonstrate an intentional, willful, and malicious intent to

trade on the goodwill associated with the CINTAS mark.

312. Defendants’ actions have caused, and will continue to cause, substantial injury

to the public and to Cintas, and Cintas is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§ 1116, and to recover Defendants’ profits, actual damages, enhanced profits and damages,

costs, and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a) and 1117 or, in the

alternative, statutory damages of $100,000.

95

COUNT TEN

Trademark Infringement, O.R.C. § 1329.65 and Ohio Common Law (Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants)

313. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 312 as if fully set forth herein.

314. Defendants’ activities as described herein constitute trademark infringement

within the meaning of Ohio Revised Code § 1329.65 and Ohio common law.

315. Defendants’ acts of infringement are and have been deliberate, intentional,

willful and have been committed with full knowledge of Cintas’s rights in the CINTAS mark.

316. Cintas has and will continue to be injured as a result of the foregoing acts,

either by direct diversion of business from Cintas or by the lessening of the goodwill that the

CINTAS mark enjoys with the buying public, including, without limitation, consumers and

investors.

317. Defendants, by their aforesaid acts, have unlawfully derived profits and gains

and caused monetary damage to Cintas in an amount to be determined at trial.

318. By reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts of infringement, Defendants have

caused and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Cintas and to the public

for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Defendants have unjustifiably benefited from

said unlawful acts and will continue to carry out such unlawful conduct and be unjustly

enriched unless enjoined by this Court.

COUNT ELEVEN

Trademark Dilution, Ohio Common Law (Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants)

319. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 318 as if fully set forth herein.

96

320. Defendants’ activities as described herein constitute trademark dilution under

the common law of the State of Ohio.

321. Defendants’ conduct is and has been deliberate, intentional, willful and has

been committed with full knowledge of Cintas’s rights in the CINTAS mark.

322. Defendants willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the CINTAS mark

and/or willfully intended to harm the reputation of the CINTAS mark. Defendants, by the

conduct alleged herein, have unlawfully derived profits and gains and caused monetary

damage to Cintas in an amount to be determined at trial.

323. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue in their acts of

trademark dilution, thereby causing Cintas immediate and irreparable injury for with it has no

adequate remedy at law.

COUNT TWELVE

Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.R.C. § 4165.02 (Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants)

324. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 323 as if fully set forth herein.

325. Defendants’ activities as described herein constitute unfair or deceptive trade

practices or acts within the meaning of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, codified at

Ohio Revised Code § 4165.02.

326. Defendants’ conduct is and has been deliberate, intentional, willful and has

been committed with full knowledge of Cintas’s rights in the CINTAS mark.

327. Cintas has been injured as a result of Defendants’ unlawful and unauthorized

deceptive trade practices by lessening the goodwill the Cintas’s products and services have

with the buying public. Cintas has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

97

328. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful and unauthorized deceptive trade practices,

Defendants have caused and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Cintas

and to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Defendants have unjustifiably

benefited from said unlawful acts and will continue to carry out such unlawful conduct and be

unjustly enriched unless enjoined by this Court.

COUNT THIRTEEN

Unfair Competition, Ohio Common Law (Against Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz, and the Doe Defendants)

329. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 328 as if fully set forth herein.

330. Defendants’ activities as described herein constitute unfair competition under

the common law of the State of Ohio.

331. Defendants’ conduct is and has been deliberate, intentional, willful and has

been committed with full knowledge of Cintas’s rights in the CINTAS mark.

332. Cintas has been injured as a result of Defendants’ unfair competition in that

Cintas has lost sales as a result thereof and/or by the lessening the goodwill the Cintas’s

products and services have with the buying public. Cintas has been damaged in an amount to

be determined at trial.

333. As a result of Defendants’ unfair competition, Defendants have caused and will

continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Cintas and to the public for which there

is no adequate remedy at law. Defendants have unjustifiably benefited from said unlawful

acts and will continue to carry out such unlawful conduct and be unjustly enriched unless

enjoined by this Court.

98

COUNT FOURTEEN

Defamation, Ohio Common Law (Against Defendants UNITE HERE and Liz Gres)

334. Cintas reavers and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1 though 333 as if fully set forth herein.

335. On January 7, 2004, Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres caused the Press

Release to be disseminated to third-parties.

336. The Press Release contained false and defamatory statements.

337. Specifically, the Press Release identified the NLRB as a “Source” of the Press

Release even though – as Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres knew – the NLRB neither knew

of nor approved the issuance or content of the Press Release. Moreover, Defendants stated

that readers could obtain further information by contacting Gres, who was identified as the

“Contact Person” for the NLRB even though Gres worked for UNITE and had no affiliation

whatsoever with the NLRB. Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres approved the version of the

Press Release that was issued to the third-parties.

338. In addition to falsely stating that the NLRB (i.e., the federal government) was

the “Source” of the Press Release (so that third-parties would lend more credence to the Press

Release), Defendants also stated that the NLRB had determined that Cintas had “illegally

fired” one or more employees and had engaged in “threats, bribes, and interrogation.” These

statements were, and are, false. The NLRB had not determined that Cintas engaged in any of

the illegal acts set forth in the Press Release.

339. At all relevant times, Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres had actual

knowledge that the statements in the Press Release were false but nonetheless disseminated

and published these statements with such knowledge or with reckless disregard of their truth

99

or falsity. Additionally, these statements are defamatory on their face in that they clearly

expose Cintas to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy.

340. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant UNITE HERE’s and Defendant

Gres’s issuance of the defamatory Press Release to third-parties, Cintas has suffered general

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

341. By purposefully disseminating and publishing false and defamatory

information and knowing that such information would seriously harm Cintas’s business,

Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres acted intentionally, knowingly, maliciously, and with

intent to injure Cintas, which justifies the imposition of special and punitive damages in an

amount to be determined at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Cintas prays that this Court enter judgment in their favor as follows:

(a) That all Defendants, except Antonowicz, be adjudged to have violated the

Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and in doing so caused

damages to Cintas;

(b) That all Defendants, except Antonowicz, be adjudged to have violated the

Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by conspiring to violate

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), thereby causing damages to Cintas;

(c) That all Defendants, except Antonowicz, be adjudged to have violated the

Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by conspiring to violate

18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), thereby causing damages to Cintas;

100

(d) That all Defendants, except Antonowicz, be adjudged to have violated the

Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by conspiring to violate

18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), thereby causing damages to Cintas;

(e) That all Defendants, except Antonowicz, be adjudged to have violated the Ohio

Corrupt Practices Act, Ohio R.C. 2923(A)(1) thereby injuring Cintas;

(f) That all Defendants, except Antonowicz, be enjoined from engaging in RICO

violations and/or violations of the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act as described in this Complaint;

(g) That all Defendants, except Antonowicz, be ordered to pay Cintas’s treble

compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

(h) That all Defendants, except Antonowicz, be ordered to pay the costs associated

with this action, including Cintas’s reasonable attorney fees;

(i) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

adjudged to have infringed Cintas’s federal trademark rights in the Cintas marks conveyed by the

U.S. Trademark Registrations identified herein in violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1114(a);

(j) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

adjudged to have willfully infringed the CINTAS trademarks, with full knowledge of Cintas’s

prior use of and rights in the CINTAS trademark;

(k) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

adjudged to have willfully intended to trade on the recognition of the CINTAS mark and/or

willfully intended to harm the reputation of the Cintas mark, in violation of the Federal

Trademark Dilution Act of 1996 (“FTDA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c);

101

(l) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

adjudged to have willfully used a false designation of origin, source or sponsorship, and made

false representations in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);

(m) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

adjudged to have, with bad faith, used a domain name that is confusingly similar to Cintas’s

distinctive CINTAS mark, in violation of Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §

1125(d)(1)(a);

(n) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

adjudged to have committed trademark infringement of the CINTAS mark, in violation of

O.R.C. § 1329.65 and Ohio common law;

(o) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

adjudged to have deliberately, intentionally and willfully committed trademark dilution of the

CINTAS mark, with full knowledge of Cintas’s rights in the CINTAS mark, in violation of Ohio

common law;

(p) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

adjudged to have committed deceptive trade practices in violation of O.R.C. § 4165.02 and to

have committed these deceptive trade practices willfully and with knowledge that they would be

deceptive;

(q) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

adjudged to have engaged in unfair competition under Ohio common law;

(r) That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and O.R.C. § 5165.03(A)(1), the Court

preliminarily and permanently enjoin all Defendants, their agents, employees, attorneys and all

persons in active concert or participation with them, from directly or indirectly using the

102

CINTAS marks or any other mark, trade name, word or name similar to the CINTAS marks that

is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive, and/or raises the possibility that the CINTAS

marks will lose their ability to serve as a unique identifier of Cintas’s goods and services;

(s) That all Defendants be required, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118, to deliver up and

destroy all packaging, labels, signs, brochures, advertisements, promotional items, and any other

media, documents or things in their possession, custody or control bearing the CINTAS marks,

and all means of making same;

(t) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

required, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(C), to transfer over to Cintas the

<cintasexposed.com>, <cintasexposed.net>, and <cintasexposed.org> domain names and any

other domain names that are confusingly similar to the CINTAS marks;

(u) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

required, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), to pay Cintas all damages sustained by it by reason of

said acts of cybersquatting in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) and disgorge any

profits therefrom; alternatively, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d), for maximum statutory

damages in the amount of $100,000;

(v) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

required, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), to pay Cintas the actual damages it has suffered as a

result of Defendants’ trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, and

disgorge any profits therefrom, and that Defendants be required, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, to

pay Plaintiffs three times the amount of actual damages suffered by Cintas, or profits received by

Defendants, by virtue of the willful nature of Defendants’ illegal conduct;

103

(w) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

required to pay Cintas the actual damages they have suffered, and to disgorge any profits

therefrom, as may be permitted under any applicable Ohio statute or Ohio common law;

(x) That Defendants UNITE HERE, Unger, Antonowicz and the Doe Defendants be

ordered to pay Cintas punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to deter such conduct in the

future;

(y) That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the Court declare this to be an exceptional

case and award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees, or alternatively, pursuant to O.R.C.

§ 4165.03(B), the Court award Plaintiffs their attorney fees by virtue of Defendants’ willful

engagement in a deceptive trade practice knowing it to be deceptive;

(z) That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the Court award the full costs of this action

and interest to Plaintiffs;

(aa) That Defendants UNITE HERE and Gres be ordered to pay compensatory and

punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, for their defamation against Cintas; and

(bb) That the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and

proper, including costs and attorney fees as may be appropriate under any applicable statutes or

common law.

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial of all issues so triable.

Dated: March 5, 2008.

2401807.1

Respectfully submitted,

By:~J(/(~Howard J. C. Nicols (HN 3594)Steven Skulnik (SS 7821)SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY, LLP350 Park AvenueNew York, New York 10022-6022Tel: (212) 872-9800sskulnik@ssd.comhnicols@ssd.com

-and-

Gregory M. UtterJamie M. RamseyPatricia B. HoganChristy M. Nageleisen-BladesDrew M. HicksKEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLLOne East Fourth Street, Suite 1400Cincinnati, Ohio 45202Tel: (513) 579-6540Fax: (513) 579-6457gmutter@kmklaw.comjramsey@kmklaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

104