,,

{
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
)
'
SHENOI KOES LLP
Allan A. # 122566]
Daniel J. Koes [ SB # 192513]
175 South Lake Avenue, Suite 202
.. .... ..
Pasadena, California 9110 I
J .II::- li ''
Telephone: 626-792-2300
'1- \
'
f ::
Facstmile: 626-792-231 I
AttornTL'i for Plainti tT ..,' :''
POPA AL K. SAVLA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNADINO
RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT
POPATLAL K, SAVLA, on behalf
14
of himself and all others similarly
CASE NO.: CIVRS 1008116
[Assigned to Hon. David A. Williams]
Dept. R8
15 situated;
16
17
Plaintiff,
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR:
18 vs.
I. Breach of Contract
19
NITHY ANANDA
FOUNDATION,
3. uiet Title
20 Corporation,
2. Performance
4. raud
5. RICO
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MA NITHY A SADHANANDA, a
Individual, SIVA VALLABHANENI, a
Individual,
And DOES I to 30.
Defendants.
6. RICO Conspiracy
7. Civil Consp1racy
8. Constructive Trust
9. Unfair Business Practices
fComQlaint filed: July 26, 20 I 0
I rial Date: None]
COMES NOW Plaintiff POP A TALK. SAY LA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, complains of Defendants NlTHY ANANDA
l
! OIWI\04-1 7 DOC;
\'FRIFIID FIRS I ".MFNI>LD COMPLAIN I
other companies--listed on the FOUNDATION's 990 PF tax filings. It is also the
2
3
address of Defendant V ALLABHENENI as well, and was listed on the
4
FOUNDATION's records filed with the California Secretary of State as of July 8,
5
2009 for the agent for service of process on the FOUNDATION.
6
7
7.
Beginning in March 2010, Plaintiff learned that the FOUNDATION is the
8
"alter ego" of and one and the same as an individual named Swami Nithyananda, also
9
10
known as Sri Nithyananda Swami or Paramahamsa Nithyananda ("Swami
II
Nithyananda"). On information and belief, it is alleged that Swami Nithyananda is
12
13
the equitable owner of the Defendant FOUNDATION. There is a unity of interest
14 and ownership between Swami Nithyananda and the FOUNDATION such that, in
15
reality, their separateness does not exist. Moreover, the treatment of the actions in
16
17
question in this complaint as those of Swami Nithyananda alone would lead to an
18 inequitable result and promote an injustice.
19
Therefore, the Defendant
20
FOUNDATION and Swami Nithyananda will be collectively referred to as the
21 FOUNDATION in this Complaint.
22
8.
23
On information and belief, it is alleged that Swami Nithyananda created the
24
FOUNDATION, signed its original tax returns, filed documents with the federal
25
government in 2004 and 2005 as the FOUNDATION's President, and--as Plaintiff
26
27
has learned since March 201 0--has at all times relevant herein controlled and
28 operated the FOUNDATION as his own personal asset and his personal piggybank or
4
(00030447 DOC)
------------ ---------------------------
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATM machine. Swami Nithyananda the principal and "alter ego" of the Defendant
2
3
FOUNDATION, made all of the decisions on behalf of the Defendant
4 FOl..JNDATION.
5
9.
On information and belief, it is also alleged that Swami Nithyananda controls
6
7
numerous other organizations as his own personal assets and transfers monies from
8
one entity to another at will, including monies from the FOUNDATION to a
9
10
company, Nithyananda Export and Import, that was created, operated and is run by
II
Swami Nithyananda's brother. To "cover up" or conceal these transactions which
12
13
moved large sums of money out of the FOUNDATION, Swami Nithyananda and his
14 brother originated invoices from an entity named Dhyanapeeta Charitable Trust in
15
Bangalore, India. For example, on April 17, 2010, Plaintiff obtained a printout of
16
17
invoices totaling $550,386.82 from Nithyananda Imports and Exports to Nithyananda
18
Dyanapeetam Temple and Cultural Center for statues that were worth less than
19
20
$100,000. In this manner, Defendants conspired to and did move large sums of
21
money out from the FOUNDATION to its principal Swami Nithyananda and his
22
surrogates abroad.
23
24
10.
A sample list of the numerous other entities (in the United States alone) which
25
are on information and belief alleged to be the "alter egos" of Swami Nithyananda
26
27
and the FOUNDATION consists of Bliss Investment Corporation (California
28
corporation No. C3297125), Life Bliss Foundation, Inc., (California corporation No.
5
(00030447 DOC)
" - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ ----------------------------- ----------------------- -- - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
C2851623 ), International Governing Body Commission of Nithyananda
2
3
Dhyanapeetam and Nithyananda Mission (California corporation No. C3257947),
4 Nithyananda Anna Mandir (California corporation No. C31 03430), Nithyananda
5
Dhyanapeetam of San Jose (California corporation No. C2950617), Nithyananda
6
7
Dhyanapeetam Temple & Cultural Center (California corporation No. C279478l ),
8
Nithyananda Spiritual Healing Research Foundation, Inc., (California corporation No.
9
10
C2851586 (dissolved)), Nithyananda Yoga and Meditation University (California
II
corporation No. C2946592), Nithyananda Yoga Foundation, Inc., (California
12
13
corporation No. C285188), Ananda Business Solutions LLC (California corporation
14 No. C2113485), Ananda Consulting LLC (California corporation No. C213485),
15
Nithyananda Dhyana Peetam, LLC (entity No. 200520010060 (cancelled)),
16
17
Nithyananda Investments, LLC (entity No. 200731110064 (cancelled)) and
18 Nithyananda Temple Arts, LLC (entity No. 200726010177). The above list is not an
19
20
all-inclusive list of "alter ego" companies here in the United States, and does not
21
include the multitude of other entities in Canada such as the Nithyananda Meditation
22
Academy.
23
24
11.
At all times relevant herein, the real property that is the subject of this action,
25
and for which the Court, on August 6, 20 I 0, granted an Order of Judicial Approval
26
27
for Recordation of a lis pendens, is located in San Bernardino County (the
28 "Property"). The Property is commonly known as 5271 San Bernardino Street,
6
(00030447.DOC)
------------
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14. Plaintiff is informed and believes--and based thereon alleges--that each of the
Defendants is responsible, negligently or intentionally, or in some other actionable
manner, for the events and happenings referred to herein and caused the damages
proximately resulting to Plaintiff.
15.
Plaintiff is informed and believes--and based thereon alleges--that each of the
Defendants was a co-conspirator of its/his/her co-defendants, and in doing the things
alleged in this complaint was acting within the course and scope of the conspiracy.
16. In justifiable reliance on the representations of the FOUNDATION's principal,
Swami Nithyananda, that the Property would be used for a Vedic University which
would train hundreds of clerics in the religion of the Foundation, and the described
nature of the FOUNDATION's activities, Plaintiff made the following payments to
the Defendant FOUNDATION:
December 11, 2007
December 26, 2007
December 18, 2008
$ 536,990.00
$ 651 ,000.00
$ 400,000.00.
17.
In late March- early April 2010, Plaintiff discovered that Swami Nithyananda
had through various schemes and artifices siphoned off large sums of money paid to
the FOUNDATION. One scheme was to have the Swami's brother ship statues of
Hindu Deities to California for resale at highly inflated prices. Dozens of these
statues were resold here for grossly inflated sums, and astounding sums of money
8
(00030447 DOC}
------- ------------------
--------- ----
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
were wire-transferred from purported non-profit organizations like Life-Bliss
Foundation to Swami Nithyananda's brother's company, Nithyananda Export and
Import, or to accounts that Swami Nithyananda and his brother benefit from and
controlled. Over $550,000 was wire transferred in furtherance of this scheme. Swami
Nithyananda, the principal and "alter ego" of the FOUNDATION, used this method
of shipping statues from his brother's company to transfer these funds from the
FOUNDATION to his brother, for his own personal benefit.
11 18. Another scheme of the Defendants was to encourage individuals in the United
12
13
14
15
16
17
States to contribute to the cost of ownership of the premises of Swami Nithyananda
and the FOUNDATION located in India. In April 2010, Plaintiff discovered that
ownership of much of that land on which these premises is built in India was in
Swami Nithyananda's personal name.
When Plaintiff confronted Swami
18 Nithyananda with this information in April 20 l 0, Swami Nithyananda admitted it was
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
true, and stated--by way of excuse for his earlier misrepresentations--that the donor of
this land declined to give the land to any charitable foundation so Swami
Nithyananda claimed he had to accept ownership of it in his own name.
19.
In April 2010, Plaintiff also learned that Swami Nithyananda had started a
hedge fund in the United States after falsely entering the United States on a visa that
entitled him to perform religious ceremonies only.
That hedge fund is called
28 Nithyananda Capital Management, Inc., LLC, and was formed on November 26,
9
(00030447.DOC)
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2007. Another entity named Nithyananda Investment Fund, I, L. P was also created.
And yet another entity named Nithya Advisors, LLC was created on April 8, 2008.
20. After further investigation, Plaintiff discovered in April 2010 that Life Bliss
Foundation--one of Swami Nithyananda's "alter ego" corporations--had revenues of
$2,693,322 in the 2007 tax year, but only $394,929 in expenses.
21. In April 2010, Plaintiff demanded and was given a "profit and loss" statement
for the Defendant FOUNDATION dated April 5, 2010 that showed over
$4,223,066.41 in donations, and $4,110,934.68 in net ordinary income. A true and
correct copy of this document is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
22.
Since April 2010, Plaintiff also discovered the Defendant FOUNDATION's
principal, Swami Nithyananda, had deliberately assumed a false identity in the United
States via a document which misrepresented that Swami Nithyananda was born on
January 1, 1978, even though his passport revealed Swami Nithyananda was born on
March 13, 1977. Swami Nithyananda was telling the Indian passport service and the
Government of the United States something quite different from what Swami
Nithyananda was representing to Plaintiff.
23.
Most alarmingly, Plaintiff learned m late March 2010 through newspaper
reports in India of a so called Non-Disclosure Agreement that the Nithyananda
Dhyanapeetarn!Dhyanapeeta Charitable Trust and the Defendant FOUNDATION had
been requiring attendees to their premises to sign. A true and correct copy of the
10
( 0003044 7. ocx:: l
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Agreement that was given to Plaintiff--in response to his inquiry in April 201 0--is
attached hereto as Exhibit D. It is executed by one of the individual defendants,
SADHANANDA.
24.
The Non-Disclosure Agreement lists the 928 Huntington Drive, Duarte,
California 91010 address for the Defendant FOUNDATION. Plaintiff was shocked
and dismayed to learn that the addendum to the Non-Disclosure Agreement made
volunteers consent to "sexual or adult oriented material" that it claimed was
"associated with the practice of any Tantric rituals" and also required consent to
"other adult oriented material ... " Paragraph A3 explicitly stated: "Volunteer
understands that the Program may involve the learning and practice of ancient tantric
secrets associated with male and female ecstasy, including the use of sexual energy
for increased intimacy/spiritual connection, pleasure, harmony, and freedom.
Volunteer understands that these activities ... may involve nudity, access to visual
images, graphic visual depictions, and descriptions of nudity and sexual activity ...
verbal and written descriptions and audio sounds of a sexually oriented and erotic
nature ... "
25.
All of this was very different from the misrepresentations that Defendant the
FOUNDATION and its principal and "alter ego" Swami Nithyananda had made to
Plaintiff in order to get him to pay $1.7 million for the FOUNDATION to keep the
Property. Plaintiffs consent to pay the $ 1.7 million had clearly been procured by
11
{00030447.DOC l
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
fraud, including intentional concealment and misrepresentations of the Defendants
2
3
and their principal Swami Nithyananda. Plaintiff would have never agreed to pay the
4
$1.7 million that he paid to the FOUNDATION for the Property had the Defendant
5
FOUNDATION and its principal and "alter ego" Swami Nithyananda and the other
6
7
individual Defendants
and co-conspirators, to
wit SADHANANDA and
8
V ALLABHANENI, honestly represented the goings on and true purpose and nature
9
10
ofthe FOUNDATION's vile activities.
11 26. On March 28, 2010, Swami Nithyananda, as the principal and authorized
12
13
representative of Defendant NITHY ANAND A agreed (in writing) to transfer
14
ownership of the Property to Plaintiff.
15
27.
Once again, in early March 20 l 0 and around the beginning of April 20 l 0,
16
17
Swami Nithyananda, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Defendant
18
FOUNDATION, personally and through his managing agent, Sri Nithya
19
20
Bhaktananda, agreed to surrender ownership of the Property to Plaintiff. Since
21
October 19, 2007, the ownership of the Property has been in the name of the
22
Defendant FOUNDATION.
23
24
28.
Despite Plaintiffs demand for title to the Property, the Defendant
25
FOUNDATION has failed to convey full and clear title to Plaintiff, which has, in
26
27
part, necessitated that Plaintiff bring this lawsuit and include causes of action for
28
specific performance and quiet title.
12
{00030447DOC)
------------- --------------------------
---------------
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
29. On August 10, 2010, Plaintiff recorded a Notice of Pending Action against the
2
3
Property. A copy of said document is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4 30. In conversations in early March 2010 and around the beginning of April 2010,
5
Swami Nithyananda personally admitted to Plaintiff that the Defendant
6
7
FOUNDATION owed the Property to Plaintiff because Plaintiff had paid over $1.7
8
million to the Defendant FOUNDATION for the specific purpose to keep the
9
10
Property, and admitted to Plaintiff that such payments from him had been procured in
II
reliance ofthe misrepresentations of the Defendant FOUNDATION and its principal,
12
13
namely Swami Nithyananda, to Plaintiff. Specifically, Swami Nithyananda admitted
14 to Plaintiff in two separate conversations in March and April 2010 that the Defendant
15
FOUNDATION never had any intention to start a Vedic University at the site of the
16
17
property to serve as a campus to teach Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and
18
Vedic science, or train several hundred of clerics in the religion of the Defendant
19
20
FOUNDATION, as Swami Nithyananda himself had personally misrepresented to
21
Plaintiff in 2007 here in California in order to lure Plaintiff into making over $ l. 7
22
million in payments directly for the benefit of the Property and in order to reduce its
23
24
first deed of trust obligations to the mortgagor of record, Positive Investments, Inc.
25
Swami Nithyananda also admitted in April 2010 to the existence of the Non-
26
27
Disclosure Agreement and the Addendum.
28
13
{00030447.DOC}
----------------- ----
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
3
55. In October 2007, Swami Nithyananda met with Plaintiff at 928 Huntington
Drive, in Duarte, California and again at the Property. Swami Nithyananda, as the
4 principal and alter ego of the FOUNDATION, personally reported to Plaintiff that the
5
6
7
8
9
FOUNDATION was going to start a Vedic University at the site of the Property
which would serve as a campus to teach Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and
Vedic science and train several hundred clerics in the religion of the Foundation. As
the principal of the FOUNDATION, Swami Nithyananda had the authority to make
10
11 these representations on behalf of the FOUNDATION. Plaintiff reasonably
12
13
14
15
16
17
understood them to be binding obligations of the FOUNDATION and relied on them.
56.
At the time Swami Nithyananda made these written representations, they were
known to be false by both him and the Defendant FOUNDATION.
57.
The truth--which the FOUNDATION and its principal Swami Nithyananda
18 concealed--was that the FOUNDATION had no intention of opening a Vedic
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
University on the Property. Also, it intended to conceal its Non-Disclosure
Agreements and the vile, shameful and illegal activities referenced therein that it was
conducting, under the guise of a non-profit charitable foundation.
58.
The FOUNDATION intended to induce Plaintiff to pay off the mortgage on
the Property, even though the FOUNDATION knew the inducement was
misrepresentations and lies.
19
{00030447 DOC)
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
59. Justifiably relying on the representations made by Swami Nithyananda on
2
3
behalf of and for the Defendant FOUNDATION, Plaintiff made payments in excess
4
of$1.7 million to the FOUNDATION. Plaintiffs reliance was reasonable in light of
5
the fact that the FOUNDATION and its principal, Swami Nithyananda, concealed the
6
7
Non-Disclosure Agreements which revealed the true purpose and activities of the
8
FOUNDATION, and concealed that neither the FOUNDATION nor its principal
9
10
were going to construct a Vedic University on the Property, as they had falsely
II
misrepresented.
12
13
60. Plaintiff had no reason to anticipate that the Defendant FOUNDATION's
14 leader and agents would lie and intentionally misrepresent and conceal material
15
facts. Had Plaintiff known the true facts, he would have never made any payments to
16
the FOUNDATION, or associated himself with it or its leader and "alter ego" Swami
17
18 Nithyananda in any fashion.
19
20
61. Plaintiff did not learn about these misrepresentations and concealment until
21 March 2010.
22
62.
As a result of the Defendant FOUNDATION's fraud and misrepresentations,
23
24
Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be established at trial, but in a sum not less
25
than $1.7 million dollars, with 10% interest thereon from the dates of Plaintiffs
26
27
payments.
28
20
{00030447.DOC)
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
63. In doing the acts alleged, the FOUNDATION acted with oppression, fraud,
malice, and in the conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, and therefore Plaintiff
is entitled to punitive damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.
Absent punitive damages, the Defendant FOUNDATION will have no disincentive to
engage in this oppressive, fraudulent and malicious conduct again.
FIFfH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RICO
Conduct and Participation in a RICO Enterprise
through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity:
18 U.S.C. 1961(5), 1962(c)
[Against Defendants SADHANANDA and V ALLABHANENI and DOES 10-20)
64.
Plaintiff re-alleges each and every allegation as set forth above, and hereby
14 incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.
15
65.
The fifth and sixth causes of action are complex civil actions for RICO
16
17
remedies authorized by 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.; for declaratory and injunctive relief;
18
for actual, consequential and exemplary damages; and for all other relief which this
19
20
Court deems just and proper under all circumstances which have occasioned this
21 cause of action. See 18 U.S.C. 1964(a) and (c) ("Civil RICO").
22
66.
Pursuant to 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, the RICO laws itemized
23
24
below are to be liberally construed by this Court even though a liberal construction
25
rule was never codified in Title 18 of the United States Code.
26
27
28
21
{00030447.00C:}
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
67. Section 1962 of Title 18 of the United States Code, The Racketeer Influenced
2
and Corrupt Organizations Act, (RICO) prohibits engaging in a pattern of
3
4 racketeering activity.
5
68.
Under 18 U.S.C. section 1961 (l)(B), "racketeering activity" expressly
6
7
includes any act which is indictable under 18 U.S.C. section United States Code
8
sections 1341 and 1343 (relating to mail and wire fraud).
9
69.
Specifically, it is indictable for any one to use the mails or wires to advance or
10
11 conceal a scheme to defraud. See 18 U.S.C., sections 1341, 1343.
12
70.
The primary cause of the fifth and sixth causes of action is a widespread
13
14 criminal enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity across State lines,
15
and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity, involving multiple RICO
16
17
predicate acts during the past ten ( 1 0) calendar years.
18 71.
The predicate acts cluster around Defendants SADHANANDA's and
19
20
VALLABHANENI's (the RICO Defendants) use of the mail and wires to advance
21
and conceal their scheme to defraud Plaintiff when Plaintiff made three payments to
22
the FOUNDATION on December 11, 2007, December 26, 2007 and December 18,
23
24 2008.
25 72.
26
At vanous times and places, the RICO Defendants conducted and/or
participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of said RICO
27
28
22
{ 0003044 1JXX)
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
77. The RICO Defendants' misconduct was not an isolated incident because it
covers a span of years and these Defendants engaged in a long-term, on-going
scheme to defraud individuals who give money to the FOUNDATION and therefore
acted with a common purpose and had sufficient organization and continuity to
constitute an enterprise under RICO.
78. The RICO Defendants' conduct constitutes a "pattern of racketeering activity"
under 18 U.S.C., section 1961(5) because these Defendants continuing and ongoing
use of the mail and wires to advance their scheme to defraud Plaintiff and others who
gave money to the FOUNDATION and therefore manifested continuity and
relatedness involving more than two acts in violation of 18 U.S.C., sections 1341 and
1343.
79. Plaintiff has injury in fact arising from the RICO Defendants' racketeering
activity because Plaintiffs injuries were caused by the predicate acts (i.e., use of the
mail and wires to defraud) and therefore the damages Plaintiff suffered were
proximately caused by these Defendants' racketeering activity.
80. Plaintiffs loss of monies was an injury to "business or property" within the
meaning of RICO because the asserted RICO violation was the legal, and proximate
cause of Plaintiffs injuries, as well as the logical, and but for, cause.
81. Plaintiff sustained a cognizable and quantifiable injury to property.
Specifically, Plaintiff lost over $1.7 million.
24
{00030447.DOC)
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
117. The FOUNDATION violated the fraudulent and unfair prongs of the
2
3
UCL because they had every intention of defrauding Plaintiff and others similarly
4 situated.
5
118. As a result, Plaintiff and others similarly situated were denied vested
6
7
property rights by the FOUNDATION.
8
119. The FOUNDATION generated--and continues to generate--gains as a
9
10
direct result of its unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. Plaintiff and
II
others similarly situated are therefore entitled to ( 1) restitution and/or to
12
13
disgorgement of any and ill-gotten gains obtained by the FOUNDATION as a result
14 of its UCL violations, (2) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under
15
California Business and Professions Code, section 17200 et seq.; and (3) reasonable
16
17
attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1021.5, and any other applicable
18 statutory provision.
19
20
PRAYER
21
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against Defendants,
22
according to proof, as follows:
23
24
a.
For general, special and non-pecuniary damages, in a sum in excess of the
25
jurisdictional minimum of this Court;
26
b.
27
For interest at the maximum legal rate;
28 c.
For the amount of treble (triple) damages, with interest, under RICO;
33
{ 0003044 7 .DOC}
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d.
For compensatory damages arising out of mental anguish, emotional distress,
personal humiliation, damage to Plaintiffs reputation and other non-economic
harms resulting from Defendants' conduct;
e.
For reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section
1 021.5; RICO and any other applicable statutory provision;
f.
For an order requiring the FOUNDATION Defendant to specifically perform
under the Agreement, to execute all required documents to carry out the
Agreement, and to cause the conveyance of the Property to Plaintiff.
g.
For an order declaring the rights of the parties in the Property.
h.
For injunctive and restitutionary relief under the UCL;
l.
For exemplary and punitive damages; and
J. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: December 14, 2010
SHENOIKOES
{00030447.DOC}
By: ~ l ~ ~ -
34
Allan A. Shenoi
For Plaintiff
POP A TLAL K. SA VLA
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
2:02PM
04105110
Accruaf Basis
Nithyananda Foundation
Profit & Loss
January 1, 2005 through AprilS, 2010
Ordinary lnc:omeiExpense
Income
-4 Contributed support
-4020 Donations - General
-4030 Donation - Community Projects
-4032 Donations -Temple Oper
-40-40 Donations - Ashram Project
-40-45 Donation_ShivUngam
-4050 Donation - Tour support
-4-430 Fundraising event revenue

5 Earned revenues
5150 Program Service Donations
5051LBP
5052 ARSP
5053NSP
505-4 Healing Prayer Initiation
5055DSP
5056 Advanced Healers Initiation
5057 Teachers Training
5058 Program Revenue Other
5059 - Himalayan Meditation Camp
5060 Organizer Conference
Program Service Donations
5153 Ananda Galleria Donations
5310 - Interest-savings/short-term inv
5320 Dividends & interest-securities
5335 - Rental Income
5-490 Miscellaneous revenue
Total 5 Earned revenues
Total Income
Gross Profit
Expense
7000 Grant & contract expense
7020 Grants to other organizations
Total 7000 Grant & contract expense
7500 Other personnel expenses
7510 Fundralsing event expense
7520 . Accounting fees
7530 . legal fees
75-40 - ProfessionaiConsulting fees
Total7500 Other personnel expenses
8100 - Non-personnel expenses
8101 Anand Galleria Costs
8102 Cost of Prgm Rltd Svcs
01 LBP (Life Bliss Program)
a1 - Supplies
b1- Travel
Jan 1, '05- Apr 5, 10
-456,577.30
482.8-49.93
60,566.50
3.018,752.18
148.089.00
19.530.50
36,701.00
-4,223.066.-41
105,617.52
33.2-49.77
283.-40-4.93
-47,839.59
120.779.27
12.-405.50
86.618.00
11.033.83
0.00
11.518.06
712,466.-47
190.322.47
67.263.54
5,120.66
795,191.81
75.51
-----------------------
10.538.19
2.236.82
1.770.440.46
5,993.506.87
5,993.506.87
995.163.00
995,163.00
13,546.11
1.682.80
77.210.78
25,5n.-43
118.012.12
52.566.06
Total 01 LBP (Life Bliss Program) 12.775.01
02NSP
a2 Supplies 38,167.11
b2 Travel 13,451.08
Total 02 NSP 51,618.19
Exhibit C Paget
~ 0 2 P M
OoWSI10
Acc:n.tal Basis
)
Nithyananda Foundation
Profit & Loss
\
January 1, 2005 through AprilS, 2010
03ARSP
a3 Supplies
b3 Travel
Total 03 ARSP
04 DSP
a4 Supplies
b4 Travel
Total 04 DSP
05 Advanced Healer
a5 Supplies
Total 05 Advanced Healer
06 Teachers Training
a6 Supplies
b6 Travel
06 Teachers Training Other
Total 06 Teachers Training
07 Discourses, Other
a7 Supplies
b7 Travel
Total 07 Discourses, Other
08 Healers Initiation
a8 Supplies
b8 Travel
Total 08 Healers Initiation
Total 8102 Cost of Prgm Rltd Svcs
8110 Supplies (Foundation related)
8120 Materials & supplies
8130 Telephone & telecommunications
8140 Postage, shipping, delivery
8150 Mailing services
8160 Equip rental, repair & maint.
8170 Printing & copying
8180 Books, subscriptions, reference
8100 Non-personnel expenses Other
Total8100 Non-personnel expenses
8200 Ashram Operational Expenses
1210 Rent. partdng, other occupancy
8211 Supplies (For Ashramltas)
8220 Utilities
Total 8200 Ashram Operational Expenses
8300 Travel & meetings expenses
8310 Travel
8320 Conference,conventlon,meetlng
8300 Travel & meetings expenses - Other
Total8300 Travel & meetings expenses
8500 Mise expenses
8501 Bank Fees
8502 Merchant Account Fees
8502-01 Wells Fargo Credit Card Fees
8502-02 Paypal fees
8502 Merchant Account Fees Other
Total 8502 Merchant Account Fees
Jan 1, '05- Apr 5, 10
1,942.47
2,652.41
4,594.88
34,629.29
11,834.91
46,464.20
4,582.83
4,582.83
90,008.33
2,031.34
1,000.00
93,039.67
34,655.86
31,656.69
66.312.55
6,478.72
1.071.20
7,549.92
286,937.25
64,967.93
1,798.22
10,682.42
6,044.77
441.97
16,558.09
8,725.54
8,930.98
1,089.00
------------------------
458,742.23
134,977.00
11,450.75
21,083.24
167,510.99
13,102.13
2,096.58
201.74
6,872.09
3,012.55
774.81
15,400.45
3,986.65
10.659.45
Page2
2:02PM
04105110
Accrual Basis
Nithyananda Foundation
Profit & Loss
January 1, 2005 through AprilS, 2010
8503 Foreign Currency Fees
8503-01 Per ham Deposit Fee
8503-02 Conversion Fee
8503 Foreign Currency Fees - Other
Total8503 Foreign Currency Fees
8510 Interest expense -general
8520 Insurance - norMHnployee
8521 - Hazard Insurance
8520 Insurance - non-employee - Other
Total8520 Insurance- non-employee
8570 Advertising expenses
8590 Other expenses
8500 Mise expenses -Other
Total 8500 - Mise expenses
8600 Business expenses
8610 Bad debt expense
8650 Taxes -other
8670 Organizational (corp) expenses
8600 Business expenses -Other
Total 8600 - Business expenses
Total Expense
Net Ordinary Income
Net Income
Jan 1. '05- Apr 5. 10
1,209.90
5.12
1.51
1,216.53
70,339.83
8,933.00
5,984.00
14,917.00
1,010.00
5,236.78
5,111.42
112,477.66
1,127.03
213.48
13,905.23
20.00
15,265.74
1.882.sn.19
4,110,934.68
4,110,934.68
Pagel