And Now, a Word from John Tiedt

John Tiedt, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Kimkins case, issued a statement of findings, along with thanks, to all those whose efforts led to our victory.

To all Ducks

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

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

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

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


John E. Tiedt
TIEDT & HURD

Indeed, John, we know you WILL be relentless! You are our champion!

Note: 'Ducks' are those who worked together to find out the truth in the Kimkins matter, to pierce the "fake nice" facade and expose the many lies of Heidi Diaz, to dig up and document evidence against her, and to warn people through various online and media sources about the dangers of believing Diaz or following her dangerous advice.

The term derives from the name of an early anti-Kimkins blogger (or team of bloggers) who posted under the name "Just Ducky." As the Kimkins controversy grew, the "Just Ducky" blog became a locus to which various sources would feed undercover information for immediate and wide distribution. It also became a significant thorn in the side of Heidi Diaz, for it seemed she could scarcely whisper a lie or concoct a scheme in her most private lair which would not soon be shouted from the virtual housetops. As Diaz' animosity and paranoia about Ducky's secret identity grew, she began to suspect almost everyone of being Ducky. Before long, she was banning paid "lifetime" members on mere suspicions of being Ducky, consorting with Ducky, or being a Ducky sympathizer. Most famously, she banned a Kimkins member merely for using a stock yellow-rubber-ducky avatar supplied by the Kimkins site itself. In a show of solidarity, many people began using duck avatars and adopted the label proudly, and soon a whole culture developed around the inside joke.

The Ducks were a diverse group, not always unified and not always on the right track. Whatever else they might have been, though, one thing is certain --- the Ducks were determined! Heidi Diaz thought the Ducks would lose interest, give up, shut up, and move on. Wrong! Most Ducks quit quacking after a while, but, as Ms. Diaz has discovered, they were still busily paddling under the surface.


To all those who were manipulated and deceived, belittled and berated, used and abused, endangered and victimized, conned and defrauded by Heidi Diaz, this finding of the court and this expression of thanks from John Tiedt serve as a measure of vindication. Let honor be given where honor is due.

More Details

Authorized short report from the scene by my friend Sandy:

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

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

We have punitive damages for $500,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: Sandy and Laura (also mentioned above) are two anti-Kimkins crusaders who got involved and ended up working officially with attorney John Tiedt in the preparation of this case.




ETA: Sandy has posted the statement here

VICTORY!!!!!

The judge handed down the ruling in the Kimkins case class action lawsuit.

Justice prevails!

Details to follow.

Kimkins Class Action Official Legal Notice

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: EVERYONE WHO PURCHASED A MEMBERSHIP TO KIMKINS.COM THROUGH THE KIMKINS.COM WEB SITE (www.kimkins.com) FROM JANUARY 1, 2006 TO OCTOBER 15, 2007

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT THAT IS CURRENTLY PENDING IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, IN RIVERSIDE, CALILFORNIA.

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

THE LITIGATION

The Plaintiffs’ Claims

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

6. Here’s a list of the kinds of misconduct that the plaintiffs have alleged:

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

The Defendants’ Position

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

THE COURT’S CLASS-CERTIFICATION ORDER

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

9. The certified class is defined as all individuals who purchased the Kimkins.com diet membership on-line from the Kimkins.com Web site from January 1, 2006 through October 15, 2007.

THE COURT HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINIONS
REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

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

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLASS MEMBERS

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

OPT OUT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

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

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

13. This notice provides only a brief summary of this litigation. For further details, you should take one or both of the following steps:

• Review the documents in the Court’s file for this lawsuit. Many of these documents may be viewed or obtained on-line at the following URL: http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/ . You also may review the Court’s file in person by going to the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the Riverside Superior Court, during regular business hours. The Clerk’s office is located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California 92501.

• Write a letter to the attorneys who are representing the plaintiffs and whom the Court has appointed to represent the class. Here are their names and their contact information:

John E. Tiedt & Marc S. Hurd
Tiedt & Hurd
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 209
Corona, California 92879

Michael L. Cohen
Michael L. Cohen, a PLC
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, California 90017

Ray Moore
Moore Winter McLennan LLP
701 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 200
Glendale, California 92103-4232

If you decide to contact one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, please do so in writing. To make it easier for them or one of their staff members to respond, however, your letter should include both your e-mail address and your telephone number.

There are estimated to be as many as 40,000 members in the class. So please, DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE COURT BY E-MAIL.


DATE: ___________________________, 2009


____________________________________
Hon. _________________________,
Presiding Judge

Third Time's a Charm?

I am getting a little peeved that SOMEONE has tried to hack my old abandoned weight loss blog 3 times now in the past 8 days.

In most circumstances, I admire determination and persistence. For example, if someone actually intended to lose weight instead of "FAUX Dieting", then persistence would be an excellent commodity.

I guess that when it comes to scheming and conniving, some people really just don't know when (or how) to quit.

Putting Kimkins on Notice

Kimkins - Proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action

Regarding the Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit: This is NOT an official notice. This notice is proposed to the court by plaintiffs’ counsel June 26, 2009. If you choose to duplicate this notice on any blog or website, this notice MUST be included.








(Many thanks to Prudentia for originally posting this. I don't know how to make the document images bigger, so you can read the full content on Prudentia's blog here.)