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

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

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.)

Quick Summary of the Kimkins Debacle

A 'real life' friend found this blog via a post made elsewhere and left a comment on my previous blog post, knowing nothing of the Kimkins lawsuit. Oh, my --- where to even BEGIN to describe everything that has happened in that strange sage over the last few years?! I attempted to give her a quick rundown within the limits of the 4,096 characters that Blogger allows in a comment. In case other people ask the same in future, I decided to copy my response into its own post. This is that attempt:

As for catching up on the lawsuit: Let me 'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

An obese but clever sociopathic narcissist gained footage at a popular established low carb diet site, where she claimed to have lost 198 lbs. in a year and to have maintained for 5 years. Her drastic claims and caustic passive-aggressive personality sparked flame wars which ultimately provided excuse to stomp off and open a paid membership site with impressive success stories and before/after photos.

All seemed wonderful at first. People were happy and losing weight. In June, 2007, a magazine featured the diet, 40,000 people joined, and the owner made a million+ dollars in a month. But to validate her marketing claims of "No faster weight loss, none" she pushed lower and lower calories, fasting, and even daily laxative use. People began having problems, for which she ALWAYS had an explanation (usually with a little dig at the complainant.) The gloss began to wear off and the spell was broken.

People questioned things, including photos. When her responses were unsatisfactory, some of us left. Things blew up completely when, about a month later, she was photographed at 300+ lbs, with NO resemblance to her supposed 'after' photos. The site boiled with protest and she summarily banned any "lifetime" members who dared to speak up.

Various online sites and personalities got involved in internet battles. Her supporters wanted to cling to their addictively fast weight loss and the site that enabled it, though many switched sides as evidence emerged.
Her detractors/victims felt used and abused, crushed, betrayed, defrauded, and outraged.

A fiesty woman named Jeanessa stepped up and found a brilliant health-crusading attorney named John Tiedt, who believed in the case enough to take it on contingency.

Discoveries were made which revealed that Heidi Diaz lived in a labyrinthian world of her own making, a convoluted web of deviousness and deception. She never lost any significant amount of weight, even with gastric bypass surgery. Most of her success stories were complete fabrications, with photos stolen from Russian mail-order bride sites.

She has hidden behind false identities, claimed someone else owned the site, spitefully dissipated assets to keep them from her victims, and launched vengeful campaigns, legal and otherwise, against some of the principle witnesses in the case.

She tried to countersue us; the court threw it out. She tried to file bankruptcy to halt the suit; the court threw it out. She has tried threats and intimidation; it backfires.

Meanwhile, John Tiedt and associates have scored victory after victory. John has won unprecedented rulings from the court. The case has been granted class action status, and John has petitioned the court for summary judgment. Since the defendant already admitted under oath in deposition to everything in the suit, we hope the court sees it our way. We should know soon.

. . . I clearly need to tighten up my summaries and use fewer words. But, believe me, this barely scratches the surface.

This story really ought to be a book or movie.

I guess I can add that several televison news shows and newspapers have covered this.

Here is a fuller explanation from Laura Dolson of about.com:
http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/populardietplans/a/kimkinsdiet.htm
(I might quibble with a couple of minor points, such as when I actually left Kimkins vs. when 'Kimmer" admitted I had left, but this is overall a thorough, well-researched report.)

I hope this helps pull the highlights into one place.j

Some People Just Don't Learn

OK, I know I have a lot of blogging to do to catch up. Let's see . . I need to post about:

- weight loss, low carbing, good food, some recent victories in that area, etc. --- the original purpose of this blog

- the Motion for Summary Judgment in the Kimkins case, filed by Tiedt and Cohen --- Go, John and Michael!

- the attempt by someone claiming to be Diaz' attorney Peabody to ask for my personal info via blog comment (as someone named Interested) so he/she/whoever could issue me a Cease and Desist order --- yeah, that's how most attorneys do it.

BUT, then, THIS just happened!

I recently joined Twitter and was trying to get that figured out and set up.
Part of that process allowed me to check my email accounts for contacts there who are already on Twitter.

Check out the first entry on that list:


In case you can't see that, it says:
mommy25boys
Leslie Spiegel
heidi.k.diaz@gmail.com

I remember getting an email from someone named mommy25boys a while back, at least several months now. It seemed to be from a former Kimkins member who had left, but needed to lose some weight and was thinking about going back. She wanted to know what was going on, what I knew about the whole deal, whether she could do the diet safely, and so on. I remember that it 'felt' a little odd, but I had known someone at the Kimkins site who, as I recall, was Momto5boys, or something like that, so it seemed plausible. (Someone help me out on this one.) I have gotten hundreds of similar emails and private messages at various sites since I left Kimkins (in fact, I got one today on Facebook), so it did not seem unusual, except that I did have a funny feeling about that one. Still, I answered it.

I guarantee I did not see a sender email address of heidi.k.diaz@gmail.com on the email, or I would not even have opened it. Nor did I see the name Leslie Spiegel. I thought Momto5boys was named Marcy.

So, I am wondering if Heidi.K.Diaz hid the correct address somehow, redirected it or something, but Twitter somehow discerned the correct account of origin.

That seems weird and maybe implausible --- but then, everything about this whole situation has been weird and implausible!

Anyway, it would seem that, during the course of this lawsuit, Heidi Diaz emailed me under a false identity to fish for ammunition to use against me.

Heidi/Kimmer/Vanessa/Nicole/Noelle/Jeri/etc./etc./etc. use a false identity? I'm shocked! I thought she swore she has turned over a new leaf and given up her evil ways!

Heidi Diaz come after me? Oh, yeah. This is not nearly the first time she has done mean and dishonest things to get to me. Hmmm . . . so she thinks I should roll over, be quiet, and pull my blog . . . while she pulls stunts like this?

I don't think so.