Equine Law Matter - Closed - Get Information, Read Court Documents How to invest in show horses? Holger Hetzel sells the dream of never losing money to investors by investing with him in horses, but is it a dream or a nightmare?

BULLDOG FARMS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; and ROBERT GOLDWASSER, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. HOLGER HETZEL, individually, Defendant.

Palm Beach County

No. 2015 CA 000199

Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit

PLAINTIFFS, BULLDOG FARMS, LLC AND ROBERT GOLDWASSER’S
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, BULLDOG FARMS, LLC (“Bulldog Farms”) and ROBERT
GOLDWASSER (“Goldwasser”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned
counsel, and hereby files this Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages against Defendant,
HOLGER HETZEL (“Defendant”), and shows the Court as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for permanent injunctive relief and damages, resulting from
Defendant’s negligent and fraudulent conduct in relation to the purchase, sale, lease, training and
care of four show horses. In addition to engaging in the negligent and fraudulent conduct,

Defendant has also misappropriated one of Plaintiffs’ horses, and is refusing to return the horse
to Plaintiffs, its lawful owners.

 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Plaintiff, Bulldog Farms, is a limited liability company, duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business located in
Palm Beach County, Florida.

3. Plaintiff, Robert Goldwasser, is an adult individual, domiciled in Palm Beach
County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.
4. Defendant is a German national that trains and stables horses, operates an equine
business, and participates at the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center located in
Wellington. Defendant’s activities in Palm Beach County, Florida have been non-isolated,
continuous, repeated, significant and systematic. Defendant routinely availed himself of the
privilege and protections of doing business in the State of Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Defendant committed the
tortious acts within Florida, and/or caused injury to persons and property within Florida, arising
from acts committed in and/or outside Florida.
6. This is an action for monetary damages in excess of$1,000,000.00, exclusive of
interest, costs and attorney’s fees, and this Court otherwise has jurisdiction over the subject
matter hereof.
7. Venue is proper because Palm Beach County is the domicile of Plaintiffs;
Defendant resides in Palm Beach County at least part-time; the transactions, acts and occurrences
that give rise to this action occurred and/or accrued, among other places, in Palm Beach County;
the parties’ agreement was entered into in Palm Beach County; and Defendant’s wrongful
conduct occurred in, among other places, Palm Beach County, Florida.
8. All conditions precedent to the filing of this Action have occurred or have
otherwise been waived.

 

SUBSTANTIVE AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. In early 2013, Plaintiffs met with Defendant, who represented that he was an
experienced equine agent, who could assist Plaintiffs in the purchase, boarding, training,
showing, lease and sales of superior horses.
10. Defendant recommended that Plaintiffs purchase a horse named Adrianne for
$450,000.00, and claimed that the horse was of superior quality and with some training, would
become exceptionally valuable.
11. Based on Defendant’s representations, Plaintiffs purchased Adrianne for
$450,000.00, and entered into a training and brokerage agreement with Defendant. A true and
correct copy of the memorialized agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
12. Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendant agreed to undertake the training, stabling,
caring for, and showing of Adrianne in Wellington, Florida, under the teaching of experienced
equine rider and trainer, Chris Kappler.
13. The purchase price included the costs for said training, stabling, caring for and
showing of the horse.
14. The goal of the parties was to properly train and show Adrianne, thereby
increasing the horse’s value for resale.
15. As a part of the parties understanding and arrangement, if Defendant was
successful in selling Adrianne for Plaintiffs, then he would receive a brokerage commission of
the sales price.
16. Based on Defendant’s representations and pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiffs
purchased Adrianne for $450,000.00, and Adrianne was trained and boarded in Wellington,
Florida, under the care and possession of Defendant.

17. In April 2013, Defendant recommended that Plaintiffs purchase another horse
named Cheer for $1,000,000.00, and again claimed that the horse was of superior quality, and
could be resold for a higher value.
18. Of significance, at the time of purchase, Cheer was owned by the Defendant.
19. Based on Defendant’s representations, Plaintiffs purchased Cheer for
$1,000,000.00, and entered into an arrangement with Defendant, wherein if Defendant was
successful in selling Cheer for Plaintiffs, then he would receive a brokerage commission of the
sales price.
20. Pursuant to the Agreement reached between the parties, Defendant agreed to
undertake and pay for the costs of training, stabling, caring for, and showing of Cheer.
21. Additionally, all prize money obtained during the leasing period would be
retained by Defendant. See Exhibit “A.”
22. Thereafter, Defendant recommended that Plaintiffs purchase yet another horse
named Companiero for $150,000.00, and again claimed that the horse was of superior quality,
and could be resold for a higher value.
23. At the time of purchase, Companiero was being leased, and Defendant was to
assume the lease as Companiero’s new owner.
24. Based on Defendant’s representations, Plaintiffs purchased Companiero for
$150,000.00, and entered into an arrangement with Defendant, wherein if Defendant was
successful in selling Companiero for Plaintiffs, then he would receive a brokerage commission of
the sales price.
25. As part of the Agreement reached between the parties, the Lessee would be
responsible for the training, stabling and care ofCompaniero. See Exhibit “A.”

26. In or about October 2013, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that he had found a
buyer for Cheer.
27. As part of the deal, Plaintiffs were to sell Cheer for $380,000.00, and obtain
possession of another horse named Casero that was located in Germany.
28. Plaintiffs agreed to the lower resale price based on Defendant’s representations
and recommendation that it was a good deal because Plaintiffs would obtain possession of
Casero, an equine with great value.
29. Based on Defendant’s representations and advice, Plaintiffs sold Cheer and
obtained possession of Casero.
30. The parties then entered into an oral agreement, wherein Defendant agreed to
undertake the training, stabling, and care of Casero in Germany.
31. The goal of the parties was to properly train Casero, thereby increasing the
horse’s value for resale. As a part of the agreement, if Defendant was successful in selling the
horses for Plaintiffs, then he would receive a brokerage commission.
32. In September, Defendant (by and through his agent) advised Plaintiffs that he was
working on the sale of Adrianne, and that he had an interested buyer.
33. Despite Defendant’s promises and assurances, however, Plaintiffs were never
presented with an offer.
34. In December, Plaintiffs made numerous attempts to meet with Defendant to
discuss the status of the horses, and Defendant’s efforts in training, stabling, and caring for them.
35. Defendant, however, repeatedly avoided Plaintiffs’ attempts and requests for
meetings.

36. After spending well in excess of a million dollars on the purchases of Adrianne,
Cheer, Companiero and Casero, Plaintiffs were informed by members of the equestrian
community that the horses they had purchased were over-priced, and that Plaintiffs had been
taken advantage of by Defendant.
37. Plaintiffs also learned that the prior owner of Companiero was Defendant’s friend,
and the same individual who had introduced Defendant to Plaintiffs.
38. Defendant never informed Plaintiffs of this pertinent fact.
39. Plaintiffs also learned that Defendant had made numerous false statements to
interested third parties.
40. More specifically, Plaintiffs discovered that Defendant was untruthful to the
United States Equestrian Federation (“USEF”), and falsely and illegally registered Companiero
under the name of another owner.
41. Plaintiffs also discovered that Defendant falsely misrepresented the identity of the
Lessee of Companiero.
42. After becoming greatly suspicious of Defendant’s actions and false
representations, Plaintiffs further questioned Defendant about the training, care and boarding of
Adrianne and Casero, who were both in Defendant’s possession.
43. Plaintiffs learned that Defendant had wrongfully and illegally taken Adrianne
from her stable in Wellington, Florida, and transported her to Germany.
44. At no time did Defendant inform Plaintiffs of this fact, or request permission to
transport Adrianne out of the country.
45. Shocked and disturbed by this discovery, Plaintiffs demanded that Adrianne be
immediately returned to the United States, and more particularly, Palm Beach County, Florida.[irp]

46. Plaintiffs were then forced to pay over $28,000.00 in shipping and insurance to
have Adrianne transported back to the States, where she rightfully belonged.
47. Additionally, Adrianne’s well being was compromised, as the equine suffered
unnecessary stress associated with the out of country transportation and lost approximately 200
pounds of muscle.
48. Plaintiffs also discovered that Defendant had made little to no effort to train, care
for, or sell Adrianne or Casero. In fact, while in Defendant’s possession, custody and control,
Casero was injured.
49. In yet another act of trickery, Defendant then attempted to improperly invoice
Plaintiffs for the cost of training, stabling and care for Adrianne and Casero.
50. Realizing that they had been victimized by Defendant, Plaintiffs demanded the
immediate return of Casero and engaged in search efforts to locate Companiero.
51. Plaintiffs recently received Companiero, and upon his return, Plaintiffs discovered
that he was incredibly lame, and suffers from a serious, pre-existing suspensory ligament injury
that Plaintiffs were never informed of
52. In addition to incurring unnecessary costs and fees associated with the return of
Companiero, Plaintiffs also are accruing significant costs associated with the horse’s medical
condition, care and treatment.
53. Additionally, with respect to Casero, Defendant has steadfastly refused to return
the horse, and is unlawfully detaining the equine in Germany.
54. Further, Defendant, by and through his legal agent, engaged in yet another act of
fraud and deception, by claiming that Casero was in “very good inspection” and recently

performed in ” … several show jumpings.” See October 24, 2014 Correspondence to Plaintiffs’
counsel from Defendant’s German legal representative, attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
55. Given Defendant’s continuous acts of deceit, and Plaintiffs’ recent awareness of
Companiero’s true condition, Plaintiffs had Casero evaluated in November 2014, by an
independent veterinarian in Germany. The examination results revealed that Casero was trotting
horribly, has acute lameness on his left front leg, and is incapable for use for performance.
56. The veterinarian who performed the examination is a high-qualified professional
who takes care of several renowned horses in the international circuit, including Olympic gold
medal recipients, as well as others in the top standards of the international competition.
57. As such, in addition to incurring unnecessary costs and fees associated with the
inspection and compulsory return of Casero, Plaintiff will also be accruing significant costs
associated with the horse’s medical condition, care and treatment.
58. Victimized by the actions of Defendant, Plaintiffs have been forced to retain
counsel and seek assistance from this Court and the legal system.
59. Plaintiffs are now obligated to pay a reasonable fee for the legal services, and are
incurring additional fees and expenses.
60. By reason of Defendant’s actions and conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered significant
losses and damages, and continues to suffer losses.

COUNT I
(INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

61. Plaintiffs re-assert and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60
above, as if fully set forth herein.

62. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to
suffer immediate and irreparable harm by being prevented from taking possession of their horse,
Casero.
63. Plaintiffs’ legal rights to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment and possession of
their horse is being violated.
64. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. The damages caused by Defendant’s
conduct, including the irreparable injury to Plaintiffs, cannot be properly or accurately
calculated in the absence of the requested injunction.
65. The granting of injunctive relief will serve the public interest by clearly noting
that the actions employed by Defendant, in contravention of the law, will not be tolerated.
Failure to enjoin Defendant would reward Defendant’s unethical and illegal behavior.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue a permanent injunction
enjoining Defendant from interfering with Plaintiffs’ exercise of their right to take possession of
their horse Casero. Plaintiffs demand that the Order mandate Defendant to immediately return
Casero to Plaintiffs, its rightful owners. Plaintiffs further demand an award against Defendant
for actual and consequential damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs, and for such other
relief as this Court finds just, fair and equitable.

COUNT II
(CONVERSION)

66. Plaintiffs re-assert and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 above,
as if fully set forth herein.
67. Defendant’s acts, as set forth above, amount to a conversion of property
belonging to Plaintiffs, or property to which Plaintiffs have an ownership interest.

68. Defendant obtained possession of Plaintiffs’ property (more specifically, Casero)
to which Defendant was entrusted, and thereafter converted the property to his own use.
69. Defendant converted said property to his own use by exercising dominion and
control over Plaintiffs’ property.
70. After repeated demands, Defendant has refused to return Plaintiffs’ property.
71. As a result of the conversion, Plaintiffs have been damaged.
72. Plaintiffs reserve the right, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §768. 72, to amend this cause of
action to assert a claim against Defendant for punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and an award against
Defendant for actual and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
statutory prejudgment interest, special damages, and for such other relief as this Court finds just,
fair and equitable.

COUNT III
(REPLEVIN)

73. Plaintiffs re-assert and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60
above, as if fully set forth herein.
74. This is an action to recover possession of personal property. The description of
the property is a horse named Casero.
75. Plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the property, as fully set forth herein.
76. To Plaintiffs’ best knowledge, information, and belief, the property is located in
Germany and within Defendant’s possession and control.
77. The property is wrongfully detained by Defendant.
78. The property has not been taken for any tax, assessment, or fine pursuant to law.

The property has not been taken under an execution or attachment against Plaintiffs’ property.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor for possession of the
the , and an award against Defendant for actual and consequential damages, in an amount
to be determined at trial, plus statutory prejudgment interest, and for such other relief as this
Court finds just, fair and equitable.

COUNT IV
(FRAUD OR CHEAT)

79. Plaintiffs re-assert and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60
above, as if fully set forth herein.
80. Defendant’s acts, as set forth above, constitute a gross fraud or cheat as defined
in §817.29, Florida Statutes.
81. Defendant did, by false pretense or pretenses, obtain, take and/or abscond with
Plaintiffs’ property (more specifically, the horse Casero), with the intent to cheat or defraud
Plaintiffs of same.
82. Pursuant to § 772.1 02(1 )( a)(22), Florida Statutes, a civil remedy is provided for a
violation of Chapter 817, Florida Statutes, including §817.29, Florida Statutes.
83. Defendant’s acts, as set forth above, constitute a pattern of criminal activity as
defined by §772.1 02( 4), Florida Statutes, or a scheme to violate the prohibited activity as set
forth in § 772.1 03, Florida Statutes.
84. The defendant, in violation of §772.1 03, Florida Statutes, did unlawfully use
property, belonging to Plaintiffs, or in which Plaintiffs had an ownership interest.
85. Plaintiffs have been injured as a result of the violations of Chapter 772, Florida
Statutes, as set forth above by Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor, and an award against
Defendant for actual and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus

statutory prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to §772.1 04, Florida
Statutes, treble damages pursuant to §772.1 04, Florida Statutes, and for such other relief as this
Court finds just, fair and equitable.

COUNTV
(CIVIL THEFT)

86. Plaintiffs re-assert and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 above,
as if fully set forth herein.
8 7. Defendant’s acts, as set forth above, constitute theft pursuant to Chapter 812,
Florida Statutes.
88. Pursuant to §772.102(1)(a)(20), Florida Statutes, Plaintiffs have a civil remedy for
the theft.
89. Defendant did, as set forth above and with criminal intent, take Plaintiffs’
property (more specifically, the horse Casero ), with the intent to exercise control over said
property and did exercise ownership interest in said property inconsistent with Plaintiffs’
ownership interests and inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ right of possession.
90. Despite repeated demands, Defendant has refused to return Plaintiffs’ property
and has engaged in affirmative acts preventing Plaintiffs from obtaining possession of their
property.
91. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned attorneys and have agreed to pay a
reasonable fee.
92. Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to §§772.11 and
772.185, Florida Statutes, and is entitled to reimbursement ofsaid attorney’s fees.
93. Plaintiffs have served Defendant with a Civil Theft Demand Letter in accordance
with the statutory requirements, yet Defendant refuses to return the horse to Plaintiffs.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and an award against
Defendant for actual and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
statutory prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to §772.1 04, Florida
Statutes, and §772.185, Florida Statutes, treble damages pursuant to §772.104, Florida Statutes,
and for such other relief as this Court finds just, fair and equitable.

COUNT VI
(PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE)

94. Plaintiffs re-assert and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60
above, as if fully set forth herein.
95. At all times material, as an equestrian broker and agent, Defendant owed the duty
to Plaintiffs to utilize the utmost care and fiduciary responsibility in the purchasing, selling,
leasing, training, boarding, handling, showing, and/or care ofPlaintiffs’ horses.
96. Defendant breach said professional duty by: (i) negligently and carelessly making
misrepresentations about the true value of the horses purchased, leased and/or sold by Defendant;
(ii) negligently and carelessly training, boarding, showing and/or caring for the horses; (iii)
negligently and carelessly transporting a horse (namely Adrianne) out of the country without
permission; (iv) improperly holding a third party out as the lawful owner of a horse (more
specifically, falsely and illegally registering Companiero with the USEF under the name of
another owner); (v) falsely misrepresenting the identity ofthe Lessee ofCompaniero; (vi) failing
to properly disclose the identity of Companiero’s prior owner, to which there was a conflict of
interest; (vii) denying and/or preventing Plaintiffs from having access to, and taking possession
of their horse Casero; (viii) negligently and carelessly making misrepresentations about the
condition of Casero; and (ix) obtaining possession of Casero, to which Defendant was entrusted,
and thereafter converting the horse to its own use, without authority or a legal right to do so.

 

97. As a result of Defendant’s professional negligence and carelessness, Plaintiffs
have been damaged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor, and an award against
Defendant for actual and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
statutory prejudgment interest, and for such other relief as this Court finds just, fair and
equitable.

COUNT VII
(BREACH OF CONTRACT)

98. Plaintiffs re-assert and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 above,
as if fully set forth herein.
99. The Agreement, and subsequent verbal conversations concerning same, constitute
a valid and enforceable contract.
100. Plaintiffs have fully performed their obligations, promises and covenants required
under the terms ofthe Contract.
101. As described more fully above, Defendant breached the Contract with Plaintiffs
by: (i) negligently and carelessly making misrepresentations about the true value of the horses
purchased, leased and/or sold by Defendant; (ii) negligently and carelessly training, boarding,
showing and/or caring for the horses; (iii) negligently and carelessly transporting a horse
(namely Adrianne) out of the country without permission; (iv) improperly holding a third party
out as the lawful owner of a horse (more specifically, falsely and illegally registering
Companiero with the USEF under the name of another owner); (v) falsely misrepresenting the
identity of the Lessee of Companiero; (vi) failing to properly disclose the identity of
Companiero’s prior owner, to which there was a conflict of interest; (vii) denying and/or
preventing Plaintiffs from having access to, and taking possession of their horse Casero; (viii)

negligently and carelessly making misrepresentations about the condition of Casero; and (ix)
obtaining possession of Casero, to which Defendant was entrusted, and thereafter converting the
horse to its own use, without authority or a legal right to do so.
102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs have suffered
fmanciallosses and damages.
103. Plaintiffs have made timely and repeated demands on Defendant, requesting that
Defendant allow Plaintiffs access to take possession of their horse, Casero, and compensate
Plaintiffs for their significant losses and damages, but Defendant has refused to do so.
104. Plaintiffs have been forced to retain the undersigned counsel to aide in the taking
possession ofPlaintiffs’ horse, and to recover their damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and an award against
Defendant for actual and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
statutory prejudgment interest, and for such other relief as this Court finds just, fair and
equitable.

COUNT VIII
(NEGLIGENCE)

105. Plaintiffs re-assert and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 above,
as if fully set forth herein.
106. Defendant owed Plaintiffs the duty to perform all the work and activity which he
agreed to, was required to, and undertook to perform in connection with the purchase, sale, lease,
training, boarding, showing and/or handling of the horses, in a competent and workmanlike
manner.
107. By virtue of the conduct set forth above, Defendant breached this duty of care to
Plaintiffs by: (i) performing such work in a manner which fell below acceptable equestrian agent

standards; (ii) negligently and carelessly making misrepresentations about the true value of the
horses purchased, leased and/or sold by Defendant; (iii) negligently and carelessly training,
boarding, showing and/or caring for the horses; (iv) negligently and carelessly transporting a
horse (namely Adrianne) out of the country without permission; (v) improperly holding a third
party out as the lawful owner of a horse (more specifically, falsely and illegally registering
Companiero with the USEF under the name of another owner); (vi) falsely misrepresenting the
identity of the Lessee of Companiero; (vii) failing to properly disclose the identity of
Companiero’s prior owner, to which there was a conflict of interest; (viii) denying and/or
preventing Plaintiffs from having access to, and taking possession of their horse Casero; (ix)
falsely making misrepresentations about the condition of Casero; and (x) obtaining possession of
Casero, to which Defendant was entrusted, and thereafter converting the horse to its own use,
without authority or a legal right to do so; and that such breaches contributed to and/or caused
the damages described herein.
108. As a result ofthe foregoing, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and an award against
Defendant for actual and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
statutory prejudgment interest, and for such other relief as this Court finds just, fair and
equitable.

COUNT IX
(FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT)

109. Plaintiffs re-assert and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 60 above,
as if fully set forth herein.
110. Defendant directly engaged in unlawful conduct and in a scheme wherein he
knowingly committed acts which worked to deceive Plaintiffs and perpetrate a fraud upon them.

111. In connection with the aforementioned scheme, Defendant made numerous false
and misleading statements of material facts.
112. More specifically, Defendant made false statements concerning the true value of
the horses purchased, leased and/or sold by Defendant; falsely misrepresented the identity of the
Lessee of Companiero; falsely and/or intentionally withheld the identity of Companiero’s prior
owner; falsely misrepresented his intentions concerning the stabling, training, handling, showing
and/ or care of the horses; and falsely misrepresented the current condition of Casero during prelitigation
discussions.
113. The purpose and effect of Defendant’s scheme was to: (i) induce Plaintiffs to
purchase, lease and/or sell the horses at values that did not reflect their true worth, (ii) obtain
possession of the horses, and thereafter convert them to his own use; (iii) deprive Plaintiffs of
and from the use and benefit of their horses; (iv) improperly profit therefrom; and (v) deprive
Plaintiffs of and from the protection afforded by the legal system.
114. These false representations and conduct were made by Defendant with the intent
of defrauding and deceiving Plaintiffs, which evidences reckless, willful, and indifference to the
welfare of Plaintiffs.
115. At the time the aforesaid representations were made by Defendant, Plaintiffs were
unaware of the falsity of the representations and reasonably believed them to be true.
116. In reliance, Plaintiffs suffered damages, as set forth above.
117. Because the conduct by Defendant was malicious, oppressive and/or fraudulent,
Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in addition to actual damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and an award against
Defendant for actual and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus

statutory prejudgment interest, equitable relief, punitive damages, and for such other relief as this
Court finds just, fair and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned attorney, respectfully request a trial by jury
on all issues so triable.

DATED: January 9, 2015

 

Respectfully Submitted,
BARBUTO LAW & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

View Complaint

 

Plaintiff’s attorney was unable to effect service upon defendant leading to a court order to the clerk of court in February 2016. It ordered the closure of a group of cases, including Bulldog v. Holger Hetzel. 

 

Show Jumping’s Holger Hetzel Sued for $1M-plus for Fraud, Negligence

 

Taken from Holger Hetzel’s website:

The national and international equestrian sport sector has expanded continuously over the last two decades as a result of globalisation. In fact, it has evolved from a sport into a genuine industry: the ‘horse industry’. No other sector has experienced comparable high rates of growth and our industry even continued to grow during the recession. Around ten years ago, Europe and North America were the main equestrian sport regions. In recent years, the sport has also become very popular in the Near East, Asia, Russia and South America. This has boosted the demand for horses, especially show jumpers. At the same time, the main breeding countries of Germany, the Netherlands, and France have recorded declining breeding rates, which means that there will be fewer horses on the market in future. This increase in demand and decline in supply has driven up prices for professionally schooled show jumpers with competition experience. Successful Grand Prix horses are currently selling for prices up to five million Euros. These horses all began their careers as novices at the age of 4 to 6 and this is time to invest. Investors profit from my many years of experience as an international show jumper and my international show jumping horse sales network.