Simplex, Inc. v. Gobal Source One International, Inc. et al
Filing
48
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 07/03/2014. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. AGS's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 42 ) is DENIED. This case remains set for a Final Pretrial Conference on August 4, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. and a jury trial on Aug ust 19, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are reminded to comply with Local Rule 16.1 regarding final pretrial conferences. The proposed final pretrial order and all pretrial motions shall be submitted to the Court by noon on July 25, 2014. Objections t o jury instructions, exhibits, and witnesses, as well as responses to any pretrial motions, shall be filed, with citation to authority, by noon on July 30, 2014. The parties shall bring their marked exhibits to the Final Pretrial Conference. (DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 03 July, 2014 02:48:52 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
SIMPLEX, INC.,
an Illinois Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLOBAL SOURCE ONE
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
California Corporation; and
AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES,
INC., a California corporation,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 12-3101
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 42) filed by Defendant American Guard Services,
Inc. (AGS). AGS also filed a Request for Judicial Notice in Support
of Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 43), which asks the Court to
take judicial notice of the Amended Complaint (d/e 19) and the
Amended Answer and Cross Claim (d/e 36).
The Request for Judicial Notice (d/e 43) is GRANTED. The
Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 42) is DENIED. The Illinois
Credit Agreements Act does not apply to Simplex’s claim, and for
purposes of summary judgment, the Court finds that the Statute of
Frauds is satisfied. In addition, genuine issues of material fact
remain whether Global Source One International, Inc. (GSO) had
the apparent authority to act on behalf of AGS.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff Simplex, Inc. filed an
Amended Complaint against Defendants GSO and AGS. See Am.
Compl. (d/e 19). Simplex has since obtained a default judgment
against GSO. See Opinion (d/e 34).
In the Amended Complaint, Simplex brings two causes of
action against AGS: breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.
Generally, Simplex alleges that GSO purchased four Titan 350 load
banks from Simplex for delivery to the United State Navy at
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for $137,480. As part of the conditions
of sale of the load banks to GSO, AGS purportedly agreed to
guarantee the payment of GSO to Simplex. The U.S. Navy made
Page 2 of 21
payment to GSO for the load banks. However, neither GSO nor
AGS paid Simplex for the load banks. Simplex also alleges that
AGS made false statements to Simplex that AGS would guarantee
GSO’s debt to induce Simplex to ship the load banks without first
receiving payment from GSO.
Simplex bases its claim that AGS guaranteed GSO’s debt on,
in part, two items: (1) an undated Credit Information form and (2) a
Cross Corporate Guarantee1 letter bearing the date “12/1/2010.”
See Am. Compl., Exhibit 4 (d/e 19-4), Exhibit 5 (d/e 19-5) (copies of
these two documents are attached to this Opinion). The Credit
Information form bears the AGS logo at the top and bottom of each
page. The form is signed by Sherif Assal, identified as the chairman
of AGS. The form is undated, but contains the notation “Revised:
12-14-10” at the bottom of the page. The Credit Information form
The term “guarantee” is typically the term used, and the term is often seen in
the context of assurance of quality and performance. See Black’s Law
Dictionary 772 (9th ed. 2008), quoting Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of
Modern Legal Usage 394 (2d ed. 1995). The term “guaranty” is “used primarily
in financial and banking contexts in the sense ‘a promise to answer for the
debt of another.’” Id. However, the term “guaranty” is rarely seen in nonlegal
writing. Id. The Court will use the term “guarantee” for simplicity and
consistency.
1
Page 3 of 21
contains information about AGS, including owner/officer
information, bank reference information, and trade reference
information. In addition, the form provides: “Our company, American Guard Services, Inc. City CARSON State CA hereby
authorizes the bank to release financial information on our
account(s) to _________. We are presently in the process of
establishing credit with them.” Am. Compl., Exhibit 4, p. 3 (d/e 194).
The Cross Corporate Guarantee letter bears the AGS logo at
the top and bottom of the page. Am Compl., Exhibit 5 (d/e 19-5).
The letter provides that AGS acquired GSO and that GSO is a
subsidiary of AGS. The letter further provides that AGS will cross
guarantee GSO and that the account will be set up under GSO.
The letter requests credit terms of net “30 days +”and a line of
credit of “$25,000+.” The date “12/1/2010” is typewritten at the
bottom of the page. The bottom of the letter bears the typewritten
name “Philllippe Georges H.,” identified as Global Operations
Manager with the email address of pgh@globalsourceoneint.com.
Page 4 of 21
Simplex’s credit manager, Jill Debrey, who was involved in the
sale of the load banks to GSO, submitted an affidavit in opposition
to AGS’s Motion for Summary Judgment.2 See Debrey Aff. (d/e 453). Debrey states that she received the Credit Information form and
the Cross Corporate Guarantee letter at the same time on April 11,
2014. Debrey Aff. ¶5. Debrey stated: “It was apparent to me that
the individuals I was dealing with had the authority to make the
representations they made concerning the relationship between
GSO and AGS.” Debrey Aff. ¶ 2. At the time of the transaction,
both AGS and GSO operated at the same address. Debrey Aff. ¶ 3.
Debrey relied on the representations of the Cross Corporate
Guarantee by AGS in extending credit for the purchase of the
equipment. Debrey Aff. ¶ 7.
AGS asserts that Debrey’s Affidavit fails to authenticate any documents and
does not state whether Debrey had personal knowledge. See Reply, p. 4. The
Court finds the affidavit does provide that the statements are made on personal
knowledge and sufficiently authenticates the correspondence attached as
Exhibit 1 to the affidavit. See Debrey Aff. ¶ 1 (stating that Debrey was involved
in the transaction giving rise to the lawsuit and participated in the
correspondence as reflected in Exhibit 1). Likewise, Simplex’s request that the
Court not consider the declaration of attorney Edmond Salem is denied.
2
Page 5 of 21
AGS supports its motion for summary judgment with, among
other evidence, the declaration of Sherif Assal. Assal Decl. (d/e 425). Assal asserts that he is the vice president of AGS. Assal Decl.
¶ 2. GSO is not and was not a related entity to AGS, and GSO is
not and was not a subsidiary of AGS. Assal Decl. ¶ 3.
Assal states he was chairman of GSO from December 2010
until April 18, 2011 and was not affiliated with GSO during the time
the transaction for the sale of load banks occurred with Simplex.
Assal Decl. ¶ 4. Assal asserts that no one from AGS made
statements or representations to Simplex asserting that AGS would
guarantee the debt of GSO for the purchase of the Load Banks.
Assal Decl. ¶ 7. According to Assal, GSO had a copy of AGS’s
Credit Information form from dealings between GSO and AGS that
predated the sale of the load banks with Simplex. Assal Decl. ¶ 10.
Assal asserts that GSO had provided AGS’s credit information to
Simplex without Assal’s or AGS’s knowledge. Assal Decl. ¶ 10.
Assal asserts that Georges, the global operations manager for GSO,
never had authority from AGS to execute a Cross Corporate
guarantee on behalf of AGS. Assal Decl. ¶ 14.
Page 6 of 21
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Simplex asserts, and AGS does not dispute, that this Court
has subject matter jurisdiction of the claims asserted in this action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of
citizenship between Simplex and the defendants and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. The
Court agrees.
Complete diversity exists. Simplex is a corporation organized
and operated in Illinois, with its principal place of business in
Springfield, Illinois. See Am. Compl. ¶ 1. Defendant AGS is a
California corporation registered to do business in Illinois. See Am.
Answer ¶ 3. A search for American Guard Services, Inc. on the
California Secretary of State website reveals that AGS is a
corporation organized in California with an “entity address” in
Carson, California. See kepler.sos.ca.gov (also indicating a date of
filing of October 1, 1997 and that the entity is active) (last visited
July 1, 2014); see also Illinois Secretary of State website,
www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/business_servicies/corp.h
tml search for American Guard Services, Inc. showing AGS is a
Page 7 of 21
foreign corporation, incorporated in California, with a status of
“withdrawn”) (last visited July1, 2014); see also 805 ILCS 5/13.45
(providing the procedure for a foreign cooperation to withdraw from
the State of Illinois).
Defendant Global Source One International, Inc. was a
California corporation with its headquarters in California. See Am.
Compl. ¶ 2. A search for Global Source One, International, Inc. on
the California Secretary of State website reveals that GSO was
organized in California but that it is currently “FTB suspended.3”
See kepler.sos.ca.gov (last visited July 1, 2014). The website
indicates that the “entity address” is Costa Mesa, California. Id.
(also showing that the agent for service of process resigned June 17,
2013). Because Simplex is incorporated and has its principal place
of business in Illinois and defendants are incorporated and have
The California Franchise Tax Board suspends businesses for various reasons,
including failing to file tax returns and failing to file the annual Statement of
Information with the Secretary of State. See
https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/faq/index.shtml?WT.mc_id=Global_Genera
l_Sidebar_BE_FAQ (suspension or forfeiture) (last visited July 1, 2014).
3
Page 8 of 21
their principal place of business in California, complete diversity
exists between Simplex and the defendants.
Simplex also alleges that Defendants owe $137,480 for the
load banks purchased. Therefore, the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of
the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Springfield, Illinois.
28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2). Moreover, Simplex’s Conditions of Sale
referenced in the invoices and included as part of the transaction
contained a forum selection clause providing that the judicial forum
shall be the “circuit court of Sangamon County, Illinois, or the
Federal Court, Central Region, Illinois.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9, and
Exhibit 1, Conditions of Sale (d/e 19-1); Am. Answer (d/e 36)
(admitting the venue allegations).
Finally, the parties do not dispute that Illinois law applies.
See Am. Compl., Exhibit 1, Conditions of Sale (providing that
“[a]ctionable disputes shall be under the laws of the State of
Illinois”); Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Websolv Computing, Inc., 580
F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir.2009) (holding that “[w]e honor reasonable
Page 9 of 21
choice-of-law stipulations in contract cases regardless of whether
such stipulations were made formally or informally, in writing or
orally”); Wood v. Mid–Valley Inc., 942 F.2d 425, 427 (7th Cir.1991)
(“Courts do not worry about conflict of laws unless the parties
disagree on which state’s law applies”).
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that no
genuine dispute exists as to any material fact and that the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The movant bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of
the basis for the motion and identifying the evidence the movant
believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). No
genuine issue of material fact exists if a reasonable jury could not
find in favor of the nonmoving party. Brewer v. Bd. of Trs. of the
Univ. of Ill., 479 F.3d 908, 915 (7th Cir. 2007). When ruling on a
motion for summary judgment, the court must consider the facts in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all
Page 10 of 21
reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor. Woodruff v.
Mason, 542 F.3d 545, 550 (7th Cir. 2008).
IV. ANALYSIS
AGS moves for summary judgment asserting that Simplex is
barred by the Illinois Credit Agreements Act and the statute of
frauds from bringing a claim against AGS for breach of guarantee
and fraudulent inducement. AGS also asserts that AGS is entitled
to summary judgment as a matter of law on Count IV because
Simplex cannot prove the essential elements of the claim.
Specifically, AGS asserts that AGS never executed a guarantee
agreement with Simplex and that the person who executed the
Cross Corporate Guarantee letter was a GSO representative.
A.
The Illinois Credit Agreements Act Does Not Apply
AGS first argues that Simplex’s breach of contract claim
(Count II) and fraudulent inducement claim (Count IV) are barred
by the Illinois Credit Agreements Act, 815 ILCS 160/1 et seq.
Simplex responds that the Act does not apply because neither
Simplex nor AGS was a creditor as defined by the Act.
Page 11 of 21
The Illinois Credit Agreements Act defines “credit agreement”
as “an agreement or commitment by a creditor to lend money or
extend credit or delay or forbear repayment of money not primarily
for personal, family, or household purposes, and not in connection
with the issuance of credit cards.” 815 ILCS 160/1(1). A creditor is
“a person engaged in the business of lending money or extending
credit.” 815 ILCS 160/1(2). The Act defines a debtor as “a person
who obtains credit or seeks a credit agreement or claims the
existence of a credit agreement with a creditor or who owes money
to a creditor.” 815 ILCS 160/1(3).
The Act precludes debtors from maintaining an action “on or
in any way related to a credit agreement” unless the agreement is in
writing, sets forth the relevant terms and conditions, and is signed
by the creditor and the debtor. 815 ILCS 160/2; First Nat’l Bank in
Staunton v. McBride Chevrolet, Inc., 267 Ill. App. 3d 367, 372
(1994) (“There is no limitation to the type of action by a debtor
which are barred by the Act, so long as the action is in any way
related to a credit agreement”). The writing requirement “is a strong
Page 12 of 21
form of the statute of frauds.” Help at Home, Inc. v. Medical
Capital, L.L.C., 260 F.3d 748, 754 (7th Cir. 2001).
AGS argues that the Act applies because Simplex extended
credit to GSO when Simplex sold load banks to GSO and gave GSO
30 days to pay. AGS Reply at 5 (d/e 46). AGS further argues that
the alleged guarantee agreement, when set forth as a condition
precedent, is part of the comprehensive credit agreement between
the parties and is, therefore, governed by the Act. AGS Mot. for
Summ. J., at 10 (d/e 42).
However, even if this Court accepts that Simplex extended
credit to GSO, thereby making Simplex a “creditor” under the Act,
and even if the original contract and the guarantee are considered
“credit agreements” under the Act, the Act still does not apply. See
First Nat’l Bank, 267 Ill. App. 3d at 372 (finding that bank officer’s
promise that defendants could wait until Monday to make a deposit
to cover a check was essentially an offer of credit and defendants’
acceptance of this offer formed a credit agreement); Bank One,
Springfield v. Roscetti, 309 Ill. App. 3d 1048, 1058 (1999) (the
guarantee and the note, together with other documents, constituted
Page 13 of 21
the comprehensive credit agreement because the guarantee was a
condition precedent of the loan and the loan would not have been
made without the guarantee). Section 2 of the Act provides only
that a debtor may not maintain an action related to a credit
agreement unless the agreement sets forth the relevant terms and
conditions and is signed by the creditor and debtor. 815 ILCS
160/2.
A writing signed by both parties is not required for a creditor
to maintain an action related to a credit agreement. Household
Commercial Financial Servs. Inc. v. Suddarth, No. 01 C 4355, 2002
WL 31017608 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2002) (noting that “the [Act],
however, does not by its plain language place any restrictions on
the actions of creditors”). Here, Simplex, the purported creditor, is
maintaining the action seeking to enforce the guarantee. Therefore,
the Act does not apply, and Simplex does not need a writing signed
by both Simplex and AGS to be able to maintain its action. The Act
only bars a debtor from maintaining an action related to a credit
agreement unless the agreement is signed by both the creditor and
the debtor. Simplex is not the debtor.
Page 14 of 21
B.
Simplex’s Claims are Not Barred by the Statute of Frauds
AGS also argues that the Statute of Frauds bars Simplex’s
claims. AGS asserts that the Cross Corporate Guarantee letter was
not signed by any party to the action and, therefore, fails to comply
with the Statute of Frauds.
Simplex responds that all of the documents that make up the
understanding of the parties must be considered when determining
whether the Statute of Frauds is satisfied. Simplex asserts that the
guarantee letter must be considered together with the Credit
Statement form signed by Sherif Assal. Simplex also argues that
material facts in the record justify a reasonable inference that GSO
had the apparent authority to bind AGS to the contract with
Simplex.
The Statute of Frauds requires that a guarantee be in writing
and signed by the party to be charged:
No action shall be brought . . . whereby to charge the
defendant upon any special promise to answer for the
debt . . . of another person . . . unless the promise or
agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or
some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing,
and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some
other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.
Page 15 of 21
740 ILCS 80/1. In addition, the writing must contain all of the
essential terms of the contract such that parol evidence is not
needed to prove the terms of the contract or the intention of the
parties. See Prodromos v. Howard Sav. Bank, 295 Ill. App. 3d 470,
474 (1998); Mid–Town Petroleum, Inc. v. Dine, 72 Ill.App.3d, 296,
303 (1979).
The requirement that the agreement be in writing does not
require a single piece of paper but can be satisfied by several
documents. Prodromos, 295 Ill. App. 3d at 474. However, the
“signed writing must refer expressly to the other writings, or the
other writings must be connected, physically or otherwise, to show
that they relate to the same contract.” Id.; see also Trustmark Ins.
Co. v. General & Cologne Life Re of Am., 424 F.3d 542 (2005)
(applying Illinois law).
The writings in this case include the Cross Corporate
Guarantee letter and the Credit Information form. The Cross
Corporate Guarantee letter contains the terms of the guarantee
agreement: AGS will cross guarantee GSO and the account will be
Page 16 of 21
set up under GSO. The letter also requested credit terms of net 30
days + and a line of credit of $25,000+.
An agreement to guarantee another’s debt does not require a
particular form of language. McCracken v. Olson Cos., Inc., 149 Ill.
App. 3d 104, 113 (1986). Therefore, for purposes of summary
judgment, the Court finds that the Cross Corporate Guarantee
letter sets forth the terms of the guarantee.
Both the Cross Corporate Guarantee and the Credit
Information form are signed. The Cross Corporate Guarantee is
signed by a representative of GSO. Although the representative’s
name is typewritten, “signed” can mean any mark that indicates
that the document has been executed by the party to be charged.
See Roti v. Roti, 364 Ill. App. 3d 191, 196 (2006) (noting that
“marks of many different sorts may qualify as signatures” so long as
the mark indicates the document has been executed by the party to
be charged); see also, e.g., Just Pants v. Wagner, 247 Ill. App. 3d
166, 174 (1993) (a document may be signed “in a multitude of
ways, only one of which is a handwritten subscription”).
Page 17 of 21
The Credit Information form bore the signature of Sherif Assal,
the chairman of AGS. The Cross Corporate Guarantee and the
Credit Information form are physically connected because they were
submitted to Simplex together on April 11, 2011. The documents
are also connected in the sense that all of the pages contain the
AGS logo and bear dates in December 2010. See Credit Information
form (containing the notation “Revised: 12-14-10”); Cross Corporate
Guarantee letter (containing the date “12/1/2010” typewritten at
the bottom of the page). Therefore, for purposes of summary
judgment, the Court finds the Statute of Frauds satisfied.
C.
Questions of Fact Remain About Whether GSO Had the
Apparent Authority to Bind AGS
AGS also argues that AGS is entitled to summary judgment on
Simplex’s fraudulent inducement claim because Simplex cannot
prove the essential elements of the claim. AGS argues that no one
from AGS made any false statement of material fact and that
Simplex cannot prove reasonable reliance. Simplex responds that
questions of fact remain about whether GSO had the apparent
authority to bind AGS to the contract with Simplex.
Page 18 of 21
Apparent authority arises when the principal holds an agent
out as possessing the authority to act on the principal’s behalf and
a reasonable person, exercising diligence and discretion, would
assume that the agent had the authority in light of the principal’s
conduct. Zahl v. Krupa, 365 Ill. App. 3d 653, 661 (2006). The
words and conduct of the alleged principal establish the agent’s
authority, not the words and conduct of the alleged agent. Id.
The fact and extent of the agency relationship can be
established by circumstantial evidence. Hofner v. Glenn Ingram &
Co., 140 Ill. App. 3d 874, 880 (1986). “Where the evidence is
conflicting, the question of whether an agent is authorized to act is
a question of fact to be submitted to a jury.” Lynch v. Board of
Educ. of Collinsville Cmty. Unit Dist. No. 10, 82 Ill. 2d 415, 427
(1980).
In this case, GSO submitted a set of documents to Simplex
that bore the AGS logo and indicated that AGS would cross
guarantee GSO. As part of that set of documents, GSO also
submitted a Credit Information form signed by the chairman of
AGS, containing information about AGS, and authorizing “the
Page 19 of 21
bank” to release financial information for the purpose of
establishing credit. Taken together, and viewed in the light most
favorable to Simplex, a genuine issue of material fact remains
whether GSO was clothed with AGS’s authority when the Credit
Agreement form signed by the chairman of AGS was sent to Simplex
along with the Corporate Guarantee letter.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, AGS’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(d/e 42) is DENIED. This case remains set for a Final Pretrial
Conference on August 4, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. and a jury trial on
August 19, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are reminded to comply
with Local Rule 16.1 regarding final pretrial conferences. The
proposed final pretrial order and all pretrial motions shall be
submitted to the Court by noon on July 25, 2014. Objections to
jury instructions, exhibits, and witnesses, as well as responses to
any pretrial motions, shall be filed, with citation to authority, by
noon on July 30, 2014. The parties shall bring their marked
exhibits to the Final Pretrial Conference.
Page 20 of 21
ENTER: July 3, 2014
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 21 of 21
American Guard Services, Inc. {AGS) is a California .
Corporation, founded and owned by Ms. Sherine Assal and Mr.
Sherif Assa!, th e founding Principals.
American Guatd Service,
l n c.
American Guard Services, Inc. is a full service Security Guard
Company and the company is under the NAICS Code 561612
Secu~ity
Guards and Patrol Services. The company is a Prime
Government Contractor and is currently approved under the
1299 E. Arte sia Blvd., Ste
Federal Supply System as a Security Contractor. Average Sales
200
for the last three yeal'S is under $31,00!),000. American Guard
310 ~ 645-6200
Services, Inc. has its Corporate Headquarters located at 1299 E.
Artesia Blvd., Suite 200, Carson, CA 90746.
310-645-62.33
10/22./2oio
The Company also operates branch offices in San Diego CA,
Miami, Ft Lauderdale, and Cape Canaveral FL, Las Vegas NV
and Honolulu, Hawaii.
American Guard Services, Inc. has been active in the operation
of Cruise Line Ter.minals at the Ports of Los Angeles, San Diego,
and San Juan, PR.
Miami, New.Orleans, _
Th~se
Port Security
Contracts dealing wit~ the Cruise Ship Te!minals have put us in
direct contact with lhe U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and
Immigration,.and Department of Homeland Security.
E XY:.-iI E B!i T
.. _ _____
f
_
•
.
Credit Information
.
COMPANY INFORMATION:
F:;Li~ral IC>~
American Guard Services, Inc.
American Guard Services, Inc.
1299 E. Artesia Blvd., Ste WO
Carson
310·64S·6200
Arn; 1\'or.1C':
C.."lt/1C1!0 , lr.1•fli1."lt:
Cm·ir•c~ l'dtlrcs-s
fir;':
Plicmc N.;~~t:r:.. ;:
I
I
1 '..'frEt;hl;>•
:-f\
Corporation
r:1hli.:.i?1
·iv.:ttc:: Private
I
I
St tUc':
?:JI( :
S 11b rmC1r.<1 (N:
310·645-6233
l
90746
Phone:
Emri1I /,d:JrCJ$'
1 ?1
11:
1
CA
{i;k'
Amcilc."Jnguardservices.com
1SZD3
00-5122653
Weh~i! e ·':tl.lft'SI:
C
ucc CL'Ce:
f;u::>.!l
src c..:J,•:
Resfll~·-,
73810105
Pۥ111ir: 101-574696
OWNER/OFFICER INFORMATION
f/111111!:
/..ddrC$S:
Nort:1.":
Adclte:;;:
Sherine Ass al
3354 Palo Vista Dr.
T?tle:
City:
Principal
Rancho Palos Verdes
Shertr Assal
3101 G~rdenla lane
Tille:
Prlnclpal
Yorba Linda
l
Sociol 5m1ril)•i!
Social Sr,urf~·~
Ci:~;:
Ste.re
Zip Cod:
-, Slollc:
Zip :
I
CA
90248
· flce1 Cars
DcarCom
Phone: 800-731-2377
5235 NW 33"' Ave.
I
G:y:
I
fort Lauderdale
I
Srucc:
Zip C.Gdt:
I ...CCOtln! I!:
line o; Crt•f/.it:Terms:
Contact: Malt Klass
Gard ena
I Acco11n: If: Accountll
ui u: cf i:1<:dir/rc.-uu:
Contact : Gia Madatyan
I
I
.Fl
33309
I
-
2 Way Radios
~~!·~~~'·'·~~:~~
& 111.
I
U t •
&.
V
.senVJC1'S,
~A It WI •
• •
INC~
f \I A I T"T
• ••
.
Credit.Information
.,. .. . :
Na;ne:
Wells Fargo Financial l easing
P(lo:-.,::
866.497.0867
:i.tdrclS:
P. O. Oox 6434
City:
Carol Stream
Fo1<:
888.241.43 82
SIM~:
IL
60197-6434
Zlu:
i.m~ cf CJuli:/Tc...,,,,s:
$1.S million
.'.'c11of:'
Marlin leasing
P. 0. Box 13604
1k!:ftl!iS:
!in:... of
'.°l'f.<.lr:/T.;rn1:..
$250,000.00
Nu."'i>C:
Addom.
#·\~coanl
Pfgme:
I
Multiple leases
fl.
888.236.2409
Philadelphia
Cit;':
Szcrlip &Co.
288 Main Street
CcJ11toc r:
Multiple leases
f:?x:
~tcrtc:
PA
19101
4i;;:
Wavnc Ruben
:ic.:v!Jlll
Ph:i~1~:
fiti':
;t
fox:
800.754.8273 X27
Miiiburn
973.912.5118
NI
07041
!;tiHt':
Zip:
Our Accounting Department is processed through a lhild party consullant I Source Business, Inc. th.e contact for any financial
information or accounting Issues is Mr. Sam Karawla @424-213-4031 or by email at: okarawia@isourcebusiness.com
Our company, _ _..A~ ~e~r~i~ ~
m
ca n_G~u a~rd~S~e IVl
~~·~ce~s ln~c~._ _ _ __
~
City
CARSON
State _C~A_ _ __ _
hereby authorizes the bank lo release financial information on our account(s) to
the process
or establishing
. We are presently in
credit with them. Please provide all the necessary infonnation and fax it directly to the
company to expedite our credit application.
Sherif Assal
PRINTED NAME
Chairman
TITLE
DATE
By Signing lhis application we are certifying that the authorized signer on behalf or the business entity you we are representing, has
the aulhorily lo legally bind such business enlily. and-that all or the infonnalion contained in this application is lrue and correct.
Applicanl is submllting this applicatlon for the purpose of obtaining credit. aulhorizlng
lo contact the trade
references provided lo oblain any information pertalning lo the appllcanrs credil worthiness. l agree to !he above terms or
infonnollon.
flcvlsed: 12· 14·10
17,L+.-.~~~~.'~~.·~·.. "'.""'" '"''
~ .; ' '.
•
.
• :
,·
; •
a,
I\ Wl 9'
&.
'-' .... ~
1.1: I •
&: CC 0 1.tl '1
··
· ·;~
..
'
..
Crnss Corporate Guarantee
Please note that our Historical Financials and References provided will re/leer our Ab/llty and Reputation
To whom it may concern,
American Guard Services (AGS) has been in business for 12 years. We have over 4000 employees situated over multiple offices
located in California, Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, Nevada, Alaska and Puerto Rico. We are a financially sound organization and we are
considered leaders in our industry.
As part of our strategic management ini_iatives, AGS acquired Global Source One Int. (GSO) last.year with intention of growing both
t
companies by investing capital, human resources, real-estate, technology and know-how.
GSO a subsidiary of AGS is focused on our client the department of defense (DOD)/ Federal Government. We are considered
experts in managing the various compliance, quality assurance, fuifillment and value added servic~s (Packaging, Labeling, Bar- ·
coding, Special Instructions) requirements.
Recent Developments and accomplishments:
• Opened up a new additional office in Carson, CA
o
Doubled the number of employees
• Signed on and became authorized distributors for several fortune 500 manufacturers
• Established the financi al/credit infrastructure with leading fin ancial institutions to support the fast growth
o
Achieved an astonishing growth of 400% year-to-date with estimated reven ues in excess of $10 Million
Cross Corporate Guarantee_
Notice:
•
.
Global Source One Int. Inc. (GSO) is a one year old company.
•
American Guard Services (AGS) will cross guarantee GSO.
•
The account will be set up under GSO.
Client Credit/Payment terms:
ent
• Our pay~nt terms with our client/Federal Governm" is net ~O days.
• Terms include payment upon partial delivery to our client/Federal Government on a lot of our contracts.
• Currently, we are set up on a (net 45 days} credit terms with most our existing man ufactures.
Request:
o
Credit term Net 30 days +
o
qn~ of credit $25,000 +·
Thank you,
Phllippe Georges H.
Global OperatJons Manager
pgh@globalsourceoneint.com
(424) 213 4112
E X H. !! B i1 "]-
!)
12/1/2010
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?