Print the value of index0
  • Report:  #604568

Complaint Review: CMPro

CMPro RMpro Consulting company rippoff beware big time thieves Phoenix, Arizona

  • Reported By:
    Ripped off customer — Chandler Arizona United States of America
  • Submitted:
    Tue, May 18, 2010
  • Updated:
    Mon, November 30, 2015
  • CMPro
    300 W. Osborn Rd. #209
    Phoenix, Arizona
    United States of America
  • Phone:
    877-267-7605
  • Category:

April 1, 2010

To whom it may concern:

I contracted with CMPro for consulting services in order to perfect my two company processes for Grace Plumbing Services, Inc. and Faith Restoration Inc. (herein called Grace/Faith) at a cost of approximately $30,000. Please find attached to this letter the only remaining unsigned copy of the contract between CMPro and myself. The following is a brief synopsis of my current situation with CMPro as a result of this service agreement:

1.       Grace/Faith purchased a program upgrade that didnt work as promised and cost us $10,000s in lost calls with one of our biggest clients,  and destroyed our rating with them. The program was very expensive and tim consuming to set up.

2.       CMPro have completed only 25% of the promised contractual work according to the contract I have still within my possession.

3.       CMPro had representatives of their company that were unprofessional in appearance and work performance, to the extent of verbal and mental abuse on both my wife and myself, and my staff.

4.       In attempting a resolution with the CMPro owner, we were threatened that he would slander our company with our customer base.

5.       The work contract between Grace/Faith and CMPro was altered and returned different than the signed original contract.

6.       A sub-consultant of CMPro had verbally informed me that CMPro was preparing to do the same underhanded work ethics with another client of CMPros, taking the minimal work from them for us and using it as the new companies work. Stating to me that he told Kent Wilson he wouldnt do it anymore because it reeked of a scam.

As a result of this situation, I want to make sure that this does not occur to any other company. If we were not successful enough companies then this could have crippled my us. I would like to have my money refunded and I would never consider doing business with this company again. I advise all who are using CMPro or would in the future be considering them to consider another company for the services.

Below please find an in-depth review of exactly what had occurred over the 12 week duration of our contract with CMPro.

CMPros first service consultant came in and told me to buy a program upgrade that he guarantees will work for us. It was expensive to set up and did not work. In addition, over the next four weeks, we witness the consultant spend 4-weeks in my office doing personal work during this time period.  This was at a cost of almost $5,000/week. When I complained, the consultant yelled at me and told me that he had finished the work. So we proceeded to go over the contract per each line item detail. I complained about the work not being done and they sent someone else over and the new person proceeded to take my contract and give it back to me in a different form.  He had removed the line item detail of what I had originally received and had put personal notes on, and returned me a newly printed contract with no signatures on it. I now have no way to hold them accountable to the line items promised me within the original contract. The cost of implementing the program was enormous, much more than anticipated and extremely time consuming. The time spent trying to implement the program causes my biggest customer to suffer and they stopped sending us 25+ calls/day for over a month. I brought my complaints to the owner of CMPro, and he offered me a $1200 credit for just the cost of the program. Please keep in mind that this program, the implementation within my company and the lost calls as a result of implementing the program has cost me tens of thousands of dollars, all predicated on  their guarantee. When I called the owner of CMPro to tell him I am going to complain to the BBB he proceeded to threaten me that he will slander my company to my entire customer base. I was horrified by this experience and I have only received about 25% of what was promised me to date.  

Before the presence of CMPro within our lives, Grace/Faith had contracted with our biggest client for an additional 3000 service calls this year and I knew that we needed to improve our current corporate procedures in order to handle the new work load. Also, I had promised my employees for several years to set up a retirement plan. Prior to CMPro there were no problems within my company and the current staff had brought Grace/Faith to the place of being the top rated vendor for 3 home warranty companies, including our biggest client, and that before we brought in CMPro we were considered by many to be the best in our profession. I also had met with consulting services in the past and they promised that they could establish systems and processes that will allow me and my wife not to be in our offices to run things every day.

As a result, I set up with CMPRo services to do this work for me within Grace/Faith. I had told my employees all about it. I told all of my employees that we were having some high powered corporate headhunters come into establish new SOPs, systems and employee incentive bonus programs. I told them that they were going to evaluate each employee to see if they were the right person for their jobs at the right pay.  This is what I had been promised by CMPro. We met with one of the owners, Kent Wilson from CMPro to contract with his consulting company to fix corporate issues within our office that runs 2 companies with almost 40 employees, 20 each. The promises from CMPro by Kent included complete financial reporting, standard operating procedures (SOP), training videos, evaluation of each employee to determine if they were qualified for their jobs, and many other things that painted a picture of a perfect corporation when he was finished. All of these things and more promises were made to get my companies to where they can run themselves and I and my wife wouldnt have to be there every day, all day, to run them. I explained to Kent during our first meeting that I needed his services, but I didnt know how I could pay him. I asked him to first tell me how much its going to cost me. As Certified Public Accountants I wanted them to show me in terms of our budget and cash flow how we could pay them. He said he would and not to worry and that he wouldnt give us a hard time about paying them, and that we could pay them as we go when we could. Kent and I both signed our contract which spelled out everything they were going to give me and he made a black/white copy of it on my copier and gave it to me.  Later, this same contract would be taken from me by Steve Watzek, changed and brought back to me reprinted in color, minus our signatures and the line item detailed list that I had been holding them accountable to in the past conversations. This happened in Week 7 of this fiasco. However, this will be discussed later and it is more appropriate to start with Week 1.

Week 1 began and in stepped Carl Eckenbrecht. Carl showed up with his hair literally flapping off of his head more than 6 (like you would see in a movie where someones toupee is flapping up, except hes not wearing a toupee). He was in wrinkled clothes and appeared as if he has been drinking all night, but honestly my memory of him is completely skewed by how he looked the last time I saw him at the end of Week  4. He proceeded to show up every weekday for a month straight looking the same way. He came in and got with our bookkeeper and started to go through our books and our system. He immediately caught an issue with our payroll service that if not changed would have cost me close to $17000 by year end (good job), and he determined that our entire problem with financial reporting could be solved with a dispatching software program that we have already used for more than 5 years. However, we could never get the program to work with our QuickBooks program. He told me he would download a test of the program and go through it to completion to make sure it would do what we needed it to do. End of the first week and Carl hands us a bill for the agreed $4,295 which had additions of per diem charges, hotel charges, gas charges, and others, totaling $5052. We look at our books and determine that we could give them only a $2000 payment. We hand the check to Carl and he gave us a dirty look and acted all mad. I explained to him that this is what we and Kent had agreed on. He said he would come in the next week and do a 12week cash flow report to determine how we could pay him.

Week 2 - Second week started and Carl showed up looking the same as usual. He proceeded to completely check out the service ledger program and the issues we had with it, so he said. I would like to take this time to say that starting the end of the first week I had already noticed that Carl was not actively doing anything.  It was clear he was just checking and writing emails all day, reading the news on his computer, web surfing, working on other projects, and doing CMPros books. You see, my entire office is set up for the monitoring of every employee and what they are doing without them being aware they are being watched. Carl produces a 12week cash flow spreadsheet showing how I can pay them large sums of cash weekly, but this cash flow forecast leaves out many important things that need to be paid. He later says that the information is what he received from my wife and bookkeeper, 2 people that do not know anything about a cash flow forecast or what needs to be on it. The cash flow forecast is not at all accurate, not even for the first week of its implementation and fails to take all our expenses into account and therefore the first payment we make from it on the second week drives our companies into the negative immediately. By Wednesday it becomes completely apparent to me that Carl isnt really doing anything at all. Especially since the scope of phase 1 requires 4 weeks of onsite work at $4295+expenses and is a very intense scope that appears all encompassing and would require diligent hard work for more than 8 hours a day for any 1 man to complete. So, I ask Carl what he is doing and where we are at. He tells me he has completely checked out Service ledger and its integration with QuickBooks and that it will work for us and that we need to purchase an upgrade for the program at a cost of more than $1200. My wife tells him that she is completely against it, that it wont work and that she had already tried it and doesnt want to try to get it set up again. Carl assures us that he checked it out; that he has more than 30yrs of computer experience and that he can make it work. We are skeptical at this point and hesitant, so I ask Carl in front of my entire office staff and my wife, Do you guarantee it will work. He says yes, he can absolutely make it work. We suggest then that instead of installing an upgrade to the program over the one that we have been using for more than 5yrs, that we should install a new copy and get it set up, so as not to cause problems with the one we are using and to eliminate the 5yrs of info that is in the old version. He says that is not necessary and he can work around it. Based on his guarantee I purchase the upgrade and they schedule to install it over our old program.  Carl spends the rest of the week perfecting the Service Ledger/QuickBooks integration, or so he says that is what he is doing since at this point I am leery to believe anything he says. But the opinion of my wife and I and our entire staff is that he is doing nothing but the same old web surfing stuff he is always doing. End of week 2, he hands us an invoice for $5024 and we pay him as he stated we could on his incomplete 12week cash flow report. This puts us in the negative immediately and an important tax payment wasnt able to be paid. At this point we have arrived at the end of the 2nd week and because of Carls appearance, suggestions, and work ethics, I approach Kent with my concerns that Carl isnt doing anything and I am concerned that we arent going to be able to complete our entire scope of phase 1 within the time frame agreed to. (At this time it had already become apparent to me that at the end of the 4 weeks Carl was going to say that he needed more time to finish and that it would cost me more. I have been in business for a long time and this is not the first time I have seen this type of thing happen.) My wife and I spoke with Kent and he agreed to come in and speak with us. But before I can speak with Kent, Kent calls Carl and tells him there is a problem and Carl storms in my office and claims he is a managing partner of CMPro and the lead consultant on this job. I am unable to speak with Carl, and really unsure how to accuse him of doing anything wrong since his emotional outburst and I trust Kent and so I dont talk to Carl and ask him to leave my office. Kent comes and he assured us that there is nothing to be worried about and that he would make sure that things were right. (Because of our common religious background, I take him at his word, even though every feeling was telling me to back out of the agreement.)

Week 3 Week 3 started and Carl arrived looking the same as usual. He proceeded to do his usual web surfing and alternative work all day, with the few exceptions of speaking with my staff about Chicago and remodeling his house, weather and other stuff. Now by this time I have instructed my staff to observe him and report to me what they think he is doing. I have 9 office staff members of which all of them report back to me daily for the rest of the time he is in our offices; 2 more weeks of their opinion of what he is doing in the office. All said the same thing: web surfing and not doing work. I now know I should have just sent him away and cancelled the agreement, but on the word of Kent I let it go on. By Wednesday we got the Service Ledger upgrade installed. Now to set up the Service ledger program and integrate with QuickBooks required entering into the program 100s of codes for every service we performed and 1000s of inventory items that could only be entered and then copied for every inventory location we had and with 12 service vans and the shop, this was an enormous costly undertaking. In addition, every technician needed to be set up in the program with their skill levels and locations and all the equipment they had.  I instructed my entire office staff to do whatever it took to get it set up and going ASAP, including all of them working 20-30hrs of overtime to get it set up.  As a result of the upgrade, the new version of Service Ledger had a different format and the ability to monitor where incoming service calls came from was gone. This became a major problem that I will explain more in-depth later.  Now with my entire office staff extremely busy with the new task, Carl retired to my conference room and under our complete scrutiny, began his same routine of web surfing doing nothing related to our companies. I want to take this time to explain that we were having trouble with our bookkeeper before CMPro came and my involvement in their processes as a result of CMPro being onsite immediately revealed to me that I needed to replace her. I explained to Carl that because I needed to replace my bookkeeper and that because we need to get Service Ledger set up that they should pull off the job and let my staff get straightened out and get Service Ledger up and running, especially since their consulting services require total involvement with my bookkeeping staff and all the operating procedures that will change with the implementation of this program.  He said that is not necessary and that my bookkeeper is just backlogged as a result of our current processing system and is completely competent to do her job. I disagree, but take his advice, because I am under contract for more than 30k for his consulting services and after all he is an expert at this stuff and I am not. End of week 3 and Carl handed me an invoice for $5231, close to $1000 of added expenses. I am furious at this point. I call Kent in and explain that Carl hadnt done anything and there is only one week left for the completion of Phase1 and I didnt want them coming to me at the end of the week saying they need more time to complete the job. He again assured me not to worry.

Week 4 - Week 4 started and Carl showed up looking the same as usual, but now he is rushing around with a purpose of completing my job. He took old job descriptions for some of my employees that my wife had made years ago, cut and pasted them on their forms. Most of these duties dont apply anymore or have been changed but this is what he distributed to some of my Grace Plumbing employees and none for Faith Restoration. Faith Restoration to date had absolutely nothing done for it by CMPro. It is a comparable sized company with lots of employees and doing almost $2 million a year in sales.  It has no systems, no processes established, and nothing that would make it self- running. I stay out of Carls way this week because he seems really busy, and to be honest I cant even bring myself to talk to him because I feel he is trying to rip me off. By this time I had realized that all the verbal promises from Kent were worthless and I had been reading the written scope of phase 1 and studying it to see what I am truly supposed to receive from them. It is a very broad scope with lots of things to be accomplished and up to this date I had never been presented with any of the things in the scope. Thursday comes around and it is completely apparent to me that Carl is going to tell me he is done the next day and I still have never received anything in the scope and none of the verbal promises had come to fruition either.   I tried to go over the scope with Carl that afternoon and he got up and stormed out of my office. I called Kent and asked him to come in the next day to discuss my concerns. Friday morning came and Kent and Carl showed up, Carl looking the same as usual, except today he was wearing large mirrored sunglasses and had a real mean and dirty look on his face.  With trepidation, I enter the meeting with them and my wife to go over the scope of work outlined in the contract and to address the verbal promises that were made. I started by trying to be peaceable and just go line by line through the scope of work that was promised me. Carl got verbally abusive and started yelling at me in front of my whole office staff. He said he had saved me 20k on payroll expenses and that he gave me back 2 days of accounting time to get financial reports (referring to the time saved on processing invoices if we could get service ledger to work which to date still hasnt been able to be done). I asked him what about my other company, he has done nothing with it and hasnt even spoken to 1 employee there. I ask doesnt it need systems and processes since it has nothing and he said, It doesnt need anything. I asked him if he was saying that the company is perfect and he doesnt answer me. So, I continue to go line by line and he couldnt show me or give me anything. He continued to glare at me and my wife with a mean look on his face, continuing to wear his sunglasses. He began to insult me and said that none of my employees like me (a lot of them have worked for me for many years and I know that this is not truth.) I am completely taken back by this verbal abuse treatment. I tell Carl to leave my office because he is yelling at me.  I explain to him that I am just a customer that is concerned with what I have received for the amount of money billed to me and I am complaining that I havent received what is promised. Instead of understanding my complaints, I was yelled at and treated like crap in front of my wife and employees and that for those reasons alone I could complain to the Better Business Bureau (BBB). Carl left and Kent promised he would again make it all right with me. I again trust him due to the common religious background we share. Meanwhile I have just been handed another invoice for $5923 which includes airfare for Carl to go back to Chicago, which I was told at the beginning that I wouldnt have to pay as he was already in town to work with someone else. Kent assures me that he will have someone in my office on Monday to work to complete the entire scope of phase 1 at no additional charge. With these words I agree to let it continue.

 Week 5 Week 5 started and Monday comes and in steps Steve Watzek, an apparent nice guy who appears smart and is well dressed. Steve began to run around my office for the entire week straight madly trying to finish a very detailed and extreme scope of work that would take at least a month to do if trying to get done right. Finally we have Service Ledger set up and ready to integrate with QuickBooks. There are some issues they came up and needed Carls help because he had already checked it out and assured us it could be done. His response to my wife was a simple looks like its not going to work for you.  I have by this time purchased the program and paid extreme amounts of extra payroll to get this going. We have no choice now so we started dealing with Service Ledger support. We got some answers but not all that were needed. The one thing that the support person did tell us is that before we did our first import into QuickBooks that it is going to take all the information that we have ever put into this program over the last 5+ years and dump it into QuickBooks and completely screw up our system and records.  We are now completely invested in this process of getting Service Ledger working by this time both monetarily and time wise, plus if it can be made to work it would really improve our process. So, the solution problem of linking with QuickBooks requires now to reinstall the Service Ledger program as a new copy and not an upgrade so as to only have new info to put into QuickBooks, and only one weeks worth instead of five years worth. This way if there is a problem it can be easily corrected. So, my staff now begins a complete new install of the Service Ledger program which included countless hours of overtime to re-enter all the same information again (inventory, work codes, technicians and so on). I call Kent and explained this to him and told him about Carls response and I explained to him that if we cant get this program to work that we were going to have serious problems between our company and his. He again told me not to worry. End of week 5 and Steve hands me a new invoice for $4567 showing a partial credit on the invoice for $1431.67 for one week of Carls time  that he intends to give me on every further invoice from Steve as he continues the scope of phase 1. I did not accept this since I did not agree to it. His intention was to bill me for more time to complete my job and issue me a credit split up over the remaining time to account for 1 week of what Carl billed me, the whole time racking up new weekly charges for work I was promised would be completed in 4 weeks. I tell him that I absolutely reject this and will not agree to pay them any more than the agreed price.

Week 6 - Week 6 started and on Monday Steve showed up with Kent to talk about whats going on.  I talked to Kent and explained to him my feelings and my concerns and that if he wanted me to let them go into phase2 which would cost me more than 10k that they need to finish phase 1 to my satisfaction at no additional cost. He agreed.  Steve continued this week to run around my office hurriedly trying to complete this all encompassing scope. At this point in the middle of the week, I got a call from our biggest client and he stated that we have violated our agreements with them and we had lost the 25+calls a day we were getting from them and were only receiving 6-7 calls a day. The reason for this is that we had stopped reporting the status of every work order on their online status update website and we had gone way over our agreed billing average to them, by more than 7k. This is due to the problem I described earlier where the entire format of Service Ledger had changed and now we were not able to look at the scheduling screen and determine how many calls we were getting from any one client.  If we would have been able to see this we would have known immediately there was a problem, but we couldnt and we lost more than 20 calls a day for over a month before I received the call from our client to tell me this. The second reason about our billing average was because our entire office staff had worked endless hours of overtime this month due to the Service Ledger adventure and simply just fell behind and did not stay on top of it. The third reason was because our bookkeeper was completely unqualified for her job and if I would have replaced her when I wanted instead of listening to Carl this wouldnt have happened. The cost of losing all those calls and the effect on our cash flow was tremendous, and in fact if I didnt work a deal out with my biggest client, it would literally have crushed one of my companies that relied totally on the referrals from that client for its entire job base. This would have caused me to have to lay off several members of my other company and still have to pay for the leases on the vans even though we have no one working in them. This also put me in a bad place with this client because of the promises I made to secure the call volume from them and the 5 years of negotiations that I had with them to get us where we were and trying to get further with them in the future. This got no response from CMPro that it was their fault, only to blame my staff.  Towards the end of this week Kent had pushed on me to let him bring in Thom for the beginning of phase 2. I am reluctant but dont want to argue and Steve seems to be a diligent worker, so I figured we can work it out and I am already heavily invested in this process and figure me an Kent can get it worked out; so I agreed to let him bring in Thom. We are at the end of this week now and Steve started telling me he is done. Confused, I start going through the line items again and checking what he had done. I want to say right now that the line items in the scope are not really what I want, but all of the verbal promises I was made and the picture that was painted by Kent to be realized. I am now more than a month behind in my accounting and no where closer to my companies being able to run themselves, I now have to spend countless hours in my office because of all the problems we are having. I started looking at the job descriptions that he had given me and distributed to my employees and he had job titles for 1 company distributed to employees of another company and all the job duties are not duties of the person given to, but a copy and paste of other people from other companies job descriptions and the like. Every other one given to me doesnt list any specific job duties because he never spoke to any one to find out what they do and how, let alone evaluating them to see if they are the right person for the job at the right pay. I complained and he said he would be back next week to finish.

 Week 7 Week 7 started and Steve and Thom showed up. Thom was extremely smart and a real asset to CMPro, however he is a subcontractor of CMPro. We talk at length about what I am looking to do for my companies from a sales and marketing standpoint. He says the scope of work outlined is vague and broad and there are things there that are a complete waste of time. He asks me what I truly want from him. I told him that we had came to an understanding of what I wanted to do here and that what I really wanted was 10k worth of improvements to my sales and marketing department because that is what it was going to cost me for him to be here. He agreed and understood. However by this time Kent was really keen to make sure that the line by line scope would be done and therefore made sure that is what Thom did. Steve spent half the week finishing the line by line scope of phase 1, but real generically and not to perfection or even close to the picture and promises made by Kent in the beginning. Now at this time I have left my contract with CMPro in my conference room, because I had been going over it with CMPro and each line item detail. Steve took my contract and remakes it and gives it back to me in a different form and now it is missing all the line item detail that I had been going over with them. Now I have no line item detail to hold them accountable or a signed contract. I ask Steve what happened to it and he plays dumb and acts like he doesnt know what I am talking about. I am really over burdened by this point as a result of the problem with our biggest client and I am busy trying to come up with solutions and auditing their account myself in and attempt get it right to really give Steve my attention and see what he is really giving me. Also, by this time Kent has me convinced that this is a process that we will perfect over the next 10 month at a cost of $300/month. Again I am frustrated and overburdened to even care at this point. Also, at this point our cash flow is in the negative every week as a result of the money I had given to CMPro and the loss of more than 20 jobs a day for over a month. Steve leaves on Wednesday and says he is done. Im too stressed to even check and he said he would be back next week for a couple hours if I needed to go through anything.

Week 8 - Week 8 started and Thom is hard at it trying to finish this wide and broad scope of phase 2 within 2 weeks while still trying to give me what I truly need, instead of the line by line items. Steve comes in spent a couple hours trying to correct the problems I had found with the things he had given me. But still everything is way short of the verbal promises and the picture painted by Kent. At this point, I am too frustrated and really didnt want to argue with Kent for a refund. I just wanted the contract to end.  I had seen great value in what Thom was doing and could do for me.  End of this week and Thom isnt done with the line by line scope and what I really wanted and discussed with him that he is not finished. He told me he had to go out of town for two weeks and he would be back to finish.

 Week 9 Week 9 started and Kent comes in and tries to have some time with me. I tried to give him time but again I am still too busy and overstressed. He assured me everything would be fine and told me its a process. Now at this time, Kent comes here with a form to establish a direct bank withdrawal to pay him $1500 a week directly out of our bank account in direct violation of our agreement to work within our cash flow and take payments as we could pay him. Again I am so overworked and stressed by now that I really dont even pay attention to this. My wife is really upset now since Kent totally promised us that he wouldnt give us a hard time about paying him at all.

Week 10 Week 10 started and we are still very behind in our bookkeeping and Service Ledger is still not set up. Friday rolls around and Service Ledger is totally ready to go so we work with Service Ledger support to get the link established between it and QuickBooks to import the last 2 weeks of invoices into QuickBooks. We do the import and information got placed all over in our QuickBooks program. It wont work. The support team for Service Ledger takes a look at all of the problems we are having with it and informs us that it will not do what we need it to do at all and tells us that they would make a note of the problem and maybe within the next couple of years they will get it fixed as they include new code and update the program.  I am now completely over the edge with CMPro. They had cost me thousands of dollars at this point trying to get this program up and running. They had caused my entire accounting to be more than a month of time behind schedule. They had caused us to lose more than 20calls a day for over a month from our biggest client (that actually represents thousands and thousands of dollars in missed opportunity from each call). I am literally physically sick about it at this point. I call Kent to tell him all about it. He gives me an oh well attitude which really sets me off. He says that Carl never guaranteed it would work, even though he said so in front of me, my wife and my entire office staff. He goes on to blame me and my staff for the predicament we are in. The conversation degrades into an argument and Kent tells me he needs to take the weekend to think about it.

Week 11 - Week 11 rolled around and Kent sent me an email on Monday. The email is demanding and rude. He agreed to credit me the cost of the Service Ledger program, approx. $1200, if I agreed to this list of demands in his email. His email is insulting and in it he puts the entire blame of our circumstance on me and my staff. His offer of a $1200 credit is received by me in a very unhappy way, in no way does his offer of this credit take into consideration the total cost to me of implementing this program, not once but twice, nor the loss of revenue created by the upheaval of my entire system and how it affected my biggest client. At this point, what I guess I am really left with is to ask for a full refund of my money and to annul our agreement completely, because it is clear that there is no way we are going to come to a agreement regarding this. The whole situation seems like I have just been completely scammed. Before I can get my email response out to Kent, Thom showed up. He asked me what I needed from him to be complete and I tell him. He apologized for the situation. He then proceeded to tell me that Kent tried to send him on another job where he just cut/pasted the line item scope for Thoms work straight out of my scope. He told me that he told Kent he wouldnt do another job like this again, that the scope is vague and broad and not truly what anyone needs and that it reeks of a rip-off. He told me that if he didnt have to complete the line item scope of things described in phase 2 that were completely useless and not what I needed or wanted, that he would have had more time to work on what I really needed. He leaves me with a promise he will come back. I send my response to Kents email requesting a complete refund and a request that they come take everything they say they have given me. Kent and I go back and forth with emails (please see attached emails). Finally, I just tell him that if he doesnt want me to complain to the BBB, rip-off report and other reporting agencies that he will just refund my money and I will go somewhere else for the help I desperately need. He responds by saying that he will report me to the BBB, rip-off reports and stuff and that he will sue me for breaking a confidentiality agreement, and that he will contact my entire customer base and slander me to them if I complain. I told him that I believe this is illegal and is extortion and that I am allowed to make a complaint as the customer and that I will not be intimidated with threats.  As a result I have put in a complaint with the BBB and we are now seeking a mediator to handle this conflict situation. 

5 Updates & Rebuttals


CMPRO

Chicago,
Illinois,
USA

CMPRO Verdict Abstract and Complaint Against Higginbotham et al.

#6REBUTTAL Owner of company

Mon, November 30, 2015

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY


Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Cowt

*** Electronically Filed ***

09/24/2013 8:00 AM

 

 

CV 2010-031964                                                                                    09/19/2013

 

 

 

 

HON. SALLY SCHNEIDER DUNCAN


CLERK OF THE COURT

  1. Castro/C. Keller Deputy

 

 

 

 

 

CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES L L C, et al.


BENJAMIN ROBERT JEMSEK

 

 

v.

 

GRACE PLUMBING SERVICES INC, et al.                  THOMAS S MORING

 

 

 

DAVID J CATANESE

 

 

 

TRIAL MINUTE ENTRY DAY S

 

 

Central Court Building -Courtroom 702

 

9:55 a.m. The jmy is all present in the jmy room and resume their deliberations from September 18, 2013.

 

11:50 a.m. Thejmy  stands at recess.

 

12:30 p.m. The jmy  is all present in thejmy room and resumes their deliberations.

 

1:30 p.m. The Court reconvenes telephonically with counsel for the parties as follows: Plaintiff Change Management and Professional Se1vices, LLC is represented by counsel, Benjamin Robert Jemsek; Plaintiff Carl Eckenbrect is represented by counsel, David J. Catanese; Defendants are represented by counsel, Thomas S. Moring.

 

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court repo11er.

 

 

 

LET THE RECORD REFLECT that the Court receives a jmy question and same is discussed among Comt and counsel.

 

A written response to said question is given to the jmy by the Comi. FILED:  Jmy Questions

Plaintiff Change Management and Professional Se1vices, LLC's counsel, Benjamin Robe1t Jemsek, waives his appearance for fmiher questions from the jmy, in the event that he is not able to be reached telephonically.

 

1:38 p.m. Court stands at recess.

 

2:23 p.m. Comt reconvenes with respective counsel present in the courtroom, with counsel, Benjamin Robe1t Jemsek, appearing telephonically.

A record of the proceedings is made by audio and/or videotape in lieu of a court repo1ter. LET  THE  RECORD  REFLECT   the  presence   of  Defendants  Everett  and   DeeDee

Higginbotham.

 

The jmy is all present in the jmy box, and by their Foreperson retmn into Comt their verdicts, which are read and recorded by the Clerk and are as follows:

 

Verdict 4

 

  • "We, the Jmy, duly empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled action, upon our oaths, do find in favor of Change Management and Professional Se1vices, LLC on the Higginbotham' s claims against them."

 

The verdict is unanimous and signed by the Foreperson. The jurors reply that this is their trne verdict.

Verdict 5

 

  • "We, the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled action, upon om oaths, do find in favor of Change Management Professional Services, LLC on Grace Plumbing Se1vices, Inc.'s and Faith Restoration Inc.'s claims against  them."

 

 

 

 

The verdict is unanimous and signed by the Foreperson. The jurors reply that this is their trne verdict.

Verdict 10

 

  • "We, the Jmy, duly empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled action, upon our oaths, do find in favor of Change Management Professional Services, LLC on one or more of its claims against Grace Plumbing Services, Inc. and Faith Restoration, Inc. and find the full damages to be $70,000."

 

The verdict is signed by Juror 1, Juror 2, Juror 8, Juror 5, Juror 3, Juror 7, and Juror 6. Thejurors reply that this is their true verdict.

Verdict 11

 

  • "We, the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled action, upon our oaths, do find in favor of Carl Eckenbrecht on one or more of his claims  against Grace Plumbing Se1vices, Inc. and Faith Restoration,  Inc.  and  find  the  full  damages  to  be $177,000."

 

The verdict is unanimous and signed by the Foreperson. The jurors reply that this is their trne verdict.

Verdict 12

 

  • "We, the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled action, upon  our oaths, do find in favor of Kent Wilson on one or more of his claims against Grace Plumbing Se1vices, Inc. and  Faith Restoration,  Inc.  and  find  the full  damages  to  be $49,000."

 

The verdict is unanimous and signed by the Foreperson. The jurors reply that this is their true verdict.

 

 

 

Verdict 13

 

  • "We, the Jmy, duly empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled action, upon our oaths, do find in favor of Change Management Professional Services, LLC on its claim for punitive damages against Grace Plumbing Services, Inc. and Faith Restoration, Inc. and find the proper measure of punitive damages to be $50,000."

 

The verdict is signed by Juror 1, Juror 2, Juror 8, Juror 5, Juror 3, Juror 7, and Juror 6. Thejurors reply that this is their true verdict.

Verdict 14

 

  • "We, the Jmy, duly empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled action, upon our oaths, do find in favor of Carl Eckenbrecht on his claim for punitive damages against Grace Plumbing Services, Inc. and Faith Restoration, Inc. and find the proper measure of punitive damages to be $50,000."

 

The verdict is tmanimous and signed by the Foreperson. The jurors reply that this is their tme verdict.

Verdict 15

 

  • "We, the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above-entitled action, upon our oaths, do find in favor of Kent Wilson on his claim for punitive damages against Grace Plumbing Services, Inc. and Faith Restoration, Inc. and find the proper measure of punitive damages to be $15,000."

 

The verdict is unanimous and signed by the Foreperson. The jurors reply that this is their tme verdict.

FILED: Verdict(s)

 

The jmy is thanked by the Comt and excused from finther consideration of this cause. 2:34 p.m. Trial concludes.

FILED:   Jmy List

 

 

 

 

FILED: Trial/Hearing Worksheet

 

IT IS ORDERED assessing jmy fees in the total amount of $2,035.44 against Defendants, all in accordance with the formal written Judgment for Jury Fees signed by the Comt this date and filed [entered) by the clerk on September 19, 2013.

 

Pursuant to the Verdicts entered, and there being no fi.uther need to retain the exhibits not offered in evidence in the custody of the Clerk of Comt,

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk pe1manently release all exhibits not offered in evidence to the counsel/party causing them to be marked or their written designee. Counsel/party or written designee shall have the right to refile relevant exhibits as needed in support of  any appeal. Refiled exhibits must be accompanied by a Notice of Refiling Exhibits and presented to the Exhibit Department of the Clerk's Office. The Comt's exhibit tag must remain intact on all refiled exhibits.

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that com1sel/paity or written designee take immediate possession of all exhibits referenced above.

 

ISSUED: Exhibit Release F01m(s)

 

FILED: Exhibit Worksheet with Exhibit Tracking Log

 

ALERT: The Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order 2011-140 directs the Clerk's Office not to accept paper filings from attorneys in civil cases. Civil cases must still be initiated on paper ; however, subsequent documents must be eFiled through AZTurboComt unless an exception defined in the Administrative Order applies.

 

 

Thrasher Jemsek

           3219   East Camelback Road, St. 473

                      Phoenix, Arizona85018

               Telephone (602) 324-4684

                     Facsimile (602) 324-4685

                             _______________

 

                   Ben R. Jemsek, No. 019833

 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

 

 

CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND   PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC, dba CMPRO, an Arizona limited liability company; CARL   ECKENBRECT, an individual; KENT WILSON, an individual,

 

                        Plaintiffs,

 

vs.

 

GRACE PLUMBING SERVICES,   INC., an Arizona company; FAITH RESTORATION   INC., an Arizona   company; EVERETT HIGGENBOTHAM and DEE DEE HIGGINBOTHAM, husband and wife,

 

                        Defendants.

 

 

 

     Case   No._____________________

 

COMPLAINT

 

(Breach of   Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Defamation)

 

 

 

Plaintiffs by and through their attorney undersigned, allege as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

  1. Plaintiff Change Management and Professional Services, LLC (hereinafter “CmPro”) is an Arizona company that provides consulting services for businesses, including the Defendants in this matter. 
  2. Plaintiff Carl Eckenbrecht (hereinafter (“Eckenbrecht”) was at the time in question a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona but is presently a resident of Arlington Heights, Illinois. 
  3. Plaintiff Kent Wilson (hereinafter “Wilson”) is and was at the time of the events in question a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. 
  4. Upon information and belief Defendant Grace Plumbing Services, Inc. (hereinafter “Grace”), is an Arizona company doing business in Arizona.
  5. Upon information and belief Defendant Faith Restoration, Inc. (hereinafter “Faith”), is an Arizona company doing business in Arizona.
  6. Upon information and belief Defendant Everett Higginbotham is a resident of Maricopa County Arizona.
  7. Upon information and belief Defendant Dee Dee Higginbotham is the spouse of Everett Higginbotham and is a resident of Maricopa County Arizona.
  8. At all times material hereto, Defendant Everett Higginbotham acted for and on behalf of the marital community.
  9. Upon information and belief, Defendants Everett and Dee Dee Higginbotham are the owners, and/or employee of Defendants Grace and Faith and Defendants Grace and Faith are vicariously liable for the acts of these Defendants.
  10. All acts which give rise to this Complaint occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona
  11. The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.
  12. Defendants hired CMPro to provide Grace and Faith with consulting services, which were provided.  (See contract attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by this reference)
  13. Despite the services provided, Defendants Grace and Faith failed to provide complete payment, despite receiving the services for which both companies contracted. 
  14. Defendants Grace and Faith were paying CMPro a varied amount ranging from $2,000 to $4,000 per week via automatic withdrawal through CMPro’s ACH automatic withdrawal.
  15. Defendants stopped all payments on the ACH automatic withdrawal on or about March 22, 2010, leaving $8,855.22 still due and owing to Plaintiffs.
  16. On March 22, 2010, Plaintiff CMPro demanded the weekly payment in the amount of $1,500. 
  17. Defendants failed to make payment despite receiving Plaintiff CMPro’s demand on March 22nd.
  18. On May 18, 2010, Everett Higginbotham, owner and director of Defendants published defamatory statements through a website called RipoffReport.Com defaming Plaintiffs (see publication attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by this reference).
  19. The report submitted and published is report number 604568 and is titled in large words “CMPro RMpro consulting company rippoff beware big time thieves Phoenix, Arizona.”
  20. Numerous statements contained in the publication are defamatory and absent of truth, including but not limited to the following:  The headline denoting Plaintiffs as thieves; asserting that Plaintiffs were responsible for a third party program upgrade that is alleged to not have worked; asserting that Plaintiffs completed only 25% of the contracted work; asserting that Plaintiffs were unprofessional in appearance and work performance; asserting allegations of worker insobriety and company extortion; and assertions of fraud and manipulation of contractual documents.  The defamatory assertions contained in Defendants’ publications are replete with false statements injurious to Plaintiffs’ reputations and placed Plaintiffs’ and their work performance in a false light.

COUNT I

(Breach of Contract- Defendants Grace and Faith)

  1. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the above paragraphs.
  2. Plaintiffs provided consulting services for Defendants in accordance with an agreement the parties executed on January 10, 2010.
  3. In accordance with the agreement, CMPro was to provide Defendants consulting services in exchange for $4,295 per week plus travel expenses.
  4. Defendants, unable to pay the rates they originally agreed to despite receiving CMPro’s services, modified their agreement to finance the amount owed of $10,355.12.  Defendants would pay CMPro $1,500 per week for services already performed and in the future in accordance with the parties Direct Withdrawal Agreement Form dated March 17, 2010.
  5. Despite providing the services, Defendants placed a stop on the Direct Withdrawal Account on March 22, 2010 leaving a balance owed to CMPro in the amount of $8,855.22. 
  6. Defendants have not made payment to date despite CMPro’s request that they do so.
  7. Defendants’ failure to make full payment in accordance with the agreement constitutes a breach. 

Count II

(Unjust Enrichment- Defendants Grace and Faith)

 

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs.
  2. CMPro, in the absence of a legal remedy, seeks to obtain the full amount of the costs of the services performed for Defendants as well as legal interest for the amount of the services provided Defendants.
  3. CMPro received no benefit despite having provided Defendant with $10,355.12 worth of consulting services. 
  4. Defendants, having failed to pay this amount, but having received the benefits of the services provided to Plaintiffs, was enriched in the amount of no less than $10,355.12 by Plaintiffs’ acts.
  5. Defendants are not justified in retaining the benefits conferred by CMPRo.

COUNT III

(Defamation- All Defendants)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs.
  2. Defendants, through their represented agents falsely communicated to third parties, defamatory remarks, as set forth in Exhibit 2 attached and incorporated herein by this reference.
  3. This communication was not privileged and damaged Plaintiffs in an amount to be proved at trial.

COUNT IV

(False Light Invasion of Privacy)

  1. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendants placed Plaintiffs before the public in a false light.
  3. The false light in which Plaintiffs were placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
  4. Defendants had knowledge of or acted in a reckless disregard to the false light in which the Plaintiffs were placed.
  5. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in amount to be proved at trial.

COUNT V

(Punitive Damages)

  1. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
  2. Defendants’ actions were intentional, fraudulent, willful, and wanton, and thus constitute an intentional disregard of the Plaintiffs' rights and that conduct was such as to subject the Defendants to punitive damages.

DAMAGES

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered serious financial and economic damages as well as damage to their reputation and business.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants for such sum of money within the jurisdiction of the Court and for full and complete compensation; for general and special damages; for the losses that have been sustained in this matter; for punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter these Defendants and others similarly situated from performing similar acts; for attorney fees and costs pursuant to statute and common law; and for such other and further relief as the Court or jury may deem just and proper in this matter.

DATED this _____ day of October, 2010.

                                                                                    JEMSEK LAW FIRM, PLC

                                                                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    Ben R. Jemsek

                                                                                    Attorney for Plaintiffs

 


CMPRO

Chicago,
Illinois,
USA

Breach Judgment in Favor of CMPRO vs Higginbotham, Grace et al.

#6REBUTTAL Owner of company

Sun, November 29, 2015

2     THRASHER JEMSEK

A Pl!OFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

3                            530 EAST MCDOWELL ROAD STE. 107-495

4                             PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 Telephone  (602) 264-9081

5               Facsimile (602) 265-2628 bjemsek@thrasherjemsek.com

6                                                

7               Benjamin R. Jemsek, No. 019833

8            Bobby o. Thrasher, Jr., No. 018661

 

9     Attorney for CMPro and Wilson

  10

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

II

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

                                                    

     
     

 

     

CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND

     

.  PROFESSIONAL  SERVICES, LLC,

     

dba CMPRO. an Arizona  limited liability company; CARL       ECKENBRECHT, an individual; KENT       WILSON, an individual,

     

Plaintiffs,

     

vs.

     

GRACE PLUMBING SERVICES. INC.,

     

an       Arizona company; FAITH        · RESTORATJON INC., an Arizona company; EVERETT HIGGINBOTHAM and DEEDEE HIGGINBOTHAM

     

husband and wife,

     

Defendants.

           

      12

 

13                                                                                         Case No.: CVZO I0-031964

14

JUDGMENT

15

16

  17                                                                                   (Assigned to the Hon. Sally Duncan)

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

  25

  26

 

                                                                                      

 

 

  ,

 

 

 

 

 

           

   
   

I

       

GRACE PLUMBING  SERVICES, INC.,

 

an Arizona company; FAITH RESTORATION INC., an Arizona

3         company; EVERETT HIGGINBOTHAM and DEEDEE HIGGINBOTHAM

I                       4         husband and wife,

5                 Counterclaimants,

6                 vs.

7                 CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSJONAL SERVICES, LLC,

8                 dba CMPRO, an Arizona limited liability compan)'; CARL

9                 ECKENBRECHT and JANE DOE ECKENBRECHT,

J O                               Counterdefendants.

I l                Plaintiff Change Management and Professional Services, LLC ("CMPro") filed a Motion

12          for Partial Summary Judgment on its breach of contract claim on February 15, 2012. This Court

13           granted  Plaintiff s Motion  for Partial  Summary Judgment  and  entered  its ruling  on  May 11,

14           2012. In conformity with the May 11, 2012 ruling of the Court,

15                               IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED granting judgment in favor of Plaintiff

16          CMPro and against Defendants Grace Plumbing Services, Inc. and Faith Restoration, Inc. as  to

17           Plaintiff s breach of contract claim as follows: 18

  1. Plaintiff is awarded the principal amount of $8,855.12 plus interest thereon from the date

19

of the initial demand on August 25, 20I 0, at the statutory rate of 4.25% per annum until

20

21                                 paid in full;

22                      

   
   

1

       

2.        Attorneys'  fees in the amount of $  \\ } \ 2...5   00     in accordance  with  Plaintiff s

 

23                                Application  for  Attorneys'  Fees;  a1,d   the  taxa!Jle  c  JFlcosts   m   the  amount   of  24

25                

26


CMPRO

Chicago,
Illinois,
USA

Individual Judgment in Favor of Eckenbrecht Against Grace et al.

#6REBUTTAL Owner of company

Sat, November 28, 2015

 

 

 

I     CA TA N E SE LA W FIR M

A  PROFESSIONA L  CORPORATION


ocr. 3 12013      F IL E DII:?,ot,.­

  MICHAEL K. JEANES, Clerk

By                       - CA

Deputy

 

2      2701  East  Ca melback Road

Su ite 160

3                PHOENI X, A R I ZONA   85016 Telephone (602) 288-8270

4                       Facsimile (602) 288-8271

David J. Catanese, #012083

5

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

6

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

7

 

 

8                      CHANGE MANAGEMENT  AND PROFESSIONAL  SERVICES,  LLC,

9          dba CMPRO,  an Arizona limited liability  company; CARL

10          ECKENBRECHT,  an individual; KENT WILSON,  an individual,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

vs.

13

GRACE PLUMBING  SERVICES,  INC.,


Case No.:   CV2010-031964

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

14     an Arizona company; FAITH RESTORATION  INC., an Arizona

15     company; EVERETT HIGGINBOTHAM and  DEEDEE HIGGINBOTHAM

16     husband  and wife,

17              Defendants.

 

18     GRACE PLUMBING SERVICES, INC., an Arizona  company; FAITH

19     RESTORATION INC., an Arizona company;  EVERETT HIGGINBOTHAM

20     and DEEDEE HIGGINBOTHAM husband  and wife,

 

21

22

vs.

23


Counterclaimants,

 

                              CHANGE  MANAGEMENT AND

24                    PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC, dba CMPRO,  an Arizona limited

25                    liability company; CARL ECKENBRECHT  and JANE  DOE

26                    ECKENBRECHT,

Counterclaimants.

 

 

 

 

 

I     This matter having been tried to ajury, and the jury having rendered its verdict on September 19,

2           2013, and in conformity with the verdict of the jury,

3                                   IT IS ORDERED, ADnJDGED AND DECREED granting judgment  in favor of  Plaintiff

4            Carl Eckenbrecht against Defendants Grace Plumbing Services, Inc. and Faith Restoration     Inc.

5           jointly  and severally as follows:

 

6            I.

 

7

 

8

9


Plaintiff Carl Eckenbrecht is awarded the principal amount of $177,000 plus post judgment interest from the date of verdict at the statutory rate of 4.25% per annum until paid in full;

 

2.         Plaintiff Carl Eckenbrecht is awarded punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.

  IO

 

11      3.


Plaintiff    Carl     Eckenbrecht     is    awarded    his    taxable     costs    in     the    amount     of

 

12                                    $ \ J 6' '5    ,'OO    in accordance with Plaintiff Eckenbrecht's Statement of Costs.

13          4.         Plaintiff  Carl  Eckenbrecht  is  granted  final  Judgment  against Defendant/Counterclaimants 14

GRACE  PLUMBING   SERVICES,  INC.  and  FAITH  RESTORATION   INC., jointly

15

16                                   and  severally,  for  his total  claims in the  amount  of $   2);3} q,5B.0-:)         .  This

 

17                                  amount  represents  compensation  for  Plaintiff  Carl  Eckenbrechts  claims  and  punitive

18              damage award.    The  claims  (not including the award  for punitive  damages)  shall earn 19

interest  thereon  at the  statutory  rate  of 4.25%  per  annum  from  the  date  of the jury's

20

verdict on September 19, 2013.

21

22                  DONE  IN OPEN COURT this                           

23

                                               

     
     

Honorabl

           

      24

 

25

26

 

 

 

2


CMPRO

Cleveland,
Ohio,
USA

CMPRO Wins Defamation Jusgement Against Higginbotham, Grace et al.

#6REBUTTAL Owner of company

Fri, November 27, 2015

 

Defamation Judgment against Everett Higginbotham, Grace Plumbing et al.

 

The legal action brought by Change Mgt. & Prof. Services (CMPRO), Kent Wilson, and Carl Eckenbrecht (collectively Plaintiff) against Grace Plumbing, Faith Restoration, and Everett & Dee Dee Higginbotham (collectively Defendant) alleging breach of contract, defamation, and false light – invasion of privacy arising from the allegations and comments posted by Defendant on this website concluded with the June 2015 dismissal of Defendant’s appeal.

In August 2012 arguments were heard regarding the breach / unjust enrichment complaints, and the result was a judgement in favor of the Plaintiff inclusive of unpaid billings, accrued interest, attorney fees, and costs.  The defamation, etc. complaint was heard by a jury September 2013, and the result was a judgment in favor of Plaintiff in amounts totaling more than $410,000.  Punitive damages totaling $115,000 were part of the award, and judgment records for an individual plaintiff and for breach are added as additional postings.

For any not familiar with the law involved in a defamation case, understand that truth is inconsistent with defamation.  More simply stated, a statement of fact cannot result in a judgment of defamation as such speech is protected by the First Amendment, as his bona fide opinion.  Statements that are malicious and knowingly false are not protected by the First Amendment.  During a six-day trial jurors weighed the facts and testimony and could not assign credibility to any of the disparaging statements that Defendant posted.  As regards Defendant’s lawsuit counterclaims, the jury awarded nothing.

The legal actions aside, there remains the question of why the Defendant constructed such a vitriolic posting if it was untrue; we will attempt to answer by stating that at the time of the posting we believe that the Defendant did believe that he was being duped, and he retaliated with a litany of absurd allegations and nasty insults to assuage his unbridled rage.   Our information indicates that the Defendant was being duped - Not by CMPRO, but by one of the Defendant’s own trusted employees.  Whether or not the Defendant’s subsequent actions were reasonable is entirely another matter, which was ultimately decided in court.

What we believe happened is based on a conversation with a former employee of Defendant, which conversation is corroborated to some extent in Defendant’s deposition, and central to the matter is the former GM of Faith Restoration, Dwayne Rogers.  Rogers and Higginbotham were the closest of friends and colleagues in a relationship where Rogers managed Higginbotham’s most profitable enterprise.  Higginbotham trusted Rogers completely and often praised him enthusiastically.  And it appears that Rogers was stealing from Higginbotham.

 As the consulting engagement commenced, Defendant found it necessary to suddenly and immediately fire the long-time (7 year) Faith Restoration bookkeeper, a move that we believe was inspired by Rogers to hamper a review of the Faith company books.  Our information is that Rogers was failing to submit job material invoices, thereby inflating job profitability and ultimately receiving a better split.  In such a circumstance Rogers could not afford to have a consultant review the financial activities of Faith Restoration, and in fact we never got anywhere near the Faith Restoration financial records as we were constantly dodged by Rogers.

 

Many of the allegations in the Defendants posting are not only disingenuous, but outright ludicrous as well, and these allegations we believe were reported by Rogers to Higginbotham in a successful effort to derail the consultancy.  It follows that Everett Higginbotham, misguided, undiscerning, and uninquisitive, swallowed everything he was fed by Dwayne Rogers until he ultimately discovered that he was being fleeced.  Per Higginbotham’s deposition, Rogers was fired and at the time serving a jail sentence.  But not one to admit a mistake and accept responsibility, Higginbotham refused to initiate any remedial action towards Plaintiff and brought his nonsensical allegations before a jury; the jury determined nonsense with damages and punitive damages.

The case was heard in the Superior Court of Arizona for the County of Maricopa, case no: CV2010-031964 and can be reviewed via the following link.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

Everett Higginbotham, apparently a volatile personality, has since joined the ranks of AZ felons as the result of an altercation with police as reported by Danielle Grobmeier in the 9-18-12 “Arizona Republic” under the headline: “Domestic-violence suspect Arrested in Assault on Gilbert officer”; his contractor’s license has been revoked.

 

 

 


CMPRO

Arlington Hts.,
Illinois,
United States of America

Crimanal Higginbotham's diatribe is nonsense.

#6REBUTTAL Individual responds

Mon, August 08, 2011

 

Although reluctant to give credibility to the complaint of
Grace Plumbing and its owners Everett & Dee Dee Higginbotham by responding
to the nonsensical, slanderous, and unsubstantiated ramblings posing as
legitimate on this disreputable website, on wise advice that some may actually
take these ramblings seriously, Change Management & Professional Services,
LLC (CMPRO) disputes as follows:

 

To the allegation that we are thieves:

Untrue; all staff of CMPRO hold professional licenses in law, accounting, and/or insurance, from various states, and all in good standing.  Those staff members who do not hold such licenses are, at a minimum, holders of MBA degrees.  No member of CMPRO has ever been arrested for or charged with a crime.  It follows that none of us have criminal records.  Client requirements of our consulting
practice typically require credit and background investigations, submission of fingerprints, and bonding.  Indeed, the Higginbotham complaint fails to substantiate the charge of Thieves.  In contrast, Mr. Higginbotham has a criminal record specifically for theft in Maricopa County, AZ.  In fact, Higginbotham has quite a lot of activity in the form of court records in Maricopa County, which has a convenient website for verification.  Its pretty scary that unsuspecting home warranty customers actually give this criminal plumber access to homes!

 

To the remainder of the allegations:

The complaint as it reads in Ripoffreport.com was originally presented as an attempt to extort a return of consulting fees and forestall efforts to collect our unpaid fee balances.   Advised that publication of the disparaging nonsense contained in the complaint would result in legal action, Higginbotham decided to instead first complain to the Phoenix, AZ local Better Business
Bureau.  A copy of his complaint follows in-line, together with the CMPRO response to that complaint.  Incensed that anyone would dispute his allegations, Higginbotham posted his diatribe, slightly amended to allow for some of the lies contradicted by direct evidence in the CMPRO BBB response, on this disreputable website.

 

To the remainder of insults, misrepresentations, and falsifications contained in the Higginbotham complaint:

The Higginbothams can be fairly and accurately described as the type of people who would be right at home on Jerry Springers TV show, but we choose a different venue to argue the matter.  We have case# CV2010-031964, civil docket, Superior Court of AZ in Maricopa County where CMPRO has sued Mr. and Mrs. Higginbotham, Grace Plumbing, and Faith Restoration in a five count complaint for 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Unjust Enrichment; 3) Defamation; 4) False Light
Invasion of Privacy; and 5) Punitive Damages.

 

The Higginbotham BBB complaint, and the CMPRO response to that complaint follow.

BBB COMPLAINT

Customer Information:
Everett J. Higginbotham
3235 N. Arizona Ave.
Chandler, AZ 85225

The details of this matter are as follows:

Complaint Involves:
Service Issues

Customer's Statement of the Problem:
I contracted with CMPro for consulting services to perfect my company processes at a cost of almost 30K. Thier consultant comes in and tells me to buy a program that he gaurantees will work for us.  It is expensive to get set up and does not end up working.  In addition to this the consultant spends 4 weeks in my office websurfing and messing around on his computer, at a cost of almost 5k a week to me.  When I complain about this, the consultant yells at me and tells me that he has finished the work.  There is a line item detail in our contract that i begin to go over with them.  I complain about this not being done and they send someone else who proceeds to take my contract from me and give it back to me in a different form and removes the line item detail of what i am to recieve from them.  I now have no way to hold them accountable to the line items promised me.  The cost of implementing the program is enourmous and time consuming.  The time spent trying to implement this program causes my biggest customer to suffer and they stop sending us 25+ calls a day for over a month.  I bring my complaints to the owner of CMPro, and he offers a $1200 credit for just the cost of the program.  Bear in mind this program and its implementation + the lost calls as a result of implementing this program have cost me tens of thousands, on thier guarantee.  When I call the owner of CMPro to tell him i am going to complain to the BBB he threatens me that he will slander my company to my entire customer base.  I am horrified by this experience.  I have recieve to date about 25% of what was promised me.

Desired Settlement:
I would like a complete refund because of the cost of the whole problem with the program they guaranteed would work and its cost to me outways the amount of their contract.  And because of the threats made against my company i cannot let them into my office to finish their work.  I would also like them to revamp thier entire way of doing business so as not to have this experience happen to someone else.




CMPRO Response to the Complaint (exhibits referenced, principally copies of email correspondence have not been included - If anyone wishes to view these documents, please email a request to:
xxzzxx4120@yahoo.com).

 

Ms Samantha Marquis

Better Business Bureau

4428 N. 12th Street

Phoenix, AZ   85014

    April 7, 2010

Re:  BBB Complaint ID#: 8144638                                                          

 

Dear Ms Marquis:

 

In response to the complaint of Mr. Everett Higgianbotham of Grace Plumbing, Inc. (Grace) against my firm, Change Management and Professional Services, LLC (CMPRO), I submit that the claims made by Grace are baseless.

In paragraph one of the complaint Grace refers to a program that they were told to buy, and a consultant that guaranteed it would work.  I am that consultant, and the facts follow.

When the engagement opened Grace was using two administrative software programs to track, schedule, report, and invoice their service calls.  One of those programs was QuickBooks (QB), a
well-known, inexpensive accounting package for small businesses with specific limitations; the other program was ServiceLedger (SL), the program that Grace alleges that I told them to buy, but that
they in fact already owned and had been using for several years to create work orders and schedule service calls.

 As I came to understand the administrative process, dozens of work orders were processed daily in SL, and later closed-out with telephoned results of the completed service call.  Contract terms with the home warranty agency (AHS) that refers the bulk of business to Grace further required reporting of the service call results to the AHS website.  No invoicing or inventory tracking activity takes place at this time.

 A regular Friday morning meeting brought all plumbing vehicles (11 or 12) to the central office in Chandler, and at that time all of the service call paperwork for an entire week of activity was delivered for invoicing.  For the next 2.5 days two (of four) Grace employees were tasked with duplicating the entire of the weeks SL work orders in QB for the purpose of invoicing against a Tuesday noon deadline.  Processing a perpetual inventory via QB was not possible due to the product limitation with respect to the multiple service truck locations of the inventory.  The
inventory function was separately managed via spreadsheet, which required the considerable time of a third employee in the shop, and was accurate for inventory on hand but not for a computation of cost-of-product-sold.
 
I was tasked with providing efficient processes (including specifically inventory) and useful financial and operating reporting for Grace.  A clear and obvious area of opportunity was the elimination of the duplication of entry into two systems the write-up of a couple of hundred service calls per week.  Further, I was aware that QB was not capable of maintaining inventory in a multiple location environment.   I advised Grace that their only option to resolving the weekly invoicing
bottleneck in the circumstance was migration to a more capable (and certainly more expensive) software package.  In the interim I advised reducing their lengthy written service descriptions to a
series of codes that would insert the description, thereby cutting both the time required to receive a completed call report via telephone, and the subsequent reentry.  In an examination of cash-flow I also discovered that the fees Grace was paying for payroll processing were exorbitant, and I redirected them to an inexpensive service (IOI) at a savings of over $18,000 that year, and every year after. 
 
This is all documented in our weekly client reports.

In an ensuing investigation of alternative software products, I decided to investigate further the product that they already owned, SL.  I was surprised to learn that the SL product was capable of proceeding effortlessly from a completed work-order to an invoice, and that the product was also capable of performing the inventory tracking that the client desired. So far, this client engagement is going well, and the client is happy.

In conference with the two Grace owners, Mr. & Mrs. Higganbotham, I suggested that we further utilize the SL product that they currently owned and transfer invoicing, via SL, out of accounting and over to the service desk, which would then resolve invoicing and inventory maintenance on a
real-time basis as the transactions occur in a single process.  The savings of nearly 2.5 days times two accounting employees each week would then provide for the time necessary for enhanced reporting and analysis at no additional personnel cost to Grace.

Mr. Higgianbotham was enthusiastic, but Mrs. Higganbotham was clearly hostile to the idea for no articulated reason.  When Mrs. Higganbotham left the room, Mr. Higganbotham informed me that he wanted his wife out of the business, and that his wife was the cause of all of the problems at Grace: ...the person who screws everything up were his words.  I was instructed to proceed with haste on the new processes, and never-mind Mrs. Higganbothams objections; he wanted things done right!

Both owners had referenced earlier problems with the SL product, chiefly anomalies in operation and poor support.  Although Grace owned the SL product, they had not maintained the product with periodic updates of late.  I contacted SL, arranged for a product demo and trial copy, and opined to the Higganbothams that I doubted that a software company as large as SL could have remained in business if: 1) Their product did not perform as represented, or 2) their tech support was inadequate.  By this point in the engagement I had become more than accustomed to the  nonsensical exaggerations of both owners, and as I was later part of the upgrade installation and data file imports, I can attest that the SL tech support is in fact adequate. 

SL personnel staged an on-line demo of their product capability on January 28, 2010.  In attendance were Mrs. Higganbotham, Grace Employee (accounting) Nicole Hicks, and me.   The demo was satisfactory. A product upgrade to the current version at a cost of $1,200 (a fraction the cost of replacement software) was required, and a decision was made to proceed with the upgrade and conversion of administrative process.  During the same time period I was using the demo copy provided by SL to test various routines and verify operation.  I believe that Mr. Higganbotham would refer to such evaluation as web-surfing, but what I was doing with my time was never questioned while I was doing it, so he actually has no basis for such an accusation beyond his typical propensity to insult.

 On the Monday following the SL demo I assisted Mr. Higganbotham with the resolution of a credit
problem with his principle supplier, and as soon as his plumbers were again able to procure parts, his attention turned to SL:  He wanted the upgrade right away, and he purchased it that afternoon.  The install was scheduled for Wednesday.

I want to here state that at this point I have never seen the SL product in production operation.  I also want to make clear that the determination of adequacy of the SL product was based on SL
representations and the joint decision of the Higganbothams.  I would like to further make clear that in twenty-three years of software engineering, I HAVE NEVER GUARNTEED ANY SOFTWARE PRODUCT (not even developers do that), AND IN PARTICULAR I HAVE NOT GUARANTEED ANY SOFTWARE PRODUCT THAT I HAVE NEVER USED IN A PRODUCTION APPLICATION.  In light of Mr. Higganbothams claim to the contrary, I will simply state absurd, and I will opine that a dysfunctional
relationship with his spouse is the underlying cause of his complaint against CMPRO.

As consultants we often see engagement difficulty when one partner acquiesces to a new process or procedure, but then later rebels against the other partner.  In such situations the typical response is that both partners reach an impasse, and then unite against the consulting activity.  Indeed the value of the consulting becomes worthless as both partners refuse to diligently effect the remediation suggested, but unfortunately, this attitude is outside of the consultants control and does nothing to defray the cost of providing the consulting service.  This is a clear example of such a situation, and I want to further add that per our contract, Grace was able to terminate the consulting agreement, at their sole discretion, at the end of any business day; they never exercised this option despite subsequent complaints that they were dissatisfied from the beginning (they were not).

I most certainly did not convince the Higganbothams to BUY a product that they already owned and had used for several years; I simply suggested that full utilization of their product would be the least expensive means of achieving their administrative objective. And the subsequent upgrade
procedure was done by SL personnel remotely from their Lake Dallas headquarters.  I had nothing whatever to do with the method or process of that upgrade.  Subsequent to my departure I am aware that Grace attempted to utilize the software link-up program developed by SL that
purports to link the activity of the SL program with the data files of QB.  I repeatedly advised against the use of that software facility even though SL insists that it works nearly perfectly. 
My experience with such products is that they are buggy in the extreme, and effective utilization, if possible at all, would require better talent than Grace has economical access to on an ongoing basis.  My advice, alas, was ignored.  Understand that CMPRO has no connection with SL, financial or otherwise, and that prior to the beginning of the Grace engagement I had never even heard of SL.

Mr. Higganbotham has complained to us several times that SL dont work, and that SL ruined his business  I will direct your attention to my Exhibit A, which is a copy of e-mail correspondence from SL stating that they have no record of complaints or tech service calls regarding their product from Grace. I have to question what sort of difficulty Grace is having with the
product if they dont even bother to contact the developer for resolution on a support agreement that they have already purchased.  And, as always, the complaint is non-specific.  There is no citation of a failure of a segment of the software to perform as represented; there is only the general it dont work  Indeed, three days after the software was upgraded Mr. Higganbotham came to me and complained that he was now TWO MONTHS backed up because of SL.  When confronted with the reality that three days of use cannot possibly be responsible for a backlog of two months,  Higganbotham began to rock back-and-forth mumbling: I dunno, I dunno, I dunno.  I
seriously doubt that this sad fellow is in control of his faculties much of the time, but even if there were truth to his allegations, I cannot remedy a problem without knowledge of what specifically is failing, and I cannot reason with absurd exaggerations, half-truths, and fables.

In fact, Mr. Higganbotham has never requested that we remedy any problem with SL.

Addressing Mr. Higganbothams allegation that the SL product, and the CMPRO association
with it, has caused my biggest customer to suffer and they stop sending us 25+ calls a day for over a month., he is referring to AHS, and his call volume with AHS is based on his long term average cost-per-call results.  Unless I am badly mistaken, which I will admit is possible, a reduction in call volume awards from that particular home warranty company would be the result of unsatisfactory cost performance measured over a period of months, with most (if not all) of that measurement period preceding the revised usage of the SL product.

The complaint also alleges something about line item details, different forms, etc. Unfortunately, I have no idea what Mr. Higganbotham is talking about, so I am unable to comment further on that complaint at this time.

But moving on to Mr. Higganbothams complaint that my partner threatened him with slander, I will reference an email and letter from Mr. Higganbotham to my partner, attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, where Mr. Higganbotham threatens to post the slanderous letter on multiple websites.  My partner advised Mr. Higganbotham that if that letter were posted there would be legal consequences, and that the reputation of Grace Plumbing, such as it is, would suffer.  That letter, together with the Grace IRS payroll tax remittance deficiency of some $350,000, and the AZ sales tax deficiency of approximately $45,000, explain a great deal about the character of Mr. Higganbotham and his spouse (for the record, I show to work in button-down collar pinpoint cotton Oxford broadcloth shirts laundered professionally with medium starch).

I understand from the complaint that my partner had offered a credit of $1,200 (the cost of the SL
upgrade) as a conciliatory gesture.  Aware of it I would not have allowed it.  Grace Plumbing received par excellent service from CMPRO better than what was warranted under the fee and payment circumstances.  I am convinced that the only difficulty in this situation exists between Mr. Higganbotham and Mrs. Higganbotham as explained above: Two partners unable to agree and increasingly at odds with each other in a situation where an outside party is effecting changes that for unknown reasons emotionally threaten one, the other, or both.  It is telling that during the course of the engagement Mrs. Higganbotham morphed, in Mr. Higganbothams estimation, from
the person who screws everything up, to the person who comes in and saves the companys a*s all the time.  

These Grace owners are bizarre and irrational A different story every day; a new complaint every hour.  What was good yesterday is bad today.  They complained at one point that CMPRO had not provided job descriptions for administrative employees - It was true; citing adequate existing job descriptions, this process was skipped - When CMPRO then revised, enhanced, and provided the job descriptions in response to their complaint, they complained that our work was useless because they already had the job descriptions! - (note: Everett explained that he ripped-off the procedures from a company that he used to work for).

Grace is a terrible working environment:  During the course of the engagement the Higganbothams fired 50% of their administrative personnel.  I never could get resolution as to who was in fact the in-charge accounting person: Mr. Higganbotham could not decide.  Employees are routinely blamed for the credit difficulties that are solely the responsibility of the Higganbothams!  I am certain that the dysfunctional relationship of the Higganbothams has precluded any diligent effort to successfully incorporate the SL product into their administrative process.  I will refund nothing to Grace, and I will litigate to collect the balance of fees we are owed.  Yes, as with the government agencies and all of their vendors, Grace is in arrears to us too.

The Higganbothams complain about some $30,000 in fees, but in fact far less has been paid, and a good portion of that sum was for marketing services about which they have yet to complain.  Indeed, CMPRO made a first-year recovery of our fees in the first week of the engagement (the payroll processing).  Had the Higganbothams followed the rest of our advice, they would have seen far greater rewards. 

Very truly yours,
Change Management & Professional Services, LLC

 

 

 

 

 

Respond to this Report!