Seccion Amarilla review: Fraud 58

MEMORANDUM

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INTERNAL DOCUMENT

TO: All SAUSA Employees

FROM: SAUSA Legal Department

DATE: August 19, 2009

RE: Flood Insurance / FEMA Documents

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We anticipate that we might receive a request for information and documents related to advertising sales of Flood Insurance advertising throughout the nation as it relates to a FEMA co-op program. In anticipation of any such request, we ask that until further notice you retain all relevant documents and information, as described below. This includes e-mails, voice mails, hard copies (printed documents) and computer files, both on your own computer and on any shared drive that you use.

Please avoid discussions with customers about this matter. If anyone from outside SAUSA asks you about this matter, you should refer them to the Legal Department. Similarly, if you have any questions about this matter, please direct them to the Legal Department.

A. Relevant Documents and Information that must be preserved:

1. Documents and information related to the sale of Flood Insurance advertisements in any Directory, including, but not limited to:

a. Documents and information about particular customers for Flood Insurance advertisements in any Directory, including sales calls and other communications with customers (including e-mails with and about customers);

b. Documents and information about the design of Flood Insurance advertisements in any Directory;

c. Documents and information about policies, statements, marketing instructions or material, advertising flyers, receipts, invoices, contracts, bill of sales, emails, correspondence, and records of accounts relating to Flood Insurance advertising sales;

d. Any and all written or printed materials which provides instructions, examples or samples concerning the sale of Flood Insurance advertising through the FEMA co-op program; and

e. Price sheets, rate cards or other documents discussing any advertising prices for any Directory.

2. Documents and information relating to FEMA or Flood Insurance in any way.

In general, if in doubt, don’t throw it out.

B. E-Mail, Electronic Document, and Voicemail Retention:

All relevant e-mail must be retained. You can do this by creating an e-mail folder for all relevant messages (both sent and received) and filing them in that folder until further notice or by printing out and retaining hard copies of relevant messages. Regardless, under no circumstances shall any relevant emails or voicemails be deleted.

This hold also applies to documents in electronic form. Thus, do not delete any electronic documents, regardless of where you store them (for example, on your desktop, on a laptop, on a shared network drive, on a separate hard drive, a jump drive, or a PDA), that contain relevant information. Please also save any voicemail messages that contain relevant information.

C. Follow-Up and Questions:

You will be notified by the Legal Department if we receive a request for information and documents. At that time, you will be given further instructions on how to identify and provide documents and data responsive to the request.

If you are unsure whether you must retain a particular document, it is best to err on the side of retention. If you have any questions about this Memo, please do not hesitate to contact the Legal Department.

We appreciate your cooperation with this important matter.

Be advised that we have received notification that FEMA will not reimburse any insurance agent for contracts sold by Seccion Amarilla for its Flood Insurance co-op reimbursement program. Therefore, all contracts sold under the FEMA Flood Insurance program are being cancelled by Seccion Amarilla with a full refund to the customer. As with previous notifications, no Account Executive is permitted to sell, discuss or attempt to sell or discuss Flood Insurance advertising with insurance agents and any contracts received from the sales force will be immediately cancelled. Should we receive any contracts that are sold as Flood Insurance under the FEMA co-op program from this day forward, whether marked as such or not, the Account Executive that sold the contract, and the Management that accepted and forwarded the contract, will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. There are absolutely no exceptions to this policy.

It is the policy of SAUSA that no member of the sales force (at any level) is authorized to provide notice, develop in writing or otherwise identify any sales program, incentive, opportunity or deal to the sales force or to any potential or renewal client without first requesting authorization from his/her Supervisor. The Supervisor will discuss the request with senior sales management and if the relevant Sales Vice President agrees with the request, the Sales Vice President will present it to the Corporate Office for approval.

Account Executives are not required to request approval for the following written communications to potential or renewal customers:

1. Standard sales proposals within SAUSA pricing guidelines; and

2. Standard communication regarding ad proofing.

Other than the above two (2) exceptions, no member of the sales force is authorized to email or otherwise correspond in writing to a potential or renewal customer for the purpose of marketing SAUSA or identifying any sales program, incentive, opportunity or deal without first requesting authority from the Corporate Office. Any individual that does develop and deliver such a document without authorization from the Corporate Office will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. If a potential or renewal customer emails, faxes or otherwise provides written communication to an Account Executive that is not within (1) or (2) above, the Account Executive is required to forward the email to his/her Sales Manager, who is then responsible for sending the communication to the Corporate Office (with a courtesy copy to his/her Supervisor) to provide a response.

Additionally, under no circumstances should a member of the sales staff (at any level) write anything on a contract other than the yellow pages print or internet advertising being purchased under that contract. Also, should any Account Executive be found to write more than one contract on a sales deal, or to write something on a contract AFTER it is signed by a customer, that Account Executive will be terminated immediately. Only one contract is permitted per customer and under no circumstances shall anything ever be written on a contract after it is signed by a customer.

Your book is great? You really think so? Tell it to the hundred of clients that have been defrauded, tell it to FEMA who now refuses to pay any ad sold by SAUSA and its preparing legal action just like many other clients across the country.
You should be ashamed of coming online to say the book is great? what book? the one that is delivered by the the company owned by the VP of sales who enjoys double dipping? or the one you promised to print and is always late ?
Just be ashamed and bow your head, i know you just like me work here because there are no jobs anywhere else, so we have to shut up and be part of the mafia. Eventually some sense will come into our minds and we will leave.

So, threats? the typical sausa way... what am i going to lose? the $200 a week you pay? I make more money working at McDonalds! LOL
I can speak, and you cannot make me shut up, or... you cannot cut my phone like telmex usually does in Mexico when someone complains.
This is America, you cant do business here like you do in your mafia style in MExico.

Dissapointed works in the marketing department in Miramar, where people sits on their butts collecting a salary to socialize in their own little world. Maria is pointing only two lawyers of the many customers who have been done wrong by Seccion Amarilla.
You are thug, with threats left and right. You are trying to silence a truth that is so obvious... with insults and ridicule. You should be ashamed of yourself, why dont you tell the truth about FEMA, or about the thousands of dollars in fake contracts in South Florida, the billing and art errors...listen anyone can make errors, i give you that, but when they become a pattern and a business practice thats called RACKETEERING. We are not just disgruntled employees, we are speaking the same things that most customers speak, you should examine yourself and before defending such a crooked group of people you should think twice. Our are you getting a juicy kickback from that party boy you called CEO or the crooked VP of Sales who also runs the pathetic distribution company. Bad! bad! and now you think firing a director and not the heads will clean your FEMA mess? No Sir, thats a stain that will hit the news and everywhere, because its inmoral to go around robbing people like Seccion Amarilla does.

Momento, Inc. v. Seccion Amarilla USA, 2009 WL 1974798 (N.D. Cal.)

Momento sued defendant SAUSA for copying Momento’s Spanish-language ads for use in its own Spanish directories. Momento owned both the individual ads and the design and layout of its directories. (As set forth in another order, Momento created advertisements for its Yellow Pages by “preparing text, taking photographs of client advertisers, translating text from English to Spanish, and designing the layout of advertisements, including selection of fonts and colors.”) SAUSA argued that it got nonexclusive licenses directly from the advertisers as part of its form contract with them, and that the Momento ads were works of joint authorship because they resulted from collaboration between SAUSA and the advertisers and incorporated preexisting elements. (Interesting business model: allegedly, SAUSA solicits customers by sending an “ad proof” that’s a scanned copy of a Momento ad, sometimes with font/color changes; customers are asked for permission to print the ad “as is” for free, or with corrections for a fee.)

Under the 9th Circuit’s test for joint authorship, the court found, Momento is the sole owner of the ads. Momento’s contracts with its clients say that Momento’s artwork is its sole property; one client expressly sought permission to use a photo taken by Momento on its web page; and several clients submitted declarations that they never gave SAUSA permission to copy the Momento ads (not sure why this is relevant to ownership, but ok—in fact, of course, regardless of whether the ads are jointly authored, the contract could separately change the ownership).

So Momento showed likely success on the merits of the copyright infringement claim. It also alleged false advertising under California state law based on SAUSA’s sales pitch that its directories are “the first and only Spanish directory delivered to consumers in Northern California.” SAUSA argued that the parties have entirely different methods of delivering the directories, making the claim ambiguous at most. However, Momento’s was the first Spanish directory published in Northern California and thus “at least that part of the statement is false.” In the absence of evidence that consumers weren’t deceived, then, Momento therefore showed a likelihood of success on the merits. Now, in Lanham Act parlance, it probably is true that “delivered to consumers” is ambiguous—if a directory is published, but consumers need to purchase it or call to request it or pick it up at a grocery store, then it’s not “delivered to consumers” and that even seems likely to be material to potential advertisers, since a directory delivered to consumers is more likely to reach those consumers who aren’t proactively seeking a Spanish-language directory. However, California law doesn’t include the false/misleading distinction, so it was open to the court to find the statement likely to deceive consumers even without evidence of actual consumer deception.

Since this was a preliminary injunction motion, the court then turned to the issue of irreparable injury. The old 9th Circuit rule that a presumption of irreparable harm applies in a copyright case can’t be applied automatically after eBay, however. So instead the court applied the general test: irreparable injury; remedies available at law inadequate; balance of hardships; public interest.

Momento argued that the harm to its investment and competitive position caused by SAUSA’s copying at least 30 Momento ads showed irreparable harm. SAUSA says it’s the largest publisher of Spanish Yellow Pages in the world, and Momento is a family-owned business, directly competing. The court found that the copying and false advertising had an adverse and irreparable effect on Momento. The court could fairly consider Momento’s competitive position where SAUSA “built its business” around Momento’s works.

SAUSA argued that Momento’s four-month delay before filing suit precluded a finding of irreparable harm. Momento, however, wrote to SAUSA before that and got a response from SAUSA’s counsel that it took IP rights very seriously and was investigating, and would cease any infringements found, requesting proof of Momento’s copyright registrations and Momento’s directories to investigate further. Then, several months passed. The court accepted Momento’s explanation that it didn’t sue until it had evidence that SAUSA hadn’t ceased infringing, which came only when a new directory was published; Momento sued about a month and a half after that.

The court ordered SAUSA to retrieve directories stored on pallets at distribution points, but did not require SAUSA to retrieve directories picked up by consumers, and enjoined further distribution. SAUSA had notice of the infringement contentions as of the first cease & desist letter, yet proceeded with production; the injunction created a hardship for SAUSA, but not an unreasonable one in light of its decision to keep printing.

Note: in an earlier order, Momento, Inc. v. Seccion Amarilla USA, 2009 WL 1974905 (N.D. Cal.), the court denied a TRO on the ground that the plaintiff hadn’t made the extraordinary showing required. Without notice to SAUSA, the court stated the standard for irreparable harm using the old 9th Circuit presumption. Once there was notice and a hearing, the court had a chance to get more deeply into the law as well as the facts: a victory for the adversary process.
Posted by Rebecca Tushnet at 4:43 PM

Dissapointed...a thug, just like all management in sausa.

They fired the manager and made this thug a manager... welcome to the revolving door, only 10% employee retention?

Fake info on FEMA? that was a SAusa memo...haha. How fake it is? the very own sausa memo that say that FEMA will NOT pay their ads... crooks! croooooksss!

The facts stated by ComeClean are the purest truth. Now, they face federal indictments. They fired a sales director from Oklahoma as scapegoat, but they have not touched the true monster...not just the VPs and the playboy CEO but the Nashville sales director who filled the Chattanooga book with fake contracts and dozens of FEMA ads. He got his bonus... the employees nothing!

The office of Seccion Amarilla in Los Angeles has closed. At last!
This theives are on the run, its time to shut down all the offices and leave the US, you guys have abused and robbed enough.