IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Transcription

1 C. RICHARD HENRIKSEN, JR., #1466 ROBERT M. HENRIKSEN, #11296 JONATHAN G. WINN, #11802 HENRIKSEN & HENRIKSEN, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 320 South 500 East Salt Lake City, Utah Telephone: (801) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION ELIZABETH ANN HOAGLAND, ERIKA HOAGLAND, and KAREN HOAGLAND; each individually as the heirs of DANIEL HOAGLAND, deceased, v. Plaintiffs, ROCKIN= R RANCH & LODGE GUEST OPERATIONS, INC., a Utah corporation; BURNS K. BLACK, individually and BURNS K. BLACK d/b/a ROCKING R RANCH; ROCKIN R COWBOY COLLEGE, INC., a Utah corporation; X INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company d/b/a/ WILD WEST ATV RENTALS; HORSEBACK PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company; ROCKIN R RANCH, a Utah general partnership, CRESTON B. BLACK, individually, and as general partner of ROCKIN R RANCH; LANCE E. BLACK, individually, and as general partner of ROCKIN R RANCH; XPONENTIAL, INC., a Utah corporation d/b/a ELI KIRK; MONA BLACK; CAMILLE B. OVARD; and DOES I-X and A-J, COMPLAINT (Jury Demand) Civil No. Judge Defendants.

2 Plaintiffs complain of defendants and for causes of action allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs are living heirs of Daniel Hoagland, M.D., deceased. 2. Elizabeth Ann Hoagland is, and was at all times relevant hereto, domiciled in the state of Oregon. 3. Erika Hoagland is, and was at all times relevant hereto, domiciled in the state of California. 4. Karen Hoagland is, and was at all times relevant hereto, domiciled in the state of Oregon. 5. Daniel Hoagland was an individual domiciled in the state of Oregon when he died on or about August 11, Defendant Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. is a Utah corporation whose principal place of business is in the state of Utah. 7. Defendant Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. conducts business at 705 N. Highway 22, Antimony, Utah The officers of Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. are Burns K. Black, Creston B. Black, Lance E. Black, and Camille B. Ovard. 9. Defendant Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. has an agreement to share real property with the other Defendants. 10. Defendant Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. shares expenses with 2

3 the other Defendants. 11. Defendant Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. shares profits with the other Defendants. 12. Defendant Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. shares losses with the other Defendants. 13. Defendant Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. has other financial, common, and joint agreements and dealings with the other Defendants. 14. Defendant Burns K. Black is an individual and who does business as Rocking R Ranch, whose principal place of business is in the state of Utah. 15. Burns K. Black conducts business as Rocking R Ranch at 705 N. Highway 22, Antimony, Utah Burns K. Black and/or Mona Black own several parcels of real property upon which the other Defendants conduct their business, including but not limited to land adjacent to where the ranch, guest lodge, and facilities are located. 17. Defendant Horseback Properties, L.L.C. is a Utah limited liability company whose principal place of business is in the state of Utah. 18. Defendant Horseback Properties, L.L.C. owns real property upon which the other Defendants conduct their operations, including the land upon where the ranch, guest lodge, facilities, and activities are located. 19. Defendant Horseback Properties, L.L.C. has an agreement with other Defendants to use their property for Defendants operations. 3

4 20. Horseback Properties, L.L.C. receives money and other value from the other Defendants. 21. Rockin R Ranch, a Utah General Partnership deeded the property upon which the ranch, guest lodge, facilities, and activities are located to Defendant Horseback Properties, L.L.C. 22. Defendant Horseback Properties, L.L.C. shares expenses with the other Defendants. 23. Defendant Horseback Properties, L.L.C. shares profits with the other Defendants. 24. Defendant Horseback Properties, L.L.C. shares losses with the other Defendants. 25. Defendant Horseback Properties, L.L.C. has other financial, common, and joint agreements and dealings with the other Defendants. 26. The members of Horseback Properties, L.L.C. are Creston B. Black and Lance E. Black. 27. Defendant Rockin R Cowboy College, Inc. is a Utah corporation whose principal place of business is in the State of Utah. 28. Defendant Rockin R Cowboy College, Inc. does business at 705 N. Highway 22, Antimony, Utah The officers of Rockin R Cowboy College, Inc. are Burns K. Black, Creston B. Black and Lance E. Black. 30. Defendant Rockin R Cowboy College, Inc. shares expenses with the other Defendants. 31. Defendant Rockin R Cowboy College, Inc. shares profits with the other 4

5 Defendants. 32. Defendant Rockin R Cowboy College, Inc. shares losses with the other Defendants. 33. Defendant Rockin R Cowboy College, Inc. has financial, common, and joint agreements and dealings with the other Defendants. 34. Defendant X Investments, L.L.C. does business as Wild West ATV Rentals in the state of Utah. 35. Wild West ATV Rentals conducts business at 705 N. Highway 22, Antimony, Utah Wild West ATV Rentals principal place of business is in the state of Utah. 36. Wild West ATV Rentals and the other Defendants have an agreement whereby the other Defendants may use four-wheelers owned by Wild West ATV Rentals for their operations. 37. Defendant Wild West ATV Rentals shares expenses with the other Defendants. 38. Defendant Wild West ATV Rentals shares profits with the other Defendants. 39. Defendant Wild West ATV Rentals shares losses with the other Defendants. 40. Wild West ATV Rentals maintains other financial, common, and joint agreements and dealings with the other Defendants. 41. X Investments, L.L.C. is a Utah corporation whose principal place of business is in the state of Utah. 42. Lance E. Black is a member of X Investments, L.L.C. 43. Rockin R Ranch is a Utah General partnership whose principal place of business in the state of Utah. Rockin R Ranch conducts business in and around Antimony, Utah. 5

6 44. Lance E. Black and Creston B. Black are the general partners of Rockin R Ranch, a Utah General Partnership. 45. Defendant Rockin R Ranch, a Utah General Partnership, has an agreement allowing other Defendants to use their property for Defendants operations. 46. Defendant Rockin R Ranch, a Utah General Partnership, receives money and other value from the other Defendants. 47. Defendant Rockin R Ranch, a Utah General Partnership shares expenses with the other Defendants. 48. Defendant Rockin R Ranch, a Utah General Partnership shares profits with the other Defendants. 49. Defendant Rockin R Ranch, a Utah General Partnership shares losses with the other Defendants. 50. Defendant Rockin R Ranch, a Utah General Partnership has other financial, common, and joint agreements and dealings with the other Defendants. 51. Xponential, Inc. is a Utah Corporation whose principal place of business is in the state of Utah. 52. Xponential, Inc. does business as Eli Kirk. 53. Lance E. Black is an officer of Xponential, Inc. 54. Xponential, Inc. doing business as Eli Kirk, manages the website for the other Defendants. 55. Defendant Xponential, Inc. shares expenses with the other Defendants. 6

7 56. Defendant Xponential, Inc. shares profits with the other Defendants. 57. Defendant Xponential, Inc. shares losses with the other Defendants. 58. Xponential, Inc. has other financial, common, and joint agreements and dealings with the other Defendants. 59. Mona Black is an individual residing in Antimony, Utah. 60. Mona Black and Burns Black own several parcels of real property upon which the other Defendants conduct their business, including but not limited to, land adjacent to where the lodge building, ranch, facilities, and activities are located. 61. Mona Black and Burns Black receive money and other value from the other Defendants for the use of their property. 62. Defendants Mona Black and Burns Black share expenses with the other Defendants. 63. Defendants Mona Black and Burns Black shares profits with the other Defendants. 64. Defendants Mona Black and Burns Black shares losses with the other Defendants. 65. Mona and Burns Black have other financial, common, and joint agreements and dealings with the other Defendants. 66. Camille B. Ovard is an individual residing in the state of Utah. 67. Camille B. Ovard is an officer of Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. 68. Camille B. Ovard is the registered agent of Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. and Rocking R Ranch. 69. Defendant Camille B. Ovard shares expenses with the other Defendants. 7

8 70. Defendant Camille B. Ovard shares profits with the other Defendants. 71. Defendant Camille B. Ovard shares losses with the other Defendants. 72. Camille B. Ovard has financial, common, and joint agreements and dealings with the other Defendants. 73. Does I-X are individuals whose identities and are not known at present but who proximately caused and/or are otherwise responsible and liable for the injuries and damages plaintiffs have suffered as more particularly described below. 74. Does A-J are business or entities whose identities and are not known at present but who proximately caused and/or are otherwise responsible and liable for the injuries and damages plaintiffs have suffered as more particularly described below. 75. Jurisdiction of this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C as there is complete diversity between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and Plaintiffs have suffered damages described herein in excess of $75,000. Venue is proper in the District of Utah. JOINT VENTURE 76. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 75, as though fully set forth herein. 77. Defendants conduct a ranch/lodge/hotel business or assist in conducting a ranch, guest lodge, other facilities and activities business in Utah where patrons stay and participate in recreational activities. 78. Defendants businesses consisting of the ranch, guest lodge, other facilities and activities are commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest 8

9 Operations, Inc. 79. The business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc consists of many businesses and individuals carrying on a joint venture. 80. Defendants businesses consisting of the ranch, guest lodge, other facilities and activities operate on property owned and operated by various Defendants in and around Antimony, Utah. 81. The recreational activities guests participated in included, but are not limited to: a. Horseback riding; b. Zip-line; c. Archery; d. ATV or four-wheeling; e. Games; f. Hayrides; and g. Other activities. 82. Defendants have a community of interest in the performance of a common purpose. 83. Defendants have a joint proprietary interest in operating the business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. and their facilities and in carrying out their activities. 84. Defendants have a mutual right of control in operating the business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. and their 9

10 facilities and in carrying out their activities. 85. Defendants have a right to share in the profits with other Defendants. 86. Defendants share in the expenses with other Defendants. 87. Defendants have a duty to share in any losses with other Defendants. 88. Accordingly, Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of the joint venture. PARTNERSHIP 89. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 88, as though fully set forth herein. 90. Defendants conduct a ranch/lodge/hotel business or assist in conducting a ranch, guest lodge, other facilities and activities, business in Utah where patrons stay and participate in recreational activities. 91. Defendants businesses consisting of a ranch, guest lodge, other facilities and activities are commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. 92. The business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc consists of many businesses and individuals carrying on a partnership. 93. Defendants businesses consisting of the ranch, guest lodge, other facilities, and activities operate on property owned and operated by various Defendants in and around Antimony, Utah. 10

11 94. The recreational activities guests participated in include but are not limited to: a. Horseback riding; b. Zip-line; c. Archery; d. ATV or four-wheeling; e. Games; f. Hayrides; and g. Other activities. 95. Defendants have a community of interest in the performance of a common purpose. 96. Defendants have a joint proprietary interest in operating the business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. and their facilities and in carrying out their activities. 97. Defendants have a mutual right of control in operating the business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. and their facilities and in carrying out their activities. 98. Defendants have a right to share in the profits with other Defendants. 99. Defendants share in the expenses with other Defendants Defendants have a duty to share in any losses with other Defendants Accordingly, Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts and omissions of the partnership. PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL/ALTER EGO 11

12 102. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 101, as though fully set forth herein As set forth herein, Defendants and Does I-X and A-J, have a unity of interest and ownership such that separate personalities of Defendants no longer exist The business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. is the alter ego of Defendants and Does I-X and A-J There is a commingling and sharing of funds and expenses between Defendants and Does I-X and A-J Defendant and Does I-X and A-J entities have common Officers/Management Defendant and Does I-X and A-J entities have common ownership Defendant and Does I-X and A-J entities are undercapitalized for their operating needs Defendant and Does I-X and A-J entities have failed to comply with corporate formalities Defendants and Does I-X and A-J finance the business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc Defendants and Does I-X and A-J exert control over the operations of the business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. such that the entities do not act independently The funds of the business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. pay expenses of the other Defendants and Does I-X and 12

13 A-J The funds of the business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. pay expenses of Defendants and Does I-X and A-J without proper accounting The transactions between the business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc., other Defendants and/or third parties have not been completed at arms length The business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. has failed to maintain complete corporate and financial records There are disparate payments to Defendants and/or stockholders, and Defendants Does I-X and A-J The business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. has failed to maintain adequate amounts of liability insurance The business commonly known as Rockin R Ranch and/or Rockin R Ranch & Lodge Guest Operations, Inc. is an alter ego of the other Defendants and Does I-X and A-J for other reasons as discovery will provide herein As set forth herein, based upon lack of separate personalities of, Defendants and Does I-X and A-J, it would be inequitable and promote an injustice to not disregard the corporate forms of Defendants and Does I-X and A-J. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 120. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13

14 119, as though fully set forth herein On or about August 11, 2008, Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. was on vacation with his wife Elizabeth Ann Hoagland and daughter Karen Hoagland at Defendants Rockin R Ranch, guest lodge and facilities in Antimony, Utah Prior to vacationing at Defendants Ranch, guest lodge, and other facilities, Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. and Elizabeth Ann Hoagland (hereinafter collectively referred to as Hoaglands ) were assured by Defendants that they could participate in all of the recreational activities that the ranch had to offer. Relying on this information, the Hoaglands made reservations On or about August 11, 2008, without consulting the Hoaglands, Defendants assigned activities for the Hoaglands, one of which was the zip-line On or about August 11, 2008, Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. was assigned to ride the zip-line Elizabeth Ann Hoagland and Karen Hoagland did not participate in the zip-line activity. Only Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. participated in the zip-line activity On or about August 11, 2008, Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. was assured by the employees of Defendants that he could safely ride the zip-line. He followed all of the instructions of the employee: he climbed the tower, and with the assistance of the employee faced backwards, held on to strap, sat on the stick and left the tower. The stick which was intended to be a seat for Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. while he rode down the zip-line, was attached by a strap to the zip-line mechanism. 14

15 127. As Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. left the tower, the worn-out strap tied to the stick snapped causing Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. to fall. Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. landed on his back and hit his head on the hard dirt ground below the zip-line, causing serious injuries that resulted in his death The zip-line contained no harness or other safety mechanism The strap between the stick and the zip-line was narrow, weathered, and worn-out Each of the individually named plaintiffs are legal heirs of the decedent Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. and by such all of the plaintiffs are entitled to recover as heirs and beneficiaries for the wrongful death of Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D.. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENCE) 131. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 130, as though fully set forth herein In the regular course of their business, Defendants owed Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. and Plaintiffs a duty to use that degree of skill, care, and diligence which is required in carrying out their business and the recreational activities associated with their businesses Defendants had a duty to Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. and to Plaintiffs to protect against the risks associated with participating in the recreational activities, including the zip-line Defendants through their agents, servants, and employees were negligent in causing the death of Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. by actions and omissions which include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 15

16 a. failure to train, instruct and supervise Defendants employees; b. authorizing participation in a zip-line that Defendants knew or should have known was unsafe; c. not maintaining satisfactory safety features on the zip-line; d. not requiring zip-line participants to be harnessed; e. failure to maintain a safe zip-line; f. failure to design and construct an approved and authorized zip-line; g. failure to ensure that the zip-line was in proper working order; h. failure to inspect Defendants zip-line; i. assuring Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. that the zip-line was safe to ride; j. failure to warn Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. of any risks involved with riding the zip-line; k. failure to warn Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. that the zip-line was not in safe working condition; l. using inadequate materials for the zip-line apparatus. m. failing to ensure that the zip-line met minimum standards for recreational activities; n. allowing Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. to participate in the unsafe zip-line; and o. other negligent acts and omissions The acts and omissions of Defendants complained of herein proximately caused the death of Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. and the damages to the plaintiffs prayed for below. 16

17 136. As a result of the wrongful death of the decedent, the plaintiffs have been deprived of love, care, society, affection, companionship, service, comfort, and protection, loss of assistance and the loss of affection of the decedent, all in an amount to be shown according to proof As a result of the death of decedent, plaintiffs have incurred and will incur special damages and other incidental expenses, including but not limited to, funeral expenses, medical expenses, loss of inheritance, loss of financial support, and lost wages in amounts to be shown according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (GROSS NEGLIGENCE) 138. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 137, as though fully set forth herein In the regular course of their business, Defendants owed Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. and Plaintiffs a duty to use that degree of skill, care, and diligence which is required in carrying out their business and the recreational activities associated with their businesses Defendants had a duty to Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. and to Plaintiffs to protect against the risks associated with participating in the recreational activities, including the zip-line Defendants through their agents, servants, and employees, were grossly negligent, willful, intentional or reckless in causing the death of Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. by actions and omissions which include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. failure to train, instruct and supervise Defendants employees; 17

18 b. authorizing participation in a zip-line that Defendants knew or should have known was grossly unsafe; c. not maintaining satisfactory safety features on the zip-line; d. not requiring zip-line participants to be harnessed; e. failure to maintain a safe zip-line; f. failure to design and construct an approved and authorized zip-line; g. failure to ensure that the zip-line was in proper working order; h. failure to inspect Defendants zip-line; i. assuring Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. that the zip-line was safe to ride; j. failure to warn Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. of any risks involved with riding the zip-line; k. failure to warn Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. that the zip-line was not in safe working condition; l. using grossly inadequate materials for the zip-line apparatus. m. failure to ensure that the zip-line met minimum standards for recreational activities; n. allowing Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. to participate in the unsafe zip-line; and o. other gross negligent acts and omissions Defendants failed to exercise even the slightest care with respect to the operation of the zip-line Defendants failed to exercise even the slightest care with respect to the safety of 18

19 Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D Defendants acted carelessly and recklessly to a degree showing utter indifference to Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. and Plaintiffs The acts and omissions of Defendants complained of herein proximately caused the death of Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D. and the damages to the plaintiffs prayed for below As a result of the wrongful death of the decedent, the plaintiffs have been deprived of love, care, society, affection, companionship, service, comfort, and protection, loss of assistance and the loss of affection of the decedent, all in an amount to be shown according to proof As a result of the death of decedent, plaintiffs have incurred and will incur special damages and other incidental expenses, including but not limited to, funeral expenses, medical expenses, loss of inheritance, loss of financial support, and lost wages in amounts to be shown according to proof Defendants conduct manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and disregard of, the rights of others As the result of such willful and reckless acts and/or conduct or failure to act as alleged above, Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary or punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants as follows: 1. General damages for the loss of companionship, love, attention, society, comfort, counsel, friendship, care, service, affection, assistance and protection provided by Daniel A. Hoagland, M.D., in amounts shown according to proof; 19

20 2. Special damages with statutory interest including, but not limited to, funeral expenses, medical expenses, loss of financial support, incidental loss of inheritance, loss of right to receive financial support, loss of assistance, lost wages and miscellaneous damages according to proof; 3. Punitive and exemplary damages in the amount shown according to proof; 4. For prejudgment interest and any other statutory interest as provided by law; 5. For all costs of suit; 6. For judgment that each individual Defendant is jointly and severally liable for any award granted by this court; and 7. For such other and further damages and relief as the Court deems just in the premises. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, demand a trial by jury on all issues. DATED this 24 day of May, /s/ Robert M. Henriksen C. Richard Henriksen, Jr. Robert M. Henriksen Jonathan G. Winn Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20

21 Plaintiffs' address: C/O Henriksen & Henriksen, P.C. 320 South 500 East Salt Lake City, Utah