IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA REILY ENTERPRISES, LLC, WILLIAM REILY AND NANCY REILY, HIS WIFE, CASE NO.: CA JUDGE: LARRY SCHACK Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, vs. JENSEN BEACH GROUP, a Florida not-for-profit corporation, ANTHONY J. PARKINSON, CAMELOT HAIR CARE PRODUCTS, LLC, VICARAGE MOTOR- CARS, INC., THOMAS H. FULLMAN, MIKE CILURSO, MARGUERITE HESS, DOUGLAS HESS, HENRY COPELAND, KATHERINE HARPER, EDWIN J. MAXWELL, JR., THE COMPUTER STATION, CO., and CINDY BULK, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, REILY ENTERPRISES, LLC, WILLIAM REILY, and NANCY REILY, his wife (collectively Reily Enterprises, LLC, William Reily and Nancy Reily will be referred to as "Reily"), sue Defendants, JENSEN BEACH GROUP, a Florida not-for-profit corporation ("JBG"), ANTHONY J. PARKINSON, CAMELOT HAIR CARE PRODUCTS, LLC, VICARAGE MOTORCARS, INC., THOMAS H. FULLMAN, MIKE CILURSO, MARGUERITE HESS, DOUGLAS HESS, HENRY COPELAND, KATHERINE HARPER, EDWIN J. MAXWELL, JR., THE COMPUTER STATION, CO., and CINDY BULK, (collectively "Defendants"), and allege: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Defendants have intentionally interfered with Reily's advantageous business relationships and contractual agreements through coordinated and continuing opposition to Reily's efforts to develop a residential community in unincorporated Martin County ("Pitchford's Landing"). Defendants, acting in concert, and acting as part of a conspiracy with each other, have committed the acts described below. 1.2 Despite Defendants stated intention to "Save Jensen Beach," Defendants primary goal has been to delay Pitchford's Landing in hopes that Reily will abandon their development efforts. If Defendants are ultimately successful in stopping development on the properly through their false statements and wrongful actions, Reily will suffer damages in excess of five million

2 dollars ($5,000,000.00). 1.3 This is an action to recover financial damages suffered to date and for Defendants' false statements and baseless objections to Reily's development plans, and intentional interference with Reily's contractual and business relationships. 2. JURISDICTION AND PARTIES 2.1 This is an action, for damages in excess of $15, and is within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. 2.2 The majority, if not all of the individual Defendants, are residents of Martin County, Florida or maintain a main office for conducting business in Jensen Beach, Martin County, Florida. The Jensen Beach Group is a Florida not-for-profit corporation established for the sole purpose of objecting to, delaying, and stopping development of Reily's real property in Martin County, Florida. The individual Defendants have run the Jensen Beach Group with the improper purpose of delaying Pitchford's Landing and preventing Reily from economically developing its property. The Jensen Beach Group was specifically incorporated with the intended purpose to stop development activity in Martin County, Florida. The Jensen Beach Group is the alter ego of the individual Defendants. 3. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 3.1 Defendants knew it was necessary for Reily to obtain permit and development orders from the Martin County Board of County Commissioners, the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and other governmental agencies, and knew that the Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, would have to approve any changes in the use of the property which would effect the easement over its railroad tracks. Defendants conspired to interfere with Mr. Reily's development efforts by forming a web site and using their not-for-profit corporation to spread lies and false information about the project to interfere with Mr. Reily's efforts to develop the property (the "Conspiracy"). 3.2 On July 3, 2006, in an attempt to delay Pitchford's Landing and in an attempt to interfere with Reily's contractual and business relationships, Defendants filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing with the State of Florida. 3.3 All of Defendants' efforts to stop the development of Pitchford's Landing and to interfere with Reily's advantageous contractual and business relationships have been in bad faith, and in an attempt to stop all development on Reily's property. 3.4 Defendants have undertaken significant efforts to interfere with and object to all of Reily's development plans, and to indefinitely delay Pitchford's Landing. All of the objections, the filing with the DEP, and the efforts of Defendants were not filed for the purpose of protecting the environment, or for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, or Martin County Code, but have been done for the sole purpose of harming and harassing Reily. These activities of Defendants, disguised as a legitimate petition to the government, are a bad faith effort to interfere with the legitimate development rights of Reily.

3 3.5 Defendants have interfered and attempted to preclude Reily from participating in various community sponsored events, including but not limited to, mall exhibitions and charity events. 3.6 Defendants have embarked on a steady and continuous stream of false statements and misinformation regarding Reily and Pitchford's Landing. These false statements include: (a) claiming through written material and otherwise that Reily was proposing to build five (5) or six (6) story buildings in Pitchford's Landing when the Defendants know that three (3) story buildings are the highest buildings proposed in Pitchford's Landing, and that four (4) stories are the highest allowed in Martin Country; (b) falsely representing the buildings in Pitchford's Landing would be as high as the balloon shown in the pictures on their website when in fact Defendants know this was false; and (c) falsely misrepresenting that Reily and Pitchford's Landing was proposing to change the land use or zoning for the property to high density, when in fact Reily voluntarily cooperated with Defendants and agreed to change the proposed density to low density; and (d) a false light. creating graphics and other written materials to put the property and the project in, 3.7 Defendants organized and participated in a rally against, Pitchford's Landing under the guise of a Rally for Responsible Growth (the "Rally") during which they distributed false and erroneous misinformation and materials. 3.8 Defendants, or supporters working as part of the conspiracy with Defendants, have subjected Reily to intimidation and harassment, including, but not limited to, criminal mischief, a fire on the property, thefts and other petty crimes. 3.9 As a result of the actions described in this Fourth Amended Complaint, Defendants have harmed Reily by: (a) interfering with Reily's business relationship with the Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, his agents, and professionals working on the development applications, and with his financing sources; (b) inhibiting Reily's use of its property as legally permitted; (c) causing Reily to suffer lost profits as a result of the delays in construction, and as a result in the increased costs in pursuing permitting for the property; (d) causing Reily to incur significant attorneys' fees and other professional fees which would have been unnecessary, but for Defendants' false and bad faith actions; and

4 (e) damaging Reily's reputation, in the community. 4. SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS 4.1 Defendant, ANTHONY J. PARKINSON ("Mr. Parkinson"), through and with his corporations, CAMELOT HAIR CARE PRODUCTS, LLC ("Camelot") and VICARAGE MOTORCARS, INC. ("Vicarage") falsely misrepresented Reily's intentions in his editorial in the Stuart News on January 16, 2006 in which he stated, "...especially when Mr. Reily is expecting to use Skyline as an exit for the 137 units." On June 18, 2006, in an to Commissioner Weberman, Mr. Parkinson indicates that the developer intends to build a marina, but later admits he has no proof for this allegation and he was just guessing when he published that . Mr. Parkinson falsely stated in his comments on TCPalm, that the JBG was bombarding Federal authorities about the incompetent state of our governments when in fact Federal authorities have never been contacted in this matter. Mr. Parkinson, a sophisticated businessman, has continued his barrage of misinformation and untruths towards Pitchford's Landing throughout 2006 and 2007, including but not limited to, contacting the Jensen Beach Mall, the Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Martin County Commissioners and its employees, and the residents of Martin County to interfere and unduly influence Reily's relationships with those entities. Mr, Parkinson has also created false records and filed them with Martin County to defame Reily and place them in a false light. Mr. Parkinson helped organize and participated in the Rally sponsored by the Jensen Beach Group where more misinformation and false materials were presented to the public as fact. Mr. Parkinson, Camelot and Vicarage have conspired with the Jensen Beach Group and the other Defendants to conduct the virulent and defamatory actions of JBG as set forth below. 4.2 Defendant, Henry Copeland ("Mr. Copeland"), has actively participated in interfering with the proposed development of Pitchford's Landing. Mr. Copeland wrote a letter to the Jensen Beach Mall on July 25, 2006 regarding his objection to Reily participating in a mall exhibit. Mr. Copeland misrepresented in his letter that, the Jensen Beach Chamber (the "JB Chamber") supported his position, which was a complete lie. Mr. Copeland helped organize and participated in the Rally sponsored by the Jensen Beach Group where more misinformation and false materials were presented to the public as fact. Mr. Copeland has conspired with the Jensen Beach Group and the other Defendants to conduct the injurious and defamatory actions of JBG as set forth below. 4.3 Defendant, DOUG HESS ("Mr. Hess"), and his wife, Defendant, MARGUERITE HESS ("Mrs. Hess"), collectively penned letters with misrepresentations and untruths to the editor of The Stuart. News, posted false comments and writings on the Jensen Beach Group website and publicly oppose the Reily development with lies at every opportunity Mr. and Mrs. Hess jointly submitted an to The Stuart News on December 8, 2005, which contained the phrase, "Let the developers cut down on their frontage where they propose FIVE story condos and let their emergency road entrance be on Indian River Drive..." See 12/08/05 attached as Exhibit "B." Mrs. Hess admitted she did know how many stories the proposed condominiums were going to be when she finalized the and sent it to the newspaper. Mr. and Mrs Hess helped organize and participated in the Rally sponsored by the Jensen Beach Group where more misinformation and false materials were presented to the public as fact. Mr. and Mrs. Hess

5 have conspired with the Jensen Beach Group and the other Defendants to conduct the malicious and defamatory actions of JBG as set forth below, 4.4 Defendant, CINDY BULK ("Ms. Bulk"), as Secretary and Treasurer of the Jensen Beach Group, has conspired with the Jensen Beach Group and the other Defendants to conduct the malicious and defamatory actions of JBG as set forth below. Ms. Bulk has assisted in providing defamatory comments or misinformation on the Jensen Beach group website. Ms. Bulk helped organize and participated in the Rally sponsored by the Jensen Beach Group where more misinformation and erroneous materials were presented to the public as fact. Ms. Bulk conspired with the Jensen Beach Group and the other Defendants to conduct the malicious and defamatory actions of JBG as set forth below. 4.5 Defendant, EDWIN J. MAXWELL, JR. {"Mr. Maxwell"), used his corporation THE COMPUTER STATION, CO. to actively participate in interfering in Reily's business relationships. Mr. Maxwell created and maintains a website titled "pitchfordlanding.com." If a person seeking information on Pitchford's Landing inadvertently leaves out the As@ when searching for the website, he or she is directed to the Jensen Beach Group's website. Mr. Maxwell also created and maintains a website titled "riverrecollections.org." The website displays a photo with the red balloon as described above. Both websites, at the direction or Mr. Maxwell and his corporations, make numerous false statements regarding Reily and Pitchford's Landing. Mr. Maxwell helped organize and participated in the Rally sponsored by the Jensen Beach Group wherein more misinformation and erroneous materials were presented to the public as fact. Mr. Maxwell has conspired with the Jensen Beach Group and the other Defendants to conduct the injurious and defamatory actions of JBG as set forth below. 4.6 Defendant, KATHERINE HARPER ("Ms. Harper"), as Vice President of the Jensen Beach Group, Inc., has actively participated in interfering in Reily's development plans for Pitchford's Landing. Ms. Harper has actively sought signatures on a false petition that states Reily is seeking Ahigh-density@ for his development. Ms. Harper helped organize and participated in the Rally sponsored by the Jensen Beach Group where more misinformation and false materials were presented to the public as fact. Ms. Harper has conspired with the Jensen Beach Group and the other Defendants to conduct the Bad Faith Filing and defamatory actions of JBG as set forth below. 4.7 Defendant, THOMAS H. FULLMAN ("Mr. Fullman"), as the founder of the Jensen Beach Group, has participated in every facet of the interference conducted by JBG, including but not limited to, false editorials in the local newspapers, television interviews, comments and editorials on the Jensen Beach Group's website, and public displays of opposition at every opportunity, including the Rally. Mr. Fullman contacted the Florida East Coast Railway, LLC and led them to believe that Reily intended to allow traffic from the Jensen Beach Causeway to go through Pitchford's Landing, over the railroad tracks, and traverse on to Skyline Drive. This ultimately lead to the denial of a railroad crossing contract Reily had with the FEC. Mr. Fullman helped organize and participated in the Rally sponsored by the Jensen Beach Group wherein more misinformation and erroneous materials were presented to the public as fact. Mr. Fullman has conspired with the Jensen Beach Group and the other Defendants to conduct the injurious and defamatory actions of JBG as set forth below.

6 4.8 Defendant, MIKE CILURSO ("Mr. Cilurso"), President of the Jensen Beach Group, has also participated in every facet of interference conducted by JBG, including but not limited to, editorials in the local newspapers, television interviews, comments and editorials on the Jensen Beach Group's website, construction and direction as to the maintenance of Jensen Beach Group's website, and public displays of opposition at every opportunity, including participating in the Rally. Mr. Cilurso is also a petitioner in the DEP filing. Mr. Cilurso helped organize and participated in the Rally sponsored by the Jensen Beach Group where more misinformation and false materials were presented to the public as fact. Mr. Cilurso has conspired with the Jensen Beach Group and the other Defendants to conduct the injurious and defamatory actions of JBG as set forth below. 4.9 Defendant, JENSEN BEACH GROUP, a Florida not-for-profit corporation, the alter-ego of its members, was formed and is maintained for the sole purpose to prevent the development of the Reily property. Jensen Beach Group has done everything in its power to maliciously interfere with the development of Pitchford's Landing. JBG distributed petitions both in person and online which misinformed and misrepresented that Reily was seeking high, density, which is false. See Petition from. Jensen Beach Group website dated August 23, 2007 attached as Exhibit "C" JBG supported and distributed the false statement that Reily intended to build five story condominiums and that the buildings would be level with the highest point of Skyline Drive. Jensen Beach Group sponsored the Rally where more misinformation and false materials were presented to the public as fact 5. COUNT I - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS RELATIONS Reily realleges and reincorporates the allegations in Sections 1 through 4 here. 5.1 This is an action for tortious interference with advantageous business relations. 5.2 Defendants knew about Reily's business relationships, and intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with the relationships. 5.3 Defendants engaged in their campaign to object to the development of Pitchford's Landing with the intent of interfering with and disrupting Rally's business relationships. 5.4 Defendants' conduct is unjustified and has and continues to damage Reily's business relationships. 5.5 Defendants have made allegations which they knew were false or which were made with a reckless disregard for the truth. 5.6 Reily has suffered and will suffer extensive delays in development of its project as a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' improper interference with its advantageous business relationships. WHEREFORE, Reily requests the Court enter a judgment against Defendants for

7 damages, costs, and any further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 6. COUNT II - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS Reily realleges and reincorporates the allegations in Sections 1 through 4 here. 6.1 This is an action, for interference with contractual relations. 6.2 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Reily's development efforts have been delayed 6.3 Defendants undertook their efforts of objecting to Reily's development with the specific intention of interfering with Reily's contracts and preventing the development of Pitchford's Landing. 6.4 Defendants' interference with Reily's contractual rights was intentional and unjustified. 6.5 Reily has been damaged by Defendants' interfering actions. WHEREFORE, Reily requests t:he Court enter a judgment against. Defendants for damages, costs, and all further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 7. COUNT III - DEFAMATION BY DEFENDANTS TO MR. AND MRS. REILY Reily realleges and reincorporates the allegations in Sections 1 through 4 here. 7.1 Defendants have made false and defamatory statements concerning Mr, and Mrs. Reily as set forth above, 7.2 The false and defamatory statements made by the Defendants were unprivileged and were published to third parties. 7.3 Defendants knew that the statements were false, or Defendants were negligent in failing to know of the truth or falsity. 7.4 As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' false and defamatory statements, Mr. and Mrs. Reily have sustained damages, nominal damages, general damages, and special damages, including but not limited to, unjustified public and political opposition to Pitchford's Landing, and other damages as set forth above. WHEREFORE, Reily requests the Court enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages, costs, and all further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 8. COUNT IV - INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD BY DEFENDANTS TO REILY

8 ENTERPRISES. LLC Reily realleges and reincorporates the allegations in Sections 1 through 4 here. 8.1 Defendants have made false and defamatory statements concerning Reily Enterprises, LLC as set forth above. 8.2 The false and defamatory statements made by the Defendants were unprivileged and were published to third parties. 8.3 Defendants knew that the statements were false, or Defendants were negligent in failing to know of the truth or falsity. 8.4 As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' false and defamatory statements, Reily Enterprises, LLC has sustained damages, nominal damages, general damages, and special damages, including but. not limited to, unjustified public and political opposition to Pitchford's Landing, and other damages as set forth above. WHEREFORE, Reily requests the Court enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for damages, costs, and all further relief the Court deems just and proper. 9. COUNT V - BAD FAITH PROSECUTION AGAINST THE JENSEN BEACH GROUP Reily realleges and reincorporates the allegations in Sections 1 through 4 here. 9.1 On or about August 11, 2006, The Jensen Beach Group filed an Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing with the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP Matter"). See Amended Petition attached as Exhibit "D." 9.2 The Jensen Beach Group, Anthony Parkinson, Michael Cilurso, and Thomas Fullman (collectively ADEP Plaintiffs@) are defendants in this matter, but were plaintiffs in the DEP Matter. Defendants were seeking to challenge a permit issued to Plaintiff, Reily Enterprises, LLC by the Department of Environmental Protection. 9.3 The Department of Environmental Protection entered a Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice against Defendant, Jensen Beach Group, on August 25, See final order attached as Exhibit "D." 9.4 The' Department of Environmental Protection found that the Jensen Beach Group had no standing to bring the claim. 9.5 JBG filed the DEP Matter with malice to prevent, development of Reily's property. 9.6 As a direct and proximate cause of JBG's Bad Faith Filing of the DEP Matter, Reily has sustained damages.

9 WHEREFORE, Reily requests the Court enter judgment against JBG for damages, costs, and all further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 10. COUNT VI - ABUSE OF PROCESS Reily realleges and reincorporates the allegations in Sections 1. through 4 here Defendants filing and serving of their Counterclaim in this matter is an improper and perverted use of process for the purpose of furthering their misguided cause of stopping or interfering with the development ofpitchford's Landing Defendants allegations that Reily filed a "SLAPP lawsuit" against them simply because they have spoken out in public in opposition to Reily's project is Defendants' attempt to muddy the waters for their own selfish motives of stopping or interfering in the development of Pitchford's Landing Defendants Tiling and serving of their Counterclaim was a willful and intentional way for them to draw attention to their cause and as a result Reily has been damaged, including but not limited to, nominal damages, general damages, and special damages, unjustified public and political opposition to Pitchford's Landing, and other damages as set. forth above. WHEREFORE, Reily requests the Court enter judgment against Defendants for damages, costs, and all further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 11. COUNT VI - SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE Reily realleges and reincorporates the allegations in Sections 1 through 4 here. This Count is in the alternative to Counts 1-5 above Reily had potential civil actions against Defendants for the causes of action set forth above The Defendants had a legal duty to preserve evidence which was relevant to the potential civil action as set forth above Defendants have destroyed evidence, including but not limited to, s, signs, computer graphics, poster boards, telephone records, and other information Defendants' destruction of evidence has significantly impaired Mr. and Mrs. Reily's ability to prove their lawsuit Defendants' destruction of the evidence is a direct and proximate cause of Mr. and Mrs. Reily's inability to prove their lawsuit As a. direct and proximate cause of Defendants' actions, Mr. and Mrs. Reily have

10 been damaged. WHEREFORE, Reily requests the Court enter judgment against Defendants for damages, costs, and all further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED this 23 rd day of October, WRIGHT, PONSOLDT & LOZEAU TRIAL ATTORNEYS, L.L.P. TIM B. WRIGHT Fla. Bar No.: S.E. Monterey Commons Blvd Suite 100 Stuart, Florida (772) Telephone (772) Fax Attorneys for Plaintiffs