COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND. 1. Plaintiff, Aldo Lamberti, (hereinafter "Plaintiff) is a Massachusetts resident

Transcription

1 MIDDLESEX, ss COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Aldo Lamberti,.. no J:;.~H<i\ J. ',,-.ru Vs. Plaintiff, :),.OD Fox Television Stations, INC., And WFXT -Fox 25 Defendants COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, hereby states and alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Aldo Lamberti, (hereinafter "Plaintiff) is a Massachusetts resident who currently resides at 27 Rosemary Ave, Wakefield, Massachusetts, Plaintiffs informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, Fox Television Stations, Inc.,. (hereinafter "Defendant") with it's principle place of business located at 1999 S. Bundy Drive, Los Angeles CA , doing business in every city and county of Massachusetts, as a producer and distributor of television programs sufficient to give rise to personal jurisdiction in this forum. The company may be served through it's registered agent WFXT-Fox 25, with a principle place of business in 25 Fox Drive, Dedham, Massachusetts.

2 3. Plaintiff s informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant, WFXT Fox 25, (hereinafter "Defendant") is a corporation with a principle place of business in 25 Fox Drive, Dedham, Massachusetts. 4. Plaintiff informed and believes and thereon alleges that there exists, at all times mentioned there existed, a unity interest and ownership between and among Defendant Fox Television Stations, INC. and Defendant WFXT-Fox 25 such that any individuality and separateness have ceased, and Defendant WFXT 25 is merely an alter ego of Fox Television Stations, INC. A. The Defendant WFXT 25 was conceived, intended and used by Defendant Fox Television Stations, INC. as a device to distribute television shows; B. Defendant Fox Television Stations, INC. completely controlled, dominated, managed, and operated Defendant WFXT 25 to suit in convemence; C. Defendant WFXT 25 is merely a shell, instrumentality, and conduit through which Defendant Fox Television Stations, INC. carries it's business exactly as it conducted its previous incorporation, exercising complete control and dominance of such business to such extent that any individuality or separateness Defendant WFXT 25 and this defendant does not, at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. 5. Adherence to the fiction of separate existence of Defendant Fox Television Stations, INC. and Defendant WXT 25 as entities distinct from each other would permit abuse ofcorporate privilege and would sanction fraud and promote injustice.

3 BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS 6. The Plaintiff at the time of these allegations was employed as a mail carrier by the United States Post Office. 7. WFXT 25 is a local affiliate of the Fox Television Station, Inc. 8. The WFXT 25 station engages in the business of reporting the news on a daily basis, with morning, afternoon, and nightly new telecasts. 9. In one of their features WFXT 25 directs their employees to report on investigative pieces called "Fox Undercover." 10. While broadcasting "Fox Undercover" WFXT 25 maintains full editorial control over what pieces it chooses to air on their network for consumption by their viewing audience. 11, WFXT-Fox 25's aired an expose on United States Postal workers who tliey alleged were engaged in illegal drug use. 12. In the piece, which aired on WFXT 25, the employees alleged that the three individuals, all of whom were United Sates Postal workers, one of which was the Plaintiff were violating United States Postal Regulations. 13. The WFXT 25 employee stated that the Plaintiff and two other individuals violated United States Postal Service Employee Conduct Code, and trespassed on school grounds. 14. The WFXT 25 employee further states that the Plaintiff and two other individuals were engaged in smoking marijuana cigarettes, in direct violation of the Massachusetts General Laws and United States Postal Service Employee Conduct Code.

4 15. The WFXT 25 employee makes the claim of illegal drug use devoid of any fact, and made while adding unsubstantiated commentary over televised footage shot without the permission of Plaintiff or the other two individuals. 16. The WFXT 25 employee furthered their negligence when, a part of the story, they approached the Plaintiffs employer, the United States Post Office, and showed them to an edited copy of their footage with the unsubstantiated commentary. 17. The expose piece "Fox Undercover" was first aired on or around XXXX on the WFXT 25 television nightly news. 18. WFXT-Fox 25 constituted negligence, when it aired this expose. 19. The WFXT 25 employee attributed all behavior seen in the video to all three employees, and sensationalized the report by adding facts to the report, and his presentation to the United States Postal Service, that were not true and weren't supported by the footage. 20. The WFXT 25 employee willfully misrepresented the facts and/or fictionalized the events, which is both negligent and irresponsible for the sole purpose of increasing WFXT 25 television stations ratings. 21. No criminal investigation or complaint has ever issued against the Plaintiff for possession of any illegal narcotic, including marijuana he was alleged to have taken in the WFXT 25 employee's story. 22. As a direct result of WFXT 25 employee piece being aired on the first occasion, the Plaintiff lost his job at the United States Postal Service. ill

5 23. The Plaintiff, a father of minor children, was ostracized in the community in which he lives. 24. The Plaintiff was also unable to participate in some of his children's school and extracurricular activities due to allegations made in the piece and the stigma attached to the unsubstantiated allegations of WFXT 25 employee. 25. This "Fox Undercover" same piece was aired on two separate occasions, the second time in conjunction with a story about another United States Postal Worker in a different branch who had been arrested for Heroin use months after this footage was shot with no connection to the Plaintiff. COUNT I DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER 26. Plaintiff reinstates the allegations set forth at paragraphs 1-25 of this Complaint. 27. Defendant's statement was a false and defamatory statement concerning Plaintiff and was made to further the WFXT 25 news story and made with wanton disregard to the Plaintiff which constitutes actual malice. 28. The statement was an unprivileged publication to a third party. 29. The results of this statement result in direct harm to Plaintiff both personally and financially. WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court award damages that have incurred as a result of Defendant's Defamation of Character, together with interest and costs;

6 COUNT II NEGLIGENCE 30. Plaintiff reinstates the allegations set forth at paragraphs 1-29 of this Complaint. 31. Defendant has a duty to broadcast material in a factual context, and when a story is pure editorial commentary they have a duty to disclose those facts. 32. Defendant breached this duty when they made several knowingly false statements and/or drew their own editorialized conclusions from the edited video footage, without disclosing that it was an opinion not actual fact. 33. The Defendant was negligent when it aired the edited piece to the Plaintiffs employer without disclosing that the Defendant was expressing an opinion and not actual facts. 34. Defendant further breached their duty when they aired it a second time 35. As a result of this breach, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm to his employment status and status in the community. WHEREFORE, The Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court award damages that have incurred as a result of Defendant's Negligence, together with interest and costs; COUNT VIOLATION OF M.G.L. Ch. 93A 36. Plaintiff reinstates the allegations set forth paragraphs 1-35 of this Complaint. 37. Defendant has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts, which constitutes a Chapter 93A violation.

7 38. The Plaintiff, through counsel, sent a Letter under M.G.L. Ch. 93A and the Defendant's response did not constitute a reasonable offer of settlement and was made in bad faith, both violations of the statute. 39. Defendant's violation ofm.g.l. Ch. 93A, has caused the Plaintiff substantial damages. COUNT IV INTERFERENCE WITH AN ADVANTAGEOUS RELATION 40. Plaintiff reinstates the allegations set forth paragraphs 1-39 of this Complaint. 41. The Defendant sought out the Plaintiff's employer to show them an edited copy of video footage, shot without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, as well as the Defendant made knowingly false and/or editorialized statements over the edited footage to Plaintiff's employer. 42. The Defendant tape recordeq the interaction with the Plaintiff's employers an included it in their aired segment. 43. At the conclusion of the Plaintiff's employers watching the edited footage with false statements about the Plaintiff, the Defendant's employee makes intimation that the Plaintiff was engaged in illegal drug use. 44. The Defendant in furthering their "Fox Undercover" story sought out the Plaintiff' employer and inflamed the situation by making knowingly false statements over edited footage to further their news story, while seeking discipline by the Plaintiff's employer to enhance for their alleged violation and news story. 45. The Defendant violation ofm.g.l. Ch. 93A, has caused the Plaintiff substantial damages.

8 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court award damages that have incurred as a result of the Defendant's unfair and deceptive acts, the same to be trebled pursuant to M.G.L. 93A, together with interests and costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY FOR ALL ISSUESTO BE TRIED BEFORE A JURY Respectfully submitted, Aldo Lamberti, Plaintiff By and througntis attorney, / 105 Kenoza Ave Haverhill, MA Phone (800)