Case 3:11-cv CRS Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE NO.

Transcription

1 Case 3:11-cv CRS Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE NO. 3:11cv-142-S TYSON MIMMS ) ) Plaintiff ) v. ) COMPLAINT ) Electronically Filed A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS, LLC ) Serve: The Corporation Trust Co. ) 1209 Orange Street ) Wilmington, DE ) ) Defendant ) *** *** *** *** *** The Plaintiff, Tyson Mimms, by and through counsel, and for his Complaint against the Defendant, A&E Television Networks, LLC, states as follows: I. PARTIES 1. That Plaintiff Tyson Mimms is, and at all relevant times hereto has been, a citizen and resident of Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky. 2. That the Defendant A&E Television Networks, LLC (hereinafter A&E ), is, and at all times relevant hereto has been, a Delaware LLC in good standing, located and doing business at 235 East 45th Street, New York, NY A&E transacts business in Kentucky and other states through cable television and the internet, by domain names that include but are not limited to and

2 Case 3:11-cv CRS Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, because there is complete diversity of citizenship of the parties and the matter in controversy, exclusive of costs and interest, exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars. 4. Venue is proper in the Western District of Kentucky and this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C because the Defendant has committed and continues to commit tortuous acts in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and this district. III. FACTS 5. That Defendant is a television network that reaches more than 96 million homes... [and] offers a diverse mix of high quality entertainment... including the hit series... The First 48. Website of A&E Television Networks, (last visited February 4, 2011). 6. That The First 48 takes viewers behind the scenes of real-life investigations as it follows homicide detectives in the critical first 48 hours of murder investigations, giving viewers unprecedented access to crime scenes, interrogations and forensic processing. Website of A&E Shows, (last visited February 4, 2011). 6. That Episode 160 of The First 48, titled Eye For An Eye / Dead End (the Subject Episode ) originally aired on or about April 1, 2010, and continues to air periodically on A&E. Additionally, the episode is available to watch on the internet using the instant streaming feature of Netflix. 7. That the Subject Episode was filmed, in part, in Louisville, Kentucky, and revolves around the investigation of the shooting death of Alfred Smith. 2

3 Case 3:11-cv CRS Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3 8. That in the Subject Episode, an individual with a damaged eye is initially identified as the main suspect in the shooting death of Mr. Smith, and that Mr. Mimms, who has a damaged eye, is later identified by full name and photograph as the main suspect in the shooting death of Alfred Smith, and that a large portion of the Subject Episode revolves around videotaped interrogations of Mr. Mimms. 9. That the episode s title, Eye For An Eye, reflects the investigating officer s mistaken belief that Mr. Mimms murdered Mr. Smith because Mr. Smith previously injured Mr. Mimms eye. 10. That immediately after at least one interrogation, an unidentified producer of The First 48 repeatedly requested that Mr. Mimms sign a release to appear on The First 48, and that this conversation appears on a videotape of the interrogation. 11. That Mr. Mimms refused to sign a release that would allow him to appear on The First 48, and that despite Mr. Mimms refusal to sign this release, his full name and likeness repeatedly appeared on the Subject Episode. 12. That at the end of the Subject Episode, Mr. Mimms is arrested and charged with first-degree murder, and that a text message on the screen states Tyson Mimms has been charged with first-degree murder and is currently awaiting trial. 13. That Mr. Mimms did not murder Alfred Smith, and that on March 31, 2010, before the Subject Episode was initially aired, all charges against Mr. Mimms were dismissed due to a lack of evidence. 14. That the undersigned made a sufficient demand for correction relative to this false and defamatory publication, and that Defendant has failed to correct the explicit and implicit false and defamatory statements in the Subject Episodes. 3

4 Case 3:11-cv CRS Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4 IV. CAUSES OF ACTION Count 1 Invasion of Privacy 15. That all preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 16. That A&E committed the tort of invasion of privacy by, among other things, unlawfully appropriating Mr. Mimms name and likeness for its own benefit. The use of Mr. Mimms damaged eye as a motive for the murder necessarily enhanced the credibility of the show and increased viewing of the Subject Episode, thereby directly financially benefiting A&E. 17. That A&E committed the tort of invasion of privacy by, among other things, unreasonably placing Mr. Mimms in a false light before the public. A&E placed Mr. Mimms in this false light by, among other things, indicating throughout the Subject Episode that Mr. Mimms murdered Mr. Smith and falsely stating that Mr. Mimms is currently awaiting trial for first-degree murder. 18. That as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned invasion of privacy, Plaintiff has permanently lost the exclusive right of control over his likeness and image and has otherwise sustained damages, including pain and suffering and past and future lost wages, in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 19. That A&E acted with oppression, fraud, malice, or gross negligence in committing the invasion of privacy described above, and that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. Count 2 Defamation 20. That all preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth fully herein. 4

5 Case 3:11-cv CRS Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: That the Subject Episode contained defamatory language regarding Plaintiff that injured and harmed the reputation of Plaintiff by lowering him in the estimation of the community and to deterring third persons from associating or dealing with him. 22. That the Subject Episode was published, and continues to be published, both on television and on the internet. 23. That the defamatory language regarding Plaintiff contained in the Subject Episode constitutes libel per se, because the language clearly and unequivocally indicates that Plaintiff committed the high crime of murder. 24. That as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defamation, Plaintiff has sustained damages, including pain and suffering and past and future lost wages, in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 25. That A&E acted with oppression, fraud, malice, or gross negligence in defaming Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully demands relief from the Defendants as follows: 1. Judgment against the Defendant in an amount calculated to fairly and reasonably compensate the Plaintiff for the damages sustained by him herein; 2. Pain and suffering damages in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.00; 3. Punitive damages in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.00; 4. Past and future lost wages in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.00; 5. Pre-judgment interest; 6. Its costs herein expended, including reasonable attorneys fees; 7. Trial by jury; and 8. Any and all other relief to which it may otherwise be properly entitled. 5

6 Case 3:11-cv CRS Document 1 Filed 03/08/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6 Respectfully Submitted, JAMES M. BOLUS, JR. BOLUS LAW OFFICES 600 West Main Street, Suite 500 Louisville, Kentucky (502) (502) Facsimile bo@boluslaw.com A. NICHOLAS NAISER NAISER LAW OFFICE 600 West Main Street, Suite 500 Louisville, Kentucky (502) (502) Facsimile nick@boluslaw.com /s/ A. Nicholas Naiser 6