Plaintiffs OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS v. Defendants JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION, JURY DEMAND AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Similar documents
CAUSE NO. DC-I L PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED PETITION, JURY DEMAND AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DISCQVERY CONTROL PLAN

Case 3:14-cv B Document 1 Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/15/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/15/2015

PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION

CAUSE NO CV ANNA DRAKER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VS. MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/03/ :48 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/04/2014

CAUSE NO. COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Colin Shillinglaw, and files this Original Petition, complaining

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION

CAUSE NO. DEFENDANTS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION I. SUMMARY AND KEY FACTS

Case 4:14-cv RAS Document 1 Filed 09/23/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/02/ :36 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/02/2014

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION & REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE. COMES NOW, JANE DOE, Plaintiff, complaining of SEA WORLD PARKS &

STATE OF OHIO IN THE MENTOR MUNICIPAL COURT CIVIL DIVISION. Case No. Hon. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HERON)

Case: 3:11-cv TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/07/11 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

26 /1/ 28 /1/ Donny E. Brand (SBN ) BRAND LAW FIRM E. 4th St., Suite C-473

Case 2:15-cv SVW-AS Document 1 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1

INDEX NO. UNASSIGNED NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2018 SUMMONS

UnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk

Courthouse News Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

COPY 1AR ) Dept.: P52 ) 2. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 17 ) 4. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 19 )

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/12/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1

Case 5:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TWIN FALLS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) E.D. Case No.

COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ROGERS COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA PETITION

DENISE CANTU, IN THE DISTRICT COURT. VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., LIONOR DE LA FUENTE and CARLOS I. URESTI

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com

Page 1 of 8 TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE-NAMED: SARAH ( SALLY ) WARWICK

Case 1:11-cv CMA -BNB Document 1 Filed 04/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

NO. DC V. 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COLLIN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, DEFENDANT. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AOL, INC., Appellant. DR. RICHARD MALOUF AND LEANNE MALOUF, Appellants

Case 3:16-cv WHB-JCG Document 4 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 8

Case 3:17-cv LB Document 1 Filed 07/17/17 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:11-cv Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 1:16-cv WOB Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/03/16 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

CAUSE NUMBER PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED ORIGNAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Case 3:12-cv P Document 1 Filed 06/14/12 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1

Case 2:12-cv JCM-VCF Document 1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 10

RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF: SOLARCITY CORPORATION,

Case 0:17-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 4:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/06/10 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv PGG Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:08-cv CRW-CFB Document 1 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 1 of 12

Case 0:10-cv MJD-FLN Document 1 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Court File No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN JOSEPH BENGIS, an individual,

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/26/ :43 AM INDEX NO /2018E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2018

The Law Offices. John S. Morgan, Esq.

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Civil Action No. COMPLAINT

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

) ) Plaintiff, Christina Chisholm, complaining of Defendants, Tauheed Epps, and. Ro Zay Richie, alleges and says:

Case 1:07-cv MRB Document 6 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

PlainSite. Legal Document. Florida Middle District Court Case No. 6:10-cv Career Network, Inc. et al v. WOT Services, Ltd. et al.

CAUSE NO. PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-3055

Case 1:18-cv NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 1

Case 1:11-cv RMC Document 1 Filed 08/20/10 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2016

Cause No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Nominal Defendant. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE PETITION FOR BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/08/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WITH JURY DEMAND

CAUSE NO. JANE DOE, Individually and as IN THE DISTRICT COURT Next Friend of JOHN DOE, a Minor Child, Plaintiffs,

NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff

Case 1:09-cv Document 1 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:17-cv LY Document 1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TORT LAW. By Helen Jordan, Elaine Martinez, and Jim Ponce

No. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. Plaintiff, MIKE complains of defendants STEPHEN and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 5:17-cv Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 01/17/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

CAUSE NO. INTERNATIONAL CENTER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DEVELOPMENT, IX, LTD., VS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. Defendant JUDICIAL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:17-cv VEC Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case: 1:18-cv MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/08/18 Page: 1 of 16 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Case 5:11-cv GLS-ATB Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SYRACUSE DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Case No.

Case: 2:17-cv MHW-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/23/17 Page: 1 of 15 PAGEID #: 1

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION

Case 8:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:1

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

DEFENDANT S 1st AMENDED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE files this his Defendant s

Case 1:18-cv RGS Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case: 1:11-cv DAP Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/19/11 1 of 9. PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

NO. V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT. CORRIE LONG, DAVID TANG AND MICHAEL P. FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Defendants. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

)(

Transcription:

CAUSE NO. Filed 12 January 27 P6:03 Gary Fitzsimmons District Clerk Dallas District STEPHEN PIERCE and STEPHEN PIERCE IN THE DISTRICT COURT INTERNATIONAL, INC. Plaintiffs OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS v. DALE BROWN and COASTAL VACATIONS Defendants JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION, JURY DEMAND AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Plaintiffs Stephen Pierce and Stephen Pierce International, Inc. (collectively referred to as Pierce or Plaintiffs ), complain of Defendants Dale Brown and Coastal Vacations ( Brown Coastal Vacations or collectively Defendants ) and show as follows: CIV. P. 190.3. I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery under Level 2 in accordance with TEX. R. II. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 2. Plaintiff Stephen Pierce is a natural person who resides at 720 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Apt# 127W, Irving, Texas 75039. 3. Plaintiff Stephen Pierce International, Inc. is a Texas corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business at 321 North Central Page 1

Expressway Suite #220, McKinney, Texas 75070. Stephen Pierce is the CEO of Stephen Pierce International, Inc. 4. Defendant Dale Brown is a natural person who resides in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and may be served with process at 1501 Allison St. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17104. 5. Defendant Dale Brown is the administrative contact of Defendant Coastal Vacations. Upon information and belief, Mr. Brown is the individual who is defaming the Plaintiffs on www.stephen-pierce-scam.com, as described below. 6. Defendant Coastal Vacations is a business which is registered as residing in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and may be served with process at 1501 Allison St. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17104. 7. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims in this action because the amount in controversy exceeds the court s minimum jurisdictional requirements. 8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because Defendants operate a defamatory website specifically directed at the Plaintiffs in Texas, and intended to cause harm in Texas. Defendants are well aware of where Plaintiffs home forum is; on their website they state, in Stephen Pierce [sic] home town of Dallas. Additionally, multiple posters reference both Dallas and Texas activities on Defendants defamatory website. 9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to TEX CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 15.002(a)(1), as the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Dallas County, Texas. III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10. Plaintiffs Stephen Pierce and Stephen Pierce International, Inc., provide education and training with respect to internet marketing. For example, they provide customers consulting, Page 2

seminars, videos, written materials, and other programs which are designed to teach individuals and businesses how to effectively use the internet to market their business. 11. Upon information and belief, Defendants, Dale Brown and Coastal Vacations have created the website www.stephen-pierce-scam.com which attacks and defames Plaintiffs Stephen Pierce and Stephen Pierce International, Inc., and their business. Among other things, Defendants describe Plaintiffs entire business as a scam in each of the following ways: www.steph en -pierce-s c am.com Stephen Pierce Scam Stephen Pierce Scam discovery 12. A scam is defined as a fraudulent business scheme. See Webster s Online Dictionary. Plaintiffs business is not a scam, nor is it a fraudulent business scheme. Plaintiffs inform potential customers of a price for various programs to educate them on internet marketing. When the customers pay for the programs, Plaintiffs provide legitimate programs, as advertised. Plaintiffs do not guarantee any outcome from their programs, and expressly disclaim any particular result from buying the training programs. 13. Defendants have removed the website from the Internet, but applicable pages that were, at one time, published on the Internet are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C to this Complaint. 14. Plaintiffs, have, until the actions of Defendants, had an excellent reputation in the field of internet business marketing. Plaintiffs conduct a large amount of their business on the internet, and therefore their reputation on the internet is critical to their business. Page 3

15. However, whenever one of Plaintiffs potential clients search for the terms Stephen Pierce, or Stephen Pierce International, Inc., on Google or other internet search engines, many find the false and defamatory statements published by Defendants. 16. Plaintiffs have been irreparably damaged and suffered significant monetary damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, because of Defendants defamatory website and statements. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION A. Count One Defamation 17. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth in full herein. 18. Defendants published statements by written communication on the Internet at www.stephen-pierce-scam.com asserting as fact that Plaintiffs business is a scam. 19. The statements are directed towards Plaintiffs. 20. The statements are false because Plaintiffs business is not a scam or fraudulent, it is a legitimate internet marketing business. 21. Plaintiffs supply their customers with programs that educate them on how to effectively market their business on the internet. 22. Defendants statements are defamatory because they: a. Injure Plaintiffs reputation and thereby expose Plaintiffs to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or financial injury; b. Impeach Plaintiffs honesty, integrity, virtue, and reputation; and c. Injure Plaintiffs in their occupations or professions. Page 4

23. The defamatory statements require no proof of their injurious character because they were obviously hurtful to Plaintiffs, as the statements have imputations of criminal conduct. 24. Defendants made the statements either negligently, knowingly, or with reckless disregard for their falsity. 25. Defendants false statements directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs, which resulted in damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. 26. Defendants unlawful conduct was wanton, willful, and malicious, warranting the imposition of exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. 26. Defendants conduct also constitutes violations of TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 73.001, for which Plaintiffs seek to recover. a. Request for Declaratory Judgment 27. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth in full herein. 28. As Defendants have placed Plaintiffs character publicly at issue, Plaintiffs request pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 37.003 (Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act) that the Court determine that Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that Defendants statements are false. b. Request for Permanent Injunctive Relief 29. As Defendants have placed Plaintiffs character publicly at issue, Plaintiffs request pursuant to B. Count Two Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 30. Plaintiff Stephen Pierce realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth in full herein. Page 5

31. Defendant s conduct, posting false and incredibly derogatory statements regarding Mr. Pierce and his business, was intentional or reckless. 32. Additionally, the posting of the false statements by Defendants was outrageous or intolerable. 33. As a direct result of this conduct by Defendants, Mr. Pierce suffered severe emotional distress. V. JURY DEMAND 34. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial for the claims for damages and has tendered the appropriate fee. VI. PRAYER For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue citation for Defendants to appear and answer, and that Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment against Defendants for the following: a. Permanent Injunctive relief that issues the following orders to Defendants, Dale Brown and Coastal Vacations, including their agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, attorneys, representatives, and those persons or entities in active concert or participation with them (collectively, the Restrained Parties ): i. Remove the website at the address: www.stephen-pierce-scam.com. ii. Prohibiting the Restrained Parties from making any false statements of fact or statements that imply false statements of fact, publicly or to any Page 6

person, orally or by written means, including but not limited to email and on the Internet, that defame or disparage Plaintiffs; and iii. Mandating that the Restrained Parties take all action, including, but not limited to, requesting removal from the Internet search engines including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, to remove all defamatory, disparaging, libelous, and false statements about Plaintiffs that Defendant posted on the Internet, including but not limited to the statements on the Internet at www.stephen-pierce-scam.com. iv. Mandating, as it is foreseeable, that the above-referenced URL and the statements contained thereon will be referenced on additional webpages in the future, including but not limited to index, directory, and search results pages, that the Restrained Parties take all actions, including requesting removal from the Internet search engines Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, to remove all such webpages from the Internet; b. Declaratory judgment that Defendants statements about Plaintiffs on the Internet are false; c. Actual damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; d. Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; e. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rate(s) allowed by law; f. Reasonable and necessary attorneys fees in prosecuting its claims through trial and, if necessary, through appeal; g. Costs of court; and; h. Such other further relief which this Court may deem just and proper. Page 7

Respectfully submitted, Paul B. Kerlin State Bar No. 24044480 VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 4100 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 588-7004 Fax: 713.588.7054 Email: pbkerlin@vorys.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Stephen Pierce and Stephen Pierce International, Inc. Of Counsel Whitney C. Gibson, Esq. (Ohio State Bar No. 0077961) Colleen M. Devanney, Esq. (Ohio State Bar No. 0083795) VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 221 E. 4 th Street, Suite 2000 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 wcgibson@vorys.com cmdevanney@vorys.com 1/27/2012 13169999 Page 8