VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK JESSE ANDRE THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO.: ELIZABETH M. PSIMAS, Serve: Ms. Elizabeth M. Psimas 475 Water Street, Apt. 213 Portsmouth, VA 23704 Defendant. COMPLAINT For his Complaint under Rule 3:2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the plaintiff, Jesse Andre Thomas, by counsel, states as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This matter involves a common law claim for defamation of character based on statements the defendant, Elizabeth M. Psimas, made to a reporter for WAVY TV-10, which were published on television and online. PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE 2. Jesse Andre Thomas ( Thomas is a resident of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia. 3. Elizabeth M. Psimas ( Psimas is a resident of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia and long-time member of the Portsmouth City Council. 4. The City of Portsmouth is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant as she works and resides in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In addition, the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to Va. Code 8.01-328.1(A(3 as she has caused tortious injury in Virginia. 6. Venue is proper in the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk, as the defamatory statements that form the subject of this lawsuit were published in Norfolk, Virginia. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. HISTORY OF LOCAL CITY AUDITORS 7. Portsmouth unlike most major cities in Hampton Roads had never had an auditor before hiring Thomas in 2013. 8. For example, Virginia Beach has had a City Auditor for many years. The Virginia Beach City Auditor began reporting to the Virginia Beach City Council in 2008. The Virginia Beach City Auditor s office currently has six full time auditors, having added a sixth auditor in fiscal year ( FY 2016. 9. Per the annual reports of the Virginia Beach City Auditor s Office (https://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/city-auditorsoffice/pages/default.aspx, from FY 2011 through FY 2016, the office completed twentythree performance audits and twenty-seven attestation engagements. 10. The scope of an attestation engagement is narrower than that of an audit. In an attestation engagement, auditors will issue an examination, review, or agreedupon procedures report on a subject matter, or an assertion about a subject matter that is the responsibility of another party. 2
11. In total, the Virginia Beach City Auditor s Office averaged less than one completed performance audit per full-time auditor from FY 2011 to FY 2016. The office averaged roughly one completed attestation engagement per auditor from FY 2011 to FY 2016. 12. The City of Chesapeake has had a city auditor position for over a decade. Upon information and belief, the Chesapeake City Auditor s office currently employs five full time auditors and employed five full-time auditors from FY 2011 to FY 2016. 13. Per the annual status reports of the Chesapeake Audit Services Department (http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/government/city- Departments/Departments/Audit-Services-Department/Annual-Reports.htm, from FY 2011 through FY 2016, the office completed sixteen performance audits and/or citywide audits. 14. In total, the Chesapeake Auditor s Office averaged slightly more than onehalf of a completed performance audit and/or city-wide audit per auditor from FY 2011 to FY 2016. B. HISTORY OF PLAINTIFF THOMAS AS PORTSMOUTH CITY AUDITOR 15. From April 2013 to April 2016, Thomas worked as the City Auditor for the City of Portsmouth. 16. The defendant has served on the Portsmouth City Council for roughly ten of the last twelve years, recently serving as Vice Mayor of the City Council. 17. In her capacity as a member of City Council, the defendant led the efforts to have Thomas removed from his position as city auditor. 3
18. On or about March 8, 2016, the defendant gave an interview to reporter Joe Fisher of WAVY TV-10. She began the interview by stating that the city auditor [referring to Thomas] isn t auditing. 19. The defendant then posed the following rhetorical questions to the reporter for WAVY TV-10: What is the auditor doing? Where are the finished products? Where are the audits? 20. The defendant s statement and rhetorical questions suggested and were intended to suggest that Thomas had done nothing since he had been hired as the City Auditor in April 2013. 21. The defendant added that ever since the city hired Thomas in 2013 she had been left in the dark and hadn t been able to answer her constituents questions about his progress. 22. The defendant further stated: I don t have anything. You know, if I had to put my hand on a Bible and tell you what he was working on I couldn t, because I don t know. 23. The defendant added: I ve heard two of my colleagues make mention of how pleased they are with what he s done, and I don t know what that is. 24. Finally, the defendant concluded that she d be more inclined to support Thomas if she knew what he was working on. As examples, she then stated: Regular updates at least. You know. Monthly, quarterly, bi-monthly, something. I got nothing. I got nothing for two years. 25. The interview with the defendant was broadcast on WAVY TV-10 in the Hampton Roads area, including Norfolk. The video from the interview with the 4
defendant along with a transcript of the story was also posted online at http://wavy.com/2016/03/09/push-in-portsmouth-to-oust-city-auditor/, where it can be viewed to this day. 26. During Thomas s three-year tenure as the city auditor, the defendant never once contacted Thomas by telephone, email, or text regarding any audits or work he had performed or any work he was scheduled to perform. 27. The statements and rhetorical questions by the defendant to the TV reporter were false when made and the defendant either knew they were false, lacked reasonable grounds for believing them to be true, or acted negligently in failing to ascertain their truth. 28. In fact, Thomas had on more than one occasion given presentations to the City Council, including the defendant. In these presentations, he disclosed that he had, among other things, completed audits of the City Impound Lot and Willet Hall prior to her statements in March 2016. 29. A video of Thomas discussing the work he had performed to City Council is available online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1013k8fjfo8. The video is of a City Council Work Session held on February 9, 2015. The defendant was present for Thomas s presentation. 30. Besides the two audits, Thomas also had done work related to the City s final payment to the courthouse developer (Bob Williams, conducted a review of the Behavioral Health Services accounts receivables, performed a walk-through of the Portsmouth Real Estate Assessment process, and worked with the City Finance team to 5
validate whether the City had been receiving its appropriate share of revenue from the Renaissance Hotel based on its contractual agreement. 31. Thomas was fired in April 2016. Earlier on the day of his firing, he had attempted to give a presentation on a third audit relating to the city s recycling program and the Craney Island landfill, but was blocked by several members of council, including the defendant, from giving the presentation. 32. Given that Thomas was a one-man shop, his productivity of roughly one audit per year was on par with other the city auditor s offices in Virginia Beach or Chesapeake. 33. Shortly after voting to eliminate the position of City Auditor, the defendant stated to a reporter for THE VIRGINIAN PILOT, It s more than fair to him [Thomas] to pay the severance, even though she personally led the effort to fire Thomas. 34. The defendant also stated, It s very hard to prove with cause, and frankly it s more trouble than it s worth. 35. According to Thomas s employment contract with the City, he could be terminated for cause if he committed a material breach of his responsibilities as City Auditor. Clearly, if Thomas had nothing as the defendant repeatedly stated to the press he would have been in breach of his responsibilities as City Auditor. COUNT I - DEFAMATION 36. Thomas repeats and re-alleges his factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 35 as if fully set forth herein. 37. The above statements (paragraphs 18-19, 22-24 by the defendant to the reporter for WAVY-TV 10 were false when made and the defendant knew that such 6
statements were false when she made them. Alternatively, when the defendant made the above statements (paragraphs 18-19, 22-24, she lacked reasonable grounds for believing them to be true or acted recklessly in failing to ascertain their truth. 38. The statements made by the defendant were defamatory per se as they: a imputed to Thomas an unfitness to perform the duties of his position with the City of Portsmouth or a want of integrity to discharge such duties; and/or b prejudiced Thomas in his occupation, profession or trade. 39. As a result of defamatory statements by the defendant, Thomas has suffered injury and harm to both his good personal reputation and his good business reputation, as well as great humiliation, shame, vilification, exposure to public infamy, scandal, and disgrace. 40. Finally, when the defendant made the above-referenced defamatory statements to the media, she knew these statements to be false or acted so recklessly as to amount to a willful disregard of the truth. Consequently, Thomas is also entitled to punitive damages. 41. Thomas demands a trial by jury. WHEREFORE, Thomas moves this Honorable Court for judgment against Elizabeth M. Psimas, personally, in the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00 in compensatory damages, Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00 in punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and other expenses expended on her behalf. 7
JESSE ANDRE THOMAS By Counsel Christian L. Connell (Bar No. 35009 CHRISTIAN L. CONNELL, P.C. 555 East Main Street, Suite 1102 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 757.533.6500 757.299.4770 (fax christian.connell@outlook.com Counsel for the Plaintiff Jesse Andre Thomas 8