Is Diamond Ranch Academy going for a trifecta? Beyond?
Utah - Diamond Ranch Academy (DRA) filed their second lawsuit for libel et al, on October 16th, 2014, against an activist for children's rights requesting a jury trial.
Is the courthouse large enough? Honestly, one envisions taking a ticket to this venue, with the line reaching around the courthouse.
THE COMPLAINT:
Note: Modified into MS Word--- Defendant's name removed, along with other identifiers.
Case
2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 1 of 13
STEVEN R.
BANGERTER-----
WILLIAM E. FRAZIER -----
WILLIAM E. FRAZIER -----
DANIEL P. WILDE --------
BANGERTER
SHEPPARD & FRAZIER, PC
720 S. River
Road, Suite A-200
St. George, UT
84780
Telephone: ---------------
Facsimile:
---------------
dwilde@----------------
Attorneys for
Plaintiff,
DIAMOND RANCH
ACADEMY, INC.
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT
OF UTAH
DIAMOND RANCH
ACADEMY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
C------ F----,
Defendant.
Case No.:
COMPLAINT
Judge:
DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
Plaintiff DIAMOND
RANCH ACADEMY, INC. hereby complains against Defendant C------ F---- as
follows:
NATURE OF THE
ACTION
1. By this
action, DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. seeks to recover damages for defamatory statements
made by C ------ F-----. DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. is a therapeutic boarding
school and licensed residential youth treatment facility located in Hurricane,
Utah. C---- F----, speaking publicly about
1
DIAMOND RANCH
ACADEMY and its staff, in relation to the facilities, therapies, modalities and
services provided by DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, made, and continues to make public
statements concerning DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY and its staff which were false,
unsupported, offensive, defamatory and injurious to DIAMOND RANCH Academy’s
professional reputation.
JURISDICTION
2. This Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc.’s claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different
States.
3. This Court has
personal jurisdiction over defendant because she has transacted business in the
State of Utah in connection with the subject matter of this Complaint, caused
harm to DRA in the State of Utah, and continuously transmitted defamatory
statements in this judicial district.
4. Defendant is
thus subject to jurisdiction in this State pursuant to Utah’s long arm statute,
Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-205(1) and (3), and she has sufficient minimum contacts
to satisfy the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
VENUE
5. Venue is
proper in the District of Utah, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (b)(3),
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Complaint
occurred in this District and defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction
with respect to such action.
2
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff
DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. (hereinafter “DRA”), is and at all relevant times
was, a Utah corporation, with its principal place of business located in
Hurricane, Utah.
7. Based upon
information and belief, Defendant, C------ F---- (hereinafter, “F----”) is a
citizen and resident of the State of ----------.
FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS
8. F---- has
never attended, nor ever been on the premises of DRA.
9. F---- has
never spoken to any employee or owner of DRA in person. 10. Without ever having spoken to DRA’s
owners or employees in person, and without ever having attended or been on the
premises of DRA, F---- has maliciously and falsely attacked DRA’s name,
reputation, business dealings, business model, its employees, and its owners,
through numerous defamatory statements of fact made to many thousands of people
through her website (www.drasurvivors.com), Facebook pages
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/314152158598304/?ref=br_tf and others), blogs
and other media and social media outlets, both in writing and orally.
11. The following
items are specific examples of the false, unfounded, malicious and defamatory
statements originally published and/or re-published by F---- to others
(together, hereinafter referred to as “Defamatory Statements”):
(a) That DRA is
not a legitimate treatment facility and that its methods are unethical,
illegal, abusive and fatal;
(b) That DRA
physically, emotionally and psychologically abuses its students;
3
(c) That DRA
owners and staff “completely disregard the rights, individual needs and
welfare” of its students;
(d) That DRA
unlawfully incarcerates and dehumanizes children;
(e) That DRA
engages in deceptive and dishonest marketing techniques;
(f) That DRA
employs a violent and painful form of torture as punishment;
(g) That DRA
employs an unqualified, improperly trained staff;
(h) That DRA
operates a “private prison, where due process of the law and even the most
basic of human rights are violated”;
(i) That when a
parent sends a child to DRA, the child will be abused, and may “never come back
at all”;
(j) That DRA
engages in improper strip searches, “cruel and unusual punishment”,
dehumanization, humiliation, and the starvation of its students;
(k) That DRA’s
students are denied adequate medical care and food;
(l) That DRA
employs “seclusion, forced labor, physical violence, fear based control and
brainwashing methods that violate all basic human rights and could certainly be
considered child abuse, if not actual torture”;
(m) That DRA’s
treatment is “at best ineffective and at worst abusive, neglectful, and even
fatal”;
(n) That DRA does
not provide “real therapy”, does not follow clinical standards, “physically and
psychologically” abuses children, and “scams parents out of millions of
dollars”;
(o) That members
of DRA’s medical staff are not licensed medical professionals;
4
(p) That DRA has
a “long history of abuse, dangerous policies and a wrongful death”; and
(q) That DRA’s
therapy techniques are not “clinically approved”, “but quite simply a form of
corporal punishment”.
12. Upon
information and belief, F---- has also made other defamatory statements.
13. Each of the
Defamatory Statements identified above in paragraph 11 is false.
14. Based upon
information and belief, F---- delivered the Defamatory Statements to others
with intent to harm DRA’s business and community position, as established
through the Defamatory Statements and the context in which those statements were
made.
15. Based upon
information and belief, F---- has published, and continues to publish the
Defamatory Statements to others through Facebook pages, her website, and ancillary
posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites. Upon information
and belief, the Defamatory Statements were published by F---- within the past
year, and were published with the intent that they be heard by persons in the
State of Utah and throughout the country.
16. Upon
information and belief, the Defamatory Statements were published with the
intent that persons in the State of Utah would hear such statements, and with
the intent that DRA’s business in Utah would be harmed. The damaging results
thereof have been felt by DRA in the State of Utah.
5
FIRST CAUSE OF
ACTION
(Libel against
all Defendants)
17. DRA repeats,
re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully set forth
herein.
18. F---- made,
and continues to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact
regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in
paragraph 11.
19. F----’s
Defamatory Statements are false.
20. F---- knew
the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time she made the statements, or,
had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of her statements.
21. F----
published the Defamatory Statements through her website, Facebook pages, and
ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites.
22. The Defamatory
Statements published by F---- are not subject to any privilege.
23. The Defamatory
Statements published by F---- concern DRA and the practice of its trade or
profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business
dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just
cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against F----.
24. The Defamatory
Statements made by F---- exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
25. As a result
of F----’s Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount
to be proven at trial.
6
26. Additionally,
the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, and
were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice.
DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF
ACTION
(Libel Per Se
against all Defendants)
27. DRA repeats,
re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 26 as though fully set forth
herein.
28. F---- made,
and continues to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact
regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in
paragraph 11.
29. F----’s
Defamatory Statements are false.
30. F---- knew
the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time she made the statements, or,
had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of her statements.
31. F----
published the Defamatory Statements through her website, Facebook pages, and
ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites.
32. The Defamatory
Statements published by F---- are not subject to any privilege.
33. The Defamatory
Statements published by F---- concern DRA and the practice of its trade or
profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business
dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just
cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against F----.
7
34. F----’s
Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they injure DRA’s
professional reputation.
35. F----’s
Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they allege that DRA
has engaged in criminal conduct.
36. Through the
Defamatory Statements, F---- has accused DRA of
engaging in a
pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure otherpersons for financial
profit.
37. The Defamatory
Statements made by F---- exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
38. F----’s Defamatory
Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s reputation in the
business community and the public at large, and also among current and
potential clients.
39. As a result
of F----’s Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount
to be proven at trial.
40. Additionally,
the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, and
were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice.
DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.
THIRD CAUSE OF
ACTION
(Slander against
all Defendants)
41. DRA repeats,
re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 40 as though fully set forth
herein.
8
42. F---- made,
and continues to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact
regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in
paragraph 11.
43. F----’s
Defamatory Statements are false.
44. F---- knew
the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time she made the statements, or,
had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of her statements.
45. F----
published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said Defamatory Statements
to others through phone calls, and through other oral means and methods.
46. The Defamatory
Statements published by F---- are not subject to any privilege.
47. The Defamatory
Statements published by F---- concern DRA and the practice of its trade or
profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business
dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just
cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against F----.
48. The Defamatory
Statements made by F---- exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
49. As a result
of F----’s Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount
to be proven at trial.
50. Additionally,
the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, and
were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice.
DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.
9
FOURTH CAUSE OF
ACTION
(Slander Per Se
against all Defendants)
51. DRA repeats,
re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 50 as though fully set forth
herein.
52. F---- made,
and continues to make or republish false Defamatory Statements of fact
regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in
paragraph 11.
53. F----’s
Defamatory Statements are false.
54. F---- knew
the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time she made the statements, or,
had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of her statements.
55. F----
published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said defamatory
statements through phone calls with others, and through other oral means and
methods.
56. The Defamatory
Statements published by F---- are not subject to any privilege.
57. The Defamatory
Statements published by F---- concern DRA and the practice of its trade or
profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business
dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just
cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against F----.
58. F----’s
Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they injure DRA’s
professional reputation.
59. F----’s
Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they allege that
DRA has engaged in criminal conduct.
10
60. Through the
Defamatory Statements, F---- has accused DRA of
engaging in a
pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure other persons for financial
profit.
61. The Defamatory
Statements made by F---- exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
62. F----’s
Defamatory Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s
reputation in the business community and the public at large, and also among
current and potential clients.
63. As a result
of F----’s Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount
to be proven at trial.
64. Additionally,
the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, and
were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice.
DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.
FIFTH CAUSE OF
ACTION
(Intentional
Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against all Defendants)
65. DRA repeats,
re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 64 as though fully set forth
herein.
66. DRA is in the
business of educating and rehabilitating children with challenging
circumstances and/or diagnoses.
67. DRA’s
business is greatly affected by “word or mouth” referrals from parents,
professionals, alumni, and from internet advertising.
68. F----
intentionally and willfully published false and misleading information (the
Defamatory Statements) about DRA to the internet through her website,
11
Facebook pages,
and ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites.
69. Upon
information and belief, F---- also published the Defamatory Statements in other
ways and through other means and methods.
70. F---- knew
the Defamatory Statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to the
truth or falsity of the Defamatory Statements.
71. F----
published the Defamatory Statements with the intent to damage the reputation
and prospective economic advantage of DRA.
72. The Defamatory
Statements published by F---- proximately caused DRA to suffer damage to its
name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business
activities, as well as economic loss and costs associated with correcting the
Defamatory Statements made to others through the internet and by other means
and methods.
73. As a direct
and proximate result of F----’s conduct, DRA has been damaged in an amount to
be proven at trial, but on information and belief, in an amount not less than
$1,000,000. DRA is entitled to general and special damages.
74. Additionally,
the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, were
made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice, and
were made with the intent to damage DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings,
and ability to conduct regular business activities. DRA is therefore also
entitled to an award of punitive damages.
12
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:
1. That judgment
be entered in its favor and against Defendant;
2. For general
and special damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 on its First, Second, Third,
Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for Libel, Libel Per Se, Slander, Slander Per
Se, and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage in an amount
to be proven at trial;
3. For a
permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from making further defamatory
statements about Plaintiff;
4. For reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs of suit;
5. For punitive
damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example;
6. For
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and
7. For such
further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Plaintiff hereby
requests to have a trial by jury in relation to the Counts and the issues that
are properly the subject of such a trial.
DATED: October
15, 2014 Bangerter Sheppard & Frazier, PC
By /s/ Steven R.
Bangerter *
STEVEN R.
BANGERTER
Attorneys for
Plaintiff,
Diamond Ranch
Academy, Inc.
13
No comments:
Post a Comment