Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAWN J. BENNETT
)
5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 501 )
Washington, DC 20015, and
)
)
DJ BENNETT HOLDINGS, LLC )
5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 501 )
Washington, DC 20015,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
GOOGLE, INC.
)
1600 Amphitheatre
)
Mountain View, CA 94043
)
Serve: Corporation Service Company )
1090 Vermont Ave., NW
)
Washington, DC 20005,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No. 1:16-2283

COMPLAINT
(Defamation, Tortious Interference Contractual
Relationships, Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress)
Plaintiffs Dawn J. Bennett (Bennett) and DJ Bennett Holdings, LLC (DJ
Bennett), by and through their undersigned counsel, complain against Defendant
Google, Inc., (Google) as follows.
NATURE OF CASE
1. This is an action by plaintiffs to recover compensatory and punitive
damages from Google, and related equitable relief, in connection with the posting
1

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 12

by Scott Pierson (Pierson) of a false and malicious blog on Google’s internet
network, and Google’s acceptance, publication, and circulation of such blog,
knowing it to be an unsubstantiated personal attack on plaintiffs, and submitted for
the sole purpose of defaming plaintiffs and to cause severe financial harm by
interfering with customer relationships and their professional and personal
reputations in the business community.
PARTIES
2. Dawn J. Bennett is the principal owner and chief executive officer of DJ
Bennett Holdings, LLC, a retailer of sports apparel with headquarters at 5335
Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 501, in the District of Columbia.
3. Google is an American multinational technology company specializing in
internet-related services and products that include online advertising, technologies,
search, cloud computing, and software. Google runs more than a million servers
around the world and processes over a billion search requests each day; it was the
most visited website in the world in 2013. Its headquarters are in Mountain View,
CA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Jurisdiction of this court exists under 28 U.S.C.§1332 in that the parties
are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
exclusive of interests and costs. Venue lies in the District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 12

§1391, since DJ Bennett is a District of Columbia corporation, its headquarters are
in the District, and the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ causes of action occurred in
the District.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. D.J. Bennett makes substantial use of the internet to advertise its
merchandise. Critical to its success is not only the quality of its merchandise but its
reputation for reliability and fair dealing in the marketplace and in its relationship
with its employees.
6. Pierson is the founder of The Executive SEO Agency based in Shelton,
CN. He holds himself out to be an expert on Search Engine Optimization and
Marketing (SEO) and as such able to substantially increase internet business by
upgrading and otherwise improving client’s websites and business techniques.
7. In March, 2013, Pierson contacted DJ Bennett, claiming to be able to
improve its efficiency and productivity by upgrading its website. Based on his
representations, DJ Bennett retained Pierson to improve its merchandising effort.
8. After a few months, it became was apparent that Pierson did not have the
expertise he claimed: instead of upgrading DJ Bennett’s marketing effort he
interfered with it, increased costs, and caused substantial sales to be lost. Pierson
agreed to renegotiated his contract and accepted slightly less than $20,000 as full
payment of the balance due under his original contract.
3

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 4 of 12

9. Pierson’s final payment was mailed to him on October 13, 2013; it was
returned by the post office as undeliverable, though the four previous payments
were successfully sent to such address. Investigation determined that Pierson had
moved out of his home, without notice, and was involved in bankruptcy
proceedings.
10. In December, 2013, Pierson called Anderson McNeill, DJ Bennett’s
Vice President and General Merchandise Manager, complaining that he had not
received his final payment. Mr. McNeill described Pierson as hysterical,
emotionally distraught, and that he threatened to shut down DJ Bennett’s website,
saying “I know things, I can do things, and I will shut down your website. . . .”
Mr. McNeill stated further that Pierson continued to rant and rage while he tried to
explain to him that DJ Bennett had sent him the last payment to his home and it
had been returned by the Post Office. Pierson gave Mr. McNeill another address,
the last payment was sent there, and he cashed it.
11. As Pierson threatened to do, he created a blog which he called, “DJ
Bennett-think-twice-bad business ethics” and submitted it to Google for
publication on the internet. Among other things, the blog stated that “DJ Bennett,
the luxury sporting goods company, did not pay its employees or contractors” and
was “ruthlessly run by Dawn Bennett who also operated Bennett Group Financial
Services.”
4

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 5 of 12

12. Pierson’s blog accused Dawn Bennett of inventing a lie that he had
agreed to reduce his hours during the final phase of his project for DJ Bennett and
then used it as justification for reducing his final invoice by $3,200.” Pierson
stated that his attorney had told him that “Dawn Bennett is essentially judgment
proof” and that he now suspects that any small claim proceeding by Pierson to
collect the money owed him would be uncollectible.” “The only thing we have
learned,” Pierson states in his blog, “is that DJ Bennett owes thousands and
thousands to many people.” “So I urge you to think twice before giving your
patronage to DJ Bennett.com.” The blog concludes by stating: “The website is
pretty, but the person running the show is quite contemptible.”
13. Plaintiffs retained an attorney to try and persuade Pierson to remove the
blog; he refused. Plaintiffs’ counsel also contacted Google’s General Counsel,
and other senior corporate officers, asking them to drop Pierson’s blog because it
violated Google’s Guidelines of what is appropriate material for inclusion in blogs.
Moreover, as of May 23, 2016, not a single comment has been received in two
years; Pierson was artificially maintaining his blog in a favorable position by using
black-hat tactics, a practice universally condemned by the digital media industry,
including Google, who continued, and continues, to publish Pierson’s blog.

5

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 6 of 12

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
COUNT 1: DEFAMATION
14. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-13.
15. A defamatory statement is one which tends to expose a person to public
scorn, hatred, contempt or ridicule, thereby encouraging others in the community
from having a good opinion of, or from associating or dealing with that person. To
determine whether Pierson’s blog meets this standard, consideration must be given
to what was stated, what was intended by the statement, and how it was likely to
have been understood by those to whom it was communicated.
16. Pierson’s blog clearly meets such standard: its language was
purposefully designed to subject Dawn Bennett and DJ Bennett to public scorn,
hatred, contempt, and ridicule and to severely damage and malign their
professional and personal reputations in the market place and the general business
community. The blog was circulated through Google so that it would have the
broadest audience exposure possible.
17. Pierson’s blog caused plaintiffs to lose the business of existing
customers, prospective accounts have not materialized, several suppliers no longer
do business with plaintiffs, or only on a cash basis, and bank and other credit
sources are no longer available on favorable terms. Plaintiffs has also lost highly

6

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 7 of 12

productive staff because of Pierson’s false characterization of their financial
stability as unsteady.
18. Google continued to carry Pierson’s blog after plaintiffs’ counsel
repeatedly alerted it of the factual distortions and malicious intent of Pierson’s blog
and his abuse of the internet process to distort public interest in his blog. Google
therefore shares in the responsibility with Pierson in plaintiffs’ financial damages.
19. Plaintiffs will show at trial that they have lost more than $3 million in
actual and potential business revenue because of Google’s publication of Pierson’s
blog, and separately, Dawn Bennett has suffered several times that amount in
damages to her business and professional reputation.
COUNT 2: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
20. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-19.
21. Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the
tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining
business relationships. It also occurs when a third party intentionally interferes
with existing or prospective business relationships, expectations, and economic
advantages.
22. Elements of a tortious interference claim are a contractual or beneficial
businesses relationship between two parties; knowledge of that relationship by a
third party; intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach
7

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 8 of 12

the relationship; the contractual relationship is breached, or is prevented from
developing; and damage results to the party against whom the breach occurred, or
where a prospective business relationship does not develop or is lost.
23. Damages for tortious interference with business relationships include
economic losses as well as punitive damages if the tortfeasor acted with a high
degree of malice. Injunctive relief may also be available.
24. Pierson was privy to DJ Bennett’s relationships with its customers and
its efforts to increase that base. His blog is a deliberate effort, and he admits this to
be the case, to induce existing and prospective customers not to deal with DJ
Bennett and Dawn Bennett, thereby causing them to suffer severe economic
damages. Given the maliciousness of Pierson’s intentions and his activities to such
end, plaintiff are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages.
25. As Google was aware of plaintiffs’ complaints that Pierson’s blog was
factually false and a malicious vendetta against them and meant to cause crippling
financial damages, it is therefore equally responsible and liable for the damages
plaintiffs’ have suffered.
COUNT 3: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs –1-25.
An action for intentional infliction of emotional distress lies when a person
intentionally or recklessly causes another person to suffer emotional distress by
8

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 9 of 12

conduct that is extreme, outrageous, egregious, or otherwise exceeds the
boundaries of decency. Compensatory and punitive damages are recoverable.
27. As shown, Pierson’s blog intentionally and recklessly accuses DJ
Bennett and Dawn Bennett of failing to pay employees and contractors and
otherwise taking advantage of creditors and suppliers, and of being dishonest,
contemptible and ruthless in business and personal dealings and relationships.
Additionally, the blog states that plaintiffs owe thousands and thousands of dollars
to others and warns that plaintiffs were to be avoided under all circumstances.
28. Pierson made sure his false and malicious blog would be available to the
largest audience possible: the millions and millions of internet users. His refusal to
take down his blog shows that his intent was not to right a wrong or protect the
public, but to financially and personally destroy plaintiffs, and Google readily
became a party to such effort by publishing the blog and continuing to do so after
being made aware of its purpose.
29. Not only did Dawn Bennett lose substantial income and capital
investment because of Google’s refusal to drop Pierson’s blog, she suffered severe
physical and emotional distress because of such unprovoked attacks, and Google,
as the publishing medium, is responsible with Pierson for her injuries as well as
those suffered by her co-plaintiff DJ Bennett.

9

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 10 of 12

30. Accordingly, plaintiffs have established a cause of action for intentional
infliction of emotional distress and compensatory and punitive damages are
recoverable from Google.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment in their favor and against
defendant Google, on all Counts as follows:
(a) Award of compensatory and actual damages suffered, plus
interest, in the amount of $3 million or as otherwise established at
trial;
(b) Award of punitive damages in the amount of $5 million or as
otherwise established at trial;
(c) Award of costs of this suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees
and expert witness fees and expenses;
(d) Entry of an order requiring Google to take down Pierson’s
complained of blog and permanently enjoining Google from
republishing it in any form; and
(e) An order granting plaintiffs such further relief as the Court deems
just and reasonable in the circumstances.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all issues and claims.
10

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 11 of 12

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Harry J. Jordan, Esq.
Harry J. Jordan, Esq. (DC Bar No. 047860)
1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 609
Washington, DC 20036-4718
(202) 416-0216
Counsel for Plaintiffs
DJ Bennett Holdings, LLC
Dawn J. Bennett

Dated: November 15, 2016

.

11

 Case 1:16-cv-02283 Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 Page 12 of 12

12