STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH, ss SUPERIOR COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT CASE NO. BRADY SULLIVAN PAUGUS WOODS, LLC, a New Hampshire limited liability company with a principal place of business located at 670 N. Commercial Street, Suite 303, Manchester, NH 03101 Plaintiff v. DAWN CRIM 130 Endicott Street, #201 Laconia, NH 03246 COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION This is an action for damages arising from the false and defamatory statements made by the defendant about the plaintiff in July 2015, as a result of which the plaintiff has suffered harm to its reputation, trade and business. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to R.S.A. 491 :7 and the damages exceed $25,000. 2. Venue is prOper in this Court as the plaintiff?s principal place of business is located in Hillsborough County, Northern District. PARTIES 3. The plaintiff, Brady Sullivan Paugus Woods, LLC (?Brady Sullivan?) (?the plaintiff?), is a duly authorized New Hampshire limited liability company having a principal place of business at 670 N. Commercial Street, Suite 303, Manchester, NH 03101. 4. The defendant, Dawn Crim, is an individual with a last known address of 130 Endicott Street, #201, Laconia, NH 03246. Scanned by CamScanner FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. Brady Sullivan is the declarant deveIOper of a residential subdivision known as The Villas at Paugus Bay, Weirs Boulevard, Laconia, NH 6. Brady Sullivan is in the business of holding, buying, selling, managing and deve10ping real estate. On or about September 24, 2010, the defendant purchased a home from the plaintiff in the VPB located at 86 Sarasota Lane, Laconia, NH. 8. In December 2010, the defendant ?led a complaint with the State of New Hampshire, Of?ce of the State Fire Marshall against the plaintiff alleging substandard construction of her home in VPB. 9. In February 2011, the defendant ?led a complaint with the State of New Hampshire, Of?ce of the Attorney General against the plaintiff alleging substandard construction of her home in VPB. 10. In September 2011, due in substantial part to the complaints of the defendant, the State of New Hampshire ?led suit against the plaintiff in the matter of State ofNew Hampshire v. Brady Sullivan Paugus Woods. LLC, Belknap Superior Court Case No. 00366, alleging violations of R.S.A. 356-A and R.S.A. 358-A (?the Attorney General suit?). 11. This suit by the State of New Hampshire was resolved pursuant to a Court approved Consent Decree on or about January 27, 2014. 12. On or about September 19, 2013, the defendant and her husband filed suit against the plaintiff and Brady Sullivan Properties, LLC in the matter of Dawn Crim, et al v. Brady Sullivan Paugus Woods. LLC, Belknap Superior Court Civil Action No. 211-2013-CV- 00306, alleging damages sustained as a result of building code violations and construction defects in the construction of the defendant?s home at VPB. 13. This action is still pending in Belknap Superior Court. 14. On or about July 3, 2015, the defendant published the following statements on the website, too have been involved in ongoing litigation with Brady Sullivan for the last 4 V2 years for construction defects and code violations in my home . . . I mean, how does the Attorney General?s of?ce (Michael Delaney) start out by suing them for over $4 Million dollars at Paugus Woods?alleging things such as nearly 500 code violations within the deveIOpment, water pollution and so much more?to simply having this new Attorney General Joseph 2 Scanned by CamScanner Foster strike a deal with them for simply $85k with no input whatsoever prior to from the residents 15. The defendant also published the following statements on the website, on or about July 3, 2015: wanted to share this too. Our attorney did ?ght for us in court to have these lawsuits separated and he did win only ?rst to be met with opposition from the Attorney General?s of?ce.? 16. On July 3, 2015, the defendant made false statements in an electronic mail message mail?) she entitled, ?Our Developer Made the News,? to twenty-seven (27) 1nd1v1duals whom, upon information and belief, are also homeowners at VPB. 17. Speci?cally, in addition to providing a hyperlink to a media story concerning the property of one of the plaintiff af?liated entities, the defendant stated as follows: wanted to let everybody know too that even though the Attorney General cut a private deal for our development with Brady Sullivan, the state did leave it so that they can reopen the case at any time. I mean, they were charging them with more than just 500+ code violations they were charging them with water pollution too! What body of water is uncertain, but What I do know is that Paugus Bay is the city?s drinking water. I also wanted to share with you all that our water at our home was tested and found to have organisms that should not be in it. It is unsafe to drink and we had to have the city shut it off. I wish I could say this was an isolated incident, but it is not.? 18. On or about July 4, 2015, the defendant published the following statements on the website, ?Pe0ple who know the truth about what happened in Laconia while under the nose of the Attorney General would blow their mind at what Brady Sullivan AND the City of Laconia were doing and not doing. Here are just ?some? of the facts: [T]o my knowledge, all of the non-code compliant homes at Paugus Woods were SUPPOSED to be re-inspected after Brady Sullivan supposedly ?xed the code de?ciencies. Who exactly re-inspected them and when did it happen because nobody ever told me and I still own a house in the development and have since 2010. . . ?Going back to my experience my family gave Brady Sullivan ample Opportunity to identify and ?x things . . . In the meantime, my children, husband and pets were all exposed to sheet rock dust, open faced ?berglass 3 . I Scanned by CamScanner insulation and so much more via forced hot air in the dead of winter. What are the long term consequences of doing so? Nobody can tell us, but there has to be a reason that the workers were wearing respirators.? 19. On July 6, 2015, the defendant made further false statements of fact in another e-mail to the same twenty-seven (27) residents of VPB: ?We had our water shut off sometime last summer by the Water Department and it was Seth Nuttleman [Superintendent of the City of Laconia Water Department] that I had a few conversations with about just what was found in it. Brady Sullivan has been aware of it all this time too as well as our attorney. Without going into too much about the organisms found (due to ongoing litigation) it was concerning enough to let me neighbors knew about the issue especially now knowing that Brady Sullivan did something to the water in 2013 . . . did something happen while they were ??ushing? and whatever else they were doing"? No idea.? 20. The foregoing statements by the defendant are false and wrongfully charge the plaintiff with activities that would injure it in its business as a developer, owner, holder, buyer, seller and manager of real estate. - 21. The State of New Hampshire did not sue the plaintiff for water pollution or the violation of any environmental law in the Attorney General suit as stated by the defendant in her online and e-mail statements. 22. The plaintiffs statement and implication that Brady Sullivan has rendered the water at VPB and throughout the City of Laconia unsafe due to water pollution it committed is patently false and untrue. 23. The plaintiff's statement and implication that Brady Sullivan tampered with or otherwise ?did something to the water in 2013,? thereby has causing the water at VPB to be unsafe is patently false and untrue. 24. Upon information and belief, homeowners at VPB were frightened and panicked after receiving defendant?s statements that the plaintiff caused the water at VPB to be unsafe and that it was suppressing information about the quality of drinking water. 25. At least one homeowner to whom the defendant made these defamatory'statements via e- mail was so alarmed that she contacted both the City of Laconia and the State of New Hampshire Attorney General?s Of?ce out of concern that the plaintiff had caused the water at VPB to be unsafe and that it was suppressing information about the poor quality of drinking water. 26. The plaintiffs statement and implication that Brady Sullivan failed to repair or improperly repaired code violations and de?ciencies identi?ed by the State of New Seanned by CamScann Hampshire for which it was responsible in homes at VPB to which it was allowed access is patently false, untrue and unsupported. 27. The plaintiffs statement and implication that Brady Sullivan was responsible for and failed to conduct any re-inspection of homes at VPB following repairs to same is false, untrue and unsupported. 28. The plaintiffs statement and implication that Brady Sullivan performed repairs to her home in an unsafe manner, thereby exposing the plaintiff and her family to toxic or unsuitable conditions is patently false, untrue and unsupported. 29. The plaintiff's statement and implication that the Attorney General suit has not been ?rlly and ?nally resolved and is subject to ?re-open? is false, untrue and unsupported. 30. The plaintiff?s statement that her attorney successfully intervened in the Attorney General suit or otherwise impacted the settlement of that case on her behalf is false, untrue and unsupported. 31. The defendant made the foregoing false and defamatory statements maliciously, knowingly and/or in reckless disregard for the truth thereof. 32. The defendant made the foregoing false and defamatory statements with the intent to cause Brady Sullivan harm to its reputation and business, as well as to leverage Brady Sullivan in her ongoing suit against it. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant?s false and defamatory statements, the plaintiff has suffered harm to its reputation and business. CAUSE OF ACTION COUNT I Defamation Per Se 34. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are hereby incorporated into Count I as if more fully set forth herein. 35. On or about July 3, 2015 and July 4, 2015, the defendant published false statements about the plaintiff on the website, including but not limited to that the plaintiff was sued by the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire for water pollution; did not make repairs to homes in the VPB that it represented it made and as directed by government of?cials; caused medical harm or personal injury to the defendant and her family by undertaking repairs to her home in an unsafe manner; and that her counsel successfully intervened or halted the resolution of the Attorney General?s suit on her behalf. 36. On or about July 3, 2015 and July 6, 2015, the defendant published false statements about the plaintiff to twenty-seven (27) individuals believed to all be residents of VPB, 5 Scanned by CamScanner including but not limited to, that the plaintiff was sued by the Attorney General for water pollution; that the plaintiff wrongfully polluted and rendered unsafe the water for VPB and the City of Laconia; that the plaintiff tampered with the water supply for the and that the Attorney General suit has not been fully and ?nally resolved by the parties thereto. 37. No valid privilege applies to the foregoing communications and statements by the defendant. 38. The foregoing statements concern the defendant and its performance of its trade or business in the development, management, holding, purchase and sale of real estate. 39. The foregoing statements charge the plaintiff with activities which would tend to injure it in its trade or business in real estate and adversely impact its ability to conduct its lawful business. 40. As such, the foregoing statements constitute defamation per se. 41. The defendant made such defamatory statements knowingly, maliciously and with the intention of causing the plaintiff commercial harm and to leverage the plaintiff in her ongoing suit against it. 42. In the alternative, the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in publishing the foregoing false and untrue statements about the plaintiff. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant?s defamatory statements, the plaintiff has suffered harm to its reputation and business. COUNT II Invasion of Priyggy, False Lig? 44. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are hereby incorporated into Count II as if more fully set forth herein. 45. Through her statements made online at and to VPB homeowners via electronic message, the defendant gave publicity to matters concerning the plaintiff that place the plaintiff in a false light to the public. 46. Such statements by the defendant about the plaintiff, including but not limited to that it engaged in unlawful water pollution, caused the water in VPB and City of Laconia to be unsafe, was charged with violation of environmental laws in the Attorney General suit, that it tampered with the water supply in the VPB and performed repairs to homes in VPB in such a manner so as to cause occupants medical harm and personal injury, caused the plaintiff to be placed in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Scanned by CamScanner 47. The defendant made such statements about the plaintiff with knowledge-of or in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the statements she publicized and the false light in which the plaintiff would be placed. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the plaintiffs wrongful conduct, the plaintiff has suffered harm, including damage to its reputation and business. RELIEF RE UESTED WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Brady Sullivan Paugus Woods, LLC, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant this following relief: A. After notice and a hearing, ?nd the defendant liable for defamation per 56 as alleged in Count B. After notice and a hearing, ?nd the defendant liable for Invasion of Privacy? False Light as alleged in Count C. Assess and award the plaintiff damages for the harm sustained to its reputation and business as a result of the defendant?s wrongful conduct; D. Award the plaintiff its attorney's fees and costs in bringing this action; and E. Grant such other relief as may be just and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, BRADY SULLIVAN PAUGUS WOODS, LLC By its Co sell Mare Af?ihard, Esq., Bar No. 4117 h/S mpinard@bradysullivan.com Megan E. Hilson, Esq. Bar No. 20520 mhilson@bradysullivan.com c/o Brady Sullivan Properties, LLC 670 N. Commercial Street, Suite 303 Manchester, NH 03101 (603) 296-4742 Scanned by CamScanner