STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Fiie No. 7/ i 5? NICOLE L. BIFFLE and SARA JANE LUNDERS Address 0/0 525 N. TRYON STREET, SUITE 1400 City, State, Zip CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 VERSUS 17-CVS- MECKLENBURG County In The General Court of Justice District El Superior Court Division Name of . CIVIL SUMMONS Alias and Pluries Summons GS. 1A-1, Rules 3, 4 Name of Defendantfs) GREGORY J. BIFFLE, RICKY MATTHEW REAVIS, and ROUSH FENWAY RACING, LLC Date Originai Summons issued Dateis) Subsequent Summonfes) issued To Each of The Defendan?s) Named Below: Name And Address of Defendant 1 GREGORY J. BIFFLE 319 Doolie Road Mooresville, NC 28117 Name And Address of Defendant 2 RICKY MATTHEW REAVIS 588 Kenway L00p Mooresville, NC 28117 A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You! plaintiff's last known address. and You are notified to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiff as follows: 1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff?s attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the 2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above. If you fail to answer the complaint the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint Name And Address of Piaintiff?s Attorney if None, Address of Piainti??) AMY E. SIMPSON HAMILTON STEPHENS STEELE MARTIN, PLLC 525 NORTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 1400 CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 DateQ ssue m9}: VI ?1 AWM SIna/? MQc/ra'vdw/ Deputy?se/ Assistant CSC El Cierir of Superior Court ENDORSEMENT This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff. the time within which this Summons must be served is extended sixty (60) days. Rev. 10i01 2001 Administrative Office of the Courts {003828711300 V. 84383227853 Date of Endorsement Time DAM DPM Signature [3 Deputy CSC Assistant CSC El Cierk of Superior Court (Over) NOTE TO PARTIES: Many Counties have MANDATORY programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is 15, 000 or iess are heard by an arbitrator before a triai. The parties be noti?ed if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if so, what procedure is to be foiiowed. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA MECKLENBURG County File No. 17-cvsi ZN I In The General Court of Justice El District Superior Court Division Name of Plaintiff NICOLE L. BIFFLE and SARA JANE LUNDERS CIVIL SUMMONS Address 0/0 525 N. TRYON STREET, SUITE 1400 City, State, Zip CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 Alias and Pluries Summons VERSUS G.S. 1A-1, Rules 3. 4 Name of Defendant(s) GREGORY J. BIFFLE, RICKY MATTHEW REAVIS, and ROUSH FENWAY RACING, LLC Date Originai Summons issued Dateis) Subsequent Summon{es) issued To Each of The Defendant(s) Named Below: . Name And Address of Defendant 1 ROUSH FENWAY RACING, LLC c/o Stokely G. Caldwell, Registered Agent 101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28248 Name And Address of Defendant 2 plaintiff?s last known address, and A Civil Action Has Been Commenced Against You! You are notified to appear and answerthe complaint of the plaintiff as follows: 1. Serve a copy of your written answer to the complaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney within thirty (30) days after you have been served. You may serve your answer by delivering a copy to the plaintiff or by mailing it to the 2. File the original of the written answer with the Clerk of Superior Court of the county named above. if you fail to answer the complaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint. AMY E. SIMPSON HAMILTON STEPHENS STEELE MARTIN, PLLC 525 NORTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 1400 CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 Name And Address of Piaintiff's Attorney (if None, Address of Piaintift) Date issued Time . 3M1 Signature 1'67 EI [Sam CSC Assistant CSC El Cierk of Superior Court ENDORSEMENT This Summons was originally issued on the date indicated above and returned not served. At the request of the plaintiff. the time within which this Summons must be served is extended sixty (60) days. Rev. 10i01 2001 Administrative Of?ce of the Courts {00382873000 V. B438 0997254. Date of Endorsement Time DAM Signature El Deputy CSC Assistant CSC El Cierk of Superior Court NOTE TO PARTIES: Many Counties have MANDA TORY programs in which most cases where the amount in controversy is $15, 000 or iess are heard by an arbitrator before a triai. The parties be noti?ed if this case is assigned for mandatory arbitration, and, if so, what procedure is to be foiiowed. (Ove r) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF SUPERIOR COU COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG - NICOLE L. BIFFLE and SARA JANE LUNDERS COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) VS. BIFFLE, RICKY MATTHEW REAVIS, and ROUSH FENWAY RACING, LLC Defendants. NOW COMES, Plaintiffs, Nicole L. Bif?e (?Plaintiff Biffle?) and Sara Jane Lunders (?Plaintiff Lunders?) (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?), by and through counsel, complaining of Defendants, Greg Bif?e (?Defendant Biffle?), Ricky Matthew Reavis (?Defendant Reavis?), and Roush Fenway Racing LLC (?Defendant Roush? or ?Roush?) (collectively ?Defendants?) who allege and say as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Bif?e is an adult citizen and resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 2. Plaintiff Lunders is an adult citizen and resident of the state of Washington. 3. Defendant Biffle is a citizen and resident of Iredell County, North Carolina. 4. Defendant Reavis is a citizen and resident of Iredell County, North Carolina. 5. Defendant Roush is a foreign limited liability company authorized through the North Carolina Secretary of State to do business in the State of North Carolina, with a registered agent in North Carolina, doing business (with an of?ce and staff) in Iredell County, North Carolina, and with a registered of?ce at 101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900, Charlotte, NC 28246. 6. Plaintiff Bif?e and Defendants Biffle and Reavis have resided in the State of North Carolina for at least six months preceding the institution of this action. 7. Plaintiff Bif?e and Defendant Biffle were married on or about October 17, 2007. V. 8. Plaintiff Bif?e and Defendant are the parents of one minor child, namely Emma Elizabeth Biffle (?Emma?) born on july 6, 2011. 9. I Plaintiff Lunders is Plaintiff Bif?e?s mother and Emma?s maternal grandmother. 10. Plaintiff Bif?e and Defendant Biffle legally separated on March 23, 2015 when, by agreement of the parties, Defendant Biffle left the former marital residence located at 319 Doolie Road, Mooresville, NC 28117 (?Doolie Road Home? or the ?Home?) and moved into an apartment. I 11. Defendant Bif?e was an employee or independent contractor for Roush; speci?cally, he drove a car in NASCAR by and for Roush and was an employee or independent contractor for Roush at all times when the injuries alleged below occurred. 12. Defendant Reavis was an employee of Roush at all times when the injuries alleged below occurred. ERISDICTION AND VENUE 13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to, without limitation, NC. Gen. Stat. and 14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Defendants as the acts and omissions of Defendants occurred in the state of North Carolina and the amount in controversy sought by Plaintiff is in excess of $25,000.00. 15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to, without limitation, NC. Gen. Stat. 1-80 and 1-82. FACTS ALLEGATIONS 16. In 2008, Plaintiff Bif?e and Defendant Biffle began construction on the Doolie Road Home which was to be their personal residence. 17. During the construction process and Plaintiff Biffle?s knowledge and approval, Defendant Biffle had a security monitoring system installed on the property where the Doolie Road Home is situated. These cameras are visible, not hidden and are located primarily (if not solely) on the exterior of the property. 18. Plaintiff Biffle was aware of the installation of this system and knew specifically the location of many of the cameras, motion detectors, and other external security monitoring devices. These cameras are conspicuous as they are ?drop globe? cameras, visible to the naked eye. 19. After residing in the Home for many years, in 2013, Defendant Bif?e asked Defendant Reavis, then an employee of Roush, to come to the Doolie Road Home and install new and additional cameras and to activate previously installed cameras on the interior of the home (that had never been utilized prior). 2 20. Without Plaintiff Biffle?s knowledge or authorization, Defendant Biffle requested, and Defendant Reavis caused to be installed hidden monitoring equipment and multiple hidden cameras inside the Home,'including hidden cameras in the master bedroom, the master bathroom, and the guest bedroom (the ?Hidden Cameras?). 21. In contrast to the cameras installed originally with the house, the Hidden Cameras were highly concealed and not clearly visible to the naked eye. 22. Also wimout Plaintiff Bif?e?s knowledge or authorization, Defendant Biffle enlisted Defendant Reavis? assistance in activating cameras located in the master bedroom and guest bedroom. 23. The Hidden Cameras and the activated bedroom cameras connected to a digital video recording system located in Defendant Biffle?s gun safe. Defendant Biffle and Defendant Reavis connected this system through an application (the ?App?) on their mobile telephones which allowed each of them to access the live feed from said cameras twenty?four hours per day, seven days per week 24. At all times relevant to the claims in this Complaint, the mobile telephone Defendant Reavis used to access to Hidden Cameras was owned by Defendant Roush. 25. Neither Defendant Bif?e nor Defendant Reavis ever told Plaintiff Biffle or Plaintiff Lunders about the Hidden Cameras or gave them access to the DVR directly or via an App. 26. In 2013, 2014, and 2015, without Plaintiff Biffle?s or Plaintiff Lunders? knowledge or authorization, Defendant Biffle caused Plaintiff Biffle and Plaintiff Lunders to be filmed by the Hidden Cameras, including the hidden cameras in the bedroom and master bathroom. The images captured from those ?lms were then made available to Defendant .Bif?e and Defendant Reavis directly through the DVR and through the App. 27. Defendant Biffle and Defendant Reavis did in fact view and access certain images obtained as a result of hidden cameras. 28. Upon information and belief, Defendant Biffle has shown images captured by the hidden cameras to third persons. 29. Defendant Reavis admitted that he uploaded data and images captured on the Hidden Cameras for the purposes of preserving and storing said images for the future (upon information and belief if the images were not downloaded or preserved after a certain period of time they could be ?written over? with new images) and that he did so by and through an internal server/ router maintained by his employer Roush. Upon information and belief, the uploaded data and images are still stored on Defendant Roush?s internal server. i 30. Defendant Reavis admitted that other employees of Roush had access to the data and images uploaded by and to and stored on the internal server/ router maintained by Defendant Roush. v. 3 31. It is not yet known if anyone else at Defendant Roush accessed or viewed the images stored temporarily or permanently on the server maintained by Roush. 32. Plaintiff Bif?e had an expectation of privacy in the master bedroom and the master bathroom area and did not know or consent to being ?lmed by anyone in these private locations. Plaintiff Biffle did not give Defendant Biffle or Defendant Reavis or Defendant Roush permission to intrude into her seclusion into those areas. 33. Plaintiff Lunders had an expectation of privacy in the guest bedroom where she did sleep/ stay on at least one if not more occasions while visiting the Doolie Road Home and the master bathroom area and did not know or consent to being ?lmed by anyone in these private locations. Plaintiff Lunders did not give Defendant Biffle or Defendant Reavis or Defendant Roush permission to intrude into her seclusion into those areas. 34. Without the knowledge or approval of either Plaintiff, Defendant Biffle provided access to the monitoring system and the cameras, including-the images being captured in and around the master bedroom and master bathroom/ closet area to at least Defendant Reavis from the date the equipment was installed/ activated to present. 35. After installation, Defendant Bif?e instructed Defendant Reavis to access the DVR remotely and to download, copy, transfer, save, and/or transmit the images captured on said surveillance system. Defendant Reavis did gain access as instructed. Defendant Reavis testi?ed under oath that he had unlimited access to the video feeds through the App. 36. Upon information and belief, Defendant Roush knew or should have known that Defendant Reavis was providing his services for Defendant Bif?e, and in this case that Defendant Reavis? activities involved an unlawful activity using Roush resources. 37. At no time, did Plaintiffs ever give Defendant Reavis permission to download, copy, transfer, save and/ or transmit any image of them taken from the Hidden Cameras. 38. It was not until 2015 that Plaintiff Bif?e and Plaintiff Lunders discovered the Hidden Cameras in the bedrooms and master bamroom/ closet area. 39. Prior to the date of ?ling of this lawsuit, Defendant Biffle proffered multiple and inconsistent/ reasons for the act of installing, maintaining, and allowing/ instructing a third party to access the images captured on Hidden Cameras and recording equipment located in the master bedroom and master bathroom/ closet area without Plaintiff?s knowledge and/ or authorization. 40. Since this action was initiated, however, Defendant Bif?e has repeatedly asserted under oath is that the Hidden Cameras were installed for ?security purposes? because he believed his maids were stealing from him. 41. Plaintiff Bif?e has suffered loss of appetite, loss of sleep, pain in her abdomen, emotional distress, worry, humiliation, fear, loss of trust and sleep, concern and other anxiety related conditions as a result of her discovery of Defendants? surreptitious and unlawful actions. . V. 4 42. Plaintiff Lunders has suffered loss of appetite, loss of sleep, physical pain, emotional distress, worry, humiliation, fear, loss of trust and sleep, concern and other anxiety related conditions, as a result of her discovery of Defendants? surreptitious and unlawful actions. Plaintiff Lunders was prescribed a drug for anxiety and tension in january 2016 as a result of the stress from being ?lmed. 43. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful actions in this case, Plaintiffs have been and are suffering from severe emotional distress which has required Plaintiff Bif?e to undergo counseling, to take prescribed anti-anxiety medication and to receive treatment for an ulcer. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Invasion of Privacy? Intrusion Into Seclusion) 44. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 45. Defendants Biffle and Reavis physically and or remotely intentionally intruded upon Plaintiffs? privacy and seclusion in the ways described above. 46. Defendants Bif?e?s and Reavis? actions in this regard as described above were and are highly objectionable and offensive to Plaintiffs and would be objectionable and offensive to any reasonable person if placed in this situation. 47. Defendant Reavis was an agent/ employee of Roush at all times material to this action, and, because the feeds from the Hidden Cameras were being uploaded to its servers, Defendant Roush knew or should have known about this unlawful intrusion into Plaintiffs? privacy. The intrusions into seclusion by Defendant Roush by and through its agent/ employee Defendant Reavis, and its contract driver, Defendant Bif?e, were and are objectionable and offensive to any reasonableperson, including Plaintiffs. 48. These intrusions into Plaintiffs? seclusion have directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs entitling them to each recover damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, with an exact amount to be proven at trial. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress) 49. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. .50. Through their egregious and unlawful acts described above, Defendants Bif?e and Reavis intentionally engaged in conduct which they intended to and which in fact did cause Plaintiffs severe emotional distress when they learned of it. 51. Defendants Bif?e and Reavis? actions described herein have directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs entitling them to each recover damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, with an exact amount to be proven at trial. v. 13433322735; 5 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (In the alternative, Negligent In?iction of Emotional Distress) '52. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 53. In their egregious and unlawful acts described above, Defendants negligently engaged in conduct which was reasonably foreseeable to and which in fact caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress when they learned of it. 54. Defendants? actions described herein have directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs entitling them to each recover damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, widi an exact amount to be proven at trial. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Civil Conspiracy) 55. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 56. As it relates to the claims above, there existed either a true or implied agreement between Defendants Bif?e and Reavis to do an unlawful act which resulted in injury to Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Defendants Biffle and Reavis entered into a conspiracy to commit unlawful acts, or to do lawful acts in an unlawful way, including, but not limited to, the conduct described above, which constitutes intrusion into seclusion, among the other claims. 57. In pursuit of this civil conspiracy, at least one of the conspirators intruded into the seclusion of Plaintiffs, among the other allegations and claims set forth above. 58. Defendants Biffle and Reavis took steps to implement a conspiracy as set forth above, and these steps have directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs entitling them to each recover damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, with an exact amount to be proven at trial 59. As a result of Defendants Biffle?s and Reavis? civil conspiracy, Defendants Biffle and Reavis are jointly and severally liable for the damages to Plaintiffs as set forth above. v. 6 FIFTH SIXTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF . (Negligence and/ or Negligent Supervision/ Retention) 60. Plaintiffs re?allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 61. Defendant Roush, mdividually, and by and through its agents and/ or employees, Defendants Bif?e and Reavis, had a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and caution in and about the ownership, management, maintenance, supervision, control and operation of its servers, equipment, phones, and their employees, agents and independent contractors. 62. Defendant Roush, by and through its agents, employees, and/or independent contractors, was negligent in its acts and/ or omissions, by amongst other things, allowing its employees to engage in the unlawful ?lming of Plaintiffs and allowing the streaming of the video feeds over its servers, equipment, and phones, failing to discover that its servers were being utilized for such unlawful ?lming of Plaintiffs and thereby allowing surreptitious videos to be taken of Plaintiffs by Defendants Bif?e and Reavis. 63. As a direct and proximate result of the above-said conduct of Defendant Roush, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from, including but not limited to, severe and permanent emotional distress, embarrassment, past and future medical expenses, and has incurred expenses and damages relating to the unauthorized intrusion into seclusion. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Punitive Damages) 64. Plaintiffs re~allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. - ?65. The actions of Defendants were malicious, intentional, and willful, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages pursuant to NC. Gen. Stat. in an amount to be proven at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays the Court for entry of a judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. That Plaintiffs have and recover of Defendants, jointly and severally, compensatory damages in an amount to be shown at trial, but in no event less than $25,000; 2. Incidental and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 3. That Plaintiffs have and recover of ., Defendants, jointly and severally, punitive damages in order to punish Defendants for their egregiously wrongful acts and to deter Defendants and others from committing similar wrongful acts; v. 134339227353 7 4, The costs of this action; 5. I Attorneys? fees as allowed by applicable law; 6. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest on Plaintiffs? damages; and 7. Awarding such other, further, and different relief as the Court shall deem proper. DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury on all claims triable to a jury. This day ofjune, 2017. 1 Hamilton Stephens Steele Martin, PLLC Amy Elizabeth Simipson M. Aaron Lay 8U Carolyn Krueger? Andes Ammgy?r 525 North Tryon Street, Suite 1400 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone (704) 227?1069 Fax (704) 344?1483 v. 13438022731} 8 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA VERIFICATION COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG NICOLE L. BIFFLE, being ?rst duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the Plain?ff 1n the above- -captioned matter; that she has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that the same are true to her own knowledge except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters she believes them to be true erwa? NICOLE SWORN TO BEFORE ME Ag mu'mm, fl?s the it?00mm 3 otary ubhc May 2 - Era-re 3: . . - A0 3.20% 3 [23Commissmn Expires1.90" 8 I o? {00329083.Docx v.3 3438.022723;} STATE OF WASHINGTON VERIFICATION COUNTY OF A ?353" 5 SARA JANE LUNDERS, being ?rst duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the Plaintiff in the above?captioned matter; that she has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that the same are true to her own knowledge except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters she believes them to be true. 1s FEB 4. ?3 SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME "amps ?52ny ?annual this the g?day of WM @572): or 37 Public My Commission Expires: ?2'2 5' ?if 2 7 {00363861 .DOCX V. B438. 022785;}