Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MARION P. HAMMER,
Case No.
Plaintiff,
v.
LAWRENCE T. “LOL”
SORENSEN, CHRISTOPHER
RISICA, HOWARD WEISS,
and PATRICK SULLIVAN,
Defendants.
/
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES
Plaintiff, Marion P. Hammer (“Hammer”), sues Defendants, Lawrence T.
“Lol” Sorensen (“Sorensen”), Christopher Risica (“Risica”), Howard Weiss
(“Weiss”), and Patrick Sullivan (“Sullivan”), and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

Hammer is a 79-year-old grandmother and nationally renowned civil

rights advocate who has spent the better part of her life protecting the Second
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She is considered by many to be the most
influential Second Amendment state lobbyist in the United States, and currently
serves as the National Rifle Association of America’s (“NRA”) Florida lobbyist.

{BC00158576:1}

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 31

2.

Although Hammer’s advocacy and prominence on a polarizing

political issue have made her a focal point of criticism over the rights and policies
she serves to protect, she respects the importance of freedom of speech and robust
political debate concerning the policies which she advocates.
3.

However, there is a marked difference between speech and

harassment, and there are clearly delineated bounds of human decency that no
person can cross by using fear, intimidation, and threats of violence to lash out at
and try to silence those with whom they disagree.
4.

“In a society where the expression of opinion is given the fullest

protection, public figures must expect criticism that may be untrue, unjustified, or
hurtful.

They need not, however, passively accept statements or conduct

transcending mere criticism which threaten personal or family safety … [such
that]… personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or
opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act
would raise no question under that instrument.” Smith v. State, 532 So.2d 50, 53
(Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (quoting Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309-10
(1939)).
5.

The Defendants have transcended mere criticism and employed

threats, harassment, and personal abuse to try to humiliate and intimidate Hammer
in a manner that is utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

{BC00158576:1}

2

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 3 of 31

6.

No person, regardless of their profession or exercise of free speech

advocating for policies with which others disagree, should be harassed, threatened,
and denigrated as a “worthless cunt,” “whore,” and “disgusting bitch,” who
should “get to experience a (sic) ammo dildo” and be the victim of “100 bullets
between [her] eyes” while receiving unsolicited, graphic photos of gunshot
victims.1
7.

The hateful and abhorrent harassment and threats Hammer faces are

being spewed in an increasingly threatening social climate in which erratic,
aggressive, and violent online personal attacks over political views are being
condoned and encouraged and can quickly escalate into actual violence. Hammer
reasonably fears that the misconduct directed at her will continue and escalate and
that she, her family and possibly others will be the victims of physical violence if
the abuse she is suffering is not stopped.
8.

Hammer files this action to stand up for herself and others, to put a

stop to the assault upon her personal life and constitutional rights, to end her
harassment and the threats of violence and personal attacks she is enduring, and to
confirm that such misconduct will not be tolerated or allowed to continue and

Plaintiff’s counsel reviewed the Local Rules and searched for guidance on the use of profanity
in pleadings, and found no results. However, because Plaintiff’s claims are based upon the
hostile, aggressive, and abusive nature of the language quoted herein, its severity, and its
impacts, Plaintiff believes it is important for that language to be uncensored in this filing.
1

{BC00158576:1}

3

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 4 of 31

possibly escalate, regardless of the viewpoints of those who engage in such
conduct, or of their victims.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE
9.

This is an action for injunctive relief and damages in excess of

$1 million, excluding interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
10.

Plaintiff, Hammer, is a resident of Leon County, Florida.2

11.

Defendant, Sorensen, is a citizen and resident of Camarillo,

California. Sorensen is a 67-year-old Caucasian male whose weight, height, and
other physical characteristics are unknown.
12.

Defendant, Risica, is a citizen and resident of New London,

Connecticut. Risica is a 38-year-old male whose weight, height, and other physical
characteristics are unknown.
13.

Defendant, Weiss, is an individual whose identity and state of

residence are unknown at this time, but is believed to be a citizen and resident of a
state other than Florida.
14.

Defendant, Sullivan, is an individual whose identity and state of

residence are unknown at this time, but is believed to be a citizen and resident of a
state other than Florida.

2

Pursuant to Section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, for safety reasons Hammer requests and
requires that the location of her current address be confidential.
{BC00158576:1}

4

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 5 of 31

15.

Upon information and belief, other individuals who directed e-mails

and communications at Hammer are or may be part of a coordinated effort to
harass, intimidate, coerce, and threaten Hammer. Consequently, they and any
organizations or entities that are organizing, directing, aiding, abetting,
coordinating, and/or participating in their actions may be added as defendants at a
later time.3
16.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this District because

a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
17.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they

each engaged in substantial and not isolated activity, including the tortious acts
outlined herein, within the State of Florida and/or directed at and intended to cause
harm to Hammer in the State of Florida; and/or because they maintain substantial
and not isolated contacts with the State of Florida.
18.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332

because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, and this action is between citizens of different states.

3

It appears based on the form, content and methods of the communications directed to Hammer
that she is the target of a coordinated attack intended to humiliate, harass, and cause substantial
emotional distress. For example, Hammer received the same postcards from various individuals
throughout the United States, often mailed from the same location. In several instances, the
content of the communications Hammer received used the same specific terms and phrases, thus
demonstrating direction and cooperation.
{BC00158576:1}

5

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 6 of 31

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
19.

Hammer has been a prominent advocate for the Second Amendment

for decades.

In 1995, she became the first woman president of the NRA.

Throughout her career, she has been a leader in championing gun safety training at
the state and national levels.
20.

Hammer also is a staunch and vocal advocate for quality educational

opportunities for children with dyslexia and learning disabilities.
21.

Hammer currently lives and works as a lobbyist in Tallahassee,

Florida.
22.

Following the tragic shooting that occurred at Marjory Stoneman

Douglas High School and continuing after the national debate over gun control
took center stage on television, online, and through social media, Hammer became
one of the focal points of a campaign of hate and vitriol that includes threats
against her and her grandchildren, harassing phone calls, and numerous e-mails
and other written communications that serve no purpose other than to cause
substantial emotional distress and to try to humiliate and intimidate Hammer.
23.

Hammer has been confronted and verbally attacked in grocery stores,

being told, “You’re that evil fucking NRA bitch. I hope somebody blows your
fucking head off and your family too.”

{BC00158576:1}

6

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 7 of 31

24.

Hammer’s daily life has drastically altered because of the harassment

she is enduring. Whenever she is in public she worries that the people who have
been harassing her will confront her and that a confrontation could turn violent.
She has a very close relationship with her family, but now frequently avoids going
out to dinner with them because she runs the risk of being recognized and attacked;
potentially exposing her family and other members of the public to physical
violence directed toward her. She adjusted her schedule and the places she eats
with her family so that they are not predictable. Her entire family group does not
go anywhere together any more.
25.

Hammer has even avoided public hearings and appearances—thus

restraining her own constitutional rights and interfering with her performance of
her professional duties—over fears that the harassment and threats against her will
escalate and expose bystanders to physical harm.
26.

The attacks being launched against Hammer have occurred in an

increasingly aggressive social climate in which the Internet has allowed free
speech to be hijacked, perverted, and abused to inflict harm, fear, and emotional
pain on others.
27.

E-mail and social media are more frequently being exploited as

implements of harassment and bullying, rather than for the free expression of ideas
and commentary on matters of public importance.

{BC00158576:1}

7

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 8 of 31

28.

Tragically, online and electronic harassment masquerading as free

speech often precede violent attacks upon the harassers’ victims.

When that

happens, hindsight reveals warning signs that were ignored and a legal process that
often fails to prevent the preventable.
29.

Hammer is not willing to ignore the precursors to violence she is

enduring while warning signs in the language used by her harassers point to their
conduct continuing and escalating.
Hammer’s daily life is being disrupted by electronic harassment and

30.

cyber-stalking at the hands of people professing to be her “enemy for life,” while a
growing number of groups such as “End the NRA” have formed for the “singular
focus… to make the lives of the NRA’s leadership, board members and highprofile supporters a living hell.” (Exhibit 1) (emphasis added).
31.

Even politicians are fanning the flames by sending mixed messages

that can be easily interpreted as incitement to harass and harm political opponents.
As one former U.S. Secret Agent noted, such statements “are

32.

dangerous, as they can be misinterpreted as a call to physical action or harm
against

an

individual

and

people

who

associate

with

them.”

(See

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/opinions/ex-secret-service-agent-says-waterscomments-are-dangerous-wackrow).

{BC00158576:1}

8

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 9 of 31

33.

Within this backdrop, Hammer has experienced vile personal abuse,

threats and harassment, including attacks emanating from the hands of the
Defendants, that serve no purpose other than to try to make her life a “living hell.”
34.

A number of individuals (some protected by the anonymity of e-mail)

launched vicious personal attacks upon Hammer, which go far beyond mere insults
and indignities:
“Fuck you, Cunt. That is all.”
- bizarr

@

.com (Exhibit 2)

*****
“you are a VILE CUNT… enough said”
- smith

@

.com (Exhibit 3)
*****

“I’m horrified at your behavior. Nothing more than a
truly ugly from the inside out redneck. Rot in hell you
soulless cunt.”
- suzanne.

@

.com (Exhibit 4)

*****
“Dead Kids… Eat shit ghoul.”
- ebu

@

.com (Exhibit 5)
*****

“You are a wretched fucking bitch. You are complicit in
the deaths of 17 children. I hope you rot in hell.”
-

{BC00158576:1}

vil@

.com (Exhibit 6)

9

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 10 of 31

*****
“Die in hell bitch.”
- jim

@

.com (Exhibit 7)
*****

“How do you sleep at night advocating the slaughter of
more children?... You propagate murder and death for
profit. Stick this email up your bought and paid for
corporate ass you worthless two bit corporate whore.”
- tim

@

.com (Exhibit 8)
*****

“You are a disgusting piece of shit. I know you’ll never
be ashamed of yourself, feces isn’t capable of that, but
you should be…”
- nicky
35.

@

.com (Exhibit 9)

A number of other individuals emailed Hammer charging her with

direct responsibility for murdering innocent children:
“Have enough of our children’s blood on your hand’s
yet????”
- angela_

@

.com (Exhibit 10)

*****
“Murdered children… You make it happen.”
-

ox@

.com (Exhibit 11)
*****

{BC00158576:1}

10

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 11 of 31

“How can you help the NRA enact such draconian
legislation when children are dying. You are a blind and
uninformed woman whose work is killing people.”
- smc

@

.com (Exhibit 12)
*****

“You are a murderer.”
- steve

@

.com (Exhibit 13)
*****

“You have cost kids their lives – you have blood on your
hands”
- marc

@

.com (Exhibit 14)
*****

“Shame on you for the blood on your hands”
- doug.

@

.com (Exhibit 15)
*****

“You have killed our family and friends. You are
responsible for the deaths in Florida and for the deaths
all across the U.S.”
- yay

@

.com (Exhibit 16)
*****

“blood on your hands… You are personally responsible
for the deaths of dozens of children…”
- mark

@

.com (Exhibit 17)
*****

“you are a leader of a terrorist organization, no different
from ISIS or any other hostile organization, you area

{BC00158576:1}

11

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 12 of 31

(sic) serial killer that for the time being is allowed to
walk among the innocent, I am waiting for the day your
blood soaked hands are in handcuffs.”
- stephen

@

.com (Exhibit 18)
*****

“More… dead kids to add to your resume, Marion. I’m
sure you’re proud because, you know, you’re awful.
There’s a special place in Hell for you”
- justin.

@

.com (Exhibit 19)
*****

“YOU and YOU ALONE are responsible for the DEATH
of those CHILDREN… buy another gun and shoot
someone who doesn’t agree with you. That’s what you
do isn’t it?? You shoot people by destroying them,
destroying their careers. It’s the same as that Nikolas
kid… you shoot people, except you get away with it!!!!”
- sb

@

.net (Exhibit 20)
*****

“You better be aware that many MANY now want you on
a platter…”
- brantl

@

.com (Exhibit 21)
*****

“Thank you for murdering 17 more children this week.”
- siegel

@

.com (Exhibit 22)
*****

{BC00158576:1}

12

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 13 of 31

“Because of you people have died. We hold you culpable
for all the innocent lives murdered and for facilitating
gun violence you should never rest easy or in peace.”
- lina

@

.com (Exhibit 23)
*****

“… you are horrifying ugly murderous… you are
culpable for the deaths of all the children [who] been
killed in Florida… you are as ugly inside as you are on
the outside… and are ugly vile stupid ignorant and
murderous…
Should have been you as one of the victims.”
- elzan

@

.com (Exhibit 24)
*****

“Gun lobbyists are POS… You are on my shit list, you
are on GOD’s shit list. You all have blood on your
hands.”
- auto

@

.com (Exhibit 25)
*****

“Blood on your hands… Shame, horror, blood, money,
profit, guns and dead children – that’s your legacy. Go
find another country to live in, maybe Syria. They have
lots of guns and dead people there.”
- korey.

@

.com (Exhibit 26)
*****

{BC00158576:1}

13

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 14 of 31

“You should be forced to clean up the blood and guts
mess inside the Parkland High School and tell the
families of those slain how important your gun lobby job
is! You are a piece of shit! May you and all the NRA
whores burn in hell!”
- dwight.
36.

@

.com (Exhibit 27)

Even those professing to be dedicated to preaching anti-hate and anti-

violence resorted to threatening Hammer’s family. During a public hearing in
Tallahassee on February 27, 2018, Rev. Joe Parramore leaned over to Hammer and
stated:
“The next check you write will be to pay for the funerals
of your grandchildren.”
37.

Hammer has received emails making similar threats referencing her

grandchildren. (Exhibit 28).
38.

Defendant, Sorensen, sought out Hammer’s e-mail address and sent

her two unsolicited emails that contain graphic photos of gunshot victims,
including an unidentified person in a hospital bed with gaping leg wounds and a
photo of President John F. Kennedy’s head after he was assassinated. (Exhibit
29).
39.

Defendants, Risica, Weiss, and Sullivan, each sought out Hammer’s

e-mail address and sent her unsolicited e-mails containing indirect and/or direct
threats accompanied by humiliating and abusive personal attacks:

{BC00158576:1}

14

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 15 of 31

“Dear Twat. You are a vile cunt. I hope you get to
experience a (sic) ammo dido (sic). I can’t wait till the
day I flip on the news to see you mourning a gunshot
victim. You’re disgusting and exactly what’s wrong with
people today. I seriously hope karma comes around for
you soon. You and that other ammosexual the fairy
Wayne LaPierre, what a masculine name to match the
fairy he is. I hope to see he died of a gunshot wound
that took hours of pain before he succumbed…
Fuck you. You worthless cunt. You’re a whore, not a
freedom fighter… I hope you don’t (sic) a moment of
peace for the rest of your pitiful lives…”
- Chris Risica (Exhibit 30)
*****
“The consequences that you will… be subjected to
when you are killed by those weapons you have hawked
for all these years will send you to burn in hell you
fucking heartless, greedy bitch. I pray everyday that
one of these ‘good’ people puts 100 bullets between
your eyes so we can celebrate.”
- Howard Weiss (Exhibit 31)
*****
“You should rot in hell you disgusting bitch!!!! HOW
MANY CHILDREN HAVE TO DIE SO YOU CAN
GET YOUR ROCKS OFF WITH YOUR FUCKING
GUNS!!!
Is it because your (sic) so fucking ugly and you never
gotten laid in your life?
Can’t you go be a nun like old hags like you used to do
in order to get your jollies off of being sadistic to
children? It’s perverse that you would rather watch
them get killed… FUCK YOU. I pray someday I run

{BC00158576:1}

15

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 16 of 31

into you so I can scream my head off at your sick
face!!!
Your enemy for life.”
- Patrick Sullivan (Exhibit 32)
40.

While Hammer is being targeted with these vicious attacks, she is

keenly aware that she is not the only victim of escalating aggression toward the
NRA.
41.

For example, in late 2017, following the tragic shooting in Las Vegas,

an NRA spokeswoman was forced to move after receiving death threats, threats of
being

raped

and

threats

directed

toward

her

children.

(See

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/355717/nra-spokeswoman-says-shes-movingdue-to-gun-control-death-threats).
42.
with

In February 2018, a billboard in Louisville, Kentucky was vandalized
the

message

“KILL

THE

NRA.”

(See

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/us/louisville-kentucky-nra-billboard).
43.

In May 2018, a professor from Nebraska was convicted of spraying

fake blood on the home of an NRA lobbyist in Alexandria, Virginia, while his two
young children were at home. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/publicsafety/professor-convicted-of-vandalizing-nra-lobbyists-home-with-fakeblood/2018/05/21)

{BC00158576:1}

16

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 17 of 31

44.

Hammer’s harassment is occurring in an environment in which

organized groups are initiating public confrontations with political opponents; such
as when Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi had to be escorted from a movie
theatre by armed security after being confronted and harassed by protestors, whom
she described as “trying to create a fight”; and when Sen. Dana Young was
confronted and blocked by protestors outside a restaurant, who began yelling about
the Parkland shooting, saying Sen. Young had “blood on her hands” and calling
her a “killer” and “murderer.”
45.

In a recent lawsuit filed to challenge the constitutionality of a Florida

law imposing age restrictions on gun purchases, two young adults filed a motion to
proceed as anonymous plaintiffs based on fears of harassment, intimidation and
potential violence. (See NRA, et. al. v. Pam Bondi, et. al., Case No. 4:18-cv00137-MW-CAS).
46.

That request, which the State of Florida opposed, was based in part on

several of the aforementioned e-mails Hammer received.
47.

In his Order denying the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under

pseudonyms, the Honorable Mark E. Walker, U.S. District Judge, characterized
several of the above-referenced e-mails Hammer received as “hateful and
abhorrent,” “threats,” and “harassment.” (Exhibit 33).

{BC00158576:1}

17

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 18 of 31

48.

The modern reality is that failing to take available action against

harassers in the face of such threats leads to tragic consequences. Violent attacks
against harassment victims are often preceded by online and electronic threats that
are ignored.
49.

Hammer is the victim of cyberstalking, harassment, intentional

infliction of emotional distress, and intrusion upon seclusion under Florida
statutory and common law. The Defendants’ e-mails evidence a pattern of conduct
composed of a series of acts evidencing a continuity of purpose to harass and
cyberstalk or they assert threats against Hammer; including e-mails that
communicated words and language or images specifically directed at Hammer
which caused substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose.
50.

All of the aforementioned e-mails and other communications,

including the Defendants’ e-mails, were received, unsolicited, and unwelcomed by
Hammer in Florida.
51.

In addition to violating Section 784.048, Florida Statutes, the above-

referenced e-mails violate several Federal laws, including:

{BC00158576:1}

(a)

18 U.S.C. § 875: which prohibits the transmission
of any threat to injure the person of another using
the Internet;

(b)

47 U.S.C. § 223: which prohibits the use of a
telecommunications device to abuse, threaten or
harass a specific person; and/or

18

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 19 of 31

(c)

18 U.S.C. § 2261A: which prohibits the use of email to harass, intimidate and threaten a person or
her immediate family member, or causes, attempts
to cause or reasonably expects to cause substantial
emotional distress to a person or her immediate
family member.
COUNT I
(Injunctive Relief—Cyberstalking—Sorensen)

52.

Hammer re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.

53.

Hammer is the victim of cyberstalking by Defendant, Sorensen,

because Sorensen engaged in a course of conduct to communicate or to cause to be
communicated images by and through the use of electronic mail directed at
Hammer, causing substantial emotional distress to Hammer and serving no
legitimate purpose; as more fully set forth in paragraph 38, above, and in Exhibit
29 hereto.
54.

Cyberstalking is a form of wrongful conduct, not speech, which is

prohibited by § 784.048, Florida Statutes, as well as 47 U.S.C. § 223 and/or
18 U.S.C. § 2261A.
55.

Cyberstalking is a form of harassment that can be enjoined under

§ 784.0485, Florida Statutes, as well as under common law, which provides for the
entry of injunctions to prevent harassment. Gilbreath v. State, 650 So.2d 10, 12
(Fla. 1995); Kimball v. Fla. Dept. of Health and Rehab. Srvs., 682 So.2d 637, 639

{BC00158576:1}

19

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 20 of 31

(Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Animal Rights Found. of Fla., Inc. v. Siegel, 867 So.2d 451,
464 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
56.

Justice, reason, and common sense justify the entry of an injunction

for the cyberstalking Hammer has experienced in this case.
57.

Hammer has a clear legal right to the entry of an injunction.

58.

Hammer will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued, for

which there is no adequate remedy at law.
59.

Hammer has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her

60.

The threatened injury to Hammer as a result of Sorensen’s continued

claim.

misconduct outweighs any possible harm that would result from the entry of an
injunction.
61.

The considerations of the public interest support the entry of an

injunction.
62.

There is no other cause of action currently pending between Hammer

and Sorensen.
63.

Hammer has not made any previous attempt to obtain an injunction

for protection against Sorensen in this or any other court.
WHEREFORE, Hammer seeks a temporary and permanent injunction
restraining Sorensen from committing any acts of cyberstalking against her and

{BC00158576:1}

20

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 21 of 31

providing any terms the Court deems necessary for the protection of Hammer,
including any injunctions or directives to law enforcement agencies.
COUNT II
(Injunctive Relief—Harassment—Sorensen)
64.

Hammer re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.

65.

Hammer is the victim of harassment by Defendant, Sorensen, because

Sorensen engaged in a course of conduct directed at Hammer, causing substantial
emotional distress to Hammer and serving no legitimate purpose; as more fully set
forth in paragraph 38, above, and in Exhibit 29 hereto.
66.

Sorensen’s conduct amounts to harassment under Section 748.048,

Florida Statutes, and under Florida common law.
67.

Harassment is not speech: it is wrongful conduct that may take the

form of speech. Consequently, it can be enjoined without running afoul of the
First Amendment. Gilbreath, 650 So.2d at 12; Kimball, 682 So.2d at 639; Siegel,
867 So.2d at 464.
68.

Justice, reason, and common sense compel a remedy for Sorensen’s

misconduct.
69.

Hammer has a clear legal right to the entry of an injunction.

70.

Hammer will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued, for

which there is no adequate remedy at law.

{BC00158576:1}

21

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 22 of 31

71.

Hammer has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her

72.

The threatened injury to Hammer as a result of Sorensen’s continued

claim.

misconduct outweighs any possible harm that would result from the entry of an
injunction.
73.

The considerations of the public interest support the entry of an

injunction.
74.

There is no other cause of action currently pending between Hammer

and Sorensen.
75.

Hammer has not made any previous attempt to obtain an injunction

for protection against Sorensen in this or any other court.
WHEREFORE, Hammer seeks an injunction temporarily and permanently
restraining Sorensen from committing any acts of harassment against her and
providing any terms the Court deems necessary for the protection of Hammer,
including any injunctions or directives to law enforcement agencies.
COUNT III
(Injunctive Relief—Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
76.

Hammer re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.

77.

Defendant, Sorensen, intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional

distress upon Hammer, when he knew or should have known that emotional

{BC00158576:1}

22

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 23 of 31

distress would result, by sending the e-mails specifically set forth in paragraph 38,
above, and in Exhibit 29 hereto.
78.

Defendant, Risica, intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional

distress upon Hammer, when he knew or should have known that emotional
distress would result, by sending the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39,
above, and in Exhibit 30 hereto.
79.

Defendant, Weiss, intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional

distress upon Hammer, when he knew or should have known that emotional
distress would result, by sending the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39,
above, and in Exhibit 31 hereto.
80.

Defendant, Sullivan, intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional

distress upon Hammer, when he knew or should have known that emotional
distress would result, by sending the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39,
above, and in Exhibit 32 hereto.
81.

The Defendants’ conduct was outrageous, as to go beyond all bounds

of decency and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.
82.

The revilement the Defendants inflicted upon Hammer is explicit and

egregious.

{BC00158576:1}

23

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 24 of 31

83.

The Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause severe

emotional distress, shame, humiliation, and embarrassment to Hammer in the
future if such conduct is allowed to continue.
84.

Hammer has a clear legal right to the entry of an injunction.

85.

Hammer will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued, for

which there is no adequate remedy at law.
86.

Hammer has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her

87.

The threatened injury to Hammer as a result of Defendants’ continued

claim.

misconduct outweighs any possible harm that would result from the entry of an
injunction.
88.

The considerations of the public interest support the entry of an

injunction.
WHEREFORE, Hammer seeks a temporary and permanent injunction
restraining each of the Defendants from inflicting any emotional distress upon her
through emails or other written or verbal communications containing the words
and language set forth in Exhibits 29-32, and providing any terms the Court deems
necessary for the protection of Hammer.
COUNT IV
(Damages—Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
89.
{BC00158576:1}

Hammer re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.
24

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 25 of 31

90.

Defendant, Sorensen, intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional

distress upon Hammer, when he knew or should have known that emotional
distress would result, by sending the e-mails specifically set forth in paragraph 38,
above, and in Exhibit 29 hereto.
91.

Defendant, Risica, intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional

distress upon Hammer, when he knew or should have known that emotional
distress would result, by sending the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39,
above, and in Exhibit 30 hereto.
92.

Defendant, Weiss, intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional

distress upon Hammer, when he knew or should have known that emotional
distress would result, by sending the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39,
above, and in Exhibit 31 hereto.
93.

Defendant, Sullivan, intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional

distress upon Hammer, when he knew or should have known that emotional
distress would result, by sending the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39,
above, and in Exhibit 32 hereto.
94.

The Defendants’ conduct was outrageous, as to go beyond all bounds

of decency and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.

{BC00158576:1}

25

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 26 of 31

95.

The revilement the Defendants inflicted upon Hammer is explicit and

egregious.
96.

The Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause severe

emotional distress, shame, embarrassment, and humiliation to Hammer.
97.

As a direct and proximate result, Hammer is entitled to recover

damages from each of the Defendants, in appropriate amounts to be determined by
the trier of fact.
WHEREFORE, Hammer demands judgment against each of the Defendants
for damages, interest and costs, as well as such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and appropriate.
COUNT V
(Injunctive Relief—Intrusion Upon Seclusion)
98.

Hammer re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.

99.

Defendant, Sorensen, intentionally or recklessly intruded upon

Hammer’s seclusion and private activities through electronic means, by sending
the e-mails specifically set forth in paragraph 38, above, and in Exhibit 29 hereto.
100. Defendant, Risica, intentionally or recklessly intruded upon
Hammer’s seclusion and private activities through electronic means, by sending
the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39, above, and in Exhibit 30 hereto.

{BC00158576:1}

26

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 27 of 31

101. Defendant, Weiss, intentionally or recklessly intruded upon
Hammer’s seclusion and private activities through electronic means, by sending
the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39, above, and in Exhibit 31 hereto.
102. Defendant, Sullivan, intentionally or recklessly intruded upon
Hammer’s seclusion and private activities through electronic means, by sending
the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39, above, and in Exhibit 32 hereto.
103. Intrusion upon seclusion extends not only to physical intrusions but to
electronic intrusions as well. Zirena v. Capital One Bank (USA) NA, No. 1124158-CIV, 2012 WL 843489 at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2012) (defining the intrusion
tort as electronically intruding into one’s private quarters and holding that
harassing phone calls were actionable).
104. The actions by each of the Defendants are offensive and
objectionable, and would outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, humiliation, or
hurt feelings to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
105. The Defendants’ conduct was outrageous, as to go beyond all bounds
of decency and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.
106. The Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause
emotional distress, humiliation, shame, and embarrassment to Hammer in the
future if such conduct is allowed to continue.

{BC00158576:1}

27

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 28 of 31

107. Hammer has a clear legal right to the entry of an injunction.
108. Hammer will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued, for
which there is no adequate remedy at law.
109. Hammer has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her
claim.
110. The threatened injury to Hammer as a result of Defendants’ continued
misconduct outweighs any possible harm that would result from the entry of an
injunction.
111. The considerations of the public interest support the entry of an
injunction.
WHEREFORE, Hammer seeks a temporary and permanent injunction
restraining each of the Defendants from intruding upon her seclusion through
emails or other electronic communications containing the words and language set
forth in Exhibits 29-32, and providing any terms the Court deems necessary for the
protection of Hammer.
COUNT VI
(Damages—Intrusion Upon Seclusion)
112. Hammer re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 51 as if fully set forth herein.
113. Defendant, Sorensen, intentionally or recklessly intruded upon
Hammer’s seclusion and private activities through electronic means, by sending
the e-mails specifically set forth in paragraph 38, above, and in Exhibit 29 hereto.
{BC00158576:1}

28

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 29 of 31

114. Defendant, Risica, intentionally or recklessly intruded upon
Hammer’s seclusion and private activities through electronic means, by sending
the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39, above, and in Exhibit 30 hereto.
115. Defendant, Weiss, intentionally or recklessly intruded upon
Hammer’s seclusion and private activities through electronic means, by sending
the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39, above, and in Exhibit 31 hereto.
116. Defendant, Sullivan, intentionally or recklessly intruded upon
Hammer’s seclusion and private activities through electronic means, by sending
the e-mail specifically set forth in paragraph 39, above, and in Exhibit 32 hereto.
117. Intrusion upon seclusion extends not only to physical intrusions but to
electronic intrusions as well. Zirena, 2012 WL 843489 at *2 (defining the intrusion
tort as electronically intruding into one’s private quarters and holding that
harassing phone calls were actionable).
118. The actions by each of the Defendants are offensive and
objectionable, and would outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, humiliation, or
hurt feelings to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
119. The Defendants’ conduct was outrageous, as to go beyond all bounds
of decency and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.

{BC00158576:1}

29

 Case 4:18-cv-00329-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 30 of 31

120. The Defendants’ conduct caused emotional distress, humiliation,
shame, and embarrassment to Hammer.
121. As a direct and proximate result, Hammer is entitled to recover
damages from each of the Defendants, in appropriate amounts to be determined by
the trier of fact.
WHEREFORE, Hammer demands judgment against each of the Defendants
for damages, interest and costs, as well as such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Hammer demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted, this 13th day of July, 2018.
/s/ Shane B. Vogt
Kenneth G. Turkel
Florida Bar No. 867233
E-mail: kturkel@bajocuva.com
Shane B. Vogt
Florida Bar No. 257620
E-mail: svogt@bajocuva.com
BAJO   CUVA   COHEN   TURKEL
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 1900
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel.: 813-443-2199
Fax: 813-443-2193
Attorneys for Plaintiff

{BC00158576:1}

30

 Case Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 31 of 31

VERIFICATION
I HAVE READ EVERY STATEMENT MADE IN THIS COMPLAINT
AND EACH STATEMENT IS TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND
THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS COMPLAINT ARE BEING MADE
UNDER PENALTY OF PERIURY.

13 golf
{gm

 

 

?3
30