FILED by 1-24'1 532015) STATE- OF MICHIGAN MACOMB COUNTYCIRCUIT COURT MICHELLE SCOTT, As; Next Friend Of DOE 1, a minor, MONIQUE ROBERTS, A's NERE Friend 2, . JOHN DOE 3, an adult, . . Case No.1" 19- Plaintiffs, Hon . Rm A AREAS DE LA SALLE COLLEGIATE, adOI?ESth nonpro?t amputation, the DE LA COLLEGIATE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JOHN KNIGHT, As President, individually, and' 111 his O?icial capacity, RUSS AGOSTA, WCHAE-L ANDREJKO, JACK BRUSEWITZ, PAT PATTY CAMPBELL, GREGORY DEMARS, LINDA RICH H, HEANEY, JOSEPH MICHAEL STONE LAMERATO, DIANE. man, JOHN KNIGHT, ANTHONY 5-. g? 53 ?n RUE-INT), DEBORAH ASTERADZKI RAY 1. g: 3K0WRONSKI, ROBERT WICKMAN, 55; 33;; DANIEL and JOE WSKIEL, Es trustees, individually, and 1.11 . Rf 33515} their. Of?cial capacities, NATE MOSS, if ?53 ?33 BRENT WIDDOWS, MIKEWATSON and DEAN, individually, and 111 thEir- ff; of?cial Capacities, I 'Defandants. ALBERT ADDIS. {?51084} PAULB. ADDIS SHAUN A KELLEY $83704) MICHIGAN JUSTICE, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs St. Mt Clemens MI 48043 {536) 221-4140' - paddis?mi?hi?iusticexum Mki?aniustimmnm COMPLAINT Pagelofil NOWEOMES the Plaintiffs, MICHELLE SCOTT, As Next-Friend of JOHN DOE l, a minor, MONIQUE ROBERTSLAS Next Friend a minor, and JOHN DOE an adult, by and .thoitgh. their attomeys, MICHIGAN JUSTICE, and for their Complaint regainet'the; Defendants, state-as follow?: Plaintiffs Michelle Scott and Monique Roberts-are the court-appointed next ?i'ends of John Doe Plaintiffs, 1, anti 2. At all material times, John were. smdentsattending De La iSalie Collegiate, a private, nonpro?t high school. That on or about-November 4, 2019, the John Doe Piaintiffs ?zeta-figurehibitedl fn'nn attending school at 'De' Collegiate.- That .at the time of anspension, the. John Doe Plainti?'s'" parents Were told Via telephone thatatheii: ?mentioned in an in?eet'igationt? 5.. That since that date, Home of the parents have been given anything'in writing of otherwise regarding the eusnenSion.- 6. That the threeJohn DoePlaintiffs have Beenout of seheol-fo}: 46 days: 7. That-the three John Doe? are not Caucasian, 3.. John-Doe Plaintiffs are iilj'eopardji of'net-'g1'aduating due to the make a decision. Though it was notimownat the time, the prohibitionnow appears to the Johanna Plaintiffahave- received no notice of, orjusti?ea?tionfor, any permanent expulsion (Jr-temporary suspension. Page of- 1.1 9. That tinting this 46-day suspension, Plainti?s have been"approaehedhgr De La. Salle Collhgiate _-adn_1inistrators at-the direc?oiiof and have been asked-to implicate other snidents in order to get Back into De La ,Salle Collegiate. 10. That'theadmini directionof John Knightewentso far- as to provide a list often of Whom are Caucasian, to parents oi the John Doe Plainti?s asking to cen?rm; that the player's-are invoked, 11.. That. all ten Caucasian students had been named in the investigation but were still method and had not been. suspended .2 I 1.2. That. all Plaintiffsl?e?rsed to 'be- blackmailed htto renaming to' school even though President John Knight and, his administration would. have allowed them hack in. sehool. .13. Because they did not agree to. President Knight?s demands to ?itu'rn over earnest, the families didagree-to meet with an in investigator. hired byp?President Knight 'and'_'the. Board of Trustees?in the hope; thatteliin'g the-truth. to an ?independen investigator would clear their sons?- names. 14. That after speaking with said investigattir, Plaintiffs 'wcr'e hlftirnled that the investigator was no longer working on the ease and that President. Knight Was taking over the .iniresti'gation. I 15-. That President-Knight informed aIlPlainti'ffs that as Wanted to meet asthma. of- thetn- to ?get. their side of 1 I 2 The re not the: ?rst time. that minorities have been suspended expelled,- or pressured to voluntarily withdraw from De- .La Salle contrast to Cancasian students In this instance, 13 students were initially' implicated, and the on]? students Who Were snapendedfexpelled are minorities ,while the rernining ten students who facedno discipline whatsoever are Cauoasian. I Page-3 a 11 1-6. ThatPlaintiffs Were furthei?infonned that if they?did not'wi'sh tomcat with President- Knight! that it Would ?make his decision much easier? as .to whether the Plaintiffs could return to school.. '17. That throughout-the course of this Suspension, Knight'has. told Plaintiffs that. he is - the. sole person to- make all decisions regarding the John Doe Plaintiffs-1 and "their suspension or expulsion from. school. 13.: That-President Kinght has told. others, incitiding counsel for De La Sallie Collegiate and-the Board of Trustees,- that it is: in fact, the Board of Christian. Brothers-that mustmake the decision on whether the John Doe Plaintiffs return to school, :19. President-Knight has Con5pircd with the-B oard of Trustees to'dissen?nate. false information regarding the alleged imaging? atlDe La-Saile; Collegiate and, speci?cally, the three J?h? DOE-Plainti??s. 20. That'_'as? of the date this Complaint was Plaintiffs haste not been charged with a crime 21. Thai even though they; have not been charged, end the De La- Salle Board of Trustees continue't'o conspire to keep the three John Doe attending. school -andfor item-?graduating. .22. That the Defendants, through their. actions in indefinitely prohibiting. the JohnaDOe Plaintiffs from returning to. school, have insinuated that John Doe Piaihtiffss- have engaged in misconduct; which. constitutes slanderous and libelous communication by the Defendants? and each information, has been. disseminated: throughout-the school and-to the public at large. Page 4 of 11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 23. .This'HouorableICourt has personal jurisdiction in this matter under MCL @0311 --eoneerning the corp oraterDefendants .andiMCL60.0.705'withre5peot to the bidivi'dual Defendants; .Subj eat matter jurisriieti'on exists pursuant-to MCL 600.505 because the Plaintiffs Seek equitable relief and the amount in controversy exceeds '25. Venue its proper in Maeor?h?b Connty Circuit Court pursuantto MCL {$001629 because the injury occurred in Maoomb County-and theDefen?dants conduct business 'in Maeomb' County: COUNT BREACH CONTACT 26._ incorporate all preceding paragraphs herein, 277. An implied contract-exiSts'between the parties, pursuant to-tiie representations-made in the De La Selle CollegiateStudent' Handbook- (the. ?Handbook? and-by- virtue of the 'partie'si' oomiuct. Sec, {Williams v-Lm Systemn Inn, 433 Mich 7'55? rss; 449 669- (1939) (holding that an irnplied. contract existed ?where parties assume obligations by their Conduct"? and In re Mere": Estate, 233 Mich App 453,._ 457; snowed-30 (i999) (holding marina contract- implied inlaw-is an obligation imposed by law-to do justice even'?ioUgh it is clear that no promise. was evermade or 23. That the Defendants breached the contract-by refusing to adhere tothe? parameters of. the contract as established Ivia their Ongoing oo?d?ct: with respectit'o the 'Plam??sg. and by completely disregar?iing anti failing to conform to the. provisions of the Handbook- regarding student?iseipIinei- WREFORE, P1ainti?brespe?ct??y request. that this Honorable Court 'enterjurignient ni- their favor and against Defend-ants for any and all damages in the amount ill-excess. Page 5 or 1'1 along tarith oos?tsilinteresti, fees, and any relief to which-he 111213r Be entitled antler the?laW- Connr DEFAMATION sLannEn 29. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all preceding paragraphs herein. 3D. The- Pefendants, via. insinuati'on and through their conduo't. in inde?nitely prohibitingJohn Doe-Plaintiffs from atteuding the school, have disseminat?edinformationzwhioh implicated the Plaintiffs in the commission of misconduct.- ?31. in?ammation is false; 32-. Defendants?ktiissemination of "false information was maliciously published-to the- public intentionally; negligently,._ with knowledge of the falsity of the "wheel?s,? I eondnetfoommunieation', andfor'with'retiklesS disregard for the truth orfalsity-of sueh eenduet and eonnmmieati'on. "33. ThatDefendants.? statements were slanderous MCL- 600.2911 and the Michigan common "law.- ?34. .I That, Oral pnblieati_on"of these Statements has ?_resiJlted in damage to Plaintiffs? reputation in the bornniunityghas deterred third persons from-assooiating or dealing withiPlainti??s,_ has caused emotional distress, humiliation, modification! embarrassment, anxiety, affeeted ?xture other damages that may; arise during-discovery. 35.. Thatthe Plaintiffs are-not public ?gures at: any level. '36. Defendants? conduetin this. matter was-will?il, wanton, and grossly negligent- as it. was so mekless that it demonstrated a substantial lack of concern for Plain??'s? physical and emotional wellheing. Page 6 of I. 37'. That Plainti?-requesmd. slat Defendants retract these statements at anoid the necessity of this reques'twas totallg.r andfor partially denied or ignored. WEEREFORE, Plaintiff's respectfully request that. this Honorable Court e?nterljudgment against Defendantsfor all damages-to which they may be entitled. in causes of $25 for attomcy' fees pursuantz'to' MCL 600.2911; along .witiicos'ts', interest, and other equitable or legal. relief to which they may. be'entitlcd under ?le'law. COUNT DEEMTION 38.. Plaintiffshereby-incorporate all preceding paragraphs herein. .39. The Defendants, via. insinu?ation .and through their conduct in 'ind'e'?i?tely' prohibiting John Doe Plaintiffs from-attending the "school? have disseminated infonnation which implicated the Plaintiifs in the commission of misconductt- .40.- ?_I?hat the disseminated information is'false. 41. .?De'fendantS? statenrent's were maliciously published. to Others intentionally, negligently? withlotowledge' of the falsity of the statemtents, .andfor; with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity 'of'such statements. 42. ?at Defendants? Written statemems-were libelous, antic-?ned .und?r iandi'the Michigan com on law. 343.. That written publication of_'t11ese- statements has resulted'in damage to. Plaintiff's? reputation in the community, has deterred -tl?r'd. persons from associating or dealing has caused emotional districss, humiliation, Inerti?cation, embarrassment, anxiety, affected Plainti?'s? future academic prospects, and other damages-that may-arise. during --discovery. 44. That ?te-P-l'aintiffsiare not public ?gures at any level. Page 7 of. 11 .45.. Defenriant's? conductin this: matter was-willful, wanton, and "grossly negligent-salt was so reckless that it?dentonstrateii a substantial lack. of concern for'Plairitiifs? physical and emotional wellbein'g; 46.- That Plaintiffs requested that Defendants retract these statements to avoid the. necessity'of-th'is-laWSLIit, however, such requestwas totally andfor partially-denied or ignored.- Plaintiffs respe'et?illy requestthat this" Honorable Court enterjudg'rnent against'De'fendaiits for all damages-to. which the}.r may be entitl'er'l'in ex'eeSS of $25,000, ineluding exemplary and ascending 'to MCL for attorney;r fees pursuant to 600.2911; along; with and any other- equitable or legal relief ?to which they may-be entitled under the law. COUNT IV FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY. 47'. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all preceding paragraphs herein. 48-. Defendants broadcast to the priblie in general, or to a large- number of peeple, information that was unreasbnable and higth objectionable by attributing to Plaintiffs eharaeteriSties, conduct, or'beli'efs that Were false and placed Plain??s'in a false position. 49; Defendants have knowledge. or acted in reckless disregard to ?le. falsity _-of-Ethe publieized; matter and in Would .be '50. Consequently, Defendants invasion of?privaey- against damage to Plainti-?s. Plaintiffs. respectftu request that this Honorable Court-enterjudgment in their favor-and against Defendants family and all damages in the amount of along Witlteosts,jinter'est fees, and any other equitable or legal relief-to whi?bhemay be entitled I under the-law; Page 3 of. 11 COUNT INTENTIONAL INFECTION .01? EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all paragraphs herein. '52. That Defendant?s con?uet as'outli'ned above was extreme, outrageous, beyond all- possible bounds andofsueh character as not to be tolerated by a-eisilized society. 53-. As; the direct and proximate result of the outrageous conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered severe-emotional distress, WEREFORE, Plainti??s request that this Honorable Court enter judgmem- in their'fawr and against Defendants forany and all damages in theamountiniexCeSS of $25,030.00, 'along'iiath coats, interest, fees, and any other equitable or legal relief to whiehi' he may be entitled Hilda" the law. .Couu'rv-tu. . VIOLATION- on ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL-RIGHTS ACT 54,- Plaintiffs .hereby'in?eorporate all precedingparagraphs herein. 5'5. Defendant De- La sane Collegiate is an ?educational institution? Michj gan?s ElliottsLarsen Civil Rights Act MCL 3.7.2301 at sag. 56. Defendant De La Salle Collegiate Beard 'of'TrtIstees, and the'iiadividually named are each a5l?per50n? as that tenn isde?ned in?the Act and are agents of Defendant De La Salle collegiate. 573- Defendants'vi?lated ?the Act. and deprived IohnDoe Plaintiffs of their civil rights by; among other things, subjecting John of their raeei to conduct and eox?mutneationot? aracial nature, which had thepurpose-andfor. effect of-denying them the full bene?t {of-the educational. program-of 'De' La SalIe'Collegiate, and full and equal access-to the use and priViIegeS unfair}! and all educational opportunities contrary-tr: 357.2402..- Page _9 of 11 :58. As' a direct _'and'proxi'1nate resolt of Defendants" violatioaof the Act, Plaintiff?s suffered damages as previously- deecribed in this Complaint. Plaintiffs reapect?iliy request that this {Honorable {30'1th enteritidgrnent in their favor and againet-Defendants for any andi-all damages in the amount in excess of along With fees? and-any other equitable or'legal' relief to Which he may 'be._entitled under the-Claw. COUNT VII - CIVIL-EXTORTION 5.9. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all preceding paragraphs herein. til}. Defendant's have maliciouSly threatened the demanding they identify Students in exchange for posSible 'reinStatement_' to school. (as laid'out in detail in paragraphs 8+1 thereby intending to compel Plaintiffs. to act or reliai'n. from acting against their will, and alternatively, in exchange for Defendants refrainhig ?om accusing Defendants With a :_crime, Contrary to MCL 350.213.3 61. Accordingly; Defendants have ecnm?tted extortion with rcspectto:the-Plaintiffs, and suffered damagee. including, but-not limited to, economic losses, injury to- repatations, and lost opportlinities. WREFORE, Plainti?'s respeetiiull}r requestthatti?s Honorable Courtenter- judgment in . their favor-and. againethefendants-for-any andalL damages inthe amount int-excess of $25,000.00, along- with costs, interest,_fees, and any other equitable or legal relief to which he may lac-entitled under the law. COUNT CIVIL CONSPIRACY 6'2. Plainti?is- hereby incorporate all preceding- paragraphs herein. 3 ?Michiganlaw recognizes the mascot Kohl, Page .10 'of 11 '63. Defendants illegally, maliciously,lanii mng??ly consPired withnne another-with the intent to,..and for'?iezillegal pmpos'e of; breaching} their duties to. Piaintiffs,_ portraying themfin a false light, intentionally in?icting emotional distress, violating their civil rights, de?an?ng them, and for the illegal purpose of Plaintiffs. .64. Asa result ofthe conspiracy and.'Defendants? illegal, m?ong-ful, Plainti?'shave su?'eredeconoinicllosses as well as injury to renutations and lost cpp'crtonities.. 'respect??ly. request that this Honorable Court enter judgment- against Defendants for: all economic damages incurred. due to their wrongful saspensionfexpulsion; b. Emotional distress-damages; c. Eaemplary and punitive. dmhages pursuant to MCL i d. An order of full reinStatement of the Jehn. DoePleintif?s-to good-standing at De La salie?oliegiate; c. Any other Equitable and injunctive relief that the court detains approPIiatei Dated-i Deceniber'lEi, 2019 Reapeet?illy Submitted, MCHIGANIUSTICE, inseam) PAUL 13. more 961591). A. KELLEY Attomey's for Plaintiffs 13 First" ?Street- Mt. Clemens, MI 43043 .-Pli.cce; (536) 221.4100 Fax: (536) 221-4140. Page'll of 11'