Filing 110185718 E-Filed 07/14/2020 095228 AM IN THE COURT OF THE IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTV, FLORIDA Case No Divisio MATTHEW RIDDLE Petitioner, And Attention Honorable Clerk Please Fax Any Order [0 Respondent via SAMANTHA TAVEL aka Sultolk County Sheriffs Office (New York) CANDV CARTWRIGHT 631-853-7509 Thank Vou Respondent. PETITION FOR INIUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST STALKING l, Matthew Riddle being sworn, certify that the statements are true: SECTION I, PETITIONER (This section is about you. it must he completed; however, it you require that your address be confidential loi salety reasons, you should complete and iile a Request for confidential Filing oi Address, Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Fonn 123mm, and write confidential in the space provided on this form ioryour address and telephone number) 1. Petitioner resides at the following address (address, city, state, zip code) -- Oriando Fiorida 32828 . {indicate i'fopplicoo/e) Petitioner seeks an injunction for protection on behalf oi a minor child. Petitioner is the parent or legal guardian off/ul/legalname) a minor child who is livrne at homer z. Petitioner's attorney's name, address, and telephone number ls: Daniel J. Rose Esg 323 NE Avenue Delra Beach Florida 33483 551-266-9055 Emaii:rose@dima corn secnon I RESPONDENT (This section is about the person you want to be protected from. lt must be completed.) 1. Respondent resides at the follnwirlg address; Rollkonkal'na, New ank 11779. Florida supreme Cuult Approved Family Law Form 11380"), Petition for Iniunetion for Protection Against stalking (11/15) 2. Respondent's last known place of employment: She is unemployed. Employment address: Working hours of Respondent: . 3. Physical description of Respondent: Race: Sex: Male Female Date of Birth: April 16, 1992 Height: 5 Foot 2 Weight: 140 Color: Hair Color Blonde Distinguishing marks and/or scars: Vehicle: Does Not Own a Vehicle 4. Other names Respondent goes by (aliases or nicknames): Candy Cartwright 5. Respondent's attorney?s name, address, and telephone number is: Unknown SECTION CASE HISTORY AND REASON FOR SEEKING PETITION (This section must be completed.) 1. Has Petitioner ever received or tried to get an injunction for protection against stalking against Respondent in this or any other court? 3 Yes No if yes, what happened in that case? {Include case number, ifknown} One was drafted in July 2019 but not filed. 2. Has Respondent ever received or tried to get an injunction for protection against stalking"; against Petitioner in this or any other court? Yes No ifyes, what happened in that case? {Include case number, if known} I 3. Describe any other court case that is either going on now or that happened in the past between Petitioner and Respondent {Include case number, ifknown}: 4. Petitioner is a victim of stalking because Respondent has: {please mark all sections that apply} a. Committed stalking; b._x_Previousiy threatened, harassed, stalked, cyberstalked, or physically abused the. Petitioner; c._x_Threatened to harm Petitioner or family members or individuals closely associated with Petitioner; Intentionally injured or killed a family pet; Used, or threatened to use, against Petitioner any weapons such as guns or knives; criminal history involving violence or the threat or violence, if known; Another order of protection issued against him or her previously from another jurisdiction, if known; Destroyed personal property, including, but not limited to, telephones or other communication equipment, clothing, or other items belonging to Petitioner. Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (11/15) 5. Below is a description of the specific incidents of stalking or cyberstalking: {for cybersta/king, please include a description of all evidence of contacts and/or threats made by Respondent in? voice messages, texts, emails, or other electronic communication} On June 19, 2020 to today and prior June 2019 the following incidents of stalking occurred at the following locations: I {the locations may include, but need not be limited to, a home, school, or place of employment} 1 Please See Attached Statement Please indicate here if you are attaching additional pages to continue these facts. 6. Additional Information Respondent owns, has, and/or is known to have guns or other weapons. Describe weapon(s) and where they may be located, if known: SECTION IV. INJUNCTION {This section must be completed} 1. Petitioner asks the Court to enter a TEMPORARY for protection against stalking; that will be in place from now until the scheduled hearing in this matter, which will immediately restrain Respondent from committing any acts of stalking, and which will provide any terms {the Court deems necessary for the protection of a victim of stalking, including any injunctions or directives to law enforcement agencies. 2. Petitioner asks the Court to enter, after a hearing has been held on this petition, 3 FINAL, JUDGMENT for protection against stalking prohibiting Respondent from committing any acts of, stalking against Petitioner and: 7 a. prohibiting Respondent from going to or within 500 feet of any place Petitioner lives, or to. any specified place regularly frequented by Petitioner and any named family members or individuals closely associated with Petitioner; b. prohibiting Respondent from going to or within 500 feet of Petitioner?s piacels). of. employment or the school that Petitioner attends; the address of Petitioner's place(sl? of employment and/or school is: WWE Performance Center, 5500 Commerce Road; Orlando, Florida 3287. c. prohibiting Respondent from contacting Petitioner by telephone, mail, by e-mail, in writing,- through another person, or in any other manner; Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Form 1.2 980(t), Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (11/15) Statement of Facts I met Samantha Tavel in 2016 while on a wrestling tour. We became friends. Sometime thereafter) the friendship turned into a maiital affair starting November 6, 2017. I tried to end the affair in'lune 2018 and then tried to end the affair again in july, 2019. Since _]uly 9, 2019 Ms. avel has systematically stalked, cyberstallted, and harassed myself and my wife which has caused me substantial emotional distress. OnJuly 9, 2019 blocked Ms. Tavel from social media and changed my phone number. However on July 14, 2019 she obtalned my phone number a friend and began harassing me by leaving me numerous Voice mails and text messages through a "burner phone" (315)_that did not leave my wife for her that I would be sorry and she would ruin my career: I texted her to "Stop Messaging Me" and I blocked the number. She then contacted me through another "burner phone" (215) - that she wanted to meet me at my hotel which I ignored. So once again I had to change my phone number. From july 18, 2019 jluly 23, 2019 I had discussions and met with my attorney (Daniel J, Rose, Esq.) to take out a restraining order against Ms. Tavel. We instead contacted WWE and informed them of the situation. In February 2020, Ms. Tavel showed up from New York to llull Sail University in Orlando, Florida where I was working and made a scene had to be escorted out of the building. on June 19, 2020 the day or my debut with the WWE, Ms. Tavel made good on her threat to try to ruin my career by falsely accusing me ofa sexual assault in May 2018 on her twitter account. This went viral and caused myself and my family substantial emotional distress Ms. Tavel then posted my home address and my wife's phone number on twitter. This caused my wife to receive numerous crank calls and death threats (which are recorded and can be brought to trial). Because people started driving by the house, I relocated my 3 young children out of state for their safety. My attorney sent a letter to Ms. Tavel Via social media and Express Mail (it was delivered) telling Ms. Tavel to cease and desist from stalking me. Ms. Tavel never responded and instead on July 4, 2020 posted pictures of us together as evidencel sexually assaulted her and told a news publication that sexually assaulted her multiple times. This was false and caused my family and my children substantial emotional distress. Furthermore, since the June 19, 2020 letter was received, Ms. Tavel has had people reach out to me to have me contact her. I fear that myself, my wife, and my 3 young children are in danger due to such conduct of Ms. Tavel who has a history of mental health problems. Despite telling Ms. Tavel to stop contacting me, she ignores such requests where I now need the Court to issue an injunction against Ms. Tavel for cyberstalking for the safety of myself and my family. I feel without this injunction she will continue to post my personal information such as my new phone number that would lead to further harassment as well as continuing to post false allegations for the sole purpose of causing myself and my family substantial emotional distress. I have numerous witnesses who are willing to travel to the Honorable Court to testify on my behalf in regards to the conduct of Ms. Tavel as well as having numerous exhibits of cyberstalking from Ms. Tavel such as contacting me through ?burner phones?. I have attached a few exhibits to this Petition. d. ordering Respondent that he or she shall not have In his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm or ammunition; e, prohibiting Respondent from Imowingly and IntentionaIly going to or within 100 feet of petitioner's motorvehiele, whether or not that vehicle is occupied; Petitioner asks the Court to enter any other tevms It necessary to protect Felit'loner from stalking by Respondent. u. THAT BV FILING THIS PETITION, I AM ASKING THE mum To HOLD A HEATING oN THIS PETITION, THAT BDTH THE RESPONDENT AND I BE NOTIFIED OF TI HEARING, AND TAT I MUST APPEAR AT THE HEARING. I UNDERSTAND TI-MT IF EITHER THE RESPONDENT on I FAIL T: APPEAR AT THE FINAL HEARING, WE WILL BE BOUND BV THE TERMS OF INJUNCTION on ORDER ISSUED AT THAT HEARING. EVERV STATEMENT MADE THIS PETITION AND EACH STATEMENT If TRUE ANIY CORRECT. UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEN TS MADE IN THIS PETITIDN ARE BEING MADE UNDER PERJURV, AS PROVII IED IN SECTION 837,01, FLORIDA STATUTES. Dated: . Designated Address(es); of! 2 . 0. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTV OF '0 Wang a 4 I sworn to or affirmed and signed before me on (M Net, by New"; ll . "mam; NOTARV PUBLIC or DEPUTV CLERK e) - '12" 1' IcItedmmWanwmfim (Print, type, or stomp commissioned name of notary or clerk.) FIofida Supreme Coul't Approved Family Law Form 12.9mm, Petition for Injunction for Prutectian Agamst Stalking (11/15) lu/lsl Respectfully Submitted this 13th day ofjuly, 2020 Daniel]. Rose, P.A. Attorney for Petitioner Matthew Riddle Daniel] Rose, Esq. 323 NE 6th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 561~266~9056 561?266?9057 fax Email: roseQDd'L )2?1.com Florida Bar No: 478385 EXHIBITS 1. July 2019: Text from Samantha Tavel on "Burner Phone" 315- responded to "Stop Messaging Me" 2. July 14, 2019: Texts from Samantha Tavel on which were ignored. She received my change my number after this. "Burner Phone" 215- umber from a friend. I had to 3. June 19, 2020: Letter from my attorney to Samantha Tavel telling her to Cease and Desist. (Sent via social media and Express Mail which was delivered) 4. June 19, 2020: Twitter Post from Samantha Tavel (@candycartwright) which displayed my wife Lisa's phone number as part of her post. As a result she received numerous crank calls and death threats in her voice mail which can be provided to the Court. 5. July 8, 2020: One of many communications from people that Samantha Tavel reached out to me to contact her after my attorney sent the letter to her. I kinda can't believe you got me fired, You're not who I thought you were. -S 'Vkarb 31c, 29"! mm -- Trevin gave me this. Made this burner number to use just this once. Was it the right hotel and what is the address. Ready to get a lift but waiting on you. I really don't mean to be pushy or anything but it's 5am and I'm still fully dressed waiting on you nil so like please send the address? 31"] 19' 20101 Bonn; WM 4 [all The Law Office of Daniel R0869 RAD Attorney and Counselor at Law 323 NE Avenue Deil'ay Beach, Florida 33483 (561) 266-9056 (561) 26$>>9057 facsimile Email: june 19, 2020 CEASE AND DESHST lutlgg 7 lilynl'wolom and USPS Express Mail Samantha Tavel 'Ilm 7Candy Cartwright" Ronkankoma, York 11779- RE: Matthew Riddle y. Samantha Tavel peat Ms. Taycl: Please be advised out firm represents Mallhe'w in regards to your conduct towards bun his filnlily. 0a or about June 19, 2020 you made false and defamatory posts about out Ghent on your Twitter Account. They- ate attached to this correspondence for your refetence. These posts are false and dcfamzrow and wete made fee the sole purpose to male}: and deeroy onl' client's cure" and lepulalion' nteywete done malice and complete disregard ofoux elem, deramalo'oy Notwithstanding the foregoing, demand is made r11 postings and post a rethLicln by elae end of the day or we and file legal ecuon ngmust you. at you immediately remove your false and ill have no choice: but to follow our client's 3 Lastly, you ate to mass and desist from any fm'lhcl harassment atom cheat, his fuends and Govern Ynul'sslfAccotdingly, Daniel Rose I '91 E.: QEI EMFELEE Em: m?Emm PLEMHWVEMWMEHWE ?5 I ?5 5-. H- .. -.-, EE3 33:31; 9? EH5 fr, ?ms: .133, 7" "Er?w ?El ??ij . . . 34,333,111}! 51:13:? EVE EJLTZEE E. E. ..A. E- 4. EE: HE: EEWEE GEE: 131?} ?My? EE :3 wandalms SEE: EDEN ,1le E: 1/1 19% SNEMQWL Sdg'fl AN VWOM NOMNOH 3 5 WEE 7, Fur 9% Eaifi :ImOm 35:: a >0 I: 317:: 21 )u j--U'io pmmy Mall E: [km n: (mm mm Man emuu mm mam: mm mm; mrunused yam Vanuls can be mquesled anlmu an days 1mm Hm mini (1an nispic'mging muck"; me acceptance Wham mm Hem m" bruugM .y usps mm Incalmn. the "my the Pas! am aher bumg mm m! This mums Renard mum v: Mm 3' my a mimmv LAW OPFICKS or mm .1 ROSE . 123 NE uamv amen saws-5515 1mm>> 2mm FOR OR TRACKING GO TO USPSLOM TIME sENsmvE msnzom AND CONFIDENHAL Rowumom Mummy gym; WM. ., mm [La/09!! Remm] DO N07 WUL um mum. 334m ,3 29New cum-mum>> mm: IZI 3:23," 5WD swam ammzn r" De'lvmy Dale (Wfiflmwu 526:5 LAEEL mu ROSE 7 FSAMANTHA ust yea: For service failure refunds. mum scandaxu refund prunedums. Candy Cartwright Reposting these. This is a message from man to me telling me he can't wait to see me from just about a year ago, ii We been harrassing him for years, I'm not vealiy sure how that's possible. 2. This is a screenshot from Lisa riddle to me proving she knew of ihe affair mi'i mm M. wm yum i kaneni'e i' 4 i lot of things not add up Line awn-r: Mia. Lita Kiddie 01137160,". mnuenmmg. PA Mm Wm>> yr; an mum>>: v'uu nu- um! um: um rm Mann pilom', .ou m- um I'm nu-a .mmq yr"; 1' v-m pimw dorm mm Jud hni aiilh yum mm mm mum Ilmm in .'ivu in." mu <3202 .a ief A Fire Breathing Dragon 751? Hey Matt blocked Candy Cartwright When she wanted me to contact you on her behalf If you need a fan to vouch for. you on her harassment I?found it Very suspicious that she needed a fan to contact you 80 thus had to blocked due to her constant badgering ?a-Ned "t 23 ay '3 fitMAJ egg, de?es}? {gym/?WV! (J 3 memm? 4e-zozoeonwoo7074-o IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: Division: 44 MATTHEW RIDDLE ??7W-i-1etitioner, 7? ., MINOR CHILDREN TO A CDURT Hmong WI ORDER or THE count. 7/ and SAMANTHA TAVEL AKA CANDY CARTWRIG, Respondent SETTING HEARING oN PETITION FOR FOR PROTECTION AGAINST 0 DOMESTIC 0' REPEAT VIOLENCE 0 DATING VIOLENCE 0 SEXUAL VIOLENCE (X) STALKING WITHOUT ISSUANCE or AN INTERIM TEMPORARY filed under section M130, Florida Statutes; Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Vioience filed under section 784.0%, Florida Statutes; or Stalking ?led under section 784.0435, Florida Statutes, has been reviewed. This Court has iurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matterl Upon review oi the Petition, this Court concludes that a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence; Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence; or Stalking, pending the hearing scheduled below, NOT be entered at: this time but that an injunction may be entered after the hearing, depending on the findings made by the Court at that time. - - The Court finds that based upon the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the matter, there is no appearance of an immediate and danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence; repeat, dating or sexual violence, or stalking, or that stalking exists. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis unon which the court can enter a Temporary injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence, or Stalking, prior to a hearing. A hearing is scheduled on the Petition for injunction for Protection Against Domeetic, Repehet Dating, or Sexual Violence, or Stalking, in Section ~Wmoorary injuncti?on sho?uid be ordered which would be In effect until the hearing scheduled below NOTICE 0F HEARING Petitioner and Respondent are ordered to appear and testify at: a hearing on the Petition for injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Violence. or Stalking on: September 9, 2020, at 10:00 AM, before A CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT by Microsoft Teams Vide hearing, you must review the attached videoconference instructions immediately and download the required Microsoft Teams Application. FSC Approved Family Law Form 11983th Order Setting Hearing on Petition for Iniunction for Protection Against Domestic Vioience, Repeat Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Violante, or Stalking, without issuance oi an interim Temporary injunction 48-2020-DR-007D74-O JheCourtiseu-pport to the videoconference at least 48 hours prior to the hearing only if you have followed the instructions attached to this order and have provided your email address a least 3 thecedanshefore the heerin to the injunction Division at At that tlme, the Court will Consider whether a Final Judgment of injunction for Protection Against Domestic, Repeat, Dating, or Sexual Vioience, or Stalking should be entered. if entered, the injunction will romain in effect until a fixed date set by the Court or until modified or dissolved by the Court. At the other?things should be ordered, including, for example, such matters as time?sharing and support; if Petitioner and/or Respondent do not appear, orders may be entered, including entry of a permanent injunction and the imposition of court costs. Petitioner and Respondent will he bound by the terms of any injunction or order issued at the final hearing. IF OR RESPONDENT DO NOT APPEAR AT THE FINAL HEARING, HE OR SHE WILL BE ISSUED IN THIS MATTER. Ail witnesses and evidence, if any; must he presented at this time" In cases where temporary support issues have been alleged in the pleadings, each party is ordered to bring his or her financial affidavit (Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure Form 12.9mm) or lei), tax return, pay stubs, and other evidence of financial income to the hearing. NOTICE: Becatifethlgis a civil caseLthereis no requirement that these proceedings be transcribed at pu iic expense. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IN THIS CGURT: a. a court reporter is provided by the court. b. Meiectronic recording onlyr i5 provided by the court. A party may arrange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a written transcript of the pattyis?eripense. c. in repeat, dating, and sexual violence cases,? no eiectronic recording or court reporting services are provided by the court. A party may arrange in advance for the services of and provide for a court reporter to prepare a written transcript of the proceedings at that party's expense. A RECORD, WHICH inocuors A MAY BE REQUIRED TO suppoa'r AN APPEAL. THE PARTY enespopalateroneewdgihE TRANSCRIPT menace at a count naponteni THE TRANSCRIPT MUST as THE on THE APPEAL MAY BE ornuto Fat: Approved Family Law Form 12.9tioib?il, Order Setting Hearing on Petition for Intonation for Protection Against Domenic. Violence, itepeat Violence, Dating Violence, Sexuai l.r'lolenre. or Stalking, without issuance of an interim Temporary injunction tori/?15: If you are epereonwith edisabilitquho needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are erltitled, at no cost to you, to the provisions of certain assistance. Please contact: the ADA Coordinator, Human Resources, Orange County Courthouse, 425 N. Orange Ave, Suite 510, Oriando, FL, (407) 336v2303 at least 7' days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediateiy upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance ig Les; than 7 gays; if you are hearing or voice impaired, cell 711. Nothing in this order limits Petitioner?s rights to dismiss the pet to BONE AND in Drlando, Florida, on this 27th{d??of ??2020. Mums 7? 7 ?77_ 7 FSC ApprovediFaimily tow Form momma), order Setting for injunction for Protection erratum Domestic Violence, Repeat Violence, Dating Vloieoce, Sexual Woieote. or Stoiklog. without issuance of an Ioterim Temporary injunction {03115} COMES TO: Sheriff of ORANGE CountyMail by hand delivery ii?i open court by email to designated email addressies) Respondent: forwarded to sheriff fur service Aateilrttemey?s??ickrr Other i CERTIFY the foregoing is a true copy of the original Order Setting Hearing on Petition for Injunction as it appears on file in the office {if the Clerk of the Circuit Court of ORANGE County, Floricia, and that! have furnished copies of this order as indicated above. Tiffany WI. Russeil N/Jrri? 7 7-77.775LERK OF THE iT CDURT By: {Deputy Clerk or Judicial Assistant} Fist?: Approved Family Law Form 0mm Selling Hearing an for l?iuncilon far F'ioiecllon Against Dammit Vivienne, Repeat Violence. ,Wiliigut issuance oi an inmrim T?mpomw ln?juntlion (03/13 7?ii_ You WILL APPEAR REMOTELY BEFDRE THE JUDGE FOR THIS. HEARING AND mu WILL NOT COME To THE COURTHDUSE. To APPEAR FOR YOUR HEARING, vou UST DO THE FOLLOWENG TH REE THINGS: i _77_ if ?Tm?7?77", 1. YOU MUST SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO IniunctiansOrange@ocnicc.erg AT LEAST THREE 3) DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF YOUR HEARING. MICROSOFT TEAMS APR TO THE DEVICE YOU WILL USE TO APPEAR. 3. YOU MUST ANY EVLDENCE TO THE COURT AT LEAST THREE (3) DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING T0 in! unctIonsOran ?e g; ocn cc on; Detailed instructions are attached It IS imnortant for you t0 read and understand the attached instructions because it help you be ready for your hearing. if vcu do not follow these instructions, you not be able te participate at the hearing an?itheiheeri?gmav braceed withaut presence or VOW evidence. ?TusreucrIoNs FGR THE 1. Counsel and any self- represented parties shall provide the injunction Division with the email addresses fo_r each hearing participant at least three (3) business days before the hearing Wm: include counsel parties Witnesses, interpreters, and court reporters You must send your email addresses to org Please put the CASE NUMBER DATE and TIME OF HEARING in the subject line of the email for the court?s reference. Please do - not put anything additional in the subject line. 2. The court support staff will send an invitation to the Microsoft Teams meeting to the hearing participants based only on the emails sent to the court by counsel and seliarepresented .mThETdegeo?udi?cial a?ss?a?t'??iil?notresearch or review the court file to find email addresses for counsel or parties, including selfurepresented parties. 3. At least five minutes prior to the scheduled time of the videoconference hearing, hearing participants must click on the by court support staff. 4? All participants will be waiting in the virtual Microsoft Teams ?lobby" until the iudge initiates the videoconference hearing. YOU may have t0 wait for an extended time while the court is hearing other cases Please do not disconnect from the hearing The court will get to you as soon as possible WHAT YOU NEED TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR CCU RT: U559. The Court will be using Microsoft Teams 4 to conduct Court proceedings. A desktop cont?potenlaptop computer, tablet, or smartphone can be for the hearing. Acamera is preferred but not required, but a microphone is REQUIRED. Please note, most devices have a built-in microphone and camera, and additional equipment will NOT be needed to participate in hearings. if you do not have any ofthis equipment available to you, please contact injunction Division at immediately. i i 7 How To access THE MICROSOFT TEAMS APP: Wtec?ptoftl?s?einstroctions and no less than 3 business days prior to the videoconference hearing, all participants (including any witnesses) shall download the free Microsoft Teams App from (for a computer) or from the App Store on their smart phone or evicej?V Depending on the device you will use, the following instructions will help you download the Microsoft Teams app so that you are ready for the hearing: it. Windows based device {most computers and tablets}. The Microsoft Teams app can be in ,ta.Commended to download the program which wili autoalaunch when the link is clicked. Alternatively, the program can be accessed by clicking the link provided to the court lithe user is operating on Microsoft Edge or Goo le Chrome web browseigs. 2. Mao/'Appie Based Products. The Microsoft Teams app can be downloaded from the Microsoft Website for free. it is stronglv recommended to download the program which will linkis-clickechAit?ematiyely, the program can be accessed by clicking the link provided to the court if theoser is operation on Microsoft Edge or Chrome web browsers. The program NOT work with Safari web browser. 3. Android based mobiiedevices and tablets. it is stroneiv recommended that the Microsoft Teams app be downloaded (Free) from the Google Play Store and install it on your device. Allow camera and microphone access. Once the link is emailed to your, clicking the link will tomaticailyJaonehJche loomeprogram.?Alternatively?, the program can be used in your mobile web browser. '7 4. ICE based mobile devices and, tablets, It is stronelv recommended that the Microsoft Teams app be downloaded (Free) from the App Store and lnstalied on your device. Allow camera and microphone access. Once the link is emailed to you, clicking the link automatically launch the Teams program. Alternatively, the program. can be used in your mobile wiebjnroyiserif? This will reportedly NOT work with Safari. PREPARING EVIDENCE FOR THE HEARING: 1. No later than three (3) business clays before the hearing, theperijginLusterneilthe exhibits they plan to use during the hee ring to Please set the or: HEARING in the ?gures reference. Please do not out anything additional in the subiect line. 2. Each exhibit should he a separate document. Do not put all or your exhibits in one single, continuous document. You can attach multiple exhibits to one emelvghen yousgnd them to the court. REPARWE WITNESSES FOR HEARING: 1. Pursuant to current CDC guidelines and orders from all levels of government, all participants must abide by social distancing requirements and limit inwperson contact. As such. witnesses do not need to be present with the attorneys or selfhrepresented parties during the videoconference hearing, and it is that witnesses participate from their own home- or office. 2. in the event the rule of sequestration is invoked, witnesses will be instructed to hang up from the yideoconferenee and counsel or the self~represented party will be responsible for contacting the witness when it is time for their testimony. 3. The witness must be provided copies of all exhibits before the hearing. 4. The witness shall be instructed not to look or refer to any other document or device during his or her testimony. S. Counsel and seif~represented parties are responsible for providing these instructions to //?QYJijessesend 6. Witnesses are discouraged from being the same physical space as the attorney or sells represented party. However. in the event witness or party testifying is in the same physical same as the attorney or self-represented party questioning the witness, the witness must be at least 6 feet away from any other person in the room and the camera shali he directed at the witnEss. The attorney or self~represented party may not assist the witness with answers in any limited togestures, notes, or facial expressions, or other otherwise "fliniipaa or influence the witness? V/i 77 PROCEDURES DURING THE VIDEOCONFERENCE HEARING: 1. At the beginning of the videoconference hearing, the judge will call the case and instruct all participants to announce themselvee for purposes of the record. 2. All participants must place their microphones on mute unless they are speaking or wish i5lease lie?euretltet?yourare the quiet place where you will not be interrupted during the hearing. 3. Do not interrupt other speakers during the yicleoconference hearing, unless it is neceSSary to assert an objection. 4. If an interpreter is necessary, all participants shall speak slowly, in short complete NO one ahell respond t0 3 question posed by another participant until the question is translated. 5. Participants MAY NOT use the Microsoft Teams App to record the video conference or otherwise record the video conference without court permission. 6. All participants must ensure that no children are able hear or see the yideoconference r/ja?ngei? 77* 7 7 7. All participants must IdentIfy anyone that IS observing the proceedings With them. This is essential for the rule of sequestration to be effective and ensurethe credibility of testimonycell phone, computer, or any other device Wmi?iu?l?CEEWlfH ?iniyoned tiring the hearing, other than to appear before the court. You may not iet anyone other than your lawyer send you information or I communicate with you duringthe hearing. Filing # 111955962 E-Filed 08/18/2020 09:31:54 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MATTHEW RIDDLE, Petitioner, Case No. 48-2020-DR-007074 vs. SAMANTHA TAVEL a/k/a CANDY CARTWRIGHT, Respondent. ____________________________________/ NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Allison S. Lovelady and James M. Slater of Shullman Fugate PLLC hereby give notice of their appearance as counsel on behalf of Respondent Samantha Tavel. The certificate of service for all pleadings, orders, and other papers in this action should include Allison S. Lovelady and James M. Slater at Shullman Fugate PLLC, 2101 Vista Parkway, Suite 4006, West Palm Beach, FL 33411 and alovelady@shullmanfugate.com and jslater@shullmanfugate.com. Service should also be directed to secondary email: pleadings@shullmanfugate.com. Respectfully Submitted, SHULLMAN FUGATE PLLC /s/ Allison S. Lovelady Allison S. Lovelady Florida Bar No. 70622 alovelady@shullmanfugate.com James M. Slater Florida Bar No. 111779 jslater@shullmanfugate.com 2101 Vista Parkway, Suite 4006 West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Tel: (561) 614-2592 Attorneys for Respondent Samantha Tavel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy for the foregoing has been served via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on this 18th day of August, 2020 on: Daniel J. Rose, Esq. Daniel J. Rose, P.A. 323 NE 6th Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483 rose@djrpa.com Attorney for Petitioner /s/ Allison S. Lovelady Attorney IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY. FLORIDA MATTHEW RIDDLE. Petitioner. Case No. 48-2020-DR-007074 vs SAMANTHA TAVEL a/k/a CANDY ARTWRIGHT. Respondent. To: Daniel J. Rose, Esq. A Petitioner I acknowledge receipt of your request that 1 waive service of process in the lawsuit of Matthew Riddle v. Samantha Tare] a It a ('ana'y Cartwright in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Case No. I have also received a copy of the Petition for Injunction for Stalking and the Order Setting Hearing for September 9, 2020, two copies of this waiver, and a means by which I can return the signed waiver to you without cost to me. 1 agree to save the cost of service of process and an additional copy of the petition in this lawsuit by not requiring that I be served with judicial process in the manner provided by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.070 and Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.070. 1 will retain all defenses or objections to the lawsuit or to the jurisdiction or venue of the court except for any objections based on a defect in the summons or in the service of the summons. I understand that a judgment may be entered against me if a written response is not served upon you within 60 days from August 14, 2020, the date I received notice of this lawsuit Dated: {Turin} 20.20 Filing # 112474192 E-Filed 08/27/2020 11:36:55 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MATTHEW RIDDLE, Petitioner, Case No. 48-2020-DR-007074 v. SAMANTHA TAVEL p/k/a CANDY CARTWRIGHT, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION AND FOR AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS UNDER SECTION 768.295, FLORIDA STATUTES Respondent Samantha Tavel p/k/a Candy Cartwright (“Respondent”), pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.140(b)(6) and section 768.295, Florida Statutes, moves to dismiss Petitioner Matthew Riddle’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Injunction for Protection against Stalking (the “Petition”), and as grounds states: I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner seeks an injunction against Respondent for the sole purpose of silencing and intimidating Respondent, who publicly spoke out about an incident where Petitioner sexually assaulting her. See Pet., Ex. 3. Petitioner’s exhibits appear to be fabricated or are completely unrelated to Respondent. The Petition is completely without merit, as discussed further below. Petitioner claims that he is a victim of stalking because Respondent: committed stalking, previously threatened stalking, threatened harm to Petitioner’s family or individuals closely associated with him, used or threatened to use weapons such as guns or knives against Petitioner, and destroyed Petitioner’s personal property. See Pet., § III. ¶ 4. Despite making these allegations in the Petition, Petitioner fails to (and could not) provide any factual support for his allegations that Respondent has ever threatened to harm his family, used or threatened to use weapons against Petitioner, or destroy his personal property. See id. at Statement of Facts (“SOF”). Those claims must be dismissed. The remaining allegations (that Respondent now or previously stalked Petitioner), are similarly either not supported by Petitioner’s Statement of Facts or are contradicted by the exhibits attached to the Petition, and therefore should be dismissed. Further, assuming arguendo that Petitioner’s claims are true, Petitioner cannot satisfy any of the required elements under section 784.048, Florida Statutes. As additional grounds, Respondent seeks “expeditious” dismissal of the Petition under section 768.295(4), Florida Statutes (the “anti-SLAPP1 statute”), because Petitioner cannot “demonstrate that the claims [in the Petition] are not ‘primarily’ based on First Amendment rights in connection with a public issue and not ‘without merit.’” Gundel v. AV Homes, Inc., 264 So. 3d 304, 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). Respondent also seeks an award of fees and costs incurred in defending this lawsuit. § 768.295(4), Fla. Stat. This is exactly the type of “SLAPP” lawsuit the law was designed to address, and it should be dismissed expeditiously. II. BACKGROUND 1. Petitioner and Respondent are both wrestlers. See Pet., SOF. 2. For some time, Petitioner and Respondent engaged in a relationship while Petitioner was married. See id. 3. Petitioner claims that Respondent stalked him and his wife. See id. Contrary to Petitioner’s recitation in the Statement of Facts, the screenshots in Exhibit 4 to the Petition show that Petitioner’s wife initated contact with Respondent on July 9, 2019, wherein she wrote “Hey Sam, it’s Lisa Riddle. You are still blocked on Matts [sic] phone, and he knows I’m messaging 1 “SLAPP” means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. See § 768.295, Fla. Stat. 2 you. Can you please do me a favor, and screen shot [sic] all the messages you have of you two and send them to me? Please, you owe me that. You don’t have to respond, his number is changed and I’ll see you Saturday.” See Pet., Ex. 4. 4. Petitioner claims Respondent tweeted Petitioner’s wife’s telephone number and address. See Pet., SOF, Ex. 4. However, Respondent’s tweet is still available on Twitter and contradicts Petitioner’s deceptively obscured exhibit—it was Respondent who redacted the phone number when published, not Petitioner’s counsel when filing the Petition. See Declaration of James M. Slater ¶ 3 (“Slater Decl.”).2 Further, it was not Respondent (who uses the handle @CandyCartwright) who tweeted Petitioner’s address in Exhibit 4, but an unknown Twitter user named @Manu73459551. See Pet., Ex 4. 5. Petitioner claims Respondent texted him in July 2019: “I kinda can’t believe you got me fired. You’re not who I thought you were.” Pet., Ex. 1. Petitioner claims he responded “[s]top messaging me.” Id. 6. Petitioner further claims Respondent later texted him to confirm whether he wanted her to visit him. See Pet., Ex. 2. 7. Petitioner alleges that Respondent stalked him at Full Sail University in February 2020 and was escorted out of the premises. See Pet., SOF. This will be proven false through physical evidence showing Respondent was elsewhere. 8. In June 2020, Respondent publicly accused Petitioner of sexual assault in a series of tweets. See Pet., Ex. 3; see also Slater Decl. ¶ 4. Respondent alleged that Petitioner had asked Respondent to “hop on his dick” in a van and when she refused he “grabbed [her] by [her] throat 2 The Court should take judicial notice of this tweet and the screenshot embedded therein under sections 90.202(11) and (12), Florida Statutes, because the nature of the public tweet and whether it was posted with redactions are not facts subject to any dispute. 3 and said ‘what if I just made you?’” Respondent then stated that she performed oral sex on Petitioner out of fear. See Pet., Ex. 3; see Slater Decl. ¶ 4. In response to the tweets, Petitioner sent Respondent a defamation cease and desist letter in an effort to silence her from making such accusations or retract those already made. See Pet., Ex 3. 9. Petitioner claims that Respondent tweeted pictures of them together to stalk him. See Pet., SOF. Petitioner mistates Respondent’s reason for posting the pictures, which Respondent said in her Twitter post was because Petitioner falsely denied knowing Respondent in the wake of her public accusations against him. See Slater Decl. ¶ 5. 10. Petitioner claims that Respondent has reached out to third parties to “have [him] contact her.” Pet., SOF. In addition to that allegation being false, Petitioner, does not claim that Respondent has tried to contact Petitioner since his false allegation that she visited Full Sail University in February 2020. See, generally, Pet. 11. Petitioner alleges that Respondent has “a history of mental health problems,” but provides no support. See Pet., SOF. 12. Petitioner also alleges Respondent (1) threatened to harm Petitioner or his family members, (2) used or threatened to use weapons against Petitioner, and (3) destroyed personal property belonging to Petitioner, see Pet. § III. ¶ 4, but similarly provides no support or any factual allegation in his Statement of Facts. On the contrary, Petitioner has made comments regarding violence directed towards his own family. He stated that marijuana is “probably [what] keeps [him] from beating [his] three kids because they’re always screaming and crying at [him] and [his] wife’s crazy and you know what it’s like.” Marc Raimondi, UFC fighter says weed ‘probably keeps me from beating my three kids,’ N.Y. POST 4 (Feb. 9 2013 at 11:57 PM), https://nypost.com/2013/02/09/ufc-fighter-says-weed-probably-keeps-me-from-beating-mythree-kids/. 13. Petitioner further alleges that Respondent has ignored requests to “stop contacting [him],” Pet., SOF, but similarly fails to allege any attempts to directly contact him since February 2020. 14. Petitioner also alleges that Respondent “will continue to post [his] personal information such as a new phone number,” Pet., SOF, but other than this general statement provides no factual support that Respondent has ever posted any phone number of his. Petitioner’s allegations that Respondent posted Petitioner’s wife’s phone number on Twitter are contraverted by the public record. See Slater Decl. ¶ 3. III. ARGUMENT The Petition should be dismissed for several reasons. First, the Petition fails to state a claim because it is either unsupported by facts or is contradicted by the exhibits attached thereto and publicly available documents. Second, the Petition fails to state a claim because the facts as alleged do not meet several of the elements of stalking under section 784.048. And third, the Petition is a strategic lawsuit against public participation in violation of section 768.295 for which expeditious dismissal and the imposition of fees and costs are both appropriate. Importantly, Petitioner’s request that this Court enjoin Respondent from posting “personal information,” such as allegations of sexual assault is an unlawful restraint on Respondent’s First Amendment rights. Further, Petitioner’s request to enjoin Respondent—a wrestler—from attending the World Wresting Entertainment (WWE) Performance Center, see Pet. § IV ¶ 2(b), but not from his personal residence or any location frequented by Petitioner or his family, is 5 similarly telling that this is an merely an attempt to harm, harrass, and silence Respondent, not protect Petitioner or his family. A. The Petition Fails to State a Claim. Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.140(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a petition for failure to state a claim. In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim “a trial court is confined to a consideration of the allegations found within the four corners of the [petition].” Carmona v. McKinley, Ittersagen, Gunderson & Berntsson, P.A., 952 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Meadows Cmty. Ass’n v. Russell-Tutty, 928 So.2d 1276, 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). A claim should be dismissed if it is clear that no relief can be granted under any set of facts that can be proved consistent with the allegations. Almarante v. Art Inst. of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 921 So. 2d 703, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Hillman Const. Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So. 2d 576, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). 1. Petitioner Does Not Allege Facts Concerning Harm, Weapons, or Destruction of Personal Property. The Petition fails to state a claim for allegations that Respondent (1) threatened to harm Petitioner or his family, (2) used, or threatened to use, a weapon against Petitioner, or (3) destroyed personal property belonging to Petitioner. In Section III, paragraph 4 of the form Petition, Petitioner raises these three claims, but omits any reference to them in his Statement of Facts (where he outlines all of his factual allegations in support of his claims). Without factual support, these three claims should be dismissed. See Rocks v. McLaughlin Eng'g Co., 49 So. 3d 823, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“The only question is whether [the] pleadings alleged sufficient facts to support their claimed causes of action.”). 6 2. Petitioner’s Allegations of Stalking Are Contradicted by his Exhibits. This Court should also easily dispense with claims supported by exhibits because those exhibits clearly contradict Petitioner’s claims. Under Rule 1.130(b), “[e]xhibits attached to a pleading become part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fladell v. Palm Beacvh Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 772 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 2000) (citing Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(b)). “If an exhibit facially negates the cause of action asserted, the document attached as an exhibit controls and must be considered in determining a motion to dismiss.” Id. (citing Health Application Sys., Inc. v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 381 So.2d 294, 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (emphasis supplied). The “variance” between the cause of action and the exhibit “is fatal and the complaint [or petition] is subject to dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.” Appel v. Lexington Ins. Co., 29 So.3d 377, 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Here, Petitioner provides five exhibits: (1) a text message where Respondent tells Petitioner “I kinda can’t believe you got me fired. You’re not who I thought you were”; (2) a text message in which Respondent confirms where Petitioner is staying one night in July 2019; (3) a cease and desist letter with Respondent’s public accusations of sexual assault attached; (4) deceptively3 redacted screenshots of messages from Petitioner and his wife from Respondent with; and (5) a message from a purported third party claiming Respondent asked the third party to get in touch with Petitioner. Putting aside the cease and desist letter and third-party messages for now,4 the text messages in Exhibits 1-2 and tweet in Exhibit 4 contradict Petitioner’s claims of stalking. 3 This tweet is publicly available and demonstrates that Respondent redacted Petitioner’s wife’s phone number. See Slater Decl. ¶ 3. It also demonstrates that Respondent never publicized Petitioner’s address. See id. 4 The cease and desist letter will be addressed in more detail in section III(B) below concerning Petitioner’s unlawful attempts to stifle Respondent’s First Amendment rights; and the third-party messages will be 7 First, Petitioner claims that on July 14, 2019, Respondent began harrasing him by sending numerous messages that “if [he] did not leave [his] wife for [Respondent] that [Petitioner] would be sorry and [Respondent] would ruin [his] career.” Pet., SOF. There are no exhibits that contain that type of message or content. Instead, in support of this allegation, Petitioner appends a text message in Exhibit 1, which contains no correspondence concerning Petitioner’s wife or any threats whatsoever. Curiously, the text message, though devoid of threats, paints a picture of Petitioner as the aggressor—Respondent expresses disappointment that Petitioner got her fired from her job. See Pet., Ex. 1. Second, Petitioner claims that Respondent engaged in stalking because she contacted him that same day to meet Petitioner at his hotel. See Pet., SOF. In support of this allegation, Petitioner attaches a text message to his Petition as Exhibit 2. Again, this message does not contain any threats, and implies that at best the parties agreed to meet and at worst Respondent offered to meet but was “waiting on [Petitioner]” (she says this twice) to agree. See Pet., Ex. 2. Importantly, Petitioner and Responded did have a consensual meetup at a hotel the day after these alleged messages. Third, Petitioner claims that Respondent posted Petitioner’s home address and his wife’s phone number. See Pet. SOF. He provides a deceptively redacted screenshot from Twitter that makes it look like Respondent posted an unredacted screenshot of correspdonence with Petitioner’s wife, exposing her cell phone number. See Pet., Ex. 4. That exhibit is “redacted” to make it look like Petitioner’s counsel redacted Petitioner’s wife’s phone number. A review of the publicly accessible tweet on Twitter clearly demonstrates that Respondent redacted the number, in complete contradition to Petitioner’s allegation and exhibit: addressed in section III(A)(3)(a) below concerning Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the “directed at” element under section 784.048. 8 See Slater Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 3. Further, Exhibit 4 to the Petition also clearly shows that another Twitter user published Petitioner’s home address, not Respondent. See Pet., Ex. 4. Again, this exhibit (when Petitioner’s deceptive alterations are removed) clearly contradicts Petitioner’s claims that Respondent personally disseminated Petitioner’s (or his family’s) personal information5 to the public. Because Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 contradict Petitioner’s allegations, and the remaining exhibits and factual allegations fail to meet the elements of section 784.048 as discussed below, this Court should dismiss the Petition. 3. The Petition on its Face Cannot Meet Any of the Elements of Section 784.048, Florida Statutes. To find that stalking occurred, there must be “willful, malicious, and repeated following, harassing, or cyberstalking of another person.” § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. “‘Harass’ means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.” § 784.048(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Cyberstalking means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of 5 As for claims of disseminating “personal information” associated with Respondent’s public statements about Petitioner sexually assaulting her, those claims violate section 768.295, as set forth below. 9 electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person; or [t]o access, or attempt to access, the online accounts or Internetconnected home electronic systems of another person without that person’s permission, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose. § 784.048(1)(d), Fla. Stat. A petitioner must allege both substantial emotional distress and that the contact served no legitimate purpose. Courts consider “substantial emotional distress” in these cases under a reasonable person standard, and a “legitimate purpose” to mean that “there is a reason for the contact other than to harass the victim.” Carter v. Malken, 207 So. 3d 891, 893–94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). A petitioner must also allege that the contact is “directed at” the petitioner. In the cyberstalking context, the Second District Court of Appeal has held that social media posts are not “directed at a specific person” when posted on the respondent’s own page as they are “instead posted for all of the user’s [social media] ‘friends’ to see, depending on the user’s privacy settings.” Horowitz v. Horowitz, 160 So. 3d 530, 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Further, a petitioner must allege a “course of conduct,” meaning a pattern of conduct over a period of time evidencing a continuity of purpose. § 784.048(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Such “course of conduct,” however, cannot include constitutionally protected activity—such as publicly accusing someone of sexual assault. See id. The Petition fails to meet any of these required elements. a. The tweet and direct messages are not “directed at” Petitioner. Neither Respondent’s public Twitter posts nor any messages to third parties are “directed at” Petitioner under Horowitz and its progeny. 10 Writing about Petitioner to the public on social media is not stalking in this district. In Horowitz, the petitioner alleged she was a victim of cyberstalking based on two Facebook posts on the respondent’s own Facebook page. Horowitz, 160 So.3d at 531. One of the posts contained the text of a private conversation that petitioner had with a third party. See id. The Second District Court of Appeal found that the posts were not actionable under the stalking statute because they were not “directed at a specific person” under section 784.048. Id. The court distinguished posting on a public social media page with email communication, because posts to a social media page were not directed at a specific person, but were for all of the user’s “friends” to see. See id.; see also Chevaldina v. R.K./FL Mgmt., Inc., 133 So.3d 1086, 1091-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (blog posts criticizing petitioner wre not directed at petitioner under the stalking statute).6 Similarly, in Scott v. Blum, 191 So.3d 502, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), the Second District Court of Appeal found that emails sent to 2,200 members of an organization were not “directed at a specific person” even though the emails were about the petitioner. Messaging third parties about Petitioner is not stalking in this district. Although the Petition does not provide specific allegations or exhibits related to third-party messages, Petitioner suggests that Respondent has contacted third parties in an attempt to reach Petitioner. Courts in this district have routinely found that communications to third parties are not “directed at” a petitioner under section 784.048. Recently, the Second District Court of Appeal, in Brungart v. Pullen, found that a respondent’s text messages to petitioner’s ex-husband and son did not qualify as harrasment 6 The Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Logue v. Book, No. 4D18-1112, 2020 WL 3443876 (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 2020) (on motion for rehearing en banc), found that, in certain circumstances, third party communications can be “directed at” a petitioner; however, that decision contradicts Horowitz, which is binding on this Court. Further, even if Logue were binding on this Court, Respondent’s tweets would still not be actionable because she did not “tag” Petitioner in the tweets (and because her tweets failed to meet the other elements of stalking, among other reasons). 11 under section 784.048(1)(a)7 because they were not directed at the petitioner. See 296 So.3d 973, 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (collecting cases). The Brungart court relied, in part, on Santiago v. Leon, No. 3D19-0011, 2020 WL 20614, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 2, 2020), which found that messages to petitioner’s father were not “directed at” petitioner. Accordingly, Petitioner’s allegations of stalking concerning public tweets and third-party messages fail to meet the requisite “directed at” element under section 784.048, and those claims should be dismissed. b. The text messages serve a legitimate purpose. Petitioner complains that Respondent’s text messages are evidence of stalking. On their face, the text messages provided by Petitioner do not meet the “no legitimate purpose” element under section 784.048. Although “legitimate” lacks a precise defintion, “courts have generally held that contact is legitimate when there is a reason for the contact other than to harass the victim.” O'Neill v. Goodwin, 195 So. 3d 411, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (emphasis supplied). Contact for any reason other than harrassment serves a legitimate purpose and is not actionable. The Second District Court of Appeal has spoken extensively on the parameters of what a legitimate purpose is under the statute. In Alter v. Paquette, 98 So. 3d 218, 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), the court found that several text messages concerning repayment of a loan served a legitimate purpose. In Poindexter v. Springer, 898 So.2d 204, 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), the court found that a letter threatening to sue “served a legitimate purpose and therefore could not be included in the definition of harassment.” In Goudy v. Duquette, 112 So.3d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), the court found that calling a dance instructor to express dissatisfaction with the decision to preclude respondent’s daughter from the dance team served a legitimate purpose. In Leach v. 7 All forms of stalking under section 784.048 contain a “directed at a specific person” element. See § 784.048, Fla. Stat. 12 Kersey, 162 So.3d 1104, 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015), the court found that friend requests on Facebook and calls and messages about an affair telling petitioner to stay away, all served legitimate purposes. Here, the text messages provided by Petitioner in Exhibits 1 and 2, on their face, serve legitimate purposes.8 The first text message reads: “I kinda can’t believe you got me fired. You’re not who I thought you were.” Pet. Ex. 1. Like in Goudy, here Respondent expresses her dissatisfaction with something Petitioner did. It is not stalking because it serves a legitimate purpose—Respondent’s expression of feelings about something Petitioner did to her. The second text message asks Petitioner whether they are going to meet and Respondent informs Petitioner that she is “waiting on him” to let her know. Clearly, this message serves a purpose as it implies at best that the parties agreed to meet and Respondent was trying to coordinate with Petitioner, and would wait on Petitioner’s assent before going to visit him. On its face, this message serves a legitimate purpose—finalizing or inquiring about plans to meet. Petitioner cannot meet this element as to the text messages and those claims must be dismissed. c. The facts as alleged do not rise to the level of substantial emotional distress. Petitioner claims that Respondent’s exercise of her First Amendment rights caused him and his family substantial emotional distress. See Pet., SOF. Petitioner also claims that the hypothetical fear that Respondent would in the future post his phone number or further exercise her First Amendment rights would hypothetically cause him substantial emotional distress. See id. These allegations cannot withstand a motion to dismiss. 8 Exhibit 2, page 2 appears to be a drafted list of incoming texts around 2 a.m. with no identification or context. These are not from Respondent and do not support Petitioner’s claims whatsoever. Furthermore, the first page of Exhibit 2 at clearly indicates that the number is used for the first time at 4:58 a.m., making the list on page 2 implausible. 13 Importantly, the latter allegations are hypothetical and all allegations serve the improper and unlawful purpose of silencing a sexual assault victim.9 Even so, on their face, Petitioner’s claims fail the reasonable person standard under Florida law. See Leach v. Kersey, 162 So.3d 1104, 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Jones v. Jackson, 67 So. 3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)) (In determining whether substantial emotional distress occurred, “courts look to the standard of a reasonable person in the petitioner’s shoes.”). Even if Petitioner could meet the “directed at” and “no legitimate purpose” elements, and somehow could prove that his claim was not an unlawful restraint of speech (which he cannot), the tweets and texts messages would still fail to state a claim for stalking because they do not meet the reasonable person standard. For instance, the Second District Court of Appeal in Slack v. King, 959 So.2d 425, 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), found that the petitioner’s receipt of two voicemail messages from respondent urging petitioner to stay away from respondent’s wife did not meet the reasonable person standard. In Leach v. Kersey, 162 So.3d at 1106, the Second District Court of Appeal found that calls to petitioner from respondent venting about an affair petitioner had with respondent’s husband did not meet the standard because a reasonable person in the petitioner’s situation would not suffer substantial emotional distress in the context of these calls. Here, all of Petitioner’s claims are premised on contact that would not rise to substantial emotional distress for a reasonable person in his shoes. First, Respondent contacted Petitioner to express frustration that he got her fired. See Pet., Ex. 1. Like in Leach, no reasonable person would find substantial emotional distress from being told that Petitioner’s own conduct was upsetting. Second, Respondent texted Petitioner about a potential meeting, a legitimate reason to contact 9 Arguments addressing Petitioner’s unlawful conduct under section 768.295 are set forth below. 14 Petitioner. Third, assuming for purposes of the motion that Respondent told Petitioner if he did not leave his wife she would ruin his career, that is exactly the conduct the Leach court found unactionable. And fourth, Respondent’s subsequent exercise of free speech was in response to Petitioner’s counsel’s letter to Respondent. His claim must fail because Respondent’s alleged conduct was in response to Petitioner’s attempts to silence her; no reasonable person would suffer substantial emotional distress about a person trying to prove that Petitioner’s claims (that her statements were false) were untrue. And last, to the extent Petitioner claims that Respondent will post his phone number in the future because of his allegations that Respondent published another phone number, those claims are contradicted by the unaltered publicly available tweets. Accordingly, Petitioner cannot satisfy this necessary element under section 784.048, and therefore all claims should be dismissed. d. Petitioner Cannot Satisfy the “Course of Conduct” Element. Section 784.048(1)b) requires that Petitioner allege a “course of conduct,” which is defined as “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.” The “[t]erm does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.” Id. Assuming Petitioner’s allegations are true, he cannot demonstrate at least two incidences of stalking.10 For the reasons stated above, the text messages and third-party messages cannot amount to stalking because they served a legitimate purpose or are contradicted by Petitioner’s exhibits (when alterations are removed) or contradicted by Respondent’s public tweets. And 10 This district requires a petitioner to plead (and prove) at least two incidences of stalking. See Touhey v. Seda, 133 So.3d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (requiring “each incident of stalking” to be proved); see also Pickett v. Copeland, 236 So.3d 1142, 1144–45 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (noting that the Second District two-incident requirement was adopted based on guidance from section 784.046). 15 Respondent’s accusations of sexual assault are protected speech. See Chevaldina, 133 So.3d at 1092. Though ultimately false, the only allegation that can survive a facial challenge to the Petition is Petitioner’s claim that Respondent stalked him at Full Sail University.11 See Pet., SOF. Within the four corners of the Petition, Petitioner cannot establish a “course of conduct” with only the Full Sail allegation and therefore the entire Petition should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12.140(b)(6). B. The Petition is an Unlawful SLAPP Lawsuit and Must Be Expeditiously Dismissed. As additional grounds for dismissal, the Petition is obviously a SLAPP lawsuit brought in response to Respondent’s public accusations that Petitioner sexually assaulted her. See Pet., SOF, Ex. 3. This Court should expeditously dismiss the Petition and award Respondent fees and costs under section 768.295(4). 1. Legal Standard; Burden. Section 768.295 was designed to “protect the right in Florida to exercise the rights of free speech in connection with public issues.” § 768.295(1), Fla. Stat. The anti-SLAPP statute prohibits lawsuits filed “without merit” and “primarily because [the respondent] has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue, . . .” § 768.295(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents in cases like these are entitled to “expeditious resolution” of such SLAPP claims. § 768.295(4), Fla. Stat. To facilitate the “expeditious resolution” of such lawsuits, the anti-SLAPP statute shifts the parties’ burdens at the outset and requires a more stringent analysis than a typical motion to dismiss. Gundel v. AV Homes, Inc., 264 So.3d 304, 312-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (noting courts 11 And any alleged conduct within that timeframe would only establish one instance of stalking. See Packal v. Johnson, 226 So.3d 337, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). 16 must “do more than accept as true the factual allegations in the four corners of the complaint and draw all inferences therefrom in favor of the claimant”). Specifically, once Respondent establishes the statute applies, the burden shifts to the Petitioner “to demonstrate that the claims are not ‘primarily’ based on First Amendment rights in connection with a public issue and not ‘without merit.’” Id. at 314. 2. The Anti-SLAPP Statute Applies in this Case. The anti-SLAPP statute applies here because the conduct primarily complained of in the Petition is Respondent’s public accusation against Petitioner of sexual assault. See Pet., SOF, Ex. 3. The anti-SLAPP statute defines “[f]ree speech in connection with public issues” as any written or oral statement that is protected under applicable law and is made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a governmental entity, or is made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work. § 768.295(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, the speech must be made in written or oral form before a governmental entity or in connection with “a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work.” This list is nonexhaustive—including any “other similar work.” See WPB Residents for Integrity in Gov’t, Inc. v Materio, 284 So.3d 556, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (Frost, J., concurring) (noting that the statute is not exhaustive and even though it does not include the term “mailer” that a mailer is similar to the enumerated works, and fits within section 2(a), because it was created to communicate information to a targeted audience about a public issue); see also Samuel J. Morley, Florida’s Expanded Anti-SLAPP Law: More Protection for Targeted Speakers, 90 FLA. B.J. 16, 22 (Nov. 2016) (surmising that the works specifically enumerated are similar in that they are 17 “designed to communicate to or elicit viewpoints from members of the public on issues of public interest”). Here, Petitioner complains that Respondent “told a news publication that [he] sexually assaulted her multiple times” and tweeted about the sexaul assault. Pet., SOF. First, an oral statement made in connection with a news report fits squarely within section 2(a), and therefore is “[f]ree speech in connection with public issues.” Second, Respondent’s tweets are “other similar works” insofar as they were created to inform the public about Petitioner’s past conduct and are matters of public interest in light of the #MeToo movement.12 See Materio, 284 So.3d at 562 (Frost, J., concurring). Accordingly, the burden shifts to Petitioner to “demonstrate that that the claims are not ‘primarily’ based on First Amendment rights in connection with a public issue and not ‘without merit.’” Gundell, 264 So.3d at 314. 3. Petitioner Cannot Carry His Burden. Petitioner cannot demonstrate that his claims are not “primarily” based on Respondent’s First Amendment rights in connection with a public issue and not “without merit.” The entire basis of Petitioner’s supposed substantial emotional distress is Respondent’s public accusations against him. See Pet., SOF. Petitioner writes that these public accusations were “false and caused [his] family and [his] children substantial emotional distress.” Petitioner wants the injunction to curb future exercise of Respondent’s First Amendment rights: I feel without this injunction she will continue to post my personal information such as my new phone number that would lead to further harassment as well as continuing to post false allegations for the sole purpose of causing myself and my family substantial emotional distress. 12 See Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Me Too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement (last visited Aug. 19, 2020). 18 movement, at Pet., SOF. Tellingly, all of the evidence attached to the Petition from 2020 centers around Respondent’s public accusations against Petitioner. See Pet., Exs. 3-4. Petitioner attaches Respondent’s public accusations as evidence of her harassment against him—clearly Petitioner cannot meet his burden to show that his primary purpose was not based on Respondent’s public accusation. Further, for the reasons states above, Petitioner cannot show that his claim is not “without merit.” The Petition is wholly without merit as it fails to state a cause of action. For these reasons, this Court should expeditiously dismiss the Petition. 4. The Court Should Also Impose Fees Against Petitioner. This Court should award fees and costs against Petitioner under the anti-SLAPP statute. Section 768.295(4) provides that the Court “shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of [the antiSLAPP statute].” IV. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss the Petition for failure to state a claim and for violation of the anti-SLAPP statute, section 768.295(4), Florida Statutes. This Court should also award Respondent fees and costs under section 768.295(4), Florida Statutes, as the prevailing party. Dated: August 27, 2020. Respectfully Submitted, SHULLMAN FUGATE PLLC /s/ Allison S. Lovelady Allison S. Lovelady Florida Bar No. 70622 alovelady@shullmanfugate.com James M. Slater 19 Florida Bar No. 111779 jslater@shullmanfugate.com 2101 Vista Parkway, Suite 4006 West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Tel: (561) 614-2592 Attorneys for Respondent Samantha Tavel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed on August 27, 2020 through the Florida electronic portal, which shall serve a copy of this document on all counsel of record, including: Daniel J. Rose, Esq. Daniel J. Rose, P.A. 323 NE 6th Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483 rose@djrpa.com Attorney for Petitioner /s/ Allison S. Lovelady Allison S. Lovelady 20 Filing # 112474721 E-Filed 08/27/2020 11:40:56 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MATTHEW RIDDLE, Petitioner, Case No. 48-2020-DR-007074 v. SAMANTHA TAVEL p/k/a CANDY CARTWRIGHT, Respondent. DECLARATION OF JAMES M. SLATER I, James M. Slater, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an associate at the law firm of Shullman Fugate PLLC, attorneys for Respondent Samantha Tavel p/k/a Candy Cartwright in the above-captioned matter. 2. I submit this declaration to annex documents relevant to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition in this action. 3. On August 25, 2020, I accessed the publicly available tweet from Twitter user @CandyCartwright dated June 19, 2020 at 12:12 PM, available at https://twitter.com/CandyCartwright/status/1274012311859183616, which includes an embedded screenshot of a text message. Attached as Exhibit 1 hereto is a true and correct copy of the tweet dated June 19, 2020 at 12:12 p.m. and the screenshots embedded therein. 4. On August 25, 2020, I accessed the publicly available tweets from Twitter user @CandyCartwright dated June 19, 2020 at 4:32 a.m. through 4:37 a.m, available starting at https://twitter.com/CandyCartwright/status/1273896403941691392. Attached as Exhibit 2 hereto is a true and correct copy of that series of tweets. 5. On August 25, 2020, I accessed the publicly available tweet from Twitter user @CandyCartwright dated July 4, 2020 at 6:53 p.m, available at https://twitter.com/CandyCartwright/status/1279548910160293889. Attached as Exhibit 3 hereto is a true and correct copy of the tweet and the screenshot embedded therein. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true. Dated: August 27, 2020. James M. Slater 2 Filing 112474721 E?Filed 08/27/2020 11:40:56 AM Exhibit 1 8/25/2020 Candy Cartwright on Twitter: "Reposting these. 1. This is a message from matt to me telling me he can?t wait to see me from just about a 2H: Explore Settings Thread Candy Cartwright @CandyCartwright - Jun 19 The point of #speakingout is that people can be victims of sexual violence in relationships and with people they trusted. 60 11 75 527 Q, Candy Cartwright @CandyCartwright Reposting these. 1. This is a message from matt to me telling me he can?t wait to see me from just about a year ago, if I?ve been harrassing him for years, I?m not really sure how that?s possible. 2. This is a screenshot from Lisa riddle to me proving she knew of the affair (484) 46 5 t. Today 1 Hey Sam, it's Lisa Riddle. You are still blocked on Matts phone, and he knows I'm messaging you. Can you please do me a favor, and screen shot all the messages you have of you two and send them to me? a Can't wait to see you tonight Please, you owe me that You don't have to respond, his number is changed, and I'll see you Saturday 12:12 PM -Jun 19, 2020 - Twitter for iPhone 171 Retweets and comments 432 Likes 0 no tellin ye @kingchaddes . Jun 19 Replying to @CandyCartwright @Maffewgregg T3 ?1 Wharaoh #AsukaSZN @pharaohscu - Jun 19 Replying to @CandyCartwright Riddle has been married since 2011 and if Lisa knew about this wouldn?t she break up with him? 10 fl 2 56 ?1 alix is explicitly queer @alixplicitly - Jun 19 When I was 14, a man broke into my house and tried to rape my mom. His girlfriend initially gave the police information that corroborated what had happened, but later changed her story to protect him. People who are in relationships with rapists often defend them. ?Ll C9 12 IE, This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more Face of Wrestlin . . @faceofwrestlino Search Twitter New to Twitter? Sign up now to get your own pers Relevant people Candy Cartwright @CandyCartwright Pro Wrestler, Valet, Cutie pie! NOVA Champion EVOLVE 's Ambassador . What's happening Soccer - 1 hour ago Lionel Messi has told Barce that he wants to leave, repr say Trending with: Messi and BarceIOi #WhenRemoteWorks Share your remote work succ benefit a great cause Promoted by Slack Soccer - Trending Aguero 7,157 Tweets News . Last night Major wildfires rage on in I of Northern California Trending in United States Severe Thunderstorm Watt 1,877 Tweets Show more Terms Privacy policy Cookies 1 2020 Twitter, Inc. Don't miss what's happening People on Twitter are the first to know. 1/4 Exhibit 2 8/25/2020 Candy Cartwright on Twitter: ?incredibly uncomfortable in that setting )When I said no, he grabbed me by my throat, choked me and Thread EX lore Candy Cartwright @CandyCartwright - Jun 19 I?m posting this because I have been so sad for so long. I didn?t realize that what realize now, reading these other brave Settings women?s stories, that I can't be afraid anymore and have to #speakout 316 a 699 2K .1. Candy Cartwright @CandyCartwright Jun 19 Back in May of 2018 was riding with Matt Riddle and a few other wrestlers. During the van ride, when the 3 other wrestlers had fallen asleep, Matt asked me to "hop on his dick?. When I refused (although we had previously been together Candy Cartwright @CandyCartwright incredibly uncomfortable in that setting When I said no, he grabbed me by my throat, choked me and said "what if Ijust made you?" I ended up giving him oral sex (praying someone wouldn?t wake up) to get out of having intercourse with him. It was incredibly humiliating. 4:37 AM -Jun 19, 2020 - Twitter for iPhone 200 Retweets and comments 725 Likes 0 a [9 Candy Cartwright @CandyCartwright Jun 19 Replying to @CandyCartwright It is never ok to put your hands on a woman, it?s also not ok to not listen when she says no. 89 160 C9 795 ?1 shane @shanemallay - Jun 19 Replying to @CandyCartwright Sorry to hear this happen to you a C91 [9 Lisa.RomanSethBecky Jun 19 Replying to @CandyCartwright That is disgraceful behaviour and you shouldn't have been subjected to that. Well done for speaking out. ?Ll C91 ?1 Satin @SatbyNature - Jun 19 Replying to @CandyCartwright So sorry that this happened to you 30 ?Ll .1. Chainaaw Cat?t?igraphy @misanthrobotic Jun 19 Replying to @CandyCartwright there's more likes than retweets.. fl ?1 . @GlassHousePedro - Jun 19 Replying to @CandyCartwright I?m so sorry this happened to you Don't miss what's happening Search Twitter New to Twitter? Sign up now to get your own pers Relevant people Candy Cartwright @CandyCartwright Pro Wrestler, Valet, Cutie pie! NOVA Champion EVOLVE 's Ambassador . What's happening Soccer - 1 hour ago Lionel Messi has told Barce that he wants to leave, repi say Trending with: Messi and BarceIOi #WhenRemoteWorks Share your remote work succ benefit a great cause Promoted by Slack Soccer - Trending Aguero 7,157 Tweets News . Last night Major wildfires rage on in of Northern California Trending in United States Severe Thunderstorm Watt 1,877 Tweets Show more Terms Privacy policy Cookies I 2020 Twitter, Inc. People on Twitter are the first to know. Exhibit 3 8/25/2020 Candy Cartwright on Twitter: "This is crazy. It?s been two weeks and I'm still getting hate messages/threats and seeing stuff like this. If Tweet Search Twitter I Candy Cartwright . 2H: xp ore a @CandyCartwright New to TWItter? Sign up now to get your own pers {33} sett'"95 This is crazy. It?s been two weeks and I?m still getting hate messages/threats and seeing stuff like this. If I?ve been "stalking for years" then why is this from 2019? This was also taken after I went to see him on an Relevant people loop and he got me tickets to two Candy Cartwright T-Mobile 1:54 AM 94% @candycartwr'ght Pro Wrestler, Valet, Ma 19 2019 Cutie pie! EVOLVE ?s Ambassador. will I It @WILLoflk he/him. titan main. 1 #inbend. Loves: Goc Wrestling, @destiny TV and Oregon. #ar tech. chocolate starfish @Khristen sad brooklyn boy i make shit with an 4 created @tigerdrive avatar by What's happening Soccer - 1 hour ago Lionel Messi has told Barce that he wants to leave, repr say Trending with: Messi and BarceIOi #WhenRemoteWorks Share your remote work succ benefit a great cause Promoted by Slack Soccer - Trending will ll 1' - Jul 4 Aguero Replying to @Khristen 7,157 Tweets Apparently Matt brought quite a bit of evidence to WWE that this woman?s been stalking him for some time, including making him change his number a couple News LaSt ?'ght times. And evidently theyve been aware of it since before he signed when they Major rage on I were initially scouting him Of Northern Callfornla 6:53 PM -Jul 4, 2020 - Twitter for iPhone 99 Trending in United States Severe Thunderstorm Watt: 386 Retweets and comments 898 Likes 1,877 Tweets fl 0 ?1 Show more @classicrobwhite @classicrobwhite - Jul 4 Terms Privacy policy Cookies I 1.- Replying to @CandyCar?EWright 2020 Twitter, Inc. The truth will out. Don't miss what's happening People on Twitter are the first to know. 1/3 Filing 112626241 E?Filed 08/31/2020 12:33:03 PM IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE I I Y, FLORIDA IN RE: CYBERSTALKING INJUNCTION MATT RIDDLE Petitioner AND CASE NO: CANDY CARTWRIGHT Respondent RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS COMES NOW, the Petitioner Matthew Riddle (the ?Petitioner?) by and though his undersigned counsel hereby ?les this Response to the Motion to Dismiss ?led by the Respondent Samantha Tavel a/k/a Candy Cartwright (the ?Respondent?) and as grounds states as follows: 1. In reviewing a Motion to Dismiss the Honorable Court may only look at the four comers of the Petition for a Cyberstalking Injunction ?led by the Petitioner. In the Motion to Dismiss, it appears the Respondent is actually showing this Court why the Petitioner is in need of this injunction against the Respondent. It is actually more or less a Response to the Petition riddled with false statements and even makes a demand for attorney?s fees and costs which are not permissible under the Injunction statutes. In this case, the Honorable Court has reviewed the Petition and has set it for hearing without issuing a temporary injunction, the Petition was not dismissed by the Honorable Court which shows the Petition had enough merit to warrant a hearing and therefore the claim the Petition was frivolous and an attempt to silence the Respondent is actually ?ivolous. . The Petitioner needs this injunction to enjoin he respondent from her continued online harassment of him in a time where ?Cancel Culture? and fans trying to physically harm celebrities has become a national issue (this will be discussed further in this response). . Per his Petition, the Petitioner who had a four (4) year on and off extra marital affair with the Respondent broke off such affair and went back to his wife (this is how most extra marital affairs end up). . Per the Petition, the Petitioner broke off the extra marital affair (and even apologized to the Respondent because the Respondent did believe the PetitiOner would leave his wife for her) and then as revenge the Respondent began stalking him and cyberstalking him. . The evidence shown was that on the day of the Petitioner?s debut for the WWE on the Fox Network, the Respondent who is still angry over the breakup (and hurt) decided to post a false statement that the Petitioner raped her on social media. She then further posted the phone number of the Petitioner?s wife and liked a comment with his home address. As a result, the family has been subjected to harassment, numerous crank calls, death threats (recordings will be provided at trial) and even the Petitioner?s children have been subjected to abuse online from people who have messaged them telling them their father is a rapist. . The Respondent then falsely claims the exhibits are fabricated. This is ?ivolous, the Respondent did post the Petitioners? wife?s phone number on twitter through a message she received on one of her numerous burner phones and then a couple of hours later deleted the tweet and reposted it with a redacted copy. 9. Respondent?s counsel then af?rms under oath that the tweet in question did not have the phone number of Petitioner?s wife. What he did not research is his client posted the unredacted number prior to her deletion and resending of the message which he should know anything posted on social media is permanent and deletion does nothing. 10.The phone number tweet while deleted was copied by many social media websites and as a result Petitioner?s wife received numerous death threats and hate messages from people. ll.The Petitioner has evidence of the Respondent?s conduct in threating harm to Petitioner through his numerous witnesses even Respondent?s friends who are willing to testify that the Respondent has made several statements about doing whatever she can to ruin the Petitioner?s career by any means necessary. Her behavior of June 19, 2020 was the evidence. 12.This is NOT the ?rst time the Respondent has threatened someone with a false rape allegation as a threat. She even did this to one of her closet ?iends who most likely will testify on her behalf and be asked about this on examination 13.The Respondent then asserts a 1St Amendment privilege, however, the statutes make it clear, such privilege is not immune from litigation. In this case, a false statement about sexual assault is not covered by the 1st Amendment nor is publishing private phone numbers of the Petitioner?s family members for the sole purpose of causing harassment. 14.0nce again in the Response, the Respondent falsely claims the tweet still available shows she did not publish the Petitioner?s wife?s phone number. This is the second attempt of her to publish the tweet as the first one did have the phone number. Therefore, it can only be concluded the Respondent did not advise her counsel of such behavior. 15.The Respondent then makes another false statement that on or about February 2020 she was not removed from Full Sail University for a taping with the NXT wrestling brand. There are several people who can testify as to this being the truth. Once again the Respondent makes another false statement in her motion to dismiss by claiming otherwise and the Honorable Court should note her perjury in determining her credibility and the future conduct of the Respondent. 16. Then the Respondent falsely states that the Petitioner claims he said he did not know who she was. Once again this is false, in fact the Petitioner prior to the Respondent posting pictures on July 4, 2020 of Petitioner and Respondent kissing had made a statement through counsel denying the false allegations made by Respondent on June 19, 2020. Once again Respondent makes a misrepresentation to recreate an event. She in reality posted the pictures to cause more harassment and humiliation to the Petitioner and to bring attention to herself and to seek further harassment of the Petitioner. 17.Then the Respondent tries to disparage the Petitioner by bringing up an old interview from July 2013 where the Petitioner made a statement to which he has apologized. The Petitioner has never hit or harmed his wife or otherwise. This statement once again is not appropriate in the Motion to Dismiss as it is outside the four corners of the Petition and only shows the Respondent?s continued desire to hash up old events (not even relevant to this case) to continue to harass and vex the Petitioner and cause him emotional distress. 18.There is evidence that on June 19, 2020 the Petitioners? counsel served Respondent with a cease and desist via all forms of her social media and has receipts of two letters being delivered to her home. The Court should note the Respondent?s father is an attorney and would certainly explain the contents of the letter to his daughter. After all, Respondent?s father signed for the June 19, 2020 correspondences. 19. The Respondent has continued with her conduct, after the Cease and Desist was sent, the Petition was ?led and counsel made their appearance, the RespOndent has continues to ?like? tweets from fans who make statements about the Petitioner being a rapist due to Respondent?s false statements. This is done with the purpose of acknowledging the behavior of these ?trolls? and encouraging them to continue harassing the Petitioner. 20.More speci?cally, less than a week ago, the Respondent liked a tweet form someone she follows about the Petitioner?s wife cyberbullying her (this is also false). This type of behavior only serves to give individuals the encouragement to take actions into their own hands. 21.The person whose tweet is liked has tweeted countless times messages about Petitioner and she makes no secret her desire for social justice and for the cancellation and harm of the Petitioner. 22.The numerous false statements in the Motion to Dismiss and the numerous salacious allegations shows the exact reason the Injunction is needed. 23.Then we move on to the argument, the Motion claims that the Petition fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. 24.This fails because the Honorable Court has already decided the matter has merit and hence set it for hearing, in reality if the Petition failed to state a cause of action it would have already been dismissed by the Court without the need for a hearing. 25.The Petitioner is not asking the Respondent be enjoined ?om her use of social media, but enjoined ?om her continued harassment of the Petitioner which has been direct and indirect. The direct has been liking tweets and the indirect is having her close friends post messages about the Petitioner being a rapist. This would also include having her friends post messages about the Petitioner, to which one has already apologized. 26.The Petitioner actually fears if the injunction is not issued, the Respondent will once again continue to post false and harassing information about the Petitioner. In other words, without the injunction, the Respondent believes she will have the right to continue to post information about the Petitioner with no consequences. 27.The Respondent has shown up to events where the Petitioner has performed and followed him. This will be evidenced by the testimony of Dylan Kaplan who is Petitioner?s personal assistant. There have been occasions where the Petitioner has shown up to events just to obtain the Petitioner?s phone number from other performers of followed him after a show. Upon receiving such phone numbers she then contacts the Petitioner through ?burner? phones. 28.The argument then talks about personal harm and weapons, this is a cyberstalking petition. The Respondent has threatened the Petitioner and has encouraged third parties to harass him on social media and outside social media. The Petitioner has received hate mail, people driving by his house, crank calls and his young children have received vile messages on social media because of her conduct. 29.Recently another performer for WWE had a ?fan? break into her home and try to kill her and another performer. 30.The ?fan? was arrested two weeks ago and it shows the extent people will go to harm others. The conduct of Respondent in encouraging harm to Petitioner is duly noted. 3 l.The Exhibits speak for themselves, the Petitioner can and may supplement his Petition at any time before trial. The Respondent claims the exhibits are not enough for a cause of action for the Petitioner to request an action for cyberstalking, the Court has already determined there is enough cause in the Petition to warrant a hearing and the Petitioner is certain alter testimony is taken from the Respondent there will be enough to show the need for such injunction. 32.The unredacted phone number was posted by the Respondent she would have to admit on the stand (since she is under oath) that she did post it. Therefore, the claim she never posted the unredacted phone number is more or less the Respondent not being honest with her own counsel. This can be evidenced by her false statements about not being at the WWE Performance Center in February 2020. 33.The reality is, the Respondent is still seeking revenge against the Petitioner for the breakup of the affair, she will go through no to harass him, stalk him and cyberstalk him, she will also lie if necessary to continue her cause of trying to ruin the Petitioner?s career by any means necessary. This will be proven at trial when witnesses will testify to this (some actually being friends of the Respondent). 34.The Petitioner has a strong case for defamation against the Respondent for her false statements, however he needs this injunction to prevent her from any further online harassment such as posting explicit photos of him (which she has already leaked online though various sources) and posting private information about him and his family so people can harass him. 35.The leaking of explicit photos of the Petitioner by the Respondent is something that will be addressed in the Supplemental Petition which shall be ?led in this case. 36.Without this injunction it is all but guaranteed the Respondent will once again continue posting tweets and messages with private photos and information about Petitioner because she will believe her behavior is acceptable. 37.This would be no more evident than her numerous false statements in her Motion to Dismiss which shows the Respondent has no regard for this process. WHERFORE, the Petitioner prays this Honorable Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss. Respectfully Submitted this 31St day of August, 2020 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY a true and correct copy was served to Alison S. Lovelady, Esq. and James M. Slater, Esq. through the e-service/e- ?ling portal on this 31St day of August, 2020. ROSE, P.A. Attorney for Matthew Riddle 323 NE 6th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33483 Tel: 561?266?9056 Fax: 561?266-9057 Daniel]. Rose Florida Bar 0: 0478385 Filing # 112714934 E-Filed 09/01/2020 02:23:06 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MATTHEW RIDDLE, Petitioner, Case No. 48-2020-DR-007074 vs. SAMANTHA TAVEL a/k/a CANDY CARTWRIGHT, Respondent. ____________________________________/ NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent Samantha Tavel will call up a hearing on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition and for Award of Fees and Costs Under Section 768.295, Florida Statutes before the Honorable Alicia Latimore, via Microsoft Teams Video Conference on September 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Respectfully Submitted, SHULLMAN FUGATE PLLC /s/ Allison S. Lovelady Allison S. Lovelady Florida Bar No. 70622 alovelady@shullmanfugate.com James M. Slater Florida Bar No. 111779 jslater@shullmanfugate.com 2101 Vista Parkway, Suite 4006 West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Tel: (561) 614-2592 Attorneys for Respondent Samantha Tavel CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that undersigned counsel previously conferred with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the aforementioned motion, but the parties have been unable to do so. /s/ Allison S. Lovelady Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy for the foregoing has been served via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on this 1st day of September, 2020 on: Daniel J. Rose, Esq. Daniel J. Rose, P.A. 323 NE 6th Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483 rose@djrpa.com Attorney for Petitioner /s/ Allison S. Lovelady Attorney AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, the provision of certain assistance. Please contact Court Administration at 425 N. Orange Avenue, Room 2130, Orlando, FL, 32801, Telephone 407-836-2303 at least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing impaired, call (TTD) 800-955-8771, (V) 800-955-8770 or 711. Filing 112963137 E?Filed 09/07/2020 09:48:23 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR THE 5th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN RE: INJUNCTION FOR CYBERSTALKIN in,? MATTHEW RIDDLE Petitioner v. Case No: SAIVLANTHA TAVEL a /k/a Respondent NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL COMES NOW, the Petitioner Matthew Riddle (?Riddle?) hereby files this Notice of "Voluntary Dismissal for the above reference matter. Respectfully Submitted this Day of September, 2020 DANIEL J. ROSE, P.A. (?My Daniel}. Rose, Esq. Attorney for Riddle FBN #:478385 323 NE 6th Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483 If?L?f??LgliIgj?l 1:013} Phone: 561 ?266~9056 Aggie?~77" CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify this Notice was ?led and notice provided to counsel Via E??ling portal to of record Allison S. Lovelady, Shullman ugate PLLC, counsel for Respondent, Daniel J. Rose, Esq.