I tried to keep this as brief as possible, so I address only those facts that would support each element of the two claims. The caption got messed up, but we can prettify that, can't we?
Hey guys, I made additions directly to Steve's post because I couldn't figure anything else out - see you at 9:15! Mo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______________________________________
Carol A. Rannels, Lynn L. Rannels,
Plaintiffs, Civil Case No.: _________
S.E. Nichols, Inc.,
- Plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania and defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware, having its principle place of business other than the state of Pennsylvania. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum specified by 28 USC § 1332.
- On August 4, 1977, defendant filed a criminal complain charging plaintiff with a violation of the Pennsylvania bad check statute, 18 Pa. C.S.A. s. 4105.
- Defendant filed the complaint despite knowledge received by the manager of defendant’s store, Robert Boyde, that plaintiff’s check was not a bad check but rather a check on which payment had been stopped by plaintiff because of a dispute over defective store merchandise plaintiff had purchased with the check.
- When plaintiff confronted Mr. Boyd about the complaint, he remarked that the complaint had been filed because plaintiff “attempted fraud in [the] store.”
(He also stated that he intended to "...set an example of you [the plaintiff] so that others don't try to stop payment on goods.")
- Mr. Boyd made this remark in the presence of several customers, a person being interviewed for the job and plaintiff’s son.
- When plaintiff contacted Manfred Brecker, president of defendant corporation, and explained to him that the Pennsylvania store has instituted baseless and malicious proceedings against her, Mr. Brecker replied that he supported the malicious prosecution, despite the fact that he knew plaintiff had not attempted to defraud defendant’s store and thus had broken no law.
(OR) When plaintiff contacted Manfred Brecker, president of the defendant corporation and explained the baseless and malicious proceedings against her as well as possible resulting defamation of character, Mr. Brecker sent a letter of reply that he "condoned and supported the malicious prosecution and slandering and libeling" of the plaintiff. Mr. Brecker supported the charges despite his knowledge that the plaintiff had not attempted to defraud his store and thus had broken no law.
- The plaintiff was eventually acquitted of the criminal charge against her.
- On February 2, 1978, the plaintiff was acquitted of the criminal charge against her under the Pennsylvania Bad Check Statute
- . Defendant’s instituting criminal proceedings against plaintiff and making false statements about her caused plaintiff and her husband severe emotional distress, humiliation, pain, and embarrassment, and harmed their marital relationship.
- . The fact that defendant filed the criminal complaint against plaintiff with the knowledge that plaintiff had not defrauded the store (and thus committed no criminal act) constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct.
Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the amount of $2, 800,000 and costs.
Dated this 6th day of November, 2006.
Respectfully submitted, ________/s/___________
Maureen McGough Jacob Meyer Anthony Prestia Stephen Satterfield