PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 1

CAUSE NO.
JOSE REYES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DALLAS SYMPHONY
ASSOCIATION, INC. a/k/a DALLAS
SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA and D
MAGAZINE PARTNERS, L.P. D/B/A
D MAGAZINE,

Defendants.












IN DISTRICT COURT




___ JUDICIAL DISTRICT




DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Plaintiff by and through his attorney of record and files his Original
Petition and would respectfully show unto this Court as follows:
I.
DISCOVERY

1. The discovery in this case shall be governed by Rule 190.4 (Level III).
II.
PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, Jose Reyes is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas.
3. Defendant Dallas Symphony Association, Inc. a/k/a Dallas Symphony Orchestra
is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas and may be served
with process by serving its registered agent, CEO and President, Jonathan Martin, 2301 Flora
Street, Suite 2300, Dallas, Texas 75201.
4. Defendant D Magazine Partners, L.P. d/b/a D Magazine may be served by serving
its General Partner, Allison Media, Inc. through its President and registered agent Wick Allison,
2 CITS ATTY
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
7/9/2014 7:19:49 PM
GARY FITZSIMMONS
DISTRICT CLERK
DC-14-07308
Sacheen Anthony
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 2
at 750 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2100, Dallas, Texas 75201.
III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants because Defendants do business in
Dallas County, Texas The Court has jurisdiction over the controversy because the damages are
within the jurisdictional limits of the Court.
6. Venue is properly maintainable in Dallas County, Texas, pursuant to Section
15.002 of the TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. Code. Plaintiff would show the Court that a substantial
part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Dallas County, Texas and the Defendants
places of business are located in Dallas County, Texas.
7. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in the sum of over $1,000,000.00.
IV.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. Plaintiff Jose Reyes is an individual who devotes much of his time and efforts to
non-profit and charitable organizations, including event planning, hosting, organizing,
contributing, recruiting members and volunteers, and fund-raising. He is a quiet, gentle person
who is interested in the Arts. Jose Reyes began volunteering for civic organizations in Dallas that
promoted the Arts ten (10) years ago. Volunteerism became his passion.
9. Plaintiff Jose Reyes was recognized for his ability to organize, plan and host
events, and was frequently called upon to recruit new volunteers, event attendees and
contributors through fund-raising. Mr. Reyes was considered a valuable asset to these
organizations and was often recognized for his contributions. Indeed, he fit the criteria for
managing volunteersrecruit, retain and recognize. Over the course of the ten 910) years, Mr.
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 3
Reyes could be depended upon to be reliable, complete tasks, and creatively organize new and
different opportunities to raise interest and funds for the charitable organizations.
10. Plaintiff Jose Reyes was more particularly involved in volunteering for the Dallas
Symphony Orchestra due to his life-long interest in music, and ultimately became a member of
Dallas Symphony Orchestra League (DSOL) and the Innovators of the DSOL. Among the
events that Mr. Reyes participated in were Dallas Symphony Derby, Affair de Champagne,
Steering Committee of Vivaldi Patron Circle, DSO Gala After Party and the Kick-Off Party. He
originated and organized the DSO Gala After Party for the DSO. During these events Mr. Reyes
was well known to many of the attendees and participants alike. His contributions were
particularly welcomed at such annual fundraising efforts as Affaire de Champagne and Behind
the Scenes, both intimate evening events at sponsors private homes featuring musical artists.
11. Defendant Dallas Symphony Orchestra is a non-profit corporation that has
brought music to Dallas since 1900. The Dallas Symphony's stated mission is to entertain,
inspire and change lives through musical excellence. The Dallas Symphonys stated core
values are uncompromising excellence; Teamwork; Ensure that every concert is an event; A
community of passionate music lovers making more music lovers; Risk-taking and innovative;
Committed to fiscal responsibility; and Integrity. Since 1900, the Dallas Symphony Orchestra
has grown from a 40-person ensemble to a nationally recognized orchestra.
12. Defendant D Magazine touts itself as the Dominant Media Brand in Dallas-Fort
Worth. D Magazine states that it serves its readers and viewers first. Its website provides D
Magazines stated belief that excellence is irresistible and trust is irreplaceable.
13. In May 2103 the DSO conducted an invitation-only event, the DSO AT&T Gala
Launch Party hosted by Anne and Steve Stodghill (the 2013 Gala Chairs) at their home. Jose
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 4
Reyes was sent an invitation by e-mail to the DSOs AT&T Gala Launch Party by DSOs
Director of Event Planning, Tab Bolyes.
1
Jose Reyes sent his R.S.V.P. that he would attend.
Mr. Reyes attended the Launch Party on May 9, 2013. At the door, there was a checklist of
invitees for the event. Mr. Reyes checked in at the door. While Mr. Reyes was at the DSO
AT&T Gala Launch Party he was confronted by Jenny Shepard, DSOs newly appointed (of four
days) Vice-President of Development. Ms. Shepard was visibly angered by Mr. Reyess
presence.
14. Ms. Shepard falsely accused Mr. Reyes of attending the DSO AT&T Gala Launch
Party without an invitation and crashing the party to various DSO staff. Ms. Shepherd was at
all times mentioned the agent and employee of DSO. DSO decided to spread the word on Jose
Reyes alleged discretions.
15. On July 9, 2013, Chris Shull, Dallas Symphony Orchestras manager of
publications and public relations, sent the following astounding e-maiL to DSOs sponsors and
media:
The Dallas Symphony Orchestra would like to inform its sponsors and media
partners that as of July 9, 2013 Jose Reyes is no longer affiliated as a volunteer
with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra or with any of its volunteer organizations
and/or organizing committees.

Thank you.
2


16. On July 9, Ms. Shepard phoned Jose Reyes and told him that his volunteer
services were no longer required by DSO.
3

17. In addition to the bizarre press release, Defendant DSO and its agents, employees
and representatives made statements to Defendant D Magazine that accused Jose Reyes of

1
It was a common practice for DSO invitation events to send out additional invitations a few days prior to events if
2
http://fdluxe.dallasnews.com/2013/07/dallas-symphony-orchestra-kicks-volunteer-jose-reyes-to-the-curb-in-
bizarre-press-release.html/#sthash.IKmZbScV.dpuf
3
Mr. Reyes was not made aware of the DSOs e-mail.
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 5
nefarious conduct that included illegal acts at the home of Anne & Steve Stodghill. D Magazine
made the event the subject of a story that was promoted by them on the front cover of the
September 2013 issue. Statements were made by the DSO to D Magazine that Jose Reyes was
illegally at the home of the Stodghills and had crashed the DSO AT&T Gala Launch Party and
attended the invitation-only event without an invitation. DSO knew or should have known that D
Magazine would publish DSOs statements to the public at large.
18. Defendant D Magazine not only adopted and published the DSOs false
accusations concerning Mr. Reyes, but D Magazine placed the story on the front cover with the
eye-catching headline: The Party Crasher Who Duped Dallas Society and the article entitled:
The Talented Mr. Reyes: How a man of meager means and a mysterious past duped Dallas
society. The on-line title read: The Party Crasher Who Duped Dallas Society: How Jose
Reyes, a man of meager means and a mysterious past, charmed and then ran afoul of the Dallas
Symphony leadership.
19. Defendant D Magazine interviewed Plaintiff Joes Reyes who notified D Magazine
that he was indeed invited to the DSO AT&T Launch Gala Party and that he had a copy of the
invitation D Magazine could look at.
20. Defendant D Magazine, despite being notified of the falsity of DSOs accusations
and the allegations of others quoted in the articles, that fact that Mr. Reyes was invited to the
AT&T DSO Launch Party event and had the invitation for them to look at, allegations of others
quoted in the article, failed to properly investigate the DSOs allegations, and ran the story in
print and on-line without determining the truth and accuracy of the statements made about Jose
Reyes. Further, D Magazine took the extraordinary step of actually printing DSOs astounding
and unprecedented announcement to its entire readership that Mr. Reyes was no longer
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 6
affiliated with the DSO as a volunteer or its volunteer organizations or organizing committees.
21. Defendant D Magazine sought to promote its own interests and attract readership
by placing the story headline and unsupported story ahead of the reputation of Mr. Reyes.
Defendant D Magazine later admitted that there were problems with the story and on September
10, 2013, long after the story was published, issued corrections and clarifications in its
October 2013 print and its FrontBurner on-line column and blog. The alleged corrections and
clarifications were no more than a sarcastic reiteration of the same defamatory statements.
22. Defamation by the Defendants was clear and was for no purpose other than to
injure Mr. Reyess reputation, expose him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule, to impugn his
honesty, integrity and reputation and to cause him harm.
23. As a result of Defendants wrongful conduct, the impact on Jose Reyes life and
livelihood has been devastating. Jose Reyes was a private citizen and volunteer. The
Defendants defamatory conduct and allegations have subjected Jose Reyes to undeserved
infamous notoriety. He either is no longer allowed to perform or volunteer for civic duties for
various organizations or is no longer welcomed by civic organizations that he took part in to
participate in their events. People who he had known for years, worked with, partied with and
associated with for many years have withdrawn from him and shun him. The most enjoyable
and meaningful part of Mr. Reyess life has been robbed from him by the purposely hurtful and
injurious actions of the Defendants.
24. Mr. Reyess employment with Bank of America, a major sponsor and contributor
to the DSO, was terminated as a result of the defamatory statements and publication of the
defamatory statements and circumstances surrounding them. He has suffered a loss of income
and wages and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 7
25. As a result of the defamation and publication through D Magazine he has
experienced severe emotional distress and pain that has affected him in ways that have interfered
with his normal life. Mr. Reyes has suffered other consequences from the defamation and acts of
the DSO that have damaged him as well. DSOs actions were of such an outrageous nature as to
show heedless and reckless disregard for Mr. Reyess good name and well being.
V.
LIBEL, LIBEL PER SE, SLANDER AND SLANDER PER SE AND INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

26. Plaintiff repeats the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 25 and incorporates them
fully and though set out herein.
27. It has become necessary to file this Petition because the Defendants have defamed
Plaintiff Jose Reyes with various statements and through the publication of magazine articles that
individually and taken as a whole accuse Jose Reyes of illegal activity, unsocial acts and
improper behavior. Prior to the defamatory acts described above, Plaintiff Jose Reyes
participated in numerous civic activities devoting most of his free time and resources to various
civic organization s for over ten (10) years. The false accusations have caused him to lose status
with other organizations. Due to the false accusations and damage to his reputation, Mr. Reyes
is no longer welcome by these organizations and is shunned by many of these organizations and
many persons associated with these organizations.
28. Defendants deliberately and maliciously published falsehoods about the Plaintiff
Jose Reyes. Defendant DSO committed slander and slander per by saying falsehoods against the
Plaintiff, repeating them and/or transmitting them by word and through electronic media.
29. Defendant D Magazine committed libel and libel per se by printing the falsehoods
about the Plaintiff and transmitting them through electronic media.
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 8
30. When taken as a whole, the communications, jointly and individually, can only be
construed in light of the surrounding circumstances by a person of ordinary intelligence as false
and defamatory to Plaintiff. Clearly, the substance and essence of the defamatory
communications, both in total and individually, was both false and defamatory. The statements
were intended to distort the readers perception and they created a substantially false impression
of the Plaintiff. The reasonable conclusion a reader and/or receiver of the defamatory
communications, when the statements are taken as a whole, would draw the conclusion that
Plaintiff crashed parties and events of the DSO, was illegally at the property when the events
occurred and attended invitation-only events without invitations when such defamatory
accusations were absolutely false and known to be false by the Defendants.
31. Specifically, Plaintiff invokes the doctrines of slander, slander and libel per quod,
slander and libel by implication, slander and libel by inference, and slander and libel by
innuendo.
32. Since the defamatory communications accuse Plaintiff of criminal conduct
[illegal], the defamatory communications are slander and libel per se.
33. Defendants have intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiff.
34. The conduct of Defendants as set out in this Petition has proximately caused
damages to Jose Reyes.
VI.
NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND CONSPIRACY

35. Plaintiff repeats the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 34 and incorporates them
fully and though set out herein.
36. Defendants made, published and printed the false and defamatory statements set
forth above by negligently failing to ascertain or state the truth. The Defendants either knew or
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 9
should have known in the exercise of ordinary care that the statements were false. Defendants
acted in concert with a meeting of the minds and conspired to publish the defamatory statements.
37. Defendants did not limit their publication of the statements to persons with a
legitimate interest in the information that they contained. Defendant DSO made sure that local
media, including Defendant D Magazine, were given unfettered access to Defendant DSOs
version of the events and statements. Defendant D Magazine voluntarily published the
statements to the public, including to the Plaintiff's employer. Defendant D Magazine did not
conduct a proper investigation of the facts before publishing the defamatory statements.
38. The Defendants were negligent and grossly negligent by publishing the
defamatory statements with knowledge that they were false or with substantial grounds for
knowing that they might be false with reckless disregard to whether they were true or false.
39. Prior to the publication of the defamatory statements described above, the
Plaintiff enjoyed a reputation for industry, dependability, openness, and honesty.
40. Defendants were negligent in the publication of the defamatory communications.
41. Defendants were negligent and grossly negligent in permitting and encouraging
those who received the defamatory communications to share those communications with others.
42. Defendants were negligent and grossly negligent in failing to have due process in
place so that Plaintiff could have at least known of the charges levied against him by Defendants
and had the opportunity to defend himself before the Defendants publicly branded him as a
party crasher, interloper and trickster.
43. Defendants were grossly negligent in their publication of the defamatory
communications.
44. Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defame Plaintiff with the defamatory
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 10
communications.
45. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
VII.
DAMAGES

46. As a proximate cause of the Defendants' publication of the defamatory statements
and negligence, the Plaintiff's reputation has been severely injured. The publication of the
defamatory statements caused such severe emotional distress and mental anguish, and Plaintiff
has been unable to perform in the past and will continue to be unable to perform in the
foreseeable future daily life activities and functions. The defamatory statements have caused the
Plaintiff to suffer extreme mental anguish, public humiliation, and embarrassment and in all
reasonable likelihood Plaintiff will continue to suffer extreme mental anguish in the future.
47. Prior to the publication of the defamatory statements by the defendants, the
Plaintiff had been employed. As a proximate cause of the Defendants publication of the
defamatory statements and the circumstances surrounding it, the Plaintiffs employment was
terminated. As a result of this termination, the plaintiff has lost wages and benefits to date.
48. In addition, because of the publication of the defamatory statements and their
effect on the Plaintiff's reputation, the Plaintiff is unable to obtain any alternate or comparable
employment and will continue to lose wages and benefits in the future.
49. As a result of the conduct and incidents described about Plaintiff Jose Reyes, he
has suffered many other damages, including loss of self-esteem, loss of trust, and loss of faith by
fellow civic-minded citizens and colleagues who formerly trusted him and thought highly of him.
In all reasonable probability, his social and professional life in the past has been affected and in
all probability his future social and professional life will be adversely affected as well.
50. Plaintiff has suffered lost wages in the past and will suffer a diminished wage-
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 11
earning capacity in the future.
51. As a result of the above, Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of the jurisdictional
limits of the Court.
VIII.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES

52. The Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages from Defendants DSO and D
Magazine because they acted with the required malice required to support an award of exemplary
damages. Defendant DSO and its agents, employees and representatives acted with a specific
intent to cause injury to the plaintiff or conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of
the plaintiff with actual, subjective awareness that its conduct involved an extreme degree of risk
of harm to the Jose Reyes.
53. Plaintiff also seeks punitive and exemplary damages in order to punish and deter
the outrageous conduct taken in heedless and reckless disregard for the good name of the
Plaintiff and as a result of Defendants conscious indifference in destroying his good name.
IX.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

54. All conditions precedent have been preformed or have occurred as required by
Tex. R. Civ. P. 54.
55. Plaintiff has complie with the Defamation Mitigation Act. Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code 73.051 et. seq.
X.
PRAYER

Wherefore Premises Considered, Plaintiff requests that Defendants be cited to appear and
answer, and that on final trial the Plaintiff have the following:
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION-PAGE 12
1. Judgment against Defendants for actual, specific and consequential damages in a
sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court;

2. Judgment for punitive damages against defendant in a sum determined by the trier
of fact;

3. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

4. Costs of suit; and

5. Such other and further relief to which plaintiff may be justly entitled.


Respectfully submitted,
THE FEIN LAW FIRM, P.C.


By:____________________________
Eric D. Fein
State Bar No. 06879020
efein@feinlawfirm.com
Vickie S. Brandt
State Bar No. 24031878
vbrandt@feinlawfirm.com
C. Summer Vanderburg
State Bar No. 24088574
svanderburg@feinlawfirm.com
15455 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 1225
Addison, Texas 75001
214-522-9596
214-522-9599 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF