TH JUDICIAL CIRUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: ___________________
PRAKAZREL MICHEL P/K/A PRAS MICHEL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NYP HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a NEW YORK POST, ISABEL VINCENT AND MELISSA KLEIN,
Defendants.
/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, PRAKAZREL MICHEL P/K/A PRAS MICHEL (Pras or Plaintiff), sues Defendants, NYP HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a NEW YORK POST (New York Post), Isabel Vincent (Vincent) and MELISSA KLEIN (Klein) (collectively referred to as Defendants) for false, inflammatory and libelous assertions concerning Pras involvement with a failed 9/11 benefit concert. Specifically, Defendants falsely claimed that Pras owned the Hope for Them foundation (the Foundation), which allegedly bounced a check to the venue hosting a charity event, falsely claimed that MTV sponsored the event and failed to register the charity with state officials. Pras has never owned nor been an owner, director or officer of the Foundation and has been damaged millions of dollars based on the reckless reporting conducted by the Defendants. PARTIES Filing # 19131674 Electronically Filed 10/08/2014 10:11:34 AM 2 1. Plaintiff, Pras, is an individual who resides in Broward County, Florida. Pras is a two-time Grammy winning artist, a founding member of the famous music group, the Fugees, and is an acclaimed philanthropist who has devoted much of his life to assisting those in need in Haiti and elsewhere around the world. 2. Defendant, New York Post, is one of the most widely circulated newspapers in the United States and has an expansive presence worldwide, both as a newspaper and through its digital content that New York Post publishes and disseminates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. New York Post owns and operates Page Six, a gossip column that commonly takes aim at covering notable celebrities. New York Post circulates its newspaper in Florida, advertises, promotes and disseminates its digital content in Florida and otherwise does or solicits business in Florida. 3. At all times material hereto, Defendants Vincent and Klein were reporters for New York Post who, while acting within the scope of their employment at New York Post, contributed to the article, Ex-Fugee rapper bailed on his own 9/11 benefit concert 1 (the Article) at issue in this lawsuit, attached hereto as Exhibit A. JURISDICTION 4. This court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit, because the amount in controversy is more than Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs. Pras seeks $30,000,000 for the extreme reputational harm he has suffered as a result of Defendants reckless acts. 5. Venue and jurisdiction are appropriate in Broward County, Florida because Pras is and continues to be a resident of Broward County, Florida, and has been extensively damaged in Broward County, Florida based on Defendants acts of drafting,
1 See http://pagesix.com/2014/10/05/ex-fugee-rapper-bailed-on-his-own-911-benefit-concert/ 3 publishing and disseminating the Article throughout the world, including but not limited to individuals who have and maintain personal and professional relationships with Pras in Broward County, Florida. Thus, the cause of action accrued in Broward County, Florida and Floridas long-arm statute (Fla. Stat. 48.193) applies to the instant case. 6. Pras reputation has been devastatingly harmed in Broward County, Florida as a result of Defendants defamatory acts. Additionally, Defendants availed themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court based on their transacting business in Broward County, Florida. The resulting injury to Pras was initiated in this jurisdiction by an act or omission of Defendants that had the effect of taking place in Broward County, Florida. Furthermore, this Court has jurisdiction over New York Post based on the cause of action arising from Defendants tortious act in this county by an act or omission outside of this county, and New York Post engages in a persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in Broward County, Florida. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Pras has dedicated much of his life to charity, providing whatever resources he can to others in need, with a specific focus on philanthropic efforts aimed at restoring Haiti after the devastating 2010 earthquake and empowering its inhabitants in any way possible. 8. Thus, it came as a complete shock to Pras when he discovered his name printed as the first words in the Article that blasphemously claimed he bailed on his own 9/11 benefit concert. 4 9. Defendants wrote, published and disseminated the Article without conducting any due diligence on the matter covered or attempting any real outreach to uncover if any truth existed relating to the matter that was being asserted therein. 10. Vincent and Klein, the authors of the Article, hold themselves out as investigative journalists. New York Post has also consistently referenced Vincent and Klein as investigative journalists in its newspaper and on the Internet. 11. The drafting, publishing and dissemination of the Article was accomplished with a reckless disregard for the truth. The reckless reporting would be deemed as such had a high school student drafted the Article. However, the authors are seasoned, experienced investigative journalists employed by one of the most widely circulated newspapers in the world. Their actions serve as blatant reckless disregard for the truth. 12. The opening paragraph of the Article states that the Hope for Them foundation is Pras foundation. That statement is completely false. 13. But for Defendants making a false connection between the Foundation and Pras, there would be no article and Pras would not have been harmed. Yet, Defendants published the Article that recklessly associated Pras and the Foundation, which has resulted in an exorbitant amount of reputational and emotional harm to Pras, negatively affecting his business ventures and his well-being. 14. The Article claims that Pras was a no-show as a headliner for a charity event in Hells Kitchen. That statement is false. Pras never guaranteed a performance at the event. 5 15. The Article claims it was a 9/11 charity event, even mentioning 9/11 in the title of the Article, in an effort to falsely make an association between the event and the horrendous terrorist events that took place on September 11, 2001. However, said event had absolutely nothing to do with the charity event in Hells Kitchen. This goes to show that New York Post purposefully inserts language in an effort to sensationalize articles and pump up page views, even if the content is false and serves the effect of wrongfully harming an individuals reputation and further causing emotional distress. 16. Pras reputation was further tarnished, because the Article states that the Foundation bounced a check to the venue hosting the charity event, falsely claimed MTV sponsored the event and failed to register the charity with state officials. These wrongs were falsely associated with Pras, who had nothing to do with the event and has no relationship with the Foundation. 17. The Article was published on October 5, 2014 at 3:36 a.m. EDT. 18. On October 3, 2014 at 9:33 p.m. EDT, the Foundations president wrote to Defendant, Vincent, Pras is a good friend of the organization and supports our cause but is not a board member. (emphasis added) 19. Vincent and Klein failed to follow up on that statement. They did not ask any further questions about Pras role (if any) with the Foundation. They made no effort to determine whether Pras was actually a part of the Foundation after its president explicitly said he was not a board member. They did not even seek to obtain the Foundations articles of incorporation, which reveal that Pras is neither an officer nor director of the Foundation. Yet, in the first paragraph of the Article, Defendants refer to the Foundation as his own, in reference to Pras. 6 20. Since the Article was initially published on October 5, 2014, Pras has received countless phone calls and other forms of communication from friends, family and high-profile businesspeople with inquiries relating to the Article and questions regarding his ability to engage in important transactions worth millions of dollars to Pras and his colleagues. 21. Pras is currently in the process of attempting to effectuate major transactions that possess international importance and has been questioned by those involved in such transactions solely based on the publication and content of the Article. 22. New York Post was the first publication to cover one such potential transaction, involving the acquisition of the Plaza Hotel, Dream Downtown and Londons Grosvenor House Hotel 2 , attached hereto as ExhibitB. 23. That deal, along with many other transactions involving Pras, are now at serious risk of falling apart due to the reputational harm that Pras is suffering as a consequence of the drafting, publication and dissemination of the Article. Millions of dollars are now on the line due to Defendants highly reckless actions. 24. On October 5, 2014, the undersigned counsel sent a demand letter to Defendants requiring them to immediately retract the Article and further publish a retraction letter containing an apology to Pras for recklessly dragging his name in the mud without conducting any due diligence into the matters discussed in the Article. 25. Despite Pras good faith attempt to resolve this matter without litigation, Defendants failed to comply with the demands set forth in the demand letter. 26. Pras continues to suffer the extremely harmful effects of Defendants actions.
2 See http://pagesix.com/2014/09/09/pras-michel-joins-2-2-billion-bid-to-buy-the-plaza-hotel/ 7 27. Thus, Pras is left without any option to seek relief other than to file the instant Complaint against Defendants seeking monetary damages and any further relief the Court deems to be fair and just. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DEFAMATION/LIBEL 28. Pras re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein. 29. Defendants made and published statements of fact and/or statements of mixed opinion and fact (which are made actionable because there are undisclosed sets of defamatory facts underlying the opinion) in an intentionally false, malicious, or otherwise defamatory manner (i.e. with reckless disregard for the truth) and distributed same (in the form of the Article) in Florida and throughout the rest of the world. 30. The statements made by Defendants had, and continue to have, a defamatory effect, because they have resulted in an adverse effect to the reputation and standing of Pras, primarily among his surrounding community in Broward County, Florida and with businesspeople that he has done, is in the process of doing, or plans to do business with in the future. 31. The statements made by Defendants had, and continue to have, the effect of impeaching Pras honesty, integrity, virtues, morals and the like. Defendants attacked Pras charitable efforts, in which Pras takes a great amount of pride, as he has dedicated much of his life to serving and helping others in need. Pras positive character has opened doors for him in business and Defendants actions have already caused, and will continue to cause, harm to Pras reputation, which is of utmost importance in his day-to- day dealings. 8 32. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that the Foundation belongs to Pras. That is false. 33. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras bounced a check to a venue. That is false. 34. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras falsely claimed MTV sponsored a fund-raiser hosted by the Foundation. That is false. 35. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras had an obligation to register the charity with state officials. That is false. 36. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras had an obligation to perform as a headliner for a 9/11 charity event. That is false. 37. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras was associated with an event, and bailed on his own 9/11 benefit concert. That is false. 38. Defendants made the defamatory statements through the popular Page Six of New York Post to newspaper subscribers, newspaper purchasers and individuals accessing the New York Post website and the Article on the Internet. Those individuals include persons located in Broward County, Florida and throughout the entire world. Many of those individuals who have read the Article include businesspeople who have done, or are contemplating doing, business with Pras. 39. Defendants caused the false and defamatory Article to be published with knowledge of its falsity and/or with reckless disregard for the truth. In the alternative, Defendants made and published the defamatory statements with negligent disregard for the truth. 9 40. All of the defamatory statements made and published by Defendants concerning Pras are false. 41. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants defamatory statements, Pras has suffered and continues to suffer compensable and pecuniary damages. Specifically, but without limitation, Pras has experienced and continues to experience false rumors, damage to reputation, and continual questioning from businesspeople, including key executives in the music and movie industries who demand more information about the underlying issue reported by Defendants before they are willing to proceed with ongoing business negotiations. Pras has incurred and continues to incur attorneys fees and other costs and expenses suffered and continues to lose otherwise advantageous relationships with businesspeople based on Defendants defamatory statements. 42. Pras hereby reserves the right to seek leave to amend this Count to add a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.72. 43. Wherefore, Pras asks this Honorable Court to award him damages in the amount recoverable as a result of the damage to his reputation (which Pras estimates to be a value of $30,000,000 based on lost business opportunities), costs, attorneys fees, interest and costs and such other relief the Court deems just and proper. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: DEFAMATION/LIBEL PER SE 44. Pras re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein. 45. Defendants made and published statements of fact and/or statements of mixed opinion and fact (which are made actionable because there are undisclosed sets of 10 defamatory facts underlying the opinion) in an intentionally false, malicious, or otherwise defamatory manner (i.e. with reckless disregard for the truth) and distributed same (in the form of the Article) in Florida and throughout the rest of the world. 46. The statements made by Defendants had, and continue to have, a defamatory effect, because they have resulted in an adverse effect to the reputation and standing of Pras, primarily among his surrounding community in Broward County, Florida and with businesspeople that he has, is in the process of, or plans to do business with in the future. 47. The statements made by Defendants had, and continue to have, the effect of impeaching Pras honesty, integrity, virtues, morals and the like. Defendants attacked Pras charitable efforts, which Pras takes a great amount of pride in as he has dedicated much of his life to serving and helping others in need. Pras positive character has opened doors for him in business and Defendants actions have already caused, and will continue to cause harm, to Pras reputation, which is of utmost importance in his day-to- day dealings. 48. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that the Foundation belongs to Pras. That is false. 49. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras bounced a check to a venue. That is false. 50. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras falsely claimed MTV sponsored a fund-raiser hosted by the Foundation. That is false. 51. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras had an obligation to register the charity with state officials. That is false. 11 52. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras had an obligation to perform as a headliner for a 9/11 charity event. That is false. 53. Defendants specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras was associated with an event, and bailed on his own 9/11 benefit concert. That is false. 54. Defendants made the defamatory statements through the popular Page Six of New York Post to newspaper subscribers, newspaper purchasers and individuals accessing the New York Post website and the Article on the Internet. Those individuals include persons located in Broward County, Florida and throughout the entire world. Many of those individuals who have read the Article include businesspeople who have or are contemplating doing business with Pras. 55. Defendants caused the false and defamatory Article to be published with knowledge of its falsity and/or with reckless disregard for the truth. In the alternative, Defendants made and published the defamatory statements with negligent disregard for the truth. 56. All of the defamatory statements made and published by Defendants concerning Pras are false. 57. The Article was defamatory per se, because it contains allegations injurious to Pras in his trade and business. 58. The Article specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras does not have the character required to carry out his particular occupation, that of a celebrity headliner who makes appearances at events in exchange for compensation or otherwise. 12 59. The Article further specifically and unambiguously stated and/or implied that Pras, who considers his occupation to be philanthropist, does not have the character to carry out his duties and responsibilities in connection with charitable giving and enterprise. 60. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants defamatory statements, Pras has suffered and continues to suffer compensable and pecuniary damages. Specifically, but without limitation, Pras has experienced and continues to experience false rumors, damage to reputation, and continual questioning from businesspeople, including key executives in the music and movie industries who demand more information about the underlying issue reported by Defendants. Pras has incurred and continues to incur attorneys fees and other costs and expenses suffered and continues to lose otherwise advantageous relationships with businesspeople based on Defendants defamatory statements. 61. Pras hereby reserves the right to seek leave to amend this Count to add a claim for punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.72. 62. Wherefore, Pras asks this Honorable Court to award him damages in the amount recoverable as a result of the damage to his reputation (which Pras estimates to be a value of $30,000,000 based on lost business opportunities), costs, attorneys fees, interest and costs and such other relief the Court deems just and proper. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT OR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
63. Pras re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein. 13 64. Defendants knew or should have known that their egregious conduct in drafting, publishing and disseminating the defamatory Article (including its title and body content) would cause Pras emotional distress. 65. Defendants acts in drafting, publishing and disseminating the Article without conducting a real investigation or any due diligence was extreme and outrageous, especially for a publication the size of New York Post and journalists held out to the public as investigative journalists, beyond all possible bounds of decency. 66. Defendants extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally, recklessly or negligently caused Pras emotional distress and should be subject to liability for such emotional distress. 67. Defendants conduct in drafting, publishing and disseminating the Article is sufficiently outrageous and intolerable as to support an award to Pras for punitive damages. 68. Defendants conduct was atrocious and utterly intolerable, as it falsely associated Pras, who dedicates his life to charitable efforts, with the failure of an event that was purported to benefit Haiti and benefit those somehow related to the tragic terrorist events that took place on 9/11. 69. As a result, Pras has suffered and continues to suffer harm, including but not limited to physical injuries, severe emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation, the nature of which no reasonable person should be expected to be able to endure. Pras is thus entitled to recover damages under this cause of action. DEMAND FOR JURY Plaintiff, Pras Michel, hereby requests trial by jury on all counts so triable. 14 October 8, 2014 Respectfully submitted. HEITNER LEGAL, P.L.L.C Attorney for Plaintiff 185 SW 7th Street, Suite 2311 Miami, Florida 33130 Phone: 954-558-6999 Fax: 954-927-3333
By: DARREN A. HEITNER Florida Bar No.: 85956 Darren@heitnerlegal.com