Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
i delphia, PA 19146
4 904-6004
nickcooney@gmaiLcom
6
7
8
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
12
13
14
Case No.
)
)
)
)
)
15
16
Defendants.
17
18
1. Defamation
2. False Light
3. Intentional Infliction Of
Emotional Distress
)
)
)
)
19
1--------------)
20
21
22
Plaintiff Nicholas Cooney brings this suit for damages for the improper and unlawful
defamation,campaign launched against him by Defendants. In support thereof Plaintiff states the
23
following:
24
25
26
27
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Stephanie Wilson, Adam Weissman, and Wetlands Activism Collective have
engaged in a concerted defamation campaign which seeks to ruin the reputation of Nicholas
28
COMPUUNTFORDAMAGES
Cooney, an author and well-respected leader within the animal protection field. Defendants have
2
disseminated defamatory accusations about Mr. Cooney through word of mouth, phone, email,
web sites, internet postings, and printed flyers. Although the information spewing from these
4
5
sources is false, Mr. Cooney has suffered substantial and likely irreparable damage to his
reputation. Defendants must take responsibility for their abuse ofthe right to free speech.
It is when free speech morphs into defamation that we tum to the courts for help. Mr.
8
Cooney wants his life back; he wants to save his reputation in the court of public opinion.
9
10
II
12
13
Constitution, as well as 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (a) (1) which states that "The district
14
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy
15
exceeds the sum or value of$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between ...
16
17
2. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (a) (3) which states that "A civil
18
19
20
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. "
21
22
23
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the out of state defendants based on the
Pennsylvania long-arm statute, 42 P.S. 5322, under which a court's sole inquiry is
whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutional. Specific
24
their activities at a resident of Pennsylvania and the injury arises from those activities.
26
ability to sell his book, an economic activity carried out by Me Cooney in Pennsylvania
5
6
7. The damage to Mr. Cooney's reputation occurs primarily in Pennsylvania, where he lives
and works as the director of an animal protection organization and as a published author.
8
See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) and Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44,
9
12
III. PARTIES
13
14
15
16
10.
17
18
belief, resides at 144 Lincoln Ln., Chapel Hill, NC 27516. Defendant Adam Weissman is a
19
natural person residing in New York City, NY. Defendant Wetlands Activism Collective is a
20
non-profit business controlled by Defendant Adam Weissman that is located at 15 Thames St.,
21
Brooklyn, NY 11206.
22
23
11.
24
corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as JOHN DOES 1-50, inclusive,
25
and therefore sues those Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffwill amend this
26
complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and
27
believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is legally
28
3
responsible or negligent in some manner for the occurrences, acts, and omissions herein alleged,
2
and that Plaintiff s injuries and damages as herein alleged were directly and legally caused by
that negligence, willful, or intentional conduct Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that
4
basis alleges that all DOE Defendants are either residents of the State of Pennsylvania or are
Defendants, or a specifically named Defendant, refers also to all Defendants sued under
fictitious names.
10
11
12
13
attempt to damage his reputation so that he can no longer serve as a leader in the animal
14
protection community, a field in which he has worked for the past eight years and a field which
15
16
17
18
19
sales of Plaintiffs recently published book and to prevent Plaintiff from engaging in public
lectures and book sales.
20
14.
21
22
City, NY demanding they cancel a planned talk and book sale by Plaintiff Defendants asserted
23
to Blue Stockings representatives that Plaintiff abuses animals, physically abuses women, and
24
sexually assaults women. Blue Stockings Bookstore canceled the planned talk just hours before
25
the event because they did not have the ability to deal with the protest and in-store disruption of
26
28
15.
2
Defendants passed out flyers at Blue Stockings Bookstore the evening of the
planned talk asserting tharPlaintiffhad a history of sexual and physical violence against women
16.
Women. Nick Cooney has an ugly history of violence against women, including instances of
physical, sexual and emotional violence against partners in relationships and other activists ...
When threats have not been enough, he has followed through on those threats causing physical
10
II
12
13
harm to companion animals in an attempt to intimidate and control both partners and other
women." Defendants' flyer encouraged the public to boycott Plaintiffs book.
17.
Defendant Stephanie Wilson wrote and provided to other Defendants and to Blue
Stockings Bookstore a statement in which she alleges that, while she was dating Plaintiff in
14
2005-2006, Plaintiff raped her, threatened her on an almost daily basis, physically abused her,
15
16
encouraged housemates to threaten her as much as possible, and threatened to hurt or kill her
17
companion animals. Defendant Wilson requests in her statement that Plaintiff and the public not
18
be made aware that she is the one making these claims. Upon information and belief, this
19
.
20
18.
21
22
the Wetlands Activism Collective, and Defendant Wilson, emailed the text of the flyer and a
23
24
Plaintiff Recipients included Jason Del Gandio, a Temple University professor who resides in
25
Pennsylvania and who was asked by Defendants to rescind a praise quote he had issued for
26
27
Plaintiffs book. Defendants also contacted Plaintiffs publisher, Lantern Books, and upon
28
information and belief asked Plaintiffs publisher to stop selling Plaintiffs book. Defendants'
2
also contacted other colleagues of Plaintiff by phone and email and made similar demands that
19.
In February of 20 11, Defendants posted the text of their flyer and similar
allegations tliat Plaintiff had sexually and physically assaulted women and physically abused
20.
In March of2011, Defendants posted the text of their flyer and similar allegations
10
that Plaintiff had sexually and physically assaulted women and physically abused animals on
11
12
13
21.
14
Facebook pages.
15
16
22.
In March of2011, Defendants posted the text of their flyer and similar allegations
17
that Plaintiff had sexually and physically assaulted women and physically abused animals on
18
19
23.
In March of2011, Defendants posted the text oftheir flyer and similar allegations
20
that Plaintiff had sexually and physically assaulted women and physically abused animals on
21
22
the animal advocacy listserv "AR-News." The AR-News listserv is a popular emaillistserv that
23
reaches over 600 animal advocates from across the United States. Emails posted to the listserve
24
are also perpetually and publicly viewable through the AR-News online listserv archive.
25
24.
Upon information and belief, Defendants have made numerous other false and
26
damaging statements about Plaintiff to many other individuals in the animal advocacy
27
28
community.
2
25.
made, among others, the following false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff:
4
a.
b.
c.
IO
II
d.
12
13
14
e.
15
16
17
18
19
26.
Defendant Stephanie Wilson has made, among others, the following false and
He raped her
b.
c.
d.
e.
He intentionally let her animals out of the house so he could chase her
20
21
22
23
24
25
g.
26
27
28
h.
27,
28,
The Defendants' phone calls and emails to Blue Stockings Bookstore, Jason Del
10
11
12
29.
13
to be factual.
14
30.
15
16
17
18
19
Defendants' postings on the AR-News listserv, Blue Stockings listserv, and on the
20
32.
21
22
23
24
25
communicated to third parties in person, over the phone, over email, by printed flyer, via
listservs, blogs, web sites, and web postings.
33.
Individuals who read, saw, or heard these statements, including personal and
professional contacts of Plaintiff as well as potential customers of his book and potential
26
27
28
34.
2
They harm the reputation of Plaintiff so as to lower it in the estimation of the community and
deter third persons from associating or dealing with Plaintiff and entice further baseless claims
4
against Plaintiff.
above~described
35.
All of the
36.
It was Defendants' expectation and intent that this defamatory matter would be
republished and further disseminated to the public at large as evidenced by their use of forums
10
11
12
13
with broad readership/viewership such as blogs, popular listservs, website~, and Facebook.
37.
Defendants were notified that their publications were defamatory via cease and
14
desist letters issued by Plaintiff's attorney to Defendants on March 12, 2011. Defendants failed to
15
16
17
18
19
comply with or respond to the directives of the cease and desist letters.
39.
20
published the above-described defamatory statements with actual malice through a reckless
21
22
23
24
25
with actual malice, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form ofloss to reputation, lost profits,
and increased costs.
26
42.
Defendants acted with malice [see Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss
27
28
Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 105 S. Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985)] and engaged in highly
2
43.
5
6
7
8
Defendants also accused Plaintiff of behavior incompatible with his profession of animal
advocacy.
44.
9
10
11
12
FALSE LIGHT
13
14
45.
15
16
17
18
19
reference.
46.
Plaintiff that were false and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, including that he
is a rapist, physically abuses and physically threatens women, threatens animals, and abuses
20
animals.
21
22
23
47.
48.
24
25
26
27
28
10
49.
reference herein.
4
50.
Based on the aforementioned facts, the conduct of Defendants was outrageous and
beyond the bounds of decency such that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
7
Plaintiff was and has been forced to endure great pain, anguish, shock, feelings of helplessness
8
and desperation with Defendants' attempts to stain Plaintiff's reputation and encourage others to
11
12
13
51.
peril to Plaintiff.
52.
Defendants' conduct has had a severe, traumatic and lasting effect on Plaintiffs
14
emotional tranquility. As a proximate result of the outrageous acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff
15
16
17
18
19
has suffered severe emotional distress and a loss of and reduction of enjoyment in life.
53.
The distress created was in time and manner sufficiently substantial such that a
Since the time of Defendants' initial statements, Plaintiff has incurred financial
20
losses in addressing these defamatory claims including costs associated with preparation for
21
22
23
24
25
and offensive acts of Defendants, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has sustained severe and serious injury
to his person, including but not limited to severe emotional distress, mental anguish and
26
28
11
Wherefore:
AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, for
4
5
1.
F or compensatory damages;
2.
3.
Upon a verdict or judicial finding in favor of Cooney on his defamation claim, for
9
10
11
a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from issuing defamatory statements about Plaintiff
to others through the phone, internet, in person, or thorough any other means;
12
4.
13
5.
6.
For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
14
15
16
17
18
19
AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendant, for
damages in excess of $75,000, in amounts according to proof, for:
1.
2.
20
Upon a verdict or judicial finding in favor of Cooney on his defamation claim, for
. 3.
21
22
23
about Plaintiff to others through the phone, internet; in person, or thorough any other
24
means;
25
4.
26
5.
27
28
12
6.
2
For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendant for:
5
6
5.
11
6.
12
7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13