Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 23 PageID# 5

POST OFFICE BOX 2452

Secretary ofthe Commonwealth

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23218-2452

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PROCESS

Juan A. Davila
813 17th Street

11/12/2015

Apt B
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33305
United States
Centell Colonzo McNeil
vs.

Juan A. Davila

Summons and Complaint

Notice

Dear Sir/Madam:

You are beingserved with the enclosed notice undersection 8.01-329 of the Codeof Virginia
which designates the Secretary of the Commonwealth as statutory agent for Service of Process.
If you have any questions about the matter, PLEASE contact the CLERK of the enclosed/below

mentioned court or any attorney of your choice. Our office does not accept payments on behalf
of debts. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's ONLY responsibility is to mail the enclosed
papers to you.

COURT:

Richmond City Circuit Court

John Marshall Court Building
400 North 9th Street

Richmond, VA 23219

Service of Process Clerk //O

Secretary of the Commonw^^h's
Office

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 23 PageID# 6

AFFIDAVIT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE

760CL15004577-00

Case No.

SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH

Commonwealth of Virginia
Richmond Citv Circuit Court

Circuit Court

Cemel 1 Colonzo McNeil

Juan A. Davila

c/o Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, PC

813 17lh Street Apt B

105 South 1st Street

Fort Laudcrdalc l-L. 33305

Richmond, VA 23219

TO THE PERSON PREPARING THIS AFFIDAVIT: You mustcomply with the appropriate requirements listedon the backof this I'omi.

Attachments;

S Summons andComplaint

Notice

1,the undersigned Affiant, state under oath that

HI the above-named defendant

whose last known address is

D
IE! same as above CD

1. S is anon-resident ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia or aforeign corporation and Virginia Code 8.01-328.1 (A)
applies (see NON-RESIDENCE GROUNDS REQUIREMENT on reverse).

2. D is aperson whom the party seeking service, after exercising due diligence, has been unable to locate (see DUE DILIGENCE

REQUIREMENT ON BACK)

is the hearing dale and time on the attached process or notice.

JONATHAN MICHAELARTHUR
PARTY a PART.if'S ATrORN^^ CT PARTVS AGENT ('/>rTVSJ<F.GUI.AR ANJ) HONA l-UM-:

DATE

State of

registration #76(^19

City County of

Acknowledged, subscribed and sworn to before me this day by

/I^.

"** ^

PRlbay^AME OF SIGNATOR\

JLj--.vIAGlSTR.-\H^t^
Q<UG1S

MTE

NoJar> R^sfra^n No

lau NOTARY i"i.isi.n.

PUBLIC

Mycommission expires;

//A

D Verification oftlie date offiling ofthe certificate ofcorj^jJliancc is requested and aself-addressed stamped envelope is proviaed.
NOTICE TOTHERECIPIENT from the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Virginia:
You are being .served with this notice and attached pleadings under Section 8.01-329 of the Code of Virginia which designates the Secretary
of the Commonwealth as statutory agent for Ser\'ice of Process. The Secrciar>' of the Commonwealth's ONLY responsibility is tomail, by
certified mail, return receipt requested, the enclosed papers toyou. Ifyou have any questions concerning these documents, you may wish to
seek advice from a lawyer.
SERVICE OF PROCESS IS EFFECTIVE ON lilE DA I E THA T THE CERTIFICATE 01" COMPLIANCE IS l-ILED WITH THE AliOVE-

NAMED COURT.
CERTIFICATE OF COiMPLIANCE

1, the undersigned. Clerk in the Office of theSecretary of the Commonwealth, hereby certify the following:
1 On

legal sen'ice inthe above-styled case was made upon the Secretary- of the

Commonwealth, as statutory' ageni for personsto be served in accordance with Section8.01-329of the Code of Virginia, as amended.

2. On

j^Qy....l...3...2D|5

jpapers described in the Affidavit were forwarded by certified mail, return receipt

requested, to die party designated to be served with process in the Allldavit.

SERV1CT-: OF PROCT-SS CLERK. DESIGNATE

BY n il-: ALTHORrrv of ri ie secretary of the commonwealth

FORM CC-i418 (MASTER. PAGE ONE OF TWO) 11/07

VA, CODE 8.0!-301, -310,-329; 55-2IS.I; 57-51

20i^

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 23 PageID# 7

NON-RESIDENCE GROUNDS REQUIREMENT:

If boxnumber 1 is checked, insertthe appropriate subsection number:

A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by anagent, as to a cause of
action arising from the person's:

1.

Transacting anybusiness in this Commonwealth;

2.

Contracting to supplyservicesor things in this Commonwealth;

3.

Causing tortious injuryby an act or omission in this Commonwealth;

4.

Causing tortious injuryin this Commonwealth by an act or omission outside this Commonwealth ifhe
regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any otherpersistent courseof conduct, or derives
substantial revenue from goodsused or consumed or services rendered in this Commonwealth;

5.

Causing injury in this Commonwealth to any person bybreach ofwarranty expressly or impliedly made in
thesale ofgoods outside tMs Commonwealth when hemight reasonably have expected such person to
use, consume, or be affected by the goods in this Commonwealth, providedthathe alsoregularly does or
solicits business, or engages in anyotherpersistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from
goodsused or consumed or services rendered in this Commonwealth;

6.
7.

Having an interest in, using, or possessing realproperty in this Commonwealth;

Contractingto msure any person, property, or risk located within this Commonwealth at the time of
contracting;

8(ii), Having been ordered topay spousal support orchild support pursuant to anorder entered byany court of
competentjurisdiction in this Conamonwealth having
jurisdiction over such person; or
10. Having incurred a liability fortaxes, fines, penalties, interest, or other charges to any political subdivision
of the Commonwealth.

DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT:

If boxnumber 2 is checked, the following provision applies:

When the person to beserved is a resident, the signature of anattorney, party or agent ofthe person seeking ...
service on suchaffidavit shall constitute a certificate by him thatprocess hasbeendelivered to the sheriffor to a
disinterested person aspermitted by 8.01-293 for execution and, if thesheriff or disinterested person was
unable to execute suchservice, that theperson seeking service has beenunable, after exercising due diligence,
to locate the person to be served.

FORMCC-1418(MASTER, PAGETWO OF TWO) 11/07

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 4 of 23 PageID# 8

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND CITY CIRCUIT COURT

Civil Division
400 NORTH 9TH STREET
RICHMOND VA 23219

Summons

To: JUAN A DAVILA

Case No 760CL15004577-00

SVE SECRETARY OF THE

COMMONWEALTH

The party upon whom this summons and the attached complaint are served is hereby notified
that unless within 21 days after such service, response is made by filing in the clerk's office
of this court a pleading in writing, in proper legal form, the allegations and charges may be
taken as admitted and the court may enter an order, judgment, or decree against such party
either by default or after hearing evidence.
Appearance in person is not required by this summons.

Done in the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia on,Monday, November 02, 2015
Clerk of Court: EDWARD F JEWETT

by

t
(GfcBRKyDEPUTY CLERK )

Instructions:

Hearing Official:

Attorney s name.

MOONEY, BRET H

804-783-2000

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 5 of 23 PageID# 9

VIRGEm:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND

CENTELL COLONZO MCOTIL,

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Case No.

BIAGGI PRODUCTIONS, LLC,

Serve Registered Agent:

Juan Melecio Davila

1201N Federal Hi^way, #7605

Fort Lauderdale,FL 33338

JUAN A. DAVILA,

. Serve: 813 17" Street Apt B

'
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33305-3046 (Broward Counfy)
Defendant.
COMPLAINT

Comes now Centell McNeil, by and throu^ counsel, and for his complaint,jointly and .

severallyagainstBiaggi Productions, LLC andJuan A. Davila (collectively, 'the Defendants"),

he states as follows;
Parties

1. Centell McNeil ("Plaintiff) is a citizenof Virginia, a resident of the Cityof Richmond,.

Virginia, and a police officer for the City of,RichmondPolice Department.

2. DefendantBiaggi Productions,. LLC ("Defendant Company") is a limited liability

coiporation domiciled in-Fort Lauderd^e, Florida at 1201 North Federal Hi^way,
#7605, Fort LauderdalOiFL 33338.

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 6 of 23 PageID# 10

3. Defendant Juan A. Davila ("DefendantDavila'*) is a resideint ofFort Lauderdale, Florida.

Defendant Davila is also known as Juan Melecio, Juan MelecioDavila, JolinMelecio

Davila, JohnMelecio, Antonio Biaggi, andAntonio BiaggiDavila.

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. This court has jurisdictionpursuantto Virginia Code 17.1-513 as this is a civil case
involving a claim in excess of $4,500.00 exclusive of interest and costs.

5. Pursuantto Virginia Code 8.01-262(3), venue is proper in this circuit as the location of

factwitnesses, plaintiff, md evidence givingrise to this actionis withinthe City of

Richmond.

6. No federal claimsor causesof action basedupon federal law are alleged herein.
' Background Facts

7. Plaintiffis a service member inthe Army National Guard and went through basic training
from March 2014 until July 2014.

8. Through basic training, Plaintiffmet another service member ofthe Army Na:tional
Guard named Travis.

"

"

9. PJaintiiffandTravis discussed, among other things. Plaintiffpurchasing a rifle.

10. Travis informed PlaintiJEfthat Travis could provide recommendations and tips regarding .
I

the customization ofany prospective rifle that Plaintiffwould purchase.

11. On December 5,2014, Plaintiff purchased a BushmasterHeavy Barrel 16-inch Carbine
Assault Rifle ('the rifle"! from www.GrabAGun.com.

12. On or about December 11,2014, Plaintiffreceived the rifle at the Southern Police

Equipment located at 7609 Midlothian Turnpike, Richmond, VA 23235.

13. On December 19,2014 at 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff texted &e raessage "Hey" to a phone
number he believed to belong to his friend Travis.

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 7 of 23 PageID# 11

14. On December23,2014 atl0:46' a.m.,Plaintiff- havingreceivedno responsefr<Mn Travis

- textedthe samephonenumber he believed to belong to Travis, stating "Hey what's up I

need your help on this stock b^el feature".

15..Onor aboutDecember29,2014, Plaintiffcalledvia FaceTime ("the FaceTitne call")

Travis- using the samephone numberPlaintiffused to text the above messages - to
inform Travisthat Plaintiffhad recentlypurchasedthe rifle.
16. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the number he used to text and to FaceTime Travis was an

incorrect number which belonged to Defend^t Davila and/or Defendant Company.

The FaceTime Call

17. Upon connecting the FaceTime call with Defendant Davila, Plaintiff did not see Travis
and realized, his own rmstake.

18.X^on realizing his mistake, Plaintiffprofusely apologized to Defendant Davilafor making the FaceTime call.

19vPlaintiffalso observed that-Defendant Davila possessed a blue-colored video caniera

pointed at Plaintiff.

20.Plaintiffended theFaceTime callwithDefendant Davila after having apologized to

Defendant Davilabut without having received a verbal response fromDefendantDavila
during the FaceTinie call.
21. On the same day, soon after the FaceTime call with Defendant Davila, Plaintifftexted the

DefendantDavila's numberwith the text message, "Dude y (sic) didn't u (sic) tell me t
had the wrong number the whole time I thoughtu (sic) where (sic)my cousin who I was
trying to reach for weeks lol."

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 8 of 23 PageID# 12

22. Plaintiffalso attempted to call the Defendant Davila viatelephone torepeat hisapology
toDefaxdant Davila. Plaintiffinformed Defendant Davila thatPlaintiffis employed as a
police officer forthe Cityof Richmond Police Department.
23.Defendant Davilausedillicitlanguage in his response to Plaintiffandtold Plaintiffonthe

telephone, inter alia, '1^ me suck your dick." Defendant Davila also informed Plaintiff
that hehad posted Plaintiffspicture withtherifle onsocial media, including butnot

limited toFacebook. Defendant Davila continued to useillicit language with Plaintiffand

then Defendant Davila ended thephone call.

24. Onthesame day and soon after Defendant Davila ended thephone call wititi Plaintiff,
'Defendant Davilamade, several otherphone calls to Plaintifffrom a blocked number and

Plaintifftold Defendant Davila to stop using illicit-language orPlaintiffwould file a

harassment policereport. Defendant Davila subsequently ended the phone call.

25. After Defendant Davila stopped making phone calls to Plaintiff, Plaintiffreceived
messages fromsomeunknown email account, containing racistand derogatory feinaidcs,

and other statements referencing theFaceTiine calland telephone calls from DeiS^Hant
Davila to Plaintiff.

26. Upon mformation andbelief. Defendant Davila sent the aforementioned email messages
to Plaintiff.

27. Specifically, on December 29,2014 at 10:52 a.m.. DefendantDavilasentan emal '

*messagetoPlaintiffstating,"GQPICKCOTTON"YOUNIGGER.LMFAO/V

"

28. On December 29,2014 at 12:10 p.m.. Plaintiffresponded tothe email message stating,
*T)on*t know who this isbutthis email will besaved for law enforcement purposes
thanks."

" ' "

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 9 of 23 PageID# 13

29. On December 29,2014 at 12:11 p.m,, Defendant Davila sent arqply email message to
Plaintiffstating,"AND SO WILLTHE EMAILABOUTYOU THREATENING TO
SHOOT ME."

30. Plaintiffnever sent Defendant Davila anemail with any threatening content and/or
statements.

31. Joshua Boyle, the owner ofthe email account that was used to send the racist messages to'
Plaintiff, subsequently contacted Plaintiffto apologize for tiie messages.

32. Joshua Boyle informed Plaintiffthat Joshua. Boyle used tobefiiends with Defendant
Davila.

33. Joshua Boyle learned that Defendant Davila had hacked his email account to send the

racist and defamatorymessages to Plaintiff.

The Defendants^ Social Media Accounts

34.Defendant Davila owns andoperates a personal Facebook account underthe name John
Melecio Davila.

35. Defendant Company owns and operates a Facebook account ^d a Twitter account, the

Facebook account under the name Antonio Biaggi Davila, and the Twitter accoimt liiider
the name Antonio Biaggi xxx, @X!Cxbiaggi.
3.Defendant Davila is an actor in thepornography industry who uses theactor name
Antonio Biaggi.

37. Defendant Davila istiae owner ofthe Defendant Company, a pornography production
company named Biaggi Productions, LLC.

38.Defendant Company produces pornographic videos on the Internet at

www.biaggivideos.com. .

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 10 of 23 PageID# 14

39. Defendant Company's social media accounts feature the website link to the Defendant
Company's pornographic videos at www.biagfijvideos.com.

40. DefendantCompany's social media accounts feature a graphicdepiction of the name of

the above pornographicwebsite, which includes, but is not limited to, bubble letters of
the website name "biaggivideos.com"smeared in a white-colored graphic representation

depictinga semen-like substmce. DefendantCompany's social media accounts also

feature a picture ofDefendant Davila in a topless state, and the name Antonio Biaggi xxx

or Antonio BiaggiDavilanextto Defendant Davila's picture.

41. DefendantCompany's Twitter account "@XxxBiaggi" includesthe above referenced
graphic images and name,,and also includes the- following description:

"Antonio Biaggi xxx@XxxBiaggi Pom actor and Owner "at

Biag^viUeos.com Blog Antoniobiaggixxx.blogspotxom Animal Advocate
model, movie Actor imdi (sic) Films"
The Defendants Published Statements on Social Media

. The Twitter Post

,42. Beginnmg on or about December 29,2014 at 8:46 a.m., the Defendants published

statements to social media websites, including theabove referenced Facebook iid

Twitter accounts, containing information that they knew orshould have.Im6wn contained
false and defamatory stat^ents of fact of or concerningplaintiff causing damage to

plaintiff and to his reputation.

43. The statements were published to third persons, including without liitnitation to Twitter
users, and others containing false factual statements including butnotlimited to the
following statement that the Defendants published in Spanish on the Defendant
Company's Twitteraccount @XxxBiaggi on.December29,2014at 8:46a.m. (hereinafter
"the Twitter posf*):

'
6

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 11 of 23 PageID# 15

**Este cabron de Hopewell, Virginia me Uama FaceTime que mvaamatar. La

policia Estaenrnycasamas infoluego"

44. The English translation ofthe foregoing Twitter post is'*this [bastard] [motherjEucker]
/

[similar derogatory term] from Hopewell-, Virginia FaceTime calls me that he isgoing to
kill me. The police are" in myhouse more infolater."

45. Tjie Twitter post also included apicture ofPlaintiffwith PlaintifPs personal email
address.

46. Specifically, the picture inthe Twitter post displayed Plaintiffs upper body and face,
with Plaintiffwearing awhite tank undershirt, holding a rifle inhisright hand, and with
Plaintiffs personal gmail address listed onthe top left ofthe picture.
47. Theforegoing statement on the Twitter postis false.
48. Uponinformation andbelief, the policewere neverin Defendant Davila's houseat 8:46
a.m. on December 29,2014.

49. Plaintiffnever toldDefendant Davila he is going to killDefendant Davila. S.a&er, "'.

Plaintiffapologized profusely to. Defatidant Davila forhaving called thewrong number.

50. Tke Twitter post generated 20 rq)lies, and 5 retweets from other Twitter users. .
51. Among the 20replifes to the Twitter post, Twitter users published statements indicating
thattheybelievedthe veracity of the Twitter post.

52. Onesuch Twitter user, @emmdoll, replied onDecember 29,2014 at 10:00 im. "Es!de'
verdad?" which translates in Engli^ to "is this true?"

53. The Defendants replied to @emmdoll onDecember 29,2014 at 11:31 a.m. stating, "Si
Yallame lapolicia y FBP'which translates to "yes I already called thepolice and FBI."

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 12 of 23 PageID# 16

The Facebook Post

54. Additionally, theDefendants posted the following statements ontheDefendant

..Company's Facebook acco-unt onDecember 29,2014 at 3:55*p.m. (hereinafter **the
Facebookpost") containing falsefactual statements published to thirdpersonsincluding
without limitation to Facebook users, and others:

"Jason Ander from NY and Centell Mcneil (sic) police from Virginia, (sic) he
shouldbe a shame (sic) of him self (sic) for doingthis shit, (sic) where the people
involvedin this Ugly and F Stupid (sic)move to FaceTimeme I don't how (sic)
theygot my info, but (sic) thismorning theyFaceTime morethan 25 timesto
show me guns on Camera, (sic)the policealready has a (sic)investigation..

55. The foregoing statementon the Facebookpost is false.

56. Upon information and belief,therewas no policeinvestigation at this time at 3:55p.m.

on December 29.2014.

57. Plaintiff did not FaceTimethe DefendantDavila more than 25 times to show him gun(s)
/on camera.

58. Upon infonnation.andbeHef, the Facebookpost included a picture of the aforementioned

"Jason Ander from NY."

59.The Facebookpost also included a picture of Plaintiff with Plaintiff's personal emMl
address.

60. Specifically, thePlaintiff's picture in theFacebookpost displayed theupper body ^d

face of Plaintiffwearing a whitetankundershirt, holding a rifle in his rigjithand,mth
Plaintiff'spersonal gmail address listedon thetop left of the picture.
61. The Facebook post generated eighteen (18) comments from other Facebook users who

saw and/or read the Faceijook post about Plaintiff.

62.,-The otherFacebookusers posted commentson the Facebookpost including, but not
limited to the following statements:

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 13 of 23 PageID# 17

a. "This jerk need (sic) to be behind bars/'

b. "Sickflicks. Keepwor|dngwith the authorities and keep strongAntonio"

c. "Hold up 2 Stalkers and one is a Cop?"

d. "I would think that Ms intentions whether as a threat or harassment are illegal and
X

should be investigated as such. You did the right thing by notifyingthe police!"
e. "He is totally Loco (sic)."
The Timelme Post

63. Additionally, the Defendants posted another statement (hereinafter "the Timeline post")
' on or around December 29,2014, concerning Plaintiff on the Defendant Company's

Facebookaccount"timeline"alongwith the picture of Plaintiffused in the other social

mediaposts. The statements were publishedto third persons, includingwithout
limitation to Facebook users, ^d others containing false factual statements including but
not limited to the following:

"this person call (sic) me saying he is going to kill me, if you guys get FaceTime

call(sic) firom thisperson report him. it (sic)comes in my computer not in (s.ie)

my phone. there (sic) no way to Block him for some reason,
" . "
Ctell.cmlO-^^.pmail ROTTi The Police just left my house I call (sic) the police in
Virgmia, he Uyes here 3919 GrovewoodRd Hopewell,Virginia and his number
its (sic) 804 7283919"
64. The foregoing statement on thp Timelinepost is false.

65. Plaintiffnever told Defendant Davila that Plaintiffis going tokill Defendant Dayila.
66.Plaintiff does not live at 3919 Grovewood Rd., Hopewell,Virginia.
67. Upon information and belief, the police never visited Defendantpavila's house on
December 29,2014.

68. The Defendants' statements to social media users falsely impute that Plaintiffthreatened
to kill Defendant Davila.

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 14 of 23 PageID# 18

69. The Defendants' statements tosocial media users falsely impute thatPlaintiffis athreat
to otherindividuals and,^ven the chance. Plaintiffwould harass and/or threaten other

individuals, asimplied in thestatement, "ifyou guys getFaceTime call (sic) from this
person report him."

70. The Defendants' statements- tothe social media users onFacebook and Twitter falsely
impute that Plaintiff was under investigation fora criminal actand/or police misconduct.
71. TheDefendants' statements to the social media users on Facebook andTwitter falsely
impute that Plaintiffis unfit to'perform his duties and/orwork in his trade or profession

as a police officer for theRichmond Police Department.

Defendant Pavila's Statements to Richmond Police Department and FBI

72. Upon information and belief, on orabout December 29,2014, the Defendants published
statements to theRichmond.Police Dqjartment and to theFe'deral Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) that, in haec yerha^ Plaintiffthreatened to kill Defendant Davila.

73.*'Upon information andbelief, on orabout December 29,2014,theDefendanfe published

statements to the Richmond Police Departmentand to the FBI, containinginformation

,r

that they knew or shouldhave known containedfalse and defamatory stateraents of fapt

of or conceming Plaintiffcausing damage to plaintiffand to his reputation. '

"..

74. Upon information and belief, the statements of the Defendants-werefalse and the

statements make substantial dangerto the Plaintiffs reputationapparent.

75. Upon information, the Defendants made the statements knowing them to be false or

believing it to be true, the Defendants lacked reasonable grounds for suchbeliefox acted
negligently in failing to ascertain the facts on which the stetement was based,,when

Plaintiffapologized" to DefendantDavila on multiple occasions for the inadvertent call

10

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 15 of 23 PageID# 19

(viatelephone, via FaceTime, via text message) explaining that Plaintiffwastryingto

reachhis friend, when Plaintiffnever toldDefendant Davila he was going to kill

Defendant Davila, when Plaintiffinformed Defendant Davila thatPlaintiffis a police

officer.

76. TheDefendants' statements to Richmond PoliceDepartment andto the FBI falsely

impute that Plaintiffthreatened to kill Defendant Davila.

77.The Defendants' statements to Richmond PoliceDepartment, to the FBI, and to the social

mediausers on Facebook andTwitter falsely impute thatPlaintiffis imfitto perform his

duties and/or workin his trade,or profession as a policeofficerfor the Richmond Police
Department.

78.The Defendants' statements to Richmond PoliceDepartment, to the FBI, andto the social
media users on Facebook and Twitter damaged Plaintiffs reputation and caused Plaintiff
to suffer damages.
Malice

79. ITbie Defendants' statements to the social media users on Facebook and Twitter were

madeto andheardby those who didnot have the dutyor authority to receivethe
information and were accompanied by malice.

80. TheDefendants' conduct alleged hereinwas doneknowingly, willfullyj intentionally,

sadisticallyand without lawfuljustification, so as to amount to a wanton and will&l

disregard oftheplaintiff's ri^ts, as theDefendants, interalia,knew and/or acted with

reckless disregard to the fact that Plaintiff did not threaten to kill Defendant Davila' and

that Plaintiffwas not xinder investigation for misconduct.

81. The conductcomplained of herein (including the defamatory statements) was done
intentionally, puiposefuHy and without lawfuljustification, with full knowledge of the
11

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 16 of 23 PageID# 20

falsity ofthe statements, and/orwith reckless and willful disregard forthe truth orfalsity
of the statements and ahi^ degree of awareness that thestatements were probably false,
when Plaintiffapologized to Defendant Davila on multiple occasions for theinadvertent

call (via telephone, via FaceTime, viatext message) explainifig that Plaintiffwas trying
to reach hisfriend, when Plaintiffnever toldDefendant Davila he wasgoing to kill
*'Defendant Davila, whenPlaintiffinformed Defendant Davila thatPlaintiffis a police
officer.

82. Alternatively, the Defendants lacked reasonable grounds formaking thestatements,

implications, and insinuations complained of herein, andfailed to act as a reasonably
prudentperson in investigating the truth of the statements made, actingwith what amount

to simple or evengross negligence in publishing the statements, whenPlmnte

apologizedto Defendant Davila on multiple occasions for the inadvertent call (via

telephone, via FaceTirne, via text message) explainingthat Plaintiff was trying to reach,

hisfriend, wh^ Plaintiffnever told.Defendant Davila hie was going-to killDefendknt.

Davila, when Plaintiffinformed Defendant Davila that Plaintiffis apoiice dj^i'cef.

83/Ifsubject to a qualified privilege, theDefendants abused any suchprivilege, in that (a)

theDefendants knew the statements were false ormade it with reckless disregard of

wiiether it was false ornot; or (b) thestatements were deliberately made in such a way
tihat theywereheard by persons having no interest or duty in the subject of the statdiient,
in particular, to the socialmediaiisers; or (c) the statements were unnecessarily insulting;

or (d) the language usedwas stronger or moreviolentthanwas necessary underthe

circumstances, particularly, whenthe Defendants disclosed PlaintifTs personal
identifying information; or (e) the statements weremadebecause of hatred, ill wU, or a
dpsire to hurt the plaintiffratherthan as a fair comment on th'e subject; or (f) the
12

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 17 of 23 PageID# 21

statements were made because ofpersonal spite, orillwill, independent ofliie occasion
on which the communication was made.
84. The Defendants apted with malice.
Damages

85. Plaintiffwas injured inhis personal reputation and professional reputation byreason of
theconduct of theDefendants described herein. These damages include butarenot

limited tolostincome, insult to him including pain, embarrassment, humiliation and

mental suffering, injury to his reputation, and actual out-of-pocket losses that were
caused by the statements and conduct ofthe Defendants.

86. As a result ofthe Defend^ts' actions, theimpact toplaintiff.was so severe thathis

employer, uponlearning ofthe statements andactions of the Defendants, placed Plaintiff
' on administrative leave and stripped him of overtime pay, andPlaintiifhas suffered and
will sufferphysical, mental^ economic, and emotional injuries.
COUNT 1 - Defamation - The Twitter Post^

87. Theallegations in thiscomplaint, 1-86, areincorporated herebyreference.

88.OnDecember 29,2014,the Defendants published factually false anddefamatory

statements and statements with factually false insinuations, about Plaintiff tottod parties
without privilege (orinabuse thereof,), justification, or excuse onDefendant Company's
Twitter account, @Xxxbiaggi. '

Here^ the statements published by the Defendants aredefamatory and also aredefaniatory perse,In Vjrgln|a,'
defamation perse consist ofstatements that are "(1) Those which impute to a person the commission ofsome
criminal offense involving moral turpitude, forwhich the party, ifthe charge Is trye,may be indicted and.punished.
(2) Those which impute that a person is'mfected with some contagious-disease, where ifthe charge istrue," it
would excludethe party from society.(3)Thosewhich impute to a person unfltness to perform the duties of an
office or employment of profit, or want of integrity in the discharge of the duties of sUch an office or

employment, Those which prejudice such person in hi's or her profession ortrade. All otherdefamatory words
which, though not inthemselves actionable, occasion a person special dainages are actionable." t^leming v.iVloore.
221 Va. 884,889 (1981).

'13

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 18 of 23 PageID# 22

89. The Defendants published such statements intentionally and maliciously, knowinghis
insinuations were fectually false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

90. The Defendants' conduct complained of herein directly and proximately causedPlaintiff
damages, as alleged herein.

91. Plaintiffis entitledto presumed damages becauseinter alia the statements impiite that
Plaintiff is unfit to performhis duties,and which prejudicehim in his profession.
92. The jury may also award punitive damages, based on the foregoing.

93.''The Defendants are liable toplaintifffor defamation.

COUNT 2 - Defamation The Facebook Post

94. The allegations in this complaint, 1-86 are incoiporated here by reference.
95. On December 29,2014, the Defendants published factually false and defamatory

statements and statements with factuallyfelse insinuations, about Plaintiff to third parties
without privilege (or in abuse thereof,), justification, or excuse on Defendant Company's
Facebook account under the name Antonio Biaggi Davila.

96. TheDefendants published such" statements intentionally andmaliciously, knowing his

insinuations were factually felse orwith reckless disregard forIhe truth.

97. The Defendants' conductcomplamed ofherein directly and-iiroximately caused pl^tiff
'damages, as alleged herein;

98. Plaintiffis entitled,to presumed damages because inter alia the statements imputethat
Plaintiff is unfit to perform his duties, and whichprejudice him in his profession.
99. The jury may also award punitive damages, based on the foregoing.

100.

The Defend^ts are liableto plaintifffor defemation.

COUNT 3 - Defamation The Timeline Post

101.

The allegations in this complaint, 1-86 are incoiporated-here by reference.

14

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 19 of 23 PageID# 23

102.

OnDecember 29,2014,.the Defendants published factually false and defamatory

statements andstatements withfactually false insinuations, about Plaintiffto thirdparties

without privilege (or inabuse thereof,), justification, or excuse onDefendant Company's

'Facebook account nnder thename Antonio Biaggj Davila.

103.

The Defendants published such statements intentionally andmaliciously, knowing

his insinuations were factually false or withreckless disregard forthe truth.

104.

TheDefendants' condiict complained of herein directly andproximately caused

Plaintiffdamages, as allegedherein.

105.

Plaintiffis entitled to presumed damages because interalia the statements impute

that Plaintiffis imfitto perform his duties, and whichprejudice him in his profession.
106.

Thejury may also awardpunitive damages, based on the foregoing.

107...

The Defendants ateliable toplaintifffor defamation.*

COUNT 4 - Defamation - Statements to Richmond Police Department

108.

The allegations in this complaint, 1-86areincorporated here by reference.

109.

On orabout December 29,2014, the Defendants published factually false'^S'.'

defamatory statements andstatements withfectually false insinuations, about Plaintiffto

third parties \wthout privilege (orin abuse thereof,), justification, or excuse tothe:
Richmond Police Department.

110.

TheDefendants published such statements intentionally andmalicioiisly, knowng

his insinuations werefectually f^e or with reckless disregard for the truth.

111.

TheDefendants' conduct complained ofherein directly andproximately caused

Plaintiff damages, as alleged hdrein."

112.

Plaintiff is entitled to presumed damages because interalia the statements impute

"that Plaintiffis unfitto perform his duties, andwhichprejudice him in his profession.
.

15

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 20 of 23 PageID# 24

113.

Thejury may also awardpimitive damages, basedon the foregoing.

114.

The Defendants are liable to plaintifffor defamation.

COUNT 6 - Defamation - Statements to the FBI

115.

The allegations in this complaint, 1-86 ^e incoiporated hereby reference.

116.

On or aboutDecember29,2014, the Defendantspublished factuallyfalse and

defamatory statements and statements withfactually false insinuations, about Plaintiffto

thirdparties without privilege (orin abuse thereof,), justification, or excuse to theFederal
Bureau ofInvestigation

117.

TheDefendants published such statements intentionaUy andmaliciously, knowing

his insinuations werefactually false or with recklessdisregard for the truth.

118.

TheDefendants* conduct complained of herein directly andproximately caused

Plaintiff damages, as allegedherein.

.119.

Plaintiffis entitled to presumed damages becameinteralia the statements impute

that Plaintiffis unfit to perform his duties, andwhichprejudice him in his profession.

120..

Thejury mayalso award punitive damages, based on the foregomg.

121.

The Defendantsare liable to plaintiff for defamation.

COUNT 7 - Negligent Defamation- The Twitter Post

122.

Theallegations iii this complaint contained in paragraphs 1-86, areincoiporated

here by reference.

123.

'

TheDefendants published factually false anddefamatory stateniente and

statements with factually false insinuations, about Plaintiffto third parties \wthout
privilege (or in abuse thereof)Justification, or excuse.

16

""

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 21 of 23 PageID# 25

124.

TheDefendants published suchstatements negligently, lacldnga reasonable basis

for believing thetruthofthe allegations, andfailing to act as a reasonably prudent person

would to ascertain the truthof the allegations, withreckless disregard for thetruth.
125.The Defendants' conduct directly andproximately caused plaintiffdamages, as
.alleged herein.

126.

. _

Plaintiffis entitled topresumed damages, because inter aliathestatements hnpute,

thatplaintiffis unfit toperform hisduties, and/or prejudice Plaintiffin hisprofession.

127.

TheDefendants are liable to plaintifffor defemation.

COUNT 8 - Negligent Defamation - The Facebook Post

128.

Theallegations in this complaint contained in paragraphs 1-86, and 122-127 are

incoiporated here by reference.

COUNT 9 - Negligent Defamation - The Timeline Post

129.

," . . . '

Theallegations in this complaint contained in paragraphs 1-86,and 122-127 are

incoiporatedhere by reference:
COUNT 10 - Unauthorized Use of Name and Pictare in Trade

130.

The allegations inthis complaint contained inparagraphs 1-86 are incoiporated

here by reference.

131.

TheDefendants usedtheplaintiff's name and likeness in violation of Code

8.01-40.

132.

Plaintiff did not consent, whether in writing or otherwise, to have hisname and

likeness published ontheDefendant Company's social media accounts, which areused to

solicit andgenerate business by iheDefendants forthe Defendant Company andwhich
are seen all over the United States and around the world.

17.

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 22 of 23 PageID# 26

133.

Defendants violatedVa. Code 8.01-40, wliichstates: "Anypersonwhosename,

portrait, or picture,is used without having first obtained the written consent of such

person... for advertising puiposesor for the puiposes of trade, suchpersons may

maintain a suit in equity against the person, firm, or corporation so usingsuchperson's

name, portrait, or pictureto preventand restrainthe use thereof; and may also sue and
recover d9mages for any injuries sustainedby reason ofsuch use. And ifthe defendant

shall knowingly usesuch person's name, portrait orpicture in such manner as is

forbidden or declared to beunlawful"by this chapter, thejury, inits discretion, mayaward
exemplary damages."

134.

TheTwitter Post, theFacebook Post, andthe Timeline Postpublished by the

*Defendants were predomiiiately foruse in tradeand/oradvertisiiig as theywere, inter

alia, postedon Defendant Company's social mediaaccounts including Twitter and

Facebook'by the Defendants.

135.

TheTwitterPost,theEacebook Post, andtheTimeline Postpixblished by the' '

Defendants were posted,- interalia, forthepurpose of garnering attention andsympathy

from fans, for thepurpose ofpromoting Defendant Company's trade, forthepuipose of
soliciting business.

136.

The Defendants knew that useofthe Plaintiff's name and picture forthe ptiiposes".

of trade and/or advertising was unlawful.

137.

The Defendants knowingly used thePlaintiffs name and picture for thepurposes

'oftrade and/or advertising'ia violation ofVa. Code 8.01-40.

18-

Case 3:15-cv-00751-MHL Document 1-1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 23 of 23 PageID# 27

ADDAMNUM

Wlierefore, Plaintiffrespectfully demands:

a. Judgmentjointly and severallyagainstDefendantDavila and Defendant

Company in thesum of$2,000,000.00 in compensatory damages;

b. Exemplary and pnnitive damages of$12,000,000 against theDefendants;

c. Costs, pre andpostjud^ent interest;

d. Allfurther and additional relief as may be appropriate.

TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED

Respectfully requested,
CENTELL MCNEIL

Counsel

Bret H. Mooney,Esq. VSB 88236

b.moonev@robertslaw.nrg
Thomas H. Roberts & Associates; P.C.
105

Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

(804) 78^-2000/(804) 783-2105 fax ;

Counselfor Plaintiff

19