1 TRAVIS K.

JANG-BUSBY (SBN 283256)

NATHAN REESE (SBN 283150)

2 SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW OFFICES

5860 Owens Ave., Suite 150

3 Carlsbad, California 92008

Telephone: 760-687-4099

4 Fax: 760-687-4035 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Dwayne Crenshaw

6 7 8 9 10 11 DWAYNE CRENSHAW; 12 13
vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO.: [General Civil] IMAGED FILE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. Defamation 2. False Light 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL DIVISION

14 MYRTLE COLE an individual, THE

PRIMACY GROUP, a corporation,

15 MYRTLE COLE FOR CITY COUNCIL 16 REMER, an individual, and DOES 1 17 through 20 inclusive; 18 19 20
I. Defendants. 2013, a campaign committee, LARRY

21 22

INTRODUCTION This is a complaint brought on behalf of Plaintiff Dwayne Crenshaw (CRENSHAW or

23 PLAINTIFF), for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against THE 24 PRIMACY GROUP, MYRTLE COLE FOR CITY COUNCIL 2013, Larry Remer (REMER), 25 Myrtle Cole (COLE), and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive (collectively, DEFENDANTS) 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / /
S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Crenshaw v. Cole et al.

1 A. 2
1.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction over this action, and venue is proper in this judicial district

3 because CRENSHAW suffered the injuries of which he complains in the County of San Diego, 4 California. 5 6
2. The damages suffered by CRENSHAW, as alleged in this complaint, exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this Court in unlimited jurisdiction. PARTIES TO THIS ACTION 3. Plaintiff DWAYNE CRENSHAW (CRENSHAW or Plaintiff) is and at all times

7 B. 8 9

herein mentioned was over eighteen years old and a resident of the County of San Diego in the

10 11 12
State of California. 4. Defendant THE PRIMACY GROUP, a California corporation, is qualified to do

13 business in the State of California and is doing business in the State of California, County of San 14 Diego. 15 16 17
of California, County of San Diego. 5. Defendant MYRTLE COLE FOR CITY COUNCIL 2013, a California campaign

committee, is qualified to do business in the State of California and is doing business in the State

18 19
6. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, REMER was,

20 and is, a resident of the County of San Diego in the State of California. 21
7. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, COLE was,

22 and is, a resident of the County of San Diego in the State of California. 23 24 25 26 27 28
S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

8.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as

DOES 1 through 20, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend the complaint and allege the true names and capacities of said Defendants when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Crenshaw v. Cole et al.

1 2 3

responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs damages were proximately caused by their actions. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times mentioned, each of the named and

4 DOE Defendants were the agent of some or all of the other Defendants, and in doing the acts and 5 making the omissions alleged herein, was acting within the course and scope of such agency and 6 7 8 9 10 11
10. II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION Plaintiff CRENSHAW and Defendant COLE were engaged in a highly competitive with the permission, authority, and/or ratification of each such co-defendant. Each Defendant is jointly and severally liable for all of the wrongs alleged herein.

12 campaign for San Diego City Council District 4 with the election to be held on May 21, 2013. 13 Defendant REMER, doing business as THE PRIMACY GROUP, was the political consultant for 14
Defendant COLE. REMER was paid for his services by Defendant MYRTLE COLE FOR CITY COUNCIL 2013, which also paid costs of printing and mailing campaign materials.

15 16 17
11. On or about May 15, 2013, the DEFENDANTS mailed, to thousands of households in

18 the City of San Diegos Fourth Council District, a false campaign mailer indicating Plaintiff 19 Dwayne Crenshaw was involved in criminal drug activity. A copy of the mailer is attached 20 hereto as Exhibit A. 21 22 23 24 25
involvement in criminal drug activity. 13. On or about May 16, 2013, REMER incorrectly told the Voice of San Diego 12. The statements contained in the campaign mailer were false in that CRENSHAW was

never outside a crack house, never sought to buy illegal drugs, and never lied to police about

26 (VOSD) online news source the false mailer, simply repeats what was in the student 27 newspaper. A copy of the article is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 28
S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Crenshaw v. Cole et al.

1 2

14.

In fact, in reckless disregard for the truth, REMER maliciously alters a quote from a

police officer contained in the original student newspaper article by parenthetically inserting

3 CRENSHAWs name into the quote giving the quote an entirely different context to imply 4 CRENSHAW was a liar and to substantiate the false innuendos. Further, the false mailer adds 5 editorial comments immediately following the altered police quote to suggest CRENSHAW went 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
15. Moreover, nowhere in any of the original student newspaper articles is CRENSHAW The police officers original quote is: We believe (the friend) was just buying drugs and he had just made up the story. added). The DEFENDANTS altered version of the quote is: We believe (the friend) was just buying drugs and he (CRENSHAW) had just made up the story. to the crack house to secure drugs for himself. A copy of the student newspaper article

containing the police officers original, unaltered quote is attached as Exhibit C (emphasis

17 cited as being at or outside a crack house. In fact, the student newspaper articles directly 18 19 20 21
attached as Exhibit D, which should be considered together with Exhibit C (highlights added). the incident, none of which was at a crack house. A copy of another student newspaper article is

contradict the knowingly false statements by specifically citing CRENSHAWs locations during

22 The DEFENDANTS defamatory statements, which place CRENSHAW in a false light, are as 23 follows: 24 25 26 27 28
S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

It was 3:30 am and Dwayne was sitting outside a crack house. Everyone found outside a crack house at 3:30 am... The original student article read as follows: At approximately 3:30 am, Crenshaw called police from a gas station at 40th Street and University Avenue. Crenshaw v. Cole et al. 4 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

16.

In 2002, CRENSHAW was engaged in a close and hotly contested city council

2 campaign where REMER also served as political consultant to the opponent. COLE worked for 3
the then opponent as campaign manager. 17.

4 5 6
The 2002 opponent campaign also published a campaign mailer containing the same altered police officer quote and false statements insinuating CRENSHAW was involved in

7 criminal drug activity. 8

18. In an article ran in the San Diego Union-Tribune on October 30, 2002, the police

9 officer who had his quote altered, stated, It's totally out of context;" CRENSHAWs actions 10 11 12 13
false campaign mailer. REMER was interviewed for the article and quoted several times. A copy were "totally legitimate;" and, That the night I saw Dwayne 10 years ago, you could tell he wasnt into drugs The 2002 Union-Tribune article, in its totality, thoroughly discredited the

14 of the 2002 Union-Tribune article is attached as Exhibit E. 15

19. On May 16, 2013, the VOSD posted an article entitled Coles Whack Crack Attack,

16 in which the police officer, who is readily available to ascertain the truth, reiterates his statements 17 made in 2002. The article further concludes, Myrtle Cole has sent a mailer falsely accusing her 18 19
Exhibit B)

opponent Dwayne Crenshaw of being mixed up in a drug deal more than 20 years ago. (See

20 21
20. Despite the discrediting of the false statements a decade earlier, apparent possession of

22 the original content in the student newspaper, and the availability of the police officer to share the 23 truth, DEFENDANTS aware the outcome of the 2013 election would be close, acted with actual 24 malice in re-publishing the defamatory statements knowing they were false and/or with reckless 25 disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements. 26
21.

On May 22, 2013, Defendant COLE admitted that allegations in the mailer were false

27 28
S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

in an interview with San Diego radio station KPBS. When asked about the mailer, Defendant
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Crenshaw v. Cole et al.

1 2

COLE stated, "You know I will not say anything about that [the mailer's false allegations]. Things happen over the course of a campaign. Unfortunate things happen over the course of a

3 campaign, both to myself, and to the opponent. I hate to say thats politics because, that should 4 not be. But thats how it was. And thats all I can say about that. A copy of the interview 5 transcript is attached as Exhibit F. 6 7 8 9 10 11
22. 23. (By CRENSHAW against all Defendants) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation set forth above. The DEFENDANTS published statements, as stated herein, to persons other than FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DEFAMATION-LIBEL

12 Plaintiff. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
25. These people reasonably understood the statements to mean that Plaintiff was unfit for his business, trade, profession and/or occupation. 26. 27. The statements made by DEFENDANTS, as stated herein, were in fact false. The statements made by DEFENDANTS clearly exposed Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, 24. These people reasonably understood that the statements were about Plaintiff.

ridicule and loss of esteem with voters because of the very nature of the public office for which he was seeking. 28. At the time the defamatory statements were made, DEFENDANTS knew the

defamatory statements were false and published the defamatory statements with the intent to

22 injure Plaintiff. Additionally, or in the alternative, DEFENDANTS failed to use care to determine 23 the truth or falsity of the defamatory statements. 24
29. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS conduct, Plaintiff has suffered great damage

25 to his reputation. 26
30. As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS unlawful actions against Plaintiff, as

27 stated herein, Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered the loss of the wages, salary, 28 benefits, retirement, and additional amounts of money which he would have garnered if he had
S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Crenshaw v. Cole et al.

1 been elected to the San Diego City Council District 4. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount 2 according to proof at trial. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
31. As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS unlawful actions against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered the intangible loss of employment-related opportunities in public service, business, non-profit management and other high-level positions of trust which he would have garnered had he not been defamed and/or if he were elected. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial. 32. As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS unlawful actions against Plaintiff,

Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and in body. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial. 33. The above-described statements were not privileged because they were made by

12 DEFENDANTS with malice and ill will toward Plaintiff and the desire to injure him and inject 13 COLE, rather than CRENSHAW to election to the San Diego City Council. Because of 14 DEFENDANTS malice in making defamatory statements, Plaintiff seeks damages for his 15 emotional distress, injury to his reputation, and other damages as the Court deems just and proper 16 in an amount according to proof at trial. 17 18 19 20 21 22
34. 35. (By CRENSHAW against all Defendants) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation set forth above. By attributing the statements set forth in the First Cause of Action of this Complaint, SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE LIGHT

23 DEFENDANTS placed PLAINTIFF in a false light before the public. 24 25 26 27 28

S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

36.

The false light in which PLAINTIFF was placed by these statements would be highly

offensive to a reasonable person.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Crenshaw v. Cole et al.

1 2

37.

DEFENDANTS knew of the falsity of the statements or acted with reckless disregard

as to the truth or falsity of the statements and the false light in which PLAINTIFF would be

3 placed by making the statements. 4

38. DEFENDANTS gave publicity to the statements by mailing them to thousands of

5 households in City of San Diego Council District 4 and then posting, or permitting the statements 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
39. As a proximate result of DEFENDANTS unlawful actions against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered the intangible loss of employment-related opportunities in public service, business, non-profit management and other high-level positions of trust which he would have garnered had he not been defamed and/or if he were elected. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial. 40. As a further proximate result of DEFENDANTS unlawful actions against Plaintiff, to be posted on the Internet, which has a possible national and worldwide audience.

Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and in body. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial. 41. The above-described statements were not privileged because they were made by

17 DEFENDANTS with malice and ill will toward Plaintiff and the desire to injure him and inject 18 COLE, rather than CRENSHAW to election to the San Diego City Council. Because of 19 DEFENDANTS malice in making defamatory statements, Plaintiff seeks damages for his 20 emotional distress, injury to his reputation, and other damages as the Court deems just and proper 21 in an amount according to proof at trial. 22 23 24 25 26
42. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (By CRENSHAW against all Defendants) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth

27 above. 28
S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Crenshaw v. Cole et al.

1 2

43. 44.

Defendants intentional conduct was extreme and outrageous. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiff to suffer extreme emotional distress. Plaintiff

3 did suffer and continues to suffer extreme emotional distress as a result of Defendants actions. 4 For this harm, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in a total amount to be established by 5 proof at trial. 6 7 8 9 10
and opportunities. Plaintiff has sought to mitigate these damages. 46. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has 45. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiff has

sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits

11 suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputation, and mental 12 and physical pain and anguish. For this harm, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in a total 13 amount to be established by proof at trial. 14 15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

16 17 18 19
2. Special damages according to proof; Punitive damages in an amount necessary to deter future similar conduct; Back pay, front pay, and other monetary relief; Interest and prejudgment interest at the legal rate of 10%; and, Costs of suit incurred, Attorney fees incurred, and Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper under all the circumstances. 1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief with respect to all causes of action as follows:

General damages according to proof;

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 7.

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Crenshaw v. Cole et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S AN D IEGO C OUNTY L AW O FFICES

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all his legal claims in this Complaint.

Dated:

SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW OFFICES

By: Travis K. Jang-Busby Attorney for Plaintiff, Dwayne Crenshaw

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10

Crenshaw v. Cole et al.