UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Louisville Division KENNETH MITAN and FRANK

MITAN and TERESA MITAN and KEITH MITAN Plaintiffs, vs. EMORY DAVIS 11028 Buckeye Trace Goshen, Kentucky 40026 and CAROL DAVIS 11028 Buckeye Trace Goshen, Kentucky 40026 and VITRAMAX GROUP, INC. SERVE: Carol Davis 11028 Buckeye Trace Goshen, Kentucky 40026 and ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

3:08CV-117-S Case No. ______________

RONALD RASH 3524 Glasgow Lane Keswick, Virginia 22947 and ACHIM NEUMAN 65 First Avenue Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey 07716 and DWIGHT MCNEIL 1002 North Fourth Street Ozark, Missouri 65721 and CRAIG CULLINANE Tuckahoe Road Richland, New Jersey 08350 and LINDA CULLINANE Tuckahoe Road Richland, New Jersey 08350 and THOMAS F. CULLINANE, JR. Tuckahoe Road Richland, New Jersey 08350 Defendants

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT ***********

Kenneth Mitan, Frank Mitan, and Teresa Mitan, through counsel, state for their Complaint against the Defendants, Emory Davis, Carol Davis, Vitramax Group, Inc., Ronald

Rash, Achim Neumann, Dwight McNeil, Craig Cullinane, Linda Cullinane, and Thomas F. Cullinane, Jr., as follows: Jurisdiction and Venue 1. The Plaintiff, Kenneth Mitan, is an adult male who currently resides in West Bloomfield, County, Michigan. 2. The Plaintiff, Frank Mitan, is an adult male who currently resides in West Bloomfield, County, Michigan. 3. The Plaintiff, Teresa Mitan, is an adult female who currently resides in West Bloomfield, County, Michigan. 4. The Plaintiff, Keith Mitan, is an adult male who currently resides in West Bloomfield, County, Michigan. 5. The Defendant, Emory Davis, is an adult male who currently resides in Goshen, Oldham County, Kentucky. 6. The Defendant, Carol Davis, is an adult female who currently resides in Goshen, Oldham County, Kentucky. 7. The Defendant, Vitramax Group, Inc., is a Kentucky Corporation with its principal offices in Goshen, Oldham County, Kentucky. 8. The Defendant, Ronald Rash, is an adult male who currently resides in Keswick, Albermarle County, Virginia. 9. The Defendant, Achim Neumann, is an adult male who currently resides in Atlantic Highlands, Monmouth County, New Jersey. 10. The Defendant, Dwight McNeil, is an adult male who currently resides in Ozark, Christian County, Missouri.

11. The Defendant, Craig Cullinane, is an adult male who currently resides in Richland, Atlantic County, New Jersey. 12. The Defendant, Linda Cullinane, is an adult female who currently resides in Richland, Atlantic County, New Jersey. 13. The Defendant, Thomas F. Cullinane, Jr., is an adult male who currently resides in Richland, Atlantic County, New Jersey. 14. Jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. 1332 because the Plaintiffs are residents of Michigan and the Defendants are residents of the states of Kentucky, Virginia, New Jersey, and Missouri, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 15. The Plaintiffs hereby reiterate and re-allege the jurisdiction and venue allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 above, as if fully set forth herein. 16. The Defendants Emory Davis and Carol Davis, on or before October 12, 1999, created a website entitled Mitan Alert, which published false and defamatory statements as ruled by the United States Bankruptcy Court. The Defendants were ordered to cease and desist publication of the website, to remove it from viewing on the internet, and never to publish the website again. 17. Plaintiffs recently became aware that Emory Davis and Carol Davis, both individually and in their representative capacities for Vitramax Group, Inc., have not abided by the Courts order. In fact, printed pages of the website had been sent via facsimile to the other Defendants, and each of the Defendants was sending the printed version of the Mitan Alert website to third persons. The Plaintiffs have proof of these facsimile

transmissions of the defamatory website printouts which had been the subject of the previous case before the United States Bankruptcy Court. Specifically, the above-named Defendants committed libelous and slanderous actions toward the Plaintiffs as follows: a. On or about April 23, 2007, Defendants Emory Davis and Carol Davis, both individually and in their representative capacities for Defendant Vitramax Group, Inc., sent via facsimile, or other means of physical transmission, and/or spoke to third persons regarding the information contained in the previously created Mitan Alert website; b. On or about September 17, 2007, Defendant Dwight McNeil sent via facsimile, or other means of physical transmission, and/or spoke to third persons regarding the information contained in the previously created Mitan Alert website, which he had been sent by Defendants Emory Davis and Carol Davis, both individually and in their representative capacities for Defendant Vitramax Group, Inc.; c. On or about December 13, 2007, Defendant Ronald Rash sent via facsimile, or other means of physical transmission, and/or spoke to third persons regarding the information contained in the previously created Mitan Alert website, which he had been sent by Defendants Emory Davis and Carol Davis, both individually and in their representative capacities for Defendant Vitramax Group, Inc.; d. On or about December 14, 2007, Defendants Craig Cullinane, Linda Cullinane and Thomas F. Cullinane, Jr., sent via facsimile, or other means of physical transmission, and/or spoke to third persons regarding the information contained in the previously created Mitan Alert website, which they had been sent by

Defendants Emory Davis and Carol Davis, both individually and in their representative capacities for Defendant Vitramax Group, Inc.; e. On December 13, 2007, Achim Neumann sent via facsimile, or other means of physical transmission, and/or and spoke to third persons regarding the information contained in the previously created Mitan Alert website, which he had been sent by Emory Davis and Carol Davis, both individually and in their representative capacities for Vitramax Group, Inc.; 18. The information contained within the Mitan Alert website which was contained in the printouts and/or spoken about by the Defendants is false and untrue as to each of the Plaintiffs and their supposed illegal business dealings. 19. The information, when published to third persons, has damaged Plaintiffs business relations.

COUNT I LIBEL PER SE 20. The Plaintiffs reiterate and incorporate by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every allegation made in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint. 21. The Defendants, despite the falsity of the information published, with malice, have published and continue to publish to third persons in print via facsimile and/or other means of physical transmission the information contained within the previously created Mitan Alert website, which is slanderous, false, malicious, and defamatory toward Plaintiffs.

22. The Defendants knew that the information contained within the Mitan Alert website and thereby that which was published to third persons via facsimile and/or other means of physical transmission were and are utterly false, malicious, and slanderous. 23. Such information tends to prejudice the Plaintiffs in their trade, calling and/or profession since the information damages Plaintiffs reputation for honesty, integrity, and morality. It has exposed the Plaintiffs to public contempt and ridicule, and has injured Plaintiffs business dealings. 24. Transmission of the libelous information as described above qualifies as libel per se. 25. The Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages for injury to reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation and mental anguish. 26. The Plaintiffs are entitled to special damages for the damage to their past and future business dealings caused by Defendants libelous actions. 27. The Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages due to the malicious nature of Defendants actions in re-publishing information which has already been ruled defamatory.

COUNT II SLANDER PER SE 28. The Plaintiffs reiterate and incorporate by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every allegation made in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint. 29. The Defendants, despite the falsity of the information published, with malice, have published and continue to publish to third persons the statements contained within the previous Mitan Alert website, which are slanderous, false, malicious, and defamatory toward Plaintiffs.

30. The Defendants knew that the words spoken were and are utterly false, malicious, and slanderous. 31. Such information tends to prejudice the Plaintiffs in their trade, calling and/or profession since the information damages Plaintiffs reputation for honesty, integrity, and morality. It has exposed the Plaintiffs to public contempt and ridicule, and has injured Plaintiffs business. 32. As a result of the actions of the Defendants, the Defendants have committed numerous acts against the Plaintiffs which are slanderous per se. 33. The Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages for injury to reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation and mental anguish. 34. The Plaintiffs are entitled to special damages for the damage to their past and future business dealings caused by Defendants slanderous actions. 35. The Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages due to the malicious nature of Defendants actions in re-publishing information which has already been ruled defamatory.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Kenneth Mitan, Frank Mitan, and Teresa Mitan, and Keith Mitan, demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. That the Plaintiffs be awarded compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial; 2. That the Plaintiffs be awarded special damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial; 3. An award of the Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this action; 4. Trial by jury; and

5. Any and all other relief to which Plaintiffs may be deemed entitled, whether legal or equitable. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Bruce D. Atherton Bruce D. Atherton Bruce D. Atherton & Associates, PLLC Starks Building, Suite 1450 455 S. Fourth Street Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 595-8500