IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
CASE NO:
JUDGE:
FIGG BRIDGE ENGINEERS, INC.,
Plaintiff
vs.
CHARLES GRANDE, EDWARD McKAY,
KEVIN STINNETTE and ROGER SHARP,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, FIGG BRIDGE ENGINEERS, INC., sues Defendants, CHARLES GRANDE, EDWARD McKAY, KEVIN STINNETTE and ROGER SHARP, and for its complaint says:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS:
1. This is an action for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars exclusive of interest, costs or attorney’s fees.
2. The cause of action sued upon herein arose within St. Lucie County, Florida.
3. FIGG BRIDGE ENGINEERS, INC., ("Figg"), is a Florida corporation doing business in St. Lucie County, Florida.
4. CHARLES GRANDE, ("Grande"), is an individual and is a resident of St. Lucie County, Florida.
5. EDWARD McKAY, ("McKay"), is an individual and is a resident of St. Lucie County, Florida.
6. KEVIN•STINNETTE, ("Stinnette"), is an individual and is a resident of St. Lucie County, Florida.
7. ROGER SHARP, ("Sharp"), is an individual and is a resident of St. Lucie County, Florida.
8. Figg was incorporated in 1978. Over the last approximate twenty-two years, Figg has been involved in the study, design and construction inspection of bridge projects totaling more than $5 Billion Dollars in value and located in 30 different states and in 4 foreign countries. Figg’s designs have won 131 design awards, including three of the Presidential Award Winners from the National Endowment for the Arts.
9. Figg is currently the consultant for the St. Lucie County Expressway and Bridge Authority (the "Authority"), which is considering the potential construction of a bridge across the Indian River Lagoon. Although no final location has been selected for the bridge project, this proposed bridge is commonly known as the "Walton Road Bridge".
10. Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp are all opposed to the Walton Road Bridge for their own personal and self-serving reasons.
11. Grande and McKay are condominium residents living on South Hutchinson Island and already enjoy easy access to all of the public beach areas on South Hutchinson Island. Grande and McKay are opposed to the Walton Road Bridge, or any bridge across the Indian River Lagoon, because they selfishly do not want to share the beaches of South
Hutchinson Island with the residents of the City of Port St. Lucie and other residents of St. Lucie County.
12. Stinnette and Sharp live on South Indian River Drive in St. Lucie County and currently enjoy unobstructed views across the Indian River towards South Hutchinson Island. Stinnette and Sharp are opposed to the Walton Road Bridge, or any bridge over the Indian River Lagoon, for their own personal reasons which include concerns about increased traffic on Indian River Drive and a desire not to have their views across the Indian River obstructed by a bridge>
13. In their efforts to prevent the Authority from moving forward with the design and/or construction of a bridge across the Indian River, Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp have libeled, slandered and defamed Figg in an effort to convince the Authority not to trust or rely upon Figg and/or to terminate Figg’s relationship with the Authority and for the purpose of prejudicing public sentiment against moving forward with the design and/or construction of either the Walton Road Bridge or any other form of bridge across the Indian River Lagoon.
14. The defamatory statements made by Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp were all false and either known to be false to each of them and/or made with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the matters asserted. In addition, these statements were made for the actual motive to harm Figg and to cause a degradation of Figg’s good name and reputation so as to achieve the objective sought by the Defendants, which was to stop
the progress of and eventual construction of the Walton Road Bridge or any other bridge across the Indian River Lagoon by the Authority.
15. Figg has been significantly injured and damaged in its business and reputation by the defamatory statements of Defendants and the defamatory statements of Defendants have implied conduct by Figg which would be incompatible with Figg’s lawful business trade and profession. Damages incurred by Figg include, but are not limited to, loss of business and reputation in various parts of the state of Florida and elsewhere as a result of the defamatory statements of Defendants, Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp.
16. Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp have consulted with each other and planned their strategy to defame Figg for the purpose of achieving their mutual desired objective. The actions of Defendants have been carried out in a concerted, orchestrated and calculated manner and, accordingly, the acts of each conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy are binding upon all of the other conspirators.
17. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have either occurred, been performed or have been waived.
COUNT I
(Libel - Kevin Stinnette)
18. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 above as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
19. On or about February 17,2000 Stinnette prepared and distributed to the general public and to the members of the Authority the typed statement, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
20. Exhibit "A" is defamatory and libelous as to Figg since it falsely asserts that Figg is under a Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation when such is not now nor has it ever been true.
21. Stinnette published Exhibit "A" with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
22. Figg has suffered injury and damage to its business and reputation by virtue of the publication and distribution of the defamatory materials contained within Exhibit "A".
WHEREFORE, Figg demands damages against Stinnette together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNT II
(Libel - Kevin Stinnnette)
23. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
24. On or about February 13, 2000, Stinnette sent to the editor of the the Ft. Pierce Tribune a letter, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". As was reasonably foreseeable, that letter was published in the Ft. Pierce Tribune on or about February 15, 2000.
25. Exhibit "B" is defamatory and libelous as to Figg since it falsely asserts that Figg is under a Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation when such is not now nor has it ever been true.
26. Stinnette published Exhibit "B" with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
27. Figg has suffered injury and damage to its business and reputation by virtue of the publication and distribution of the defamatory materials contained within Exhibit "B".
WHEREFORE, Figg demands damages against Stinnette together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNT III
(Slander - Roger Sharp)
28. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
29. On January 12,2000 during the course of a meeting of the St. Lucie County Property and Homeowners Association, Sharp slandered Figg by stating that Figg was under a Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation with regard to the Garcon Point Toll Bridge. Sharp compounded this defamation by then seeking to have the Association request that the St. Lucie County Commission ask the Authority to suspend all operations until the State criminal investigation and the Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation of Figg were completed.
30. Sharp’s statements are defamatory and slanderous as to Figg since Figg is not now nor has Figg ever been under either a State criminal investigation or a Federal Grand Jury criminal invesfigation.
31. Sharp made his statements with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
32. Figg has suffered injury and damage to ifs business and reputation by virtue of the publication of the defamatory statements made by Sharp.
WHEREFORE, Figg demands damages against Sharp together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNT TV
-
(S!ander - Roger Sharp)33. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
34. During the course of the February 16, 2000 meeting of the St. Lucie County Property and Homeowners Association, Sharp slandered and defamed Figg by falsely representing that Figg was under a State criminal investigation and Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation regarding the Garcon Point Toll Bridge.
35. During the course of the same meeting Sharp furthered defamed Figg by claiming that Figg had been fined for "environmental fines" concerning the Garcon Point Bridge when same was not true.
36. Sharp’s statements are defamatory and slanderous as to Figg since Figg is not now nor has Figg ever been under either a State criminal investigation or a Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation nor has Figg ever been fined for any type of environmental fines.
37. Sharp made his statements with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
38. Figg has suffered injury and damage to its business and reputation by virtue of the publication of the defamatory statements made by Sharp.
WHEREFORE, Figg demands damages against Sharp together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNT V
(Libel
- Roger Sharp)39. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
40. On February 16, 2000, during the course of the St. Lucie County Property and Homeowners Association meeting, Sharp libeled and defamed Figg by handing out a proposed resolution, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Said proposed resolution falsely asserted that Figg was the subject of a "State investigation" and "Federal Grand Jury probe" when same was not true and has never been true.
41. Sharp’s statements are defamatory and libelous as to Figg since Figg is not now nor has Figg ever been under either a State criminal investigation or a Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation.
42. Sharp made his statements with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
43. Figg has suffered injury and damage to its business and reputation by virtue of the publication of the defamatory statements made by Sharp.
WHEREFORE, Figg demands damages against Sharp together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNT VI
(Slander
- Edward McKay)44. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
45. On January 12,2000, during the course of the St. Lucie County Property and Homeowners Association meeting, McKay slandered and defamed Figg by asserting that Figg was .under investigation by a Federal Grand Jury and that Figg was not a reputable firm, because if they had been a reputable firm they would have so notified the Authority that they were under investigation. Said statements were false and malicious and Figg has never been the subject of any State or Federal criminal investigation.
46. McKay’s statements are defamatory and slanderous as to Figg since Figg is not now nor has Figg ever been under either a State criminal investigation or a Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation.
47. McKay made his statements with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
48. Figg has suffered injury and damage to its business and reputation by virtue of the publication of the defamatory statements made by McKay.
WHEREFO0RE, Figg demands damages against McKay together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNT VII
(Slander- Edward McKay)
49. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
50. During the course of the February 16, 2000 St. Lucie County Property and Homeowners Association meeting, McKay slandered and defamed Figg by falsely stating that Figg had committed "outright lies" in connection with its February 1,2000 project notification letter. These statements were false, malicious, designed to hurt Figg and either known to be false by McKay at the time the statements were made or otherwise made with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of those statements.
51. McKay’s statements are defamatory and slanderous as to Figg since the matters contained the February 1,2000 project letter were all accurate and did not contain any falsehoods as claimed by McKay.
52. McKay made his statements with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
53. Figg has suffered injury and damage to its business and reputation by virtue of the publication of the defamatory statements made by McKay.
WHEREFORE, Figg demands damages against McKay together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNT VIII
0
(Libel - Charles Grande)
54. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
55. On January 7,2000 Gránde libeled and defamed Figg by publishing in the Forum Islander South that article, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
56. The article attached hereto as Exhibit "D" falsely asserts that Figg was the subject of State and Federal criminal investigations when, in fact, Figg has never been under either a State or Federal criminal investigation.
57. Grande published his article with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
58. Figg has suffered injury and damage to its business and reputation by virtue of the publication of the defamatory statements made by Grande.
59. On August 28, 2000, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 770.01, the Plaintiff furnished to Grande written notification of the statements contained in the article deemed to be false and defamatory, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "E".
WHEREFORE, Figg demands damages against Grande together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNT IX
(Slander - Charles Grande)
60. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
61. On January 12,2000 during the course of the meeting of the St. Lucie County Property and Homeowners Association, Grande slandered and defamed Figg by falsely stating that Figg was under an ongoing State criminal and Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation.
62. Grande’s statements are defamatory and slanderous as to Figg since Figg is not now nor has Figg ever been under either a State criminal investigation or a Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation.
63. Grande made his statements with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
64. Figg has suffered injury and damage to its business and reputation by virtue of the publication of the defamatory statements made by Grande.
WHEREFORE, Figg demands damages against Grande together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNTX
(Slander - Charles Grande)
65. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
66. On August 17, 2Q00 during the meeting of the St. Lucie County Expressway and Bridge Authority, Grande slandered and defamed Figg by falsely asserting that Figg was under criminal ~nvestigation by a Federal Grand Jury. Said statements were false and malicious and known to be false by Grande at the time they were made.
67. Grande’s statements are defamatory and slanderous as to Figg since Figg is not now nor has Figg ever been under either a State criminal investigation or a Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation.
68. Grande made his statements with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory matters contained therein.
69. Figg has suffered injury and damage to its business and reputation by virtue of the publication of the defamatory statements made by Grande.
WHEREFORE, Figg demands damages against Grande together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
COUNT XI
(Conspiracy - Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp)
70. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 69 as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:
71. Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp all acted in concert and pursuant to an organized plan to libel, slander and defame Figg for the purpose of harming Figg and causing Figg to lose its business and business reputation so as to cast doubt in the minds of the Authority members and in the eyes of the general public with regard to Figg’s abilities
and character in connection with its ongoing duties and capacity as a consultant for the Authority pertaining to the Walton Road Bridge project.
72. As active participants in this conspiracy, each of Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp are liable for the actions of all others involved in the conspiracy and responsible for all damages suffered by Figg as a result thereof.
73. The concerted actions of the conspirators, Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp, acting together have caused substantial damage to Figg in its business and reputation.
74. The actions of the conspirators, Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp, have been taken with actual malice towards Figg and/or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the defamatory statements made.
WHEREFORE, Figg demands judgment against Grande, McKay, Stinnette and Sharp, jointly and severally, for damages together with interest and all costs of this action and a trial by jury for all issues so triable
DATED this ______ day of September, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
MELVILLE ~ SOWERBY, P.L.
Harold G. MELVILLE
Laurel Professional Park
2940 South 25th Street
Fort Pierce, FL 3498 1-5605
(561) 464-7900
Fla. Bar No. 148214
A’ITORNEY
FOR PLAINTIFF