McConnell, Oma, Adversary

download McConnell, Oma, Adversary

of 18

  • date post

    23-Nov-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    50
  • download

    3

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of McConnell, Oma, Adversary

  • 1 Law Office of Barry R. Wegman Barry R. Wegman SBN 127356

    2 7506 Collett Ave Van Nuys, California 91406

    3 (818) 570-9312 Email: brweg@sbcglobal.net

    4

    5 Attorney for Plaintiff, Bob Atchison

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    LOS ANGELES DIVISION

    11 In re: Case No.: 2:14-bk-14501-BB

    12 OMA MCCONNELL, Chapter: 7

    13 Debtor. 14 BOB ATCHISON, Adv No.: 15

    16 v.

    Plaintiff, COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE DISCHARGE AND DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT

    17 OMA MCCONNELL also known as OMA HAMOU also known as 18 ALEXANDRA MCCONNELL,

    19

    20

    21

    Defendant.

    [ 523, 727] Status Conference: Date: TBD Time: Ctrm:

    22 TO THE HONORABLE SHERI BLUEBOND, JUDGE, AND TO INTERESTED

    23 PARTIES:

    24 COMES NOW Plaintiff Bob Atchison for its causes of action against the Defendant

    25 Oma McConnell, states and alleges as follows:

    26

    27 1.

    JURISDICTION & VENUE

    This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein 28 under 28 U.S.C. 1334 and 28 U.S.C. 157, in that this action arises in and relates to the

    \Complaint. wpd 1 COMPLAINT

  • 1 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case of Oma McConnell ("McConnell", "Debtor" or "Defendant") 2 filed on March 10, 2014 which is presently pending before the Court.

    3 2. This is a core proceeding arising under Title 11 of the United States Code

    4 involving the Debtor's bankruptcy case, which is presently pending in the United States

    5 Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, particularly 28 U.S.C. 6 157(b)(2)(I)and (J). See also Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7001(1). 7 3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1408 and 1409. 8 PARTIES

    9 4. Bob Atchison ("Plaintiff') resides at 101 Laurel Lane, Austin, Texas 78705. 10 5. Defendant Oma McConnell ("McConnell" or "Defendant") resides in the 11 County of Los Angeles, California.

    12 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

    13 6. Plaintiff has expertise with respect to certain periods of Russian history,

    14 specifically the home and fate of the last Tsar of Russia. In the early 1990's he was

    15 instrumental in the designation of the Alexander Palace, the Romanovs' home, as an

    16 endangered monument by the World Monuments Fund and was chief historian on the

    17 WMF's first expedition to the palace. Plaintiff has appeared on PBS, the Discovery Channel

    18 and A&E Television on issues related to the Romanovs and the palace.

    19 7. Plaintiff maintains a website dedicated to this period of Russian history

    20 located at http://www.alexanderpalace.org. Available through this website, Plaintiff

    21 operates a Russian History discussion forum, where he first encountered Defendant, who

    22 engaged him to perform consulting services for her, for which she never did pay Plaintiff.

    23 8. On October 11 , 2005 (Case D-1-GN-03-003141) the Travis County District 24 Court of Texas issued a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount 25 of$13,859.99 plus statutory interest because of her failure to pay for his consulting services 26 (the "2005 Judgment"). Defendant never paid that judgment. 27 9. Defendant is the owner and operates an online blog located at

    28 omahamou.cornloma. Defendant commonly posts comments to this site.

    \Complaint. wpd 2 COMPLAINT

  • 1 10. Since obtaining judgment against Defendant, Defendant has engaged in 2 activities designed to frustrate Plaintiffs enforcement of the judgment he obtained, 3 including but not limited to avoiding post judgment discovery, making numerous motions 4 for protective orders to avoid providing post judgment discovery, disobeying of court orders 5 for the production of post judgment discovery, filing frivolous bankruptcy petitions, only to 6 dismiss them after frustrating the enforcement of judgments obtained by Plaintiff and other 7 creditors.

    8 11. In addition to efforts to frustrate Plaintiffs enforcement of the 2005

    9 Judgment, Defendant has set out in a deliberate effort to defame Plaintiff. Although many

    10 postings have been made since 2009 and even earlier, said posts remain online and

    11 published to whomever should visit Defendant's forum sites in June 2014. In the past year,

    12 Defendant has posted repeatedly online false matter concerning Plaintiff, including but not

    13 limited to asserting:

    14 a. Plaintiff had committed perjury and forgery in obtaining the 2005 15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    b.

    c.

    d.

    e.

    f.

    Judgment;

    Plaintiff was being investigated for criminal activity;

    Plaintiff lies about Russian Orthodox Church and its clergy;

    Plaintiff stalks her;

    Plaintiff has sent people to cause her physical harm; and

    Plaintiff has had her drugged.

    21 This list is not exhaustive and only covers a single day's worth of online comments.

    22 FIRST COUNT FOR RELIEF 23 (Defamation- 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6)) 24 12. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained

    25 within paragraphs 1 through 11, inclusive as though fully set forth.

    26 13. Each of the facts published online by Defendant were and are false and no

    27 privilege exists to make such statements.

    28 Ill

    \Complaint. wpd 3 COMPLAINT

  • 1 14. The statements assert criminal activity by Plaintiff which has never occurred

    2 or taken place, but which have a natural tendency to injure Plaintiff and which are libelous 3 on their face as the comments require no explanation of their defamatory meaning.

    4 15. Moreover, Defendant filed an application for a civil harassment restraining

    5 order on September 9, 2013 against Plaintiff. Upon the filing, a pro forma temporary

    6 restraining order was issued not on the merits, but upon the filing. Plaintiff posted the

    7 conformed document as evidence that Plaintiff had been restrained by the Court, although

    8 no findings had been made.

    9 16. The statements were made by Defendant who knew or should have known the

    10 statements were false and would subject Plaintiff to ridicule, and ostracize him from 11 contacts and opportunities connected with his expertise in Russian history.

    12 17. The statements were made knowing they would be seen by both friends,

    13 acquaintances, and business contacts with the intent they result in humiliation of Plaintiff.

    14 At all times mentioned, the acts of Defendant were intended to cause harm to Plaintiff or

    15 performed with a reckless disregard for the consequences of her actions, solely to hurt,

    16 punish and humiliate Plaintiff.

    17 18. As a proximate cause of the conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has been generally

    18 injured in a sum according to proof at the time of trial. 19 19. The conduct of Defendant was despicable and intended to cause Plaintiff

    20 humiliation in the community of Russian History interests and amounts to fraudulent,

    21 oppressive or malicious conduct justifying the imposition of punitive and exemplary 22 damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

    23 20. As a further consequence ofthe conduct ofDefendant, Plaintiff is entitled to a

    24 declaration that Defendant is not entitled to a discharge of the damages she caused Plaintiff

    25 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). 26 Ill

    27 Ill

    28 Ill

    \Complaint.wpd 4 COMPLAINT

  • 1

    2

    SECOND COUNT FOR RELIEF

    (Preliminary and Permanent Injunction) 3 21. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference the allegations contained

    4 within paragraphs 1 through 19, inclusive, as though fully set forth.

    5 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief that he

    6 has lost business opportunities related to his Russian history expertise as a direct

    7 consequence of business contacts learning of the false allegations by Defendant and that

    8 damages from lost opportunities both in the past and in the future are difficult to calculate,

    9 rendering monetary damages an inadequate remedy.

    10 23. Injunctive relief is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings 11 and to stop great, irreparable injury to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs reputation and business 12 pursuits, including those related to his expertise in Russian history.

    13 24. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as follows: 14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    a.

    b.

    For a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendant or anyone acting on her behalf from posting false and defamatory matter related in any way

    related to Plaintiff, his web sites or his Russian history expertise on the

    Internet during the duration of this litigation; and,

    For a mandatory and permanent injunction requiring Defendant and 19 anyone acting on her behalf to remove any and all false and defamatory

    20 matter related in any way to Plaintiff or his web sites on the Internet on

    21 web sites under the control of Defendant or anyone acting on her behalf

    22 and to not post false or defamatory matter about Plaintiff or his web

    23 sites on the Internet in the future.

    24 THIRD COUNT FOR RELIEF

    25 (Declaration of Vexatious Litigant Status against Defendant Defendant Hamou, aka 26 Defendant McConnell aka Alexandra McConnell) 27 25. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19, inclusive as

    28 though fully set forth herein.

    \Complaint. wpd 5 COMPLAINT