8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
1/48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFO R TH E MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
BIG VOICES MEDIA, LLC, a Florida LimitedLiability Company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
))))))))))
TED WENDLER, LOU COBERLY, PATRICIA )
DEFAZIO, STEVE DEFAZIO, JAMES H. )POST, and JACQUELIN POST, )
Defendants.)))
______________________________ )
CASE NO. - - - - - - - -
COMPLAINT FO R DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Big Voices Media, LLC ("BIG" or "Company") petitions this Court for a Declaratory
Relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201, against Ted Wendler, Lou Coberly, Patricia DeFazio, Steve
DeFazio, James H. Post, and Jacquelin Post ("Defendants").
INTRODUCTION
1. BIG filed this action to seek declaratory relief against the Defendants because
they have demanded, without any basis in fact or law and under threat of litigation, that BIG
reimburse them the capital contributions they made to BIG several months ago. These
Defendants are sophisticated individuals who contributed to and became managing members of
BIG because they believed in BIG's goals and mission. They offered monetary and professional
assistance to launch the Company. They subsequently changed their minds, however, reneged
on their duties to the Company, and abandoned the Company when BIG needed them most.
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 26 PageID 1
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
2/48
Their sudden withdrawal has caused the Company harm and will likely harm further launch
efforts.
2. BIG has not violated any federal or Florida securities laws.
3. Defendants are not legally entitled to return of their contributions.
4. These contributions, if returned, would render BIG insolvent and, thus, viola te
Florida law. Therefore, Defendants have essentially demanded that BI G either violate th e law or
face a lawsuit.
5. In addition, Defendants, by threatening to accuse BIG of fraud or
misrepresentation and threatening injury to its reputation, with intent the reby to extract $105,000
from BIG and compel it to pay that sum of money against its will, have attempted to ex tort BIG.
6. Accordingly, BI G seeks a declaration that it has not violated the federal an d
Florida securities laws, that Defendants have breached their duties of loyalty, care, and good
faith and fair dealing to BIG, that Mr. Wendler committed professional negligence, and that
Defendants are not entitled to return of their full capital contributions.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Big Voices Media, LLC is Florida limited liability company with a
principal place ofbusiness at 8493 Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, Florida 32256.
8. Upon inforn1ation and belief, Defendant Ted Wendler ("Mr. Wendler") is an
individual currently residing in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Wendler is a managing member of
BIG.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lou Coberly ("Ms. Coberly") is an
individual currently residing in Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Coberly is a managing member of
BIG.
2
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 26 PageID 2
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
3/48
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Patricia DeFazio ("Mrs. DeFazio") is an
individual currently residing in St. Johns County, Florida. Ms. DeFazio is a managing member
o f BIG.
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Steven DeFazio ("Mr. DeFazio") is an
individual currently residing in St. Johns County, Florida. Mr. DeFazio is a managing member
o f BIG.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant James H. Post ("Mr. Post") is an
individual currently residing in St. Johns County, Florida. Mr. Post is a managing member o f
BIG.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jacquelin Post ("Mrs. Post") is an
individual currently residing in St. Johns County, Florida. Mrs. Post is a managing member o f
BIG.
JURISIDICTION AND VENUE
14. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1337 because this action arises
under federal law.
15. This Court has personal jurisdict ion over Defendants because Defendants reside
in Florida.
16. Venue is proper in the Middle District o f Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(a)(1) because some o f the Defendants reside in Jacksonville, Florida, and the remaining
Defendants reside in St. Jolms County, Florida.
17. This action is properly filed in the Jacksonville Division o f the Middle District of
Florida pursuant to Local Rule 1.02 because the only parties residing in the Middle Distric t o f
Florida reside in that division.
3
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 3 of 26 PageID 3
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
4/48
FACTS
18. BIG is a new, for-profit, conservative media broadcast network (for television,
internet, and mobile devices) that provides a fresh new media platform for disseminating fully
accurate, unbiased infonnation for the purpose of educating viewers about the issues, policies,
and affairs of the federal, state, and local governments, and all matters related to how these
issues and policies directly affect their lives. BIG's mission and tagline is "handing the
microphone back to the people." Its vision is to reclaim the conversation and ensure its viewers
are well-informed about issues and politics.
19. Billie Tucker ("Ms. Tucker") founded and registered BIG as a limited liability
company under Florida law on June 17, 2011. At the time, she was the sole owner and managing
member of BIG.
20. On July 14, 2011, Hank Madden made a capital contribution of$25,000 to BIG.
By doing so, Mr. Madden became a "Founding Member" of BIG.
21. In exchange for a $25,000 contribution, a Founding Member received 100 Series
A Preferred Units of Ownership and 100 Class A Common Units of Ownership. Founding
Members also received a seat on BIG's Advisory Board as well as voting rights.
22. Ms. Tucker originally envisioned only having six available slots for Founding
Members, and that she would remain a 55% owner and managing member of BIG
23. All Founding Members received a business plan from BIG that stated (a) "there is
no guarantee whatsoever that you will ever see any financial benefit from your involvement as a
Founding Member . . . in this enterprise, but you believe in the mission, the management team[,]
and the Board of Advisors and that is your primary reason to become involved"; (b) "financial
benefits, if any, will be shared with all Unit Holders in [BIG] at the rate of their involvement
4
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 4 of 26 PageID 4
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
5/48
once an audited financial statement has been produced after 12 months of service"; (c) "[ a II
opinions contained in this business plan constitute judgment at the publish date hereon and are
subject to change without notice;" (d) "[t]his business plan is published for the assistance of
recipients, but is not to be relied upon as authoritative and is not to be substituted for the exercise
of one's own judgment;" and (e) "[f]inancial involvement with [BIG] represents a significant
risk of loss and decisions related to such involvement should be made independently of this
business plan and of course with the benefit of competent legal counsel."
24. In addition, this business plan stated "This is not an offer to sell securities -Nor a
solicitation of an offer to buy securities."
25. On August 29, 2011, Andy Sanfilippo made a capital contribution of$25,000 to
BIG and became a "Founding Member."
26. On September 21, 2011, Connie Turner made a capital contribution of$25,000 to
BIG and became a "Founding Member."
27. On September 30, 2011, BIG hired Clyde Fabretti ("Mr. Fabretti") as a consultant
to the Company on a limited basis solely to advise BIG regarding its negotiations with a group of
individuals interested in contributing to BIG and to review a vendor contract. The
aforementioned individuals ultimately did not contribute or become members of the Company.
28. On October 16, 2011, BIG held an event for a select group of friends and like-
minded conservatives in Jacksonville, Florida, during which it unveiled its business and mission.
29. On October 19,2011, Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio jointly made a capital contribution of
$25,000 to BIG, and they became "Founding Members."
30. On October 21, 2011, Ms. Coberly made a capital contribution of$10,000 to BIG
and became a "Patriot Member" of BIG. In exchange, she received 40 Series A Preferred Units
5
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 5 of 26 PageID 5
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
6/48
of Ownership.
31. On October 23, 2011, BIG held its first meeting of its Founding Members at the
horne of Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio.
32. On October 24, 2011, BIG again hired Mr. Fabretti as a consultant to the
Company on a limited basis solely to advise BIG regarding its business plan.
33. On October 27, 2011, Judy Sanfilippo made an additional capital contribution of
$25,000 to BIG.
34. On November 2, 2011, Ms. Tucker inquired with Mr. Wendler, a Certified Public
Accountant ("CPA") and Ms. Coberly's common law husband, about potentially serving as the
accountant for BIG.
35. Thereafter, on November 11, 2011, Mr. Wendler provided accounting advice to
Ms. Tucker, as BIG's managing member, and BIG regarding BIG's expenses.
36. Also, on November 11,2011, Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio introduced Ms. Tucker to
Mrs. Post. Ms. Tucker verbally shared BIG's business plan with Mrs. Post. Upon information
and belief, Mrs. Post shared this information with her husband, an attorney, Mr. Post.
37. On November 12, 2011, Ms. Tucker introduced Mr. Wendler to the other
Founding Members as BIG's CPA. Mr. Wendler stated he would review and organized BIG's
bookkeeping and prepare a financial statement for the Company.
38. On November 13,2011, Mr. Wendler provided accounting advice to Ms. Tucker,
as BIG's managing member, and BIG regarding BIG's revenue, expenses, and taxes.
39. Also, on November 13, 2011, Ms. Tucker e-mailed the Founding Members and
explained the following proposed revenue structure for BIG: (a) viewers may pay $16.95 per
month to watch conservative videos and programming all in one place on their televisions;
6
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 6 of 26 PageID 6
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
7/48
(b) conservative groups searching for added value for their members and funding for events
would receive a free channel for such purposes as posting their videos and live-streaming their
events and text message alerts, and, in exchange, these groups would receive $1 back from each
of their members who signs up for BIG's $16.95/month plan; (c) $2 of each $16.95/month
payment would be donated to each subscriber's selected conservative group or organization.
40. On November 14, 2011, Mr. Wendler provided advice to Ms. Tucker as BIG's
Managing Member and BIG regarding BIG's taxes.
41. On November 18, 2011, Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio jointly made an additional capital
contribution of $25,000 to BIG.
42. On November 19, 2011, Ms. Tucker e-mailed the Founding Members and
explained that she decided to increase the number of slots for Founding Members from six to
nine in order to further capitalize the Company.
43. On November 19, 2011, Mr. Wendler e-mailed Ms. Tucker and requested an
operating agreement for BIG in order to begin preparing the Company's financial information
and documentation. Ms. Tucker provided Mr. Wendler with a draft operating agreement for BIG
and sought his advice regarding the document.
44. On November 21, 2011, Mr. Wendler and Ms. Coberly jointly made an additional
capital contribution of $15,000 to bring their total contribution to $25,000 and become Founding
Members.
45. Upon information and belief, Mr. Wendler reviewed the draft operating
agreement for BIG at various times from November 19 through 22,2011.
46. On November 22,2011, BIG and Mr. Fabretti's consulting firm, Bell Consulting
Group, LLC, executed an agreement for consulting services.
7
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 7 of 26 PageID 7
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
8/48
47. On November 22,2011, Mr. Wendler e-mailed Ms. Tucker and provided
accounting advice to BIG and a list of questions regarding the draft operating agreement.
48. On November 23, 2011, Ms. Tucker increased the number of slots for Founding
Members from nine to 14 and reduced the number of Series A Preferred Units of Ownership for
Patriot Members from 30 to 21.
49. On November 25,2011, a meeting was held at BIG's studio about ideas,
strategies, and a potential radio show. The following individuals were present at the meeting:
Mr. Madden andJobie Madden, Mr. Sanfilippo, Mr. and Mrs. Post Post, Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio,
representatives from BIG's technology partner (VVIT), Lynne Holicky, and Ms. Tucker.
50. On November 26,2011, Mr. Wendler provided Ms. Tucker, as BIG's Managing
Member, and BIG with extensive advice regarding BIG's financial structure and taxation.
51. On November 28, 2011, Mr. and Mrs. Post jointly made a capital contribution of
$25,000 and became Founding Members.
52. In early December 2011, Mr. Wendler continued to review and interpret the draft
operating agreement and provided advice to and sought information from Ms. Tucker and BIG
regarding that document.
53. On December 7, 2011, Mr. Wendler met with Ms. Tucker regarding review and
finalization of the draft operating agreement. He also provided additional advice by e-mail
regarding BIG's organizational structure.
54. On December 21, Thomas P. Trevisani, Sr., M.D. made a capital contribution of
$25,000 to BIG and became a Founding Member.
55. On December 25, 2011, Mr. Wendler e-mailed Ms. Tucker with various questions
regarding the Company's launch and expenses. Ms. Tucker responded and explained she would
8
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 8 of 26 PageID 8
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
9/48
answer his questions the day after Christmas. Ms. Tucker, in turn, e-mailed Mr. and Mrs.
DeFazio regarding Mr. Wendler's questions and explained she would answer his questions and
copy all Founding Members on the e-mail. Mr. DeFazio responded and explained certain
concerns he had regarding the finalization of the operating agreement and the Company's launch.
56. During this time, Ms. Tucker's mother' s health began to deteriorate. She had
been diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer on December 22, 2012.
57. On December 27, 2011, Ms. Tucker e-mailed all Founding Members with an
update on the Company. She covered a number of topics in her e-mail.
58. First, she directed them to BIG's website and asked them for their input and
suggestions. She also explained that the website was in "soft launch mode" because the private
end of the website had not yet been finalized. (The private website is comprised of the members'
area. When a member registers, he or she receives access to another back-end website for
members only.) The private website was not finalized yet because content partners for BIG had
not finalized their roles, agreements, and arrangements with BIG at that time.
59. Second, Ms. Tucker explained the status of BIG's marketing efforts and identified
the strategy moving forward. She also explained that, notwithstanding her mother's health
situation, she was pressing forward with marketing with the assistance of other individuals.
60. Third, Ms. Tucker explained the idea of hosting a call-in radio show with Mr.
Madden.
61. Fourth, Ms. Tucker explained BIG's involvement as a vendor and/or speaker in
the press corps for various upcoming events.
62. Fifth, Ms. Tucker updated them on the design and completion of BIG's studio, the
production of BIG's daily news show, and the production of other content.
9
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 9 of 26 PageID 9
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
10/48
63. Sixth, Ms. Tucker explained the status ofBIG's contracts with various vendors.
64. Finally, Ms. Tucker stated the Founding Members would receive a copy o f the
draft operating agreement later that week, and she explained financial documentation, such as a
quarterly financial statement, would be prepared.
65. On December 28, 2011, Mr. DeFazio e-mailed Ms. Tucker with several concerns
and questions about the draft operating agreement and requested that Ms. Tucker provide
additional information regarding how the ownership structure of BIG had changed. Ms. Tucker
responded and stated she would provide answers to his questions and additional information as
soon as she returned from a BIG business trip to Iowa, a trip Ms. Tucker made with Mr.
Wendler, Ms. Coberly, Mrs. DeFazio, and BIG's technology partner (VVIT).
66. From late December through early January, Mr. Wendler, Ms. Coberly, Mrs.
DeFazio, and BIG's technology partner (VVIT) accompanied Ms. Tucker to Iowa for the first
BIG live streaming event. During this trip to Iowa, Mr. Wendler, Ms. Coberly, and Mrs.
DeFazio participated as citizen journalists and supported the efforts of BIG's first venture.
67. On January 10, 2012, Ms. Tucker e-mailed all Founding Members and updated
them on her trips to Iowa and upcoming trips to South Carolina, Missouri, and Texas. She also
proposed a Founding Members meeting on February 18, 2012.
68. On January 11, 2012, Mrs. Post e-mailed Ms. Tucker and requested a meeting
sooner than February 18, 2012. She also e-mailed Ms. Tucker and requested a copy of the draft
operating agreement. Ms. Tucker responded that day and promised to send her a copy of the
draft operating agreement and offered to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Post that week after her trip to
South Carolina.
69. Ms. Tucker e-mailed all the Founding Members on January 11, 2012 and
10
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 10 of 26 PageID 10
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
11/48
explained she could not schedule a meeting with them until February 18 because she was either
out of town promoting BIG or with her mother during her mother's scheduled surgery in mid
January, and Mr. DeFazio was only available on weekends. She then re-scheduled the meeting
to February 19, 2012 to accommodate Mr. and Mrs. Post's travel plans (because they would be
out of town for the two weeks before February 19.
70. Ms. Tucker also e-mailed Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio on January 11, 2012 to explain
she could not re-schedule the Founding Members meeting, and that she would like to schedule an
individual meeting with them to review the draft operating agreement.
71. On January 12, 2012, Ms. Tucker e-mailed Mr. and Mrs. Post the draft operating
agreement.
72. On January 13, 2012, Mr. Madden made an additional capital contribution of
$15,000 to BIG.
73. On January 13, 2012, Mr. DeFazio e-mailed Ms. Tucker and expressed his
concerns regarding the direction of BIG. He accused BIG of not being transparent, warned Ms.
Tucker about the consultants with whom she surrounded herself, insinuated she was not focused
on the Company and critiqued her relationships with certain vendors, and referred vaguely to
certain "noise," or communication taking place among other Founding Members regarding Ms.
Tucker and BIG.
74. Ms. Tucker responded to Mr. DeFazio with the following points: she wanted
every Member's input and suggestions during these early stages of BIG; she thought the
communication among other Founding Members was unproductive and could potentially
undermine BIG; she requested that other Founding Members with questions and concerns
communicate with her directly; she explained in detail BIG's transparency with respect to its
11
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 11 of 26 PageID 11
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
12/48
bookkeeping, accounting, and other financial documentation; she requested Mr. DeFazio
specifically identify any potential issues between BIG and its vendors; she reminded Mr.
DeFazio that, when all Founding Members made contributions, she informed them the draft
operating agreement was not yet completed and that they could potentially lose their entire
contributions i f BIG did not succeed; she emphasized the importance of the work and revisions
put into the draft operating agreement since that document was such an important part of the
Company's business going forward, and, therefore, her desire was to discuss the agreement with
each Founding Member individually so she may solicit their advice and feedback in an orderly
fashion; she stated BIG would have quarterly meetings with Founding Members during which
the Company's financial information and marketing and sales strategy would be reviewed, with
the first such meeting taking place on February 19, 2012; and she explained, in between these
quarterly meetings, she would reach out to all Founding Members regarding any issues and
concerns that may arise.
75. Mr. DeFazio responded on January 14, 2012, and stated he and Mrs. DeFazio are
involved with BIG because of the "Patriotic and Christian principles upon which" Ms. Tucker
founded it. He re-affirmed their faith in Ms. Tucker to make BIG successful. He, nevertheless,
repeated his concerns regarding BIG, including the outstanding draft operating agreement, BIG's
relationship with VVIT, her hectic work and travel schedule, and requested they speak in person
regarding her other relationships with consultants. In addition, he stated he and Mrs. DeFazio
wanted to be heavily and actively involved with BIG.
76. On January 17, 2012, Ms. Tucker met with Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio regarding the
draft operating agreement and the consultants who were advising her. In particular, Mr. and
Mrs. DeFazio revealed they had investigated Dr. Trevisani and Mr. Fabretti's backgrounds.
12
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 12 of 26 PageID 12
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
13/48
They also stated they met with Mr. Post about their concerns regarding the backgrounds of Dr.
Trevisani and Mr. Fabretti, and they requested Ms. Tucker inform the other Founding Members
regarding the backgrounds of Dr. Trevisani and Mr. Fabretti. Nevertheless, Mr. and Mrs.
DeFazio explained their concerns would be alleviated once Ms. Tucker met with all the
Founding Members. Mrs. DeFazio also explained she would "f ix" any issues with Mr. Post and
Mr. Wendler. Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio both agreed they should have approached Ms. Tucker about
these various issues first before meeting with Mr. Post and Mr. Wendler without not ifying her.
Mr. DeFazio also promised to provide Ms. Tucker with feedback on the draft operating
agreement. Further discussions during dinner included how to improve BI G for everyone who
visited the website. Mr. DeFazio and Ms. Tucker had a conversation about the potential to make
BIG "free" or "almost free." Mr. DeFazio also shared his experiences about list-gathering, and
the conversation ended well with all parties stating they felt good about BIG's potential.
77. On January 18,2012, Ms. Tucker spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Post about their
concerns with BIG. Mr. Post explained whatever concerns he may have had regarding Mr.
Fabretti and Dr. Trevisani did not change their commitment to BIG. They also stated they
trusted Ms. Tucker to make the right decisions for BIG. In addition, Mr. Post stated he had some
questions regarding the draft operating agreement and promised to provide Ms. Tucker with
those questions in writing.
78. On January 19, 2012, Ms. Tucker e-mailed Mrs. DeFazio and asked for their
suggestions regarding the draft operating agreement. She explained she was gathering
information regarding the draft agreement from all Founding Members, and, then, once she had
suggestions from all Founding Members, she would incorporate all those suggestions and
finalize the agreement. Mrs. DeFazio responded and promised to provide their thoughts
13
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 13 of 26 PageID 13
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
14/48
regarding the draft operating agreement early the following week.
79. Also, on January 19, 2012, Ms. Tucker e-mailed Mr. Wendler and referenced a
list of his thoughts, questions, and suggestions regarding the draft operating agreement that he
hade-mailed to BIG's then-legal counsel. Ms. Tucker promised to review the questions Mr.
Wendler sent and provide answers. She also proposed a one-on-one meeting with Mr. Wendler
to discuss any issues and questions he had regarding the draft agreement.
80. On January 19,2012, Ms. Tucker e-mailed Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio and updated
them regarding the status of her seeking suggestions and questions from other Founding
Members regarding the draft operating agreement and their concerns about Dr. Trevisani and Mr.
Fabretti.
81. On January 20,2012, Ms. Tucker e-mailed Mr. Wendler asking for a meeting
with him and Ms. Coberly regarding the draft operating agreement and concerns that were noted
by Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio.
82. Mr. Wendler responded and asked for a meeting the following Sunday (January
22, 2012) with the other Founding Members and asked about the questions he e-mailed to BIG's
then-legal counsel regarding the draft operating agreement.
83. Ms. Tucker responded to Mr. Wendler and stated the Founding Members'
schedules conflicted, and so everyone was not able to attend a meeting on January 22. Ms.
Tucker asked i f this was an emergency and what the emergency might be. She once again asked
for a one-on-one meeting with Mr. Wendler and Ms. Coberly since she still had not received
feedback from them regarding the draft operating agreement.
84. On January 22, 2012, Mr. Post e-mailed Ms. Tucker with his thoughts and
suggestions regarding the draft operating agreement. Ms. Tucker forwarded Mr. Post' s e-mail to
14
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 14 of 26 PageID 14
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
15/48
BIG's then-legal counsel for consideration of changes to the draft operating agreement.
85. Also, on January 22, 2012, Mr. Wendler sent information to Ms. Tucker regarding
the filing ofthe Company's tax return and the Founding Members tax return information. Ms.
Tucker asked i f Mr. Wendler would be sending that to the Founding Members. Mr. Wendler
responded that he sent this information to her as an "FYI" and to do as she wished with it.
86. On January 23, 2012, Mr. DeFazio e-mailed Ms. Tucker with his suggested
changes to the draft operating agreement. Ms. Tucker responded that she received his e-mail and
would consult with BIG's then-legal counsel regarding the various suggested changes she
received from the Founding Members.
87. On January 24, 2012, Ms. Tucker e-mailed all Founding Members and updated
them on several issues, including her travel schedule and upcoming interviews. She also
recounted a meeting she had with VVIT on January 23, 2012, regarding BIG's revenue model.
She announced discussions with VVIT regarding changing the revenue model from a paid
subscription ($16.95/month) to an advertising sales revenue model that would not charge a
monthly subscription fee, much like what had previously been discussed with Mr. DeFazio. She
acknowledged it became apparent that, to reach the masses, BIG needed to offer its channels and
content for free. She explained to the Founding Members that revenue would be based on
advertising sales. She explained there were many details about this change that had yet to be
reviewed or implemented, and she promised to explain the suggested model at their upcoming
February 19 meeting.
88. On January 24, 2012, Ms. Tucker e-mailed Ms. Post to confirm their meeting for
the following day. Ms. Post responded and explained she would have to cancel their meeting the
following day because an unavoidable conflict had arisen. She promised to contact her about re-
15
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 15 of 26 PageID 15
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
16/48
scheduling the meeting.
89. On January 27, 2012, surprisingly, Mr. Post e-mailed Ms. Tucker a letter in which
he claimed his law firm represented Mr. Wendler, Ms. Coberly, Ms. and Mrs. DeFazio, and
himself and Mrs. Post (the Defendants in this action) and Ms. Carla DiRito (attached as Exhibit
A). He accused Ms. Tucker, "on behalf of [herself] and [BIG]," of"solicit[ing] monies from
[them] in regard to a purported business plan based upon representations which were, "a t best,
misleading." He demanded that BIG return them their capital contributions ($25,000 for Mr.
Wendler and Ms. Coberly; $50,000 for Mr. and Mrs. DeFazio; $5,000 for Ms. Carla DiRito; and
$25,000 for Mr. and Mrs. Post). Mr. Post further stated that, i f BIG did not return these capital
contributions, they would "file a complaint seeking all available remedies against [Ms. Tucker],
[BIG][,] and other responsible persons on Tuesday, January 31, 2012."
90. If BI G returned to the Defendants and Ms. DiRito their contributions totaling
$105,000, it would render BIG insolvent.
91. In other words, the Defendants, under an explicit threat oflitigat ion, expressly
demanded that BIG violate Florida law by making a payment of money ($105,000) that, if paid
out, would render BIG insolvent, or else face litigation.
92. Ms. Tucker briefly responded on January 27, 2012, acknowledged she received
Mr. Pos t's letter, and advised she would be hiring counsel.
93. On February 6, 2012, Mr. Post e-mailed another letter to Ms. Tucker and Attorney
Robert M. Fojo, newly-hired counsel for BIG, and, for the first time, referred to certain
"securities" BIG was "selling" and, again, "accused BIG and Ms. Tucker of "misleading
representations." (See correspondence, dated February 6, 2012, from Mr. Post to Ms. Tucker,
attached as Exhibit B.) Mr. Post then explained he was "notifying [Ms. Tucker] that the . . .
16
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 16 of 26 PageID 16
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
17/48
[Defendants] are exercising their right to rescind their respective purchases of the Securities
under applicable law, including Section 517.061, Florida Statutes, because [BIG] did not provide
notice to the . . . [Defendants] of their privilege to rescind their respective purchases." Mr. Post
also claimed "the sale of Securities by [BIG] was a violation of Florida and federal securities
laws because the sales were not exempt under applicable law." He then "demand[ ed] the
immediate refund of the full amounts [the Defendants] paid to [BIG]."
94. BIG's counsel responded by letter on February 13, 2012 and disputed Defendants'
claims on various bases (attached as Exhibit C).
95. Nevertheless, BIG 's counsel proposed scheduling and holding an infonnal
mediation or settlement conference at the earliest possible date because, given the surprising tum
of events, BIG believed much of the misinformation and misunderstandings involved in this
dispute would likely be cleared in such a setting in which the parties could speak and resolve
whatever differences had apparently arisen. Moreover, by making that effort, BIG believed the
parties might find a path towards resolving these claims favorably for both sides.
96. Sometime in between February 13, 2012, and February 21, 2012, the Defendants
retained new counsel, George Ridge.
97. On February 21, 2012, Defendants' new counsel telephoned and sent a letter to
BIG's counsel (attached as Exhibit D) in response to BIG's letter of February 13. Defendants'
counsel proposed "pre-suit mediation" and issued eight formal requests for business records
(including a financial statement and a current list of members of BIG) and other infom1ation
under section 608.4101, Florida Statutes, which entitles members of a limited liability company
to access certain business records. Defendants' counsel, nevertheless, expressed an
understanding that, because BIG was a "start-up" company, it may not have some or all of these
17
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 17 of 26 PageID 17
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
18/48
records available.
98. Of these eight requests, however, one requested information to which the
Defendants were not specifically entitled under section 608.4101, and another was merely an
interrogatory that was inappropriate at the pre-suit stage.
99. On February 24, 2012, BIG's counsel responded by letter (attached as Exhibit E),
and he and Defendants' counsel also spoke by telephone. BIG's counsel explained that BIG
preferred an informal settlement conference because a formal mediation was premature (given its
costs and BIG's lack of information regarding the Defendants' claims and accusations), and it
would not provide the parties with a sufficient opportunity to meet and freely discuss whatever
misunderstanding took place. In addition, other than the two objectionable requests for
information in the February 21 letter, BIG provided the requested information (i f available),
promised to provide other information when complete, and directed the Defendants to other
necessary information. BIG's counsel explained that Ms. Tucker had been frequently
unavailable because her mother's health had deteriorated, and Ms. Tucker had spent a
considerable amount of time in the hospital with her.
100. In response to the February 24 Letter, Defendants, on March 1, 2012, falsely
accused BIG of an "unwillingness to provide the requested documentation and financial
information or to use a third party neutral in the attempted settlement of this matter," demanded a
check in the amount of$105,000 on or before March 9, 2012, and stated this "settlement offer"
would expire just two business days later, on March 5, 2012. (See correspondence, dated March
1, 2012, from Mr. Ridge to Mr. Fojo, attached as Exhibit F.)
101. BIG's counsel responded the following day, on March 2, 2012, denied
Defendants' unfounded accusations, and requested a two-week extension to consider this
18
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 18 of 26 PageID 18
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
19/48
"settlement offer" due to Ms. Tucker's unavailability because of her mother's hospitalization and
deteriorating health. (See E-mail correspondence, dated March 2, 2012, from Mr. Fojo to Mr.
Ridge, attached as Exhibit G.)
102. In response, the Defendants reiterated their accusations and extended the deadline
to accept their "settlement offer" just one day to Tuesday, March 6, 2012. (See correspondence,
dated March 2, 2012, from Mr. Ridge to Mr. Fojo, attached as Exhibit H.)
COUNT I
Declaratory Judgment28 u.s.c. 2201
103. BIG re-alleges and reaffirms each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
through 102, inclusive, as i f fully set forth herein.
104. There is a real and actual controversy between BIG and the Defendants regarding
whether BIG violated the federal securities and Florida securities laws, whether Defendants
breached their duties of loyalty, care, and good faith and fair dealing towards BIG, and whether
Defendants are entitled to return oftheir capital contributions totaling $105,000.
105. Defendants have demanded and will continue to demand-or file suit to enforce
their demand- that BIG return their capital contributions.
106. Defendants' actions in demanding return of their capital contributions place BIG's
rights in doubt.
107. Defendants claim BIG violated the federal and Florida securities laws.
108. The Florida and federal securities laws, however, do not apply. The units of
ownership BIG sold to the Defendants are not "securities" under applicable law for the following
reasons: First, BIG offered the units of ownership to the Defendants within the state of Florida.
As an intrastate offering, they are, therefore, exempt under the federal securities law. Second,
19
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 19 of 26 PageID 19
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
20/48
the Defendants were active, not passive, investors in BIG. Therefore, the units are not securities
under Florida law. Third, as explained above, BIG's business plan, which was provided to all
Defendants, contained a disclaimer stating "This is not an offer to sell securities- Nor a
solicitation of an offer to buy securities."
109. Even if the units of ownership were securities under Florida law, the Defendants'
purchases were exempt transactions.
110. In addition, if BIG paid Defendants the amount they seek, it would violate Florida
law because such a payment would render BIG insolvent.
111. Rather, Defendants have no right to demand return of their capital contributions
because they are not allowed to withdraw as Managing Members from BIG, and, even if they are
allowed to withdraw, they are not entitled to return of their capital contributions in full and,
instead, are only entitled to the fair market value of their proportional interest in BIG.
112. Defendants, nevertheless, have created a present controversy by demanding that
BIG pay them certain money to which Defendants are not entitled and that would force BIG to
violate Florida law. In addition, Defendants have created a present controversy because they
have, through a pattern of attempted extortion-i.e., threatening to accuse BIG of fraud or
misrepresentation and threatening injury to BIG's reputation, with intent thereby to extort
$105,000 from and compel BIG to pay $105,000 against its will-attempted and conspired to
acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of BIG.
113. BIG believes the grounds upon which Defendants have based their demand are
erroneous and deprive BIG of its right to operate freely.
114. Furthermore, Defendants, as Managing Members ofBIG, have breached their
duties of loyalty, care, and good faith and fair dealing to the Company.
20
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 20 of 26 PageID 20
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
21/48
115. Defendants' duty of loyalty included a duty to refrain from dealing with BIG in
the conduct of BIG's business as a party having an interest adverse to BIG.
116. Defendants' duty of care included a duty to refrain from engaging in grossly
negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.
117. Defendants also had a duty to discharge their duties to BIG and exercise any of
their rights consistent with the obligation of good faith and fair dealing.
118. Defendants breached these duties by (a) demanding BIG pay them $105,000 to
which they are not legally entitled; (b) demanding, under threat of litigation, that BIG pay them
$105,000, which, i fpaid, would render BIG insolvent and, thus, violate section 608.426, Florida
Statutes, and subject BIG and Ms. Tucker to liability; and (c) attempting, through a pattem of
attempted extortion-i.e., threatening to accuse BIG of fraud or misrepresentation and
threatening injury to BIG's reputation, with intent thereby to extort $105,000 from and compel
BIG to pay $105,000 against its will- to conspire to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly,
an interest in or control ofBIG.
119. In addition, Mr. Wendler, as BIG's CPA, had duty of care to BIG that included
(a) a duty to comply with state law and the profession's technical and ethical standards, maintain
competence and strive to improve the quality of services, and discharge professional
responsibility to the best of his ability; and (b) act in a way that will serve the public interest,
honor the public trust, and demonstrate commitment to professionalism.
120. Mr. Wender breached this duty by (a) abdicating his responsibilities as BIG's
CPA; (b) demanding BIG pay him and Ms. Coberly $25,000 to which they are not legally
entitled; (c) demanding, under threat of litigation, that BIG pay him and Ms. Coberly $25,000,
which, if paid, would, in part, render BIG insolvent and, thus, violate section 608.426, Florida
21
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 21 of 26 PageID 21
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
22/48
Statutes, and subject BIG and Ms. Tucker to liability; and (d) attempting, through a pattern of
attempted extortion-i.e., threatening to accuse BIG of fraud or misrepresentation and
threatening injury to BIG's reputation, with intent thereby to extort $25,000 from and compel
BIG to pay $25,000 against its will - to conspire to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an
interest in or control of BIG.
121. BIG seeks a declaration that it has not violated the federal and Florida securities
laws, that Defendants have breached their duties ofloyalty, care, and good faith and fair dealing
to BIG, that Mr. Wendler committed professional negligence, and that Defendants are not
entitled to return of their full capital contributions.
COUNT II
Declaratory Judgment 86.021, Fla. Stat.
122. BIG re-alleges and reaffirms each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
through 109, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
123. Defendants have created a present controversy regarding whether BIG violated
the federal securities and Florida securities laws, whether Defendants breached their duties of
loyalty, care, and good faith and fair dealing towards BIG, and whether Defendants are entitled
to return of their capital contributions.
124. Defendants have demanded and will continue to demand-or file suit to enforce
their demand-that BIG return their capital contributions.
125. Defendants' actions in demanding return of their capital contributions place BIG's
rights in doubt.
126. Defendants claim BIG violated the federal and Florida securities laws.
127. The Florida and federal securities laws, however, do not apply. The units of
22
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 22 of 26 PageID 22
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
23/48
ownership BIG sold to the Defendants are not "securities" under applicable law for the following
reasons: First, BIG offered the units of ownership to the Defendants within the state of Florida.
As an intrastate offering, they are, therefore, exempt under the federal securities law. Second,
the Defendants were active, not passive, investors in BIG. Therefore, the units are not securities
under Florida law. Third, as explained above, BIG's business plan, which was provided to all
Defendants, contained a disclaimer stating "This is not an offer to sell securities -Nor a
solicitation of an offer to buy securities."
128. Even if the units of ownership were securities under Florida law, the Defendants'
purchases were exempt transactions.
129. In addition, i f BIG paid Defendants the amount they seek, it would violate Florida
law because such a payment would render BIG insolvent.
130. Rather, Defendants have no right to demand return of their capital contributions
because they are not allowed to withdraw as Managing Members from BIG, and, even i f they are
allowed to withdraw, they are not entitled to return of their capital contributions in full and,
instead, are only entitled to the fair market value of their proportional interest in BIG.
131. Defendants, nevertheless, have created a present controversy by demanding that
BIG pay them certain money to which Defendants are not entitled and that would force BIG to
violate Florida law. In addition, Defendants have created a present controversy because they
have, through a pattern of attempted extortion-i.e., threatening to accuse BIG of fraud or
misrepresentation and threatening injury to BIG's reputation, with intent thereby to extort
$105,000 from and compel BIG to pay $105,000 against its will-attempted and conspired to
acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of BIG.
132. BIG believes the grounds upon which Defendants have based their demand are
23
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 23 of 26 PageID 23
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
24/48
erroneous and deprive BIG of its right to operate freely.
133. Furthermore, Defendants, as Managing Members of BIG, have breached their
duties of loyalty, care, and good faith and fair dealing to the Company.
134. Defendants' duty ofloyalty included a duty to refrain from dealing with BI G in
the conduct of BIG's business as a party having an interest adverse to BIG.
135. Defendants' duty of care included a duty to refrain from engaging in grossly
negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.
136. Defendants also had a duty to discharge their duties to BIG and exercise any of
their rights consistent with the obligation of good faith and fair dealing.
137. Defendants breached these duties by (a) demanding BIG pa y them $105,000 to
which they are not legally entitled; (b) demanding, under threat of litigation, that BIG pa y them
$105,000, which, i f paid, would render BIG insolvent and, thus, violate section 608.426, Florida
Statutes, and subject BIG and Ms. Tucker to liability; and (c) attempting, through a pattern of
attempted extortion-i.e., threatening to accuse BIG of fraud or misrepresentation and
threatening injury to BIG's reputation, with intent thereby to extort $105,000 from and compel
BIG to pay $105,000 against its wil l - to conspire to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly,
an interest in or control of BIG.
138. In addition, Mr. Wendler, as BIG's CPA, had duty of care to BIG that included
(a) a duty to comply with state law and the profession's technical and ethical standards, maintain
competence and strive to improve the quality of services, and discharge professional
responsibility to the best of his ability; and (b) act in a way that will serve the public interest,
honor the public trust, and demonstrate commitment to professionalism.
139. Mr. Wender breached this duty by (a) abdicating his responsibilities as BIG's
24
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 24 of 26 PageID 24
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
25/48
CPA; (b) demanding BIG pay him and Ms. Coberly $25,000 to which they are not legally
entitled; (c) demanding, under threat of litigation, that BIG pay him and Ms. Coberly $25,000,
which, if paid, would, in part, render BIG insolvent and, thus, violate section 608.426, Florida
Statutes, and subject BIG and Ms. Tucker to liability; and (d) attempting, through a pattern of
attempted extortion-i.e., threatening to accuse BIG of fraud or misrepresentation and
threatening injury to BIG's reputation, with intent thereby to extort $25,000 from and compel
BIG to pay $25,000 against its wil l - to conspire to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an
interest in or control of BIG.
140. BIG seeks a declaration that it has not violated the federal and Florida securities
laws, that Defendants have breached their duties of loyalty, care, and good faith and fair dealing
to BIG, that Mr. Wendler committed professional negligence, and that Defendants are not
entitled to return of their full capital contributions.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, BIG respectfully requests relief from this Honorable Court as follows:
A. A Declaration that this Court has jurisdiction of a real and active justiciable
controversy between these parties;
B. A Declaration that BIG has not violated the federal securities laws;
C. A Declaration that BIG has not violated the Florida securities laws;
D. A Declaration that the Defendants breached their duty of loyalty to BIG;
E. A Declaration that the Defendants breached their duty of care to BIG;
F. A Declaration that the Defendants breached their duty of good faith and fair
dealing to BIG;
G. A Declaration that Mr. Wendler committed professional negligence;
25
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 25 of 26 PageID 25
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
26/48
H. A Declaration that the Defendants are not entitled to return of their full capital
contributions at all, or, in the alternative, are merely entitled to a distribution equal to the fair
market value of their current interests in BIG;
I. Costs, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees; and
J. Grant such other and further rel ief as may be just and appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The Plaintiff demands a jury trial against the Defendants on all counts triable pursuant to
Rule 38 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: March 7, 2012 By:
Respectfully submitted,
BIG VOICES MEDIA, LLC
By its attorneys,
M A C F / ~ y 7FE , S O N & McMULLEN/ / /
L- 0/:1Jeffrey . G'FL Ba/No. 5 074MAQF ARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLENP.cf.Box 1531Tampa, FL 33601Telephone: (813) 273-4200Facsimile: (813) 273-4396E-Mail: [email protected]
26
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 26 of 26 PageID 26
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
27/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 27
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
28/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-1 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 28
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
29/48
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
30/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-3 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 30
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
31/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-3 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID 31
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
32/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-3 Filed 03/07/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID 32
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
33/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-3 Filed 03/07/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID 33
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
34/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-3 Filed 03/07/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID 34
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
35/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-3 Filed 03/07/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID 35
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
36/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-4 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 36
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
37/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-4 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 37
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
38/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-5 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 38
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
39/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-5 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID 39
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
40/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-5 Filed 03/07/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID 40
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
41/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-5 Filed 03/07/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID 41
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
42/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-5 Filed 03/07/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID 42
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
43/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-5 Filed 03/07/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID 43
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
44/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-6 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID 44
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
45/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-7 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 45
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
46/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-7 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 46
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
47/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-8 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID 47
8/2/2019 Tucker Complaint
48/48
Case 3:12-cv-00242-UAMH-JBT Document 1-9 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID 48