Equine Law Matter - Closed - Get Information, Read Court Documents

JAMES LEE PARLIER JR, (d/b/a Jimmy Parlier Horse Transport, Parlier Farms and Parlier Equine Transport & Carriages), vs. TIFFANY LEWIS, et al.

No. 5:14-cv-00085-RLV-DCK

Statesville Division of the Western District Court of North Carolina

 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff James Lee Parlier Jr. (“Parlier”), an individual doing business as Jimmy Parlier
Horse Transport, Parlier Farms and Parlier Equine Transport & Carriages (collectively
hereinafter referred to as “Parlier”) by and through his undersigned counsel, state as follows
upon actual knowledge with respect to himself and his own acts and upon information and belief
as to all other matters complained of against Defendants Tiffany Lewis (“Lewis”), Kansas City
Premier Apartments, Inc. (“Apartment Corporation”), Jason Stahl (“Stahl”), Maria Bogdanova
Peifer (“Maria”), Brenda Casteen (“Casteen”), Marilyn Meeker Bernstein (“Marilyn”), and John

and Jane Does 1-10 (“Doe Defendants”)(Lewis, Apartment Corporation, Stahl, Maria, Casteen,
Marilyn and Doe Defendants are each a “Defendant” and collectively, the “Defendants”):

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. According to equine veterinarians and experts, the transportation of horses causes
more episodes of high stress than any other equine practice.
2. Such high stress levels to horses during transportation may result in significant
traumatic injuries to them including bruising, infections, weight loss, infertility,
immune suppression and mortality.
3. As a result, there is an inherent risk to horses of traumatic injuries each time that
they are transported.
4. Consequently, it is standard practice that equine horse transporters require their
clients to execute hold harmless agreements for any injuries sustained by their horses during their
transportation.
5. This is an action arising from Defendants’ ongoing efforts and conspiracy to
damage Plaintiff’s reputations, and interfere with Plaintiff’s business, existing contracts and
business prospects by way of publishing false, unfair and deceptive Internet postings about
Plaintiff.
6. Many of the Defendants researched, requested and obtained quotes from multiple
equine transporters, including Plaintiff, and then elected to do business with a Lincoln County,
North Carolina business.
7. Despite knowledge of the inherent risks of significant traumatic injuries during
horse transportation, and their agreement to hold Plaintiff harmless for any injury to their horse

from their requested horse transport, each of the Defendants joined together with the joint
purpose and material intent, and acted for and as actual and apparent agents of each other, and
conspired together for the common cause and purpose of committing the acts described herein
that has targeted a Lincoln County, North Carolina business that substantially injured it (i.e.,
Plaintiff).
8. Defendants’ tortious acts complained of herein are ongoing and continuous, and
were, and are still, intended to damage the reputation, regard, esteem and goodwill associated
with Plaintiff’s names and interfere with his business.

THE PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Parlier is an individual that resides in Lincoln County, North Carolina.
10. Plaintiff Parlier is the owner of Plaintiff Jimmy Parlier Horse Transport, Parlier
Farms and Parlier Equine Transport & Carriages, that each such “dba” business transports horses
for its customers throughout the United States of America.
11. Defendant Lewis is an individual who resides in Jackson County, Missouri, and,
according to her public Internet postings, is a former customer of Plaintiff.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Apartment Corporation is a corporation
organized under the laws of Missouri, and is a legal entity utilized by Defendant Lewis in her
attempt to shield herself of personal liability for her acts.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jason Stahl is either a fictitious Internet
user, or individual, who resides in Buchanan or Jackson County, Missouri, and is Defendant
Lewis or an individual acting under the direction of Defendant Lewis.

14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Maria is an individual who resides in
Berks County, Pennsylvania, and according to her public Internet postings, is a former customer
of Plaintiff.
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Casteen is an individual who resides in
Nicholas County, West Virginia, is a former and disgruntled girlfriend of Plaintiff, and according
to her public Internet postings, is a former customer of Plaintiff.
16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Marilyn is an individual who resides in
Beverly Hills County, California, and according to her public Internet postings, is a former
customer of Plaintiff.
17. Defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 10 are individuals whose names and
addresses of residence are currently unknown and unascertainable by Plaintiff, who, according to
Defendants, have published statements about Plaintiff through various websites, and through
communications sent to the Defendants, and Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such
fictitious names. Plaintiff intends to identify the Doe Defendants through means of discovery
and will amend this lawsuit to identify the Doe Defendants by proper legal names upon obtaining
such information.
18. Defendants Lewis, Apartment Corporation, Stahl, Maria, Casteen, Marilyn and
John and Jane Does 1 through 10 joined together with joint purpose and material intent, and
acted for and as actual and apparent agents of each other, and conspired together for the common
cause and purpose of committing the acts described herein that substantially injured Plaintiffs.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 

19. This Court has original jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332, because the Plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than all of the Defendants, and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
20. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each knew that
Plaintiff resided in this federal district prior to, during and after publishing false, unfair and
deceptive statements about Plaintiff on the Internet that has damaged Plaintiff’s reputation and
his business.
21. Jurisdiction over Defendants is constitutional because each has knowingly chosen
to publish statements on the Internet about a Lincoln County, North Carolina business (i.e.,
Plaintiff).
22. Jurisdiction over the Defendants and Doe Defendants is constitutional under the
North Carolina long-arm statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4, because Defendants and Doe
Defendants engaged in substantial activity within and purposely, knowingly directed activity and
defamatory statements into North Carolina causing injury and purposely availed themselves of
the privilege of conducting activities within the state of North Carolina both through their
conspiracy with each other and otherwise.
23. The claims alleged in this Complaint arise in the state of North Carolina and the
Western District of North Carolina and elsewhere.
24. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all
Defendants have conspired together for the purpose of damaging Plaintiff, which substantial part
of such damages to Plaintiff occurred within this Western District of North Carolina where
Plaintiff resides and operates his businesses.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

 

25. Parlier is an individual who started transporting horses full time exclusively in
2007, and prior to 2007, transported horses seasonally.
26. Parlier has been serving the horse industry for over thirty-two years.
27. Parlier has been providing the services of transporting horses under the business
names of Jimmy Parlier Horse Transport, Parlier Farms and Parlier Equine Transport &
Carriages.
28. Plaintiff depends to a great degree upon his reputation and the goodwill he has
built up with the public at large, both generally in business and specifically in finding new
clients.
The Chronicles of the Horse Page
29. Defendant Lewis, Apartment Corporation, Maria, Casteen, and Marilyn have
created accounts and have posted comments at
<http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?364401-Jimmy-Parlier-Horse-Transport-
Feedback>. A copy of this Chronicles page with some of its published comments is attached and
incorporated hereto as Exhibit A. This page and Exhibit A are collectively referred to as
“Chronicles Page – Exhibit A.” Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and update Exhibit A and
its related allegations if Defendants continue to publish new statements at Chronicles Page –
Exhibit A or any other forum.
30. The home page of Chronicles Page – Exhibit A invites readers to tell their story by
directing them to post comments on this page.
31. Several of the posts on Chronicles Page – Exhibit A target Plaintiff in particular.
32. The purpose of the Chronicles Page – Exhibit A is to target and damage Plaintiff
and those associated with them.
33. Defendants use of Chronicles Page – Exhibit A to publish numerous false,
misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff is in furtherance of their efforts to damage
Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, those comments published by Defendants under the user
names of merecedes9 (aka Lewis), nik022 (aka Maria), montana11 (aka Casteen),
E3music@sbcglobal.net (aka Marilyn) and other user names not known currently by Plaintiff.
34. Examples of such false, misleading and/or deceptive statements about Plaintiff
published by the Defendants at Chronicles Page – Exhibit A include but are not limited to:
a. Upon information and belief, montana11 (aka Casteen) published that
“Jimmy is a con artist, and he hauled illegal things other than horses.”
b. Merecedes9 (aka Lewis) published that Jimmy transported her horse
“MYLLA, LEFT SIDE AGAINST TRAILER WALL. RIGHT SIDE
ADJACENT TO GYPSY VANNER STALLION.”
c. Merecedes9 (aka Lewis) published that Plaintiff “almost killed” her horse.
d. All other false, misleading and deceptive statements published by
Defendants at the Chronicles Page – Exhibit A.
35. The Defendants’ Chronicles Page – Exhibit A statements were published in
commerce with the specific intent that each, individually, and collectively, were false,
misleading and/or deceptive, and intended by Defendants to harm Plaintiff in his business and
reputations.
Original Facebook HorseTransport Reviews
36. Defendant Lewis, Apartment Corporation, Stahl, Maria, Casteen and Marilyn
have created accounts and have posted comments at
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/182389251876739/>. A copy of this Facebook page with

some of its published comments is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit B. This Facebook
page and Exhibit B are collectively referred to as “Facebook Page – Exhibit B.” Plaintiff
reserves the right to amend and update Exhibit B and its related allegations if Defendants
continue to publish new statements at the Facebook Page – Exhibit B or any other forum.
37. The home page of Facebook Page – Exhibit B invites readers to tell their story by
directing them to post comments on the page.
38. Several of the posts on Facebook Page – Exhibit B that were published by the
Defendants target Plaintiff in particular.
39. The purpose of Defendants’ published posts at Facebook Page – Exhibit B is to
target Plaintiff and those associated with them.
40. Defendants use of Facebook Page – Exhibit B is to publish numerous false,
misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff is in furtherance of their efforts to damage
Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, those comments published by Defendants under the user
names Tiffany Lewis, Maria BP, Brenda Casteen, Jason Stahl and Marilyn Bernstein.
41. Examples of such false, misleading and/or deceptive statements about Plaintiff
published by the Defendants at Facebook Page – Exhibit B include but are not limited to:
a. Maria BP (aka Maria) published that Plaintiff “beaten and cheated on” his
girlfriend.
b. Brenda Casteen (aka Casteen) published that she has “pictures and doctor
report” from beatingd she received by Plaintiff.
c. Brenda Casteen (aka Casteen) published that her “atty. has encouraged
[her] to bring assault charges [against Plaintiff] …[and she is] thinking it
over.”

d. Brenda Casteen (aka Casteen) published that “complaints have been filed
[against Plaintiff] for falsifying information on [transported horses’]
Coggins test.”
e. All other false, misleading and deceptive statements published by
Defendants at the Facebook Page – Exhibit B.
42. On April 7, 2014, Defendants name calling and in appropriate language became
so damaging to not only Plaintiff but also to Facebook Page – Exhibit B, whereby the
administrator of such Facebook page had to publish to Defendants its rules:
Attention please: This page is intended to be a friendly, cooperative place for you to share
your experiences and help others have good experiences. Personal attacks, regardless of
who the target is, are strictly prohibited. For those who need more detailed instructions, I’ll
give a few examples below.
– Name calling and using inappropriate language is NOT OKAY.
– Stating that XYZ is a lousy transporter is NOT OKAY. However, explaining in detail
what a lousy job XYZ did transporting your horses is good. Be prepared to backup your
claims if anyone questions them.
– Asking a reviewer for additional details is perfectly fine. Whether to provide those details
is entirely up to the other person. In particular, there is no rule that a reviewer has to
provide the DOT number of the company being reviewed. No one should have to feel bad
for choosing a company without having first checked their DOT number. However, if you
are advertizing for your company, be prepared to be asked for it.
– If you make claims, especially ones that reflect badly on someone else, be prepared to
prove them by posting pictures, documents, screen shots and the like. It is not enough to
simply state that you have proof. If you are not willing to share your proof, don’t make the
claim.
– If you find someone’s statements hard to believe, it is perfectly fine to ask for proof. If
they fail to provide proof, it’s fine to state that they are unable to substantiate their claims.
If you happen to know that someone’s statements are incorrect, it is perfectly fine to point
this out and ask them to correct them. It is NOT OKAY to call anyone a liar and blow off
anything they say just because they have made a mistake in the past.
– It is NOT OKAY to question other people’s motivation for writing a particular review. A
review is not invalid just because someone used to work for the company being reviewed
or is friends (or enemies) with the person being reviewed. However, if you have evidence
of a particular relationship between the reviewer and the company being reviewed, it is
okay to point out this relationship in an objective way. Conversely, the reviewer should
consider disclosing such a relationship before someone else points it out. There’s nothing
wrong with reviewing someone who is a good friend, and being upfront about these things
simply adds to your credibility.
If someone violates these rules, please point it out to me in a detailed message. Please
avoid engaging in a heated argument with the other party as it makes it harder for me to
figure out who’s at fault.
43. As a result of being privately and publicly scorned by the administrator of
Facebook Page – Exhibit B, Defendants created multiple new Facebook pages for the purposes of
damaging Plaintiff’s reputation and business, including but not limited to, Facebook Page –
Exhibit A (as defined above), Facebook Page – Exhibit C (as defined below), Facebook Page –
Exhibit D (as defined below), Facebook Page – Exhibit E (as defined below), Facebook Page –
Exhibit F (as defined below), Yelp Page – Exhibit G (as defined below), Facebook Page –
Exhibit H (as defined below) and Facebook Page – Exhibit I (as defined below).
44. The Defendants’ Facebook Page – Exhibit B statements were published in
commerce with the specific intent that each, individually, and collectively, were false,
misleading and/or deceptive, and intended by Defendants to harm Plaintiff in his business and
reputations.

Tiffany Lewis’ Facebook Page

45. Defendant Lewis created and is the Admin for the Facebook page
<https://www.facebook.com/KCPREMIER?fref=ts>. A copy of this Facebook page with some
of its published comments is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit C. This Facebook page
and Exhibit C are collectively referred to as “Facebook Page – Exhibit C.” Plaintiff reserves
the right to amend and update Exhibit C and its related allegations if Defendants continue to
publish new statements at Facebook Page – Exhibit C or any other forum.
46. Several of the posts on Facebook Page – Exhibit C target Plaintiff in particular.
47. The purpose of those posts at Facebook Page – Exhibit C that target Plaintiff is to
damage Plaintiff and those associated with them.

48. Defendants use of Facebook Page – Exhibit C is to promote and advertise to her
followers and the general public Facebook Page – Exhibit E (as defined below), numerous false,
misleading and/or deceptive published statements about Plaintiff in furtherance of the
Defendants’ efforts to damage Plaintiff.
49. An example of Tiffany’s advertisement of Facebook Page – Exhibit E that
publishes false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff at Facebook Page – Exhibit
C is as follows:
a. Tiffany publishes the advertisement that “We [i.e., the Defendants] have
started a new Horse Transport Review website to keep our horses safe
during transport. Come and learn and share and be happy!!!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/horsetransportreviews/.”
b. All other advertisements by Defendants of their published false,
misleading and/or deceptive statements about Plaintiff and his businesses.
50. The Defendants’ Facebook Page – Exhibit C advertisement(s) of (i) Facebook
Page – Exhibit E, and (ii) all other published statements of or concerning Plaintiff and his
businesses, were published in commerce with the specific intent that each, individually, and
collectively, were advertisements for false, misleading and/or deceptive statements about
Plaintiff and his businesses, and intended by Defendants to harm Plaintiff in his business and
reputations.

Maria Bogdanova Peifer’s Facebook Page

51. Defendant Maria created and is the Admin for the Facebook page
<https://www.facebook.com/MariaB22?fref=ts>. A copy of this Facebook page with some of its
published comments is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit D. This Facebook page and
Exhibit D are collectively referred to as “Facebook Page – Exhibit D.” Plaintiff reserves the
right to amend and update Exhibit D and its related allegations if Defendants continue to publish
new statements at Facebook Page – Exhibit D or any other forum.
52. The home page of Facebook Page – Exhibit D invites readers to tell their story by
directing them to post comments on this page.
53. Several of the posts on Facebook Page – Exhibit D target Plaintiff in particular.
54. The purpose of those posts that target Plaintiff at Facebook Page – Exhibit D is to
damage Plaintiff and those associated with them.
55. Defendants use of Facebook Page – Exhibit D is to publish numerous false,
misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff in furtherance of their efforts to damage
Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, those comments published by Defendants under the user
name Maria BP.
56. Examples of such false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff
published by the Defendants at Facebook Page – Exhibit D include but are not limited to:
a. Maria BP published that Plaintiff injured her horse and caused it’s “skin
[to be] ripped on her left cheek 2inx3in,Left front cannon bone injury and
the worst of them was and is right hind tendon injury.”
b. Maria BP published that Plaintiff was “negligent” in providing his
transportation services to her.
c. All other false, misleading and deceptive statements published by
Defendants at the Facebook Page – Exhibit D
57. The Defendants’ Facebook Page – Exhibit D statements were published in
commerce with the specific intent that each, individually, and collectively, were false,
misleading and/or deceptive, and intended by Defendants to harm Plaintiff in his business and
reputations.

Defendants’ Facebook Horse Transporter Reviews Page

58. Defendant Lewis, Apartment Corporation, Stahl, Maria and Casteen created and
are the Admins for the Facebook page
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/horsetransportreviews>. A copy of this Facebook page with
some of its published comments is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit E. This Facebook
page and Exhibit E are collectively referred to as “Facebook Page – Exhibit E.” Plaintiff
reserves the right to amend and update Exhibit E and its related allegations if Defendants
continue to publish new statements at Facebook Page – Exhibit E or any other forum.
59. The home page of Facebook Page – Exhibit E invites readers to tell their story by
directing them to post comments on this page.
60. Several of the posts on Facebook Page – Exhibit E target Plaintiff in particular.
61. The purpose of Facebook Page – Exhibit E is to target and damage Plaintiff and
those associated with them.
62. Defendants use of Facebook Page – Exhibit E is to publish numerous false,
misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff in furtherance of their efforts to damage
Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, those comments published by Defendants under the user
names Tiffany Lewis, Maria BP, Brenda Casteen, and Jason Stahl.
63. Examples of such false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff
published by the Defendants at Facebook Page – Exhibit E include but are not limited to:
a. Maria BP (aka Maria) published that as a result of Plaintiff hauling her
horse, it will “not [be] sound and will not be usable for sports.”

b. Maria BP (aka Maria) published that Plaintiff “never offloaded [her
horse] in those 7 days [of transportation].”
c. Brenda Casteen (aka Casteen) published that “It is not unusual for
[Plaintiff to keep] horses […] on the trailer, heads tied for 4-5 days at a
time.”
d. All other false, misleading and deceptive statements published by
Defendants at the Facebook Page – Exhibit E.
64. The Defendants’ Facebook Page – Exhibit E statements were published in
commerce with the specific intent that each, individually, and collectively, were false,
misleading and/or deceptive, and intended by Defendants to harm Plaintiff in his business and
reputations.

Defendants’ Facebook Fairytale Arabians Page

65. Defendant Lewis and Apartment Corporation created and are the Admins for the
Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/fairytalearabians>. A copy of this Facebook page
with some of its published comments is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit F. This
Facebook page and Exhibit F are collectively referred to as “Facebook Page – Exhibit F.”
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and update Exhibit F and its related allegations if
Defendants continue to publish new statements at Facebook Page – Exhibit F or any other forum.
66. The home page of Facebook Page – Exhibit F invites readers to tell their story by
directing them to post comments on this page.
67. Several of the posts on Facebook Page – Exhibit F target Plaintiff in particular.
68. The purpose of Facebook Page – Exhibit F is to target and damage Plaintiff and
those associated with them.

69. Defendants use of Facebook Page – Exhibit F is to advertise to Tiffany’s
followers and the general public Facebook Page – Exhibit H (as defined below), which publishes
numerous false, misleading and/or deceptive statements about Plaintiff in furtherance of the
Defendants’ efforts to damage Plaintiff.
70. An example of Tiffany’s advertisement of Facebook Page – Exhibit H that
publishes false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff at Facebook Page – Exhibit
F is as follows:
a. Tiffany publishes the advertisement as follows: “Jimmy Parlier Equine
Transport – Mylla’s Story of Survival [link:

This Mylla's story of survival. You will find documents, graphic pictures and vet reports. It is imperative that you…

Posted by Fairytale Arabians on Sunday, March 2, 2014

832.1466726280222569&type=1] (44 photos). This Mylla’s story of
survival. You will find documents, graphic pictures and vet reports. It is
imperative that you check out your haulers and ensure that they carry
proper licensing and DOT credentials. Mylla was hauled by a company
that was un-authorized to drive by the DOT. This is Mylla’s horrific
story.”
b. All other advertisements by Defendants of their published false,
misleading and/or deceptive statements about Plaintiff and his businesses.
71. The Defendants’ Facebook Page – Exhibit F advertisement(s) of (i) Facebook
Page – Exhibit E, and (ii) all other published statements of or concerning Plaintiff and his

Plaintiff and his businesses, and intended by Defendants to harm Plaintiff in his business and
reputations.
Yelp Publications
72. Defendant Maria, Marilyn and Casteen have created accounts and have posted
comments at
<http://www.yelp.com/not_recommended_reviews/IRISuDUKQuhFJH02_NC0kA>, including
but not limited to all of its subsequent pages. A copy of this Yelp page with some of its
published comments is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit G. This Yelp page and
Exhibit G are collectively referred to as “Yelp Page – Exhibit G.” Plaintiff reserves the right to
amend and update Exhibit G and its related allegations if Defendants continue to publish new
statements at Defendants’ Yelp Page – Exhibit G or any other forum.
73. The home page of Defendants’ Yelp Page – Exhibit G invites readers to tell their
story by directing them to post comments on the page.
74. Several of the posts on Yelp Page – Exhibit G target Plaintiff in particular.
75. The purpose of Yelp Page – Exhibit G is to damage Parlier and those associated
with them.
76. Defendants use of Yelp Page – Exhibit G is to publish numerous false, misleading
and deceptive statements about Plaintiff in furtherance of their efforts to damage Plaintiff,
including, but not limited to, those comments published by Defendants under the user names
Maria B., Marilyn B. and B.C.
77. Examples of such false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff
published by the Defendants at Yelp Page – Exhibit G include but are not limited to:

a. Maria BP (aka Maria) published that “My mare was hauled for 7 days (not
4 as promises) all over the creation without ever coming off the trailer.”
b. Marilyn published that “My beloved Lucky was tied and confined in a
space large enough only to stand in for four days.”
c. All other false, misleading and deceptive statements published by
Defendants at the Yelp Page – Exhibit G
78. The Defendants’ Yelp Page – Exhibit G statements were published in commerce
with the specific intent that each, individually, and collectively, were false, misleading and/or
deceptive, and intended by Defendants to harm Plaintiff in his business and reputations.
Facebook Mylla’s Story
79. Defendant Lewis and Apartment Corporation created and are the Admins for the
Facebook page
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1468401600055037.1073741832.1466726280222
569&type=1>. A copy of this Facebook page with some of its published comments is attached
and incorporated hereto as Exhibit H. This Facebook page and Exhibit H are collectively
referred to as “Facebook Page – Exhibit H.” Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and update
Exhibit H and its related allegations if Defendants continue to publish new statements at
Defendants’ Facebook Page – Exhibit H or any other forum.
80. The home page of Facebook Page – Exhibit H invites readers to tell their story by
directing them to post a comment on the page.
81. Several of the posts on Facebook Page – Exhibit H target Plaintiff in particular.
82. The purpose of Facebook Page – Exhibit H is to damage Plaintiff and those
associated with them.

83. Defendants use of Facebook Page – Exhibit H is to publish numerous false,
misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff in furtherance of their efforts to damage
Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, those comments published by Defendants under the user
names Tiffany Lewis.
84. Examples of such false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff
published by the Defendants at Facebook Page – Exhibit H include but are not limited to:
a. Tiffany published that Plaintiff “Plac[ed] an intact stallion immediately
next to [her] mare[; this] was an inappropriate decision [by Plaintiff],
particularly for a professional equine transport company.”.
b. Tiffany published that “The stallion on her [horse’s] right side resulted in
her [horse] pressing her weight on her left side with constant leaning on
the wall of the trailer.”
c. All other false, misleading and deceptive statements published by
Defendants at the Facebook Page – Exhibit H
85. The Defendants’ Facebook Page – Exhibit H statements were published in
commerce with the specific intent that each, individually, and collectively, were false,
misleading and/or deceptive, and intended by Defendants to harm Plaintiff in his business and
reputations.

Marilyn Meeker Bernstein’s Facebook Page

86. Defendant Marilyn created and is the Admin for the Facebook page
<https://www.facebook.com/marilyn.m.bernstein.7?fref=ts&ref=br_t>. A copy of this Facebook
page with some of its published comments is attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit I. This
Facebook page and Exhibit I are collectively referred to as “Facebook Page – Exhibit I.”
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and update Exhibit I and its related allegations if
Defendants continue to publish new statements at Facebook Page – Exhibit I or any other forum.
87. The home page of Facebook Page – Exhibit I invites readers to tell their story by
directing them to post comments on this page.
88. Several of the posts on Facebook Page – Exhibit I target Plaintiff in particular.
89. The purpose of those posts that target Plaintiff at Facebook Page – Exhibit I is to
damage Plaintiff and those associated with them.
90. Defendants use of Facebook Page – Exhibit I is also to promote to her followers
and the general public Facebook Page – Exhibit B (as defined above), numerous false,
misleading and/or deceptive published statements about Plaintiff in furtherance of the
Defendants’ efforts to damage Plaintiff.
91. Defendants use of Facebook Page – Exhibit I is to publish numerous false,
misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff in furtherance of their efforts to damage
Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, those comments published by Defendants under the user
name Marilyn Meeker Bernstein.
92. Examples of such false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff
published by the Defendants at Facebook Page – Exhibit I include but are not limited to:
a. Merilyn Meeker Bernstein published that Plaintiff “tied all the horses in
the trailer for four days and did not take them off to lie down and move
around.”
b. Merilyn Meeker Bernstein published that Plaintiff “does not tell the truth”
in discussing his transportation services with her.
c. All other false, misleading and deceptive statements published by
Defendants at the Facebook Page – Exhibit I.
93. The Defendants’ Facebook Page – Exhibit I statements were published in
commerce with the specific intent that each, individually, and collectively, were false,
misleading and/or deceptive, and intended by Defendants to harm Plaintiff in his business and
reputations
Other Unknown False, Misleading and Deceptive Damaging Published Comments
94. Upon information and belief, Defendants have published in commerce other
unknown false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff and his businesses that have
damaged Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves his right to amend this Complaint to allege such false,
misleading and deceptive published statements when Plaintiff discovers or becomes aware of
them.
95. Upon information and belief, Defendants have published advertisements in
commerce to false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff and his businesses that
Plaintiff is unaware of currently. Plaintiff reserves his right to amend this Complaint to allege
such false, misleading and deceptive published statements when Plaintiff discovers or becomes
aware of them.
96. Upon information and belief, Defendants have filed numerous false, misleading
and deceptive complaints about Plaintiff with various state and federal agencies, including but
not limited to, various State Attorney General Offices, Maricopa County Sheriffs Department,
United States Department of Agriculture, Internal Revenue Service, Humane Society of Lincoln
County, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Lincoln county Transport, the City of
Lincolnton and other agencies not known currently by Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves his right to

amend this Complaint to allege additional false, misleading and/or deceptive complaints when
Plaintiff discovers or becomes aware of them.
97. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ false, misleading and deceptive
published statements about Plaintiff as alleged herein were either read by Plaintiff’s insurance
company, Farm Bureau, or Defendants delivered false, misleading and/or deceptive complaints
about Plaintiff to such insurance company.
98. Plaintiff’s insurance company Farm Bureau ultimately believed such statements
and/or complaints by Defendants about Plaintiff and cancelled Plaintiff’s insurance policy.
Intentional Acts
99. In addition to the aforementioned allegations, Defendants glory in and brag about
their success of these blogs (e.g., Exhibits A – I) in several posts on the blogs:
a. In one post, Maria via the Facebook user name “Maria BP” published
“Suzanne Leupold, be my guest, this is the same info that went to DOT, my
attorney and now being addressed with Attorney General (just got the
papers on Friday) and will be filed with PETA in upcoming days. You can
pass this on too. Do not forget to cc: Dee (though trip in October there
was a different Girl-friend) And Celeste Huston as you have done in a
past.” See Facebook Page – Exhibit B.
b. In another post, Maria via the Facebook user name “Maria BP” published

“I just got email from DOT. Brenda, the falsification of coggins should be
filed with Dept of Agriculture as this presents potential danger for other
horses that ARE coggins neg and healthy.” See Facebook Page – Exhibit B.
c. Stahl via the Facebook user name “Jason Stahl” published “And hey, if
anyone wants to come after me for allegedly slandering Parlier, please be
my guest, I’d be more than happy to win a case I wouldn’t even have to
show up for.” See Facebook Page – Exhibit B.
d. Stahl via the Facebook user name “Jason Stahl” published “You’re crazy
for using him. He has quite a few bad reports, way too many for any
reputable transporter to have. And I’ve never seen a transporter garner so
much drama. Steer clear of Parlier transport if you want a horse to arrive
in one piece and want to deal with a business that conducts itself
professionally.” See Facebook Page – Exhibit B.
e. Stahl via the Facebook user name “Jason Stahl” published “The DOT
obviously investigated it and shut him down, it’s documented.” See
Facebook Page – Exhibit B
f. Casteen via the Facebook user name “Brenda Casteen” published “Ladies,
count me in as number 4 … sent paperwork off to him this morning about
the money he owes me for horses I bought that he refused to give to me.”
See Facebook Page – Exhibit B
g. Lewis via the Facebook user name “Tiffany Lewis” published “Jeanie
with traveling horse took Jimmy Parlier off her site sometime ago I
believe.” See Facebook Page – Exhibit B.
h. And other published statements not known currently to Plaintiff.
100. These statements alleged to have been made by the Defendants about Plaintiff are
false, misleading and deceptive, and intended to harm Plaintiff in his business and reputations.

101. Upon information and belief, Defendants intentionally promoted and advertised
their false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff to others in furtherance of their
intentional acts to damage Plaintiff. See Exhibits A – I.
102. Defendants intentionally contacted several of Plaintiff’s clients that they knew
had an existing relationship and/or contract with Plaintiff.
103. For example, Casteen under the Facebook user name “Brenda Casteen” published
in her own words at Facebook – Exhibit A: “I noticed that….I helped him briefly with his loads
and that was where he got the majority of his online leads until he was removed from that site
[Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory].”
104. Upon information and belief, Defendants communicated directly with Traveling
Horse Transport & Stables Directory, and stated false, misleading and deceptive statements
about Plaintiff that were actually believed to be truthful by Traveling Horse Transport & Stables
Directory.
105. Defendants’ false, misleading and deceptive published comments about Plaintiff
in Exhibits A – I and elsewhere were read by Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory,
and other contractual parties of Plaintiff.

106. After communicating directly with Defendants and reading these false, misleading
and deceptive published statements about Plaintiff, Traveling Horse Transport & Stables
Directory terminated its agreement with Plaintiff.
107. Attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit J is a copy of an email from
Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory to Plaintiff terminating its agreement with
Plaintiff, and communicating its belief in the truthfulness of the statements she has heard and

read from Defendants, e.g., “I’ve been informed that there are now several horses that have been
injured or killed by you and/or your hired drivers. ”
108. At all material times as alleged in this complaint, Defendants knew that Plaintiff
had an agreement with Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory.
109. The actions of the Doe Defendants were malicious, intentional, oppressive,
outrageous, and evidence a complete callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs.
Conspiracy
110. The Defendants conspired, as alleged above, to commit unlawful acts, or to do
lawful acts in an unlawful way.
111. The Defendants’ conspiracy involved a common scheme to damage Plaintiff,
including but not limited to, damaging his character, reputations and business.
112. One or more of the Defendants, in furtherance of their conspiracy, committed an
overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy.
113. As a direct result of Defendants’ overt acts and conspiracy, Plaintiff has suffered
irreparable harm, substantial financial losses, and damage to his business and personal
reputations.
114. Defendants’ actions were malicious, intentional, oppressive, outrageous, and
evidence a complete callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
115. Plaintiff repleads and restates as if herein set forth in full all of the allegations of
this Complaint.
116. During all material times and alleged herein, Plaintiff had a valid agreement with
Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory, and as an authorized horse transporter at

Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory, had received numerous new leads for horse
transportation services throughout the United States of America and Canada.
117. Frequently when Plaintiff received these leads for someone wanting horse
transportation services from Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory, Plaintiff would
actually enter into agreements with such third-parties prospects (leads) seeking assistance in the
transportation of their horses, including but not limited to, Defendants Lewis, Maria and possibly
Marilyn, and other third-party users of the Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory.
118. As a user of Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory, and with actual and
constructive knowledge that Plaintiff has an agreement with Traveling Horse Transport &
Stables Directory to serve as a registered horse transporter at such directory, Defendants were at
all times material hereto aware of the: (i) contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Traveling
Horse Transport & Stables Directory, (ii) Plaintiff with third-parties who also use Traveling
Horse Transport & Stables Directory, and (iii) other contracts with other third-parties of Plaintiff.
119. Upon information and belief, acting without justification, Defendants communicated false,

misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff to Traveling Horse
Transport & Stables Directory, directly via Exhibit J as alleged herein this Complaint, and
indirectly via Chronicles Page – Exhibit A, Facebook Page – Exhibit B, Facebook Page – Exhibit
C, Facebook Page – Exhibit D, Facebook Page – Exhibit E, Facebook Page, Exhibit F, Yelp
Page – Exhibit G, Facebook Page – Exhibit H, Facebook Page – Exhibit I and other forums not
known currently by Plaintiff).
120. Acting without justification, Defendants also encouraged Traveling Horse
Transport & Stables Directory, and other third-parties, to terminate, not renew or not enter into
new agreements with Plaintiff.
121. Upon information and belief, as a direct result of such interference by Defendants,
Traveling Horse Transport & Stables Directory terminated its agreement with Plaintiff.
122. As a result of the termination of its agreement with Traveling Horse Transport &
Stables Directory, Plaintiff lost expected revenues of at least $200,000, which stated amount is
Plaintiff’s minimum annual revenues generated from his agreement with Traveling Horse
Transport & Stables Directory over the past two years.
123. Upon information and belief, Defendants committed similar acts of interference
with other Plaintiff’s contractual clients during this same time period.
124. Defendants’ acts as alleged herein were designed to injure Plaintiff, and did in
fact injure Plaintiff in amount in excess of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00).
125. Plaintiff is entitled to have and recover of all the Defendants, jointly and
severally, an amount in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) in actual damages
resulting from the Defendants’ tortuous interference with existing contracts between Plaintiff and
several of its customers.
126. Plaintiff is entitled to have and recover of Defendants, jointly and severally,
punitive damages for their willful and malicious tortious interference with contract, and an award
of attorney’s fees.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NORTH CAROLINA DEFAMATION PER SE

127. Plaintiff repleads and restates as if herein set forth in full all of the allegations of
this Complaint.
128. Defendants knowingly communicated and published the above-incorporated and
referenced false, misleading and deceptive statements about Plaintiff to third parties, constituting
defamation under the Law of North Carolina.

129. Such false, misleading and deceptive statements made by the Defendants impeach

Plaintiff in his trade and profession as alleged herein this Complaint.
130. Defendants’ words are susceptible of but one meaning and of such nature that
they tend to disgrace and degrade the Plaintiffs or hold them up to public hatred, contempt, or
ridicule or cause them to be shunned or avoided and are libelous per se, or, when considered
with innuendo, colloquium and explanatory circumstances are libelous.
131. As a direct result of Defendants’ defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered
serious damage to the reputation, regard, esteem and goodwill associated with his names.
132. As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm,
substantial financial losses, and damage to his business and personal reputations.
133. Defendants’ actions were malicious, intentional, oppressive, outrageous, and
evidence a complete callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.
134. As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered great losses, and
unless and until Defendants’ actions are enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer actual damages
and irreparable harm to their professional reputations.
135. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
136. Plaintiff is entitled to have and recover of Defendants, jointly and severally,
punitive damages for their willful and malicious libel per se statements, and an award of
attorney’s fees.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NORTH CAROLINA DEFAMATION PER QUOD

137. Plaintiff repleads and restate as if herein set forth in full all of the allegations of
this Complaint.

138. The false, misleading and deceptive statements published by Defendants as
incorporated and alleged herein this Complaint were published to, and read by, third parties, and
were read by such third parties to be truthful statements about Plaintiff.
139. Such false, misleading and deceptive statements published by Defendants have
caused injury and damaged to Plaintiff as set forth herein this Complaint.
140. Such false, misleading and deceptive statements published by Defendants when
considered with innuendo, colloquium and explanatory circumstances become libelous and
caused damages to Plaintiff as set forth herein this Complaint.
141. Defendants knowingly made the libelous per quod statements to third persons by
publishing them on the Internet.
142. Such false, misleading and deceptive statements published by Defendants were
intended by Defendants to be false, misleading and deceptive to Plaintiff’s reputation.
143. Such false, misleading and deceptive statements published by Defendants were
understood by third parties who read them to be defamatory to Plaintiff’s reputation.
144. As set forth herein, Plaintiff has suffered special damages as a result of such false,
misleading and deceptive statements published by Defendants.
145. As a direct and proximate result of the publishing a libel per quod statements
about Plaintiff to third parties as set forth herein, Plaintiff has incurred actual damages as alleged
herein and in an amount in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).
146. Plaintiff is entitled to have and recover of Defendants, jointly and severally,
punitive damages for their willful and malicious libel per quod statements, and an award of
attorney’s fees.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF NORTH CAROLINA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
N.C. GEN. STAT. §75-1 TO §75-35

147. Plaintiff repleads and restate as if herein set forth in full all of the allegations of
this Complaint.
148. This claim arises under N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1, et seq.
149. Plaintiff relied on his agreement with Traveling Horse Transport & Stables
Directory to generate new leads and revenue for his business.
150. Plaintiff relies upon their untarnished reputations to promote their services and
facility to potential clients and consumers.
151. Defendants have made false, misleading and deceptive statements against
Plaintiff, as alleged above in this Complaint.
152. Through their statements Defendants disparaged Plaintiff, and interfered with his
contractual business, and collectively engaged in, and conspired to engage in, unfair or deceptive
acts or practices, in or affecting interstate commerce and commerce in the State of North
Carolina, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1.
153. Defendants’ campaign of continuous false, unjustified, and unsubstantiated
statements and allegations constitutes a willful and malicious engagement in the deceptive acts
or practices described herein.
154. As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm,
substantial financial losses, and damage to their business reputations.
155. Defendants’ actions were malicious, intentional, oppressive, outrageous, and
evidence a complete callous disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.

156. As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered great losses, and
unless and until Defendants’ actions are enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer actual damages
and irreparable harm to their professional reputations.
157. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
158. Plaintiff is entitled to have and recover of Defendants, jointly and severally,
trebled damages for their willful and malicious unfair and deceptive trade practices pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-16, and an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-16.1.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment against Defendants, on
each of their claims, and grant Plaintiffs the following relief:

1. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff on each of his claims;
2. Adjudge that Defendants have tortuously interfered with the contracts of Plaintiff,
and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from engaging in further
interference with Plaintiff;
3. Adjudge that Defendants have defamed and libeled Plaintiff, and preliminarily and
permanently enjoin Defendants from engaging in further defamation of Plaintiff;
4. Adjudge that Defendants have Violated the North Carolina Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin
Defendants from engaging in further deceptive acts or practices against Plaintiff;

5. Adjudge that Defendants have conspired against the Plaintiffs, and preliminarily
and permanently enjoin Defendants from engaging in further such practices
against Plaintiff;
6. Enter an Order directing each of the Defendants to transfer to Plaintiff ownership
of all Facebook webpages and other Internet domain names owned/registered by
them and used by them to further their campaign against Plaintiffs.
7. Enter an Order requiring the delisting and removal of the URLs and any cached
copies of Defendants’ Internet postings complained of herein, and any similar
postings, from the search results of Google, Bing, Yahoo and any other search
engine;
8. Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to exceed $75,000.00;
9. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages in an amount to exceed $75,000.00;
10. Award Plaintiffs trebled damages pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-16 or on such
other grounds as the Court may deem appropriate;
11. Award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-16.1, and on
such other grounds as the Court may deem appropriate;
12. Award Plaintiffs their costs; and
13. Award Plaintiffs such other further relief as this Court may deem equitable.

 

Dated: May 29, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,
JIMMY PARLIER, an individual

(d/b/a Jimmy Parlier Horse Transport, Parlier
Farms and Parlier Equine Transport &
Carriages),

By his attorneys,
_/s/ Mark W. Ishman
Mark W. Ishman, Esq.
NC Bar No. 27908
Ishman Law Firm, P.C.
9660 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 138-350
Raleigh, NC 27615
Tel: (919) 468-3266
Fax: (919) 882-1466
email: mishman@ishmanlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

View Complaint

View Plaintiff Exhibits

June 2015
Court ordered Jimmy Parlier to return Brenda Casteen’s horse Allie upon her posting a bond.