I r...
Samuel Fant, Jr.
.- • ' ,... "'J
. . ·. 1, : •· :__ ·: -:- ': ·~ :: ~ ·: : .
P.O. Box 6831
2
Stockton, California 95206
3
In Pro Per
·r-n "u- r1·.,1· ·1 11:\I ,
an 1c ,, .~.,;
a :a i.· • -
,
4
.
. . ~~; . G~~;tX
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALfFORNI~. -e~hi?~~OAQUJN
s
I]., - --
-
-::.-, :,
-,r-, ---
STOCKTON BRi\NCH .
6
----·--- · - - -
7
SAMUEL FANT, JR.,
8
Plaintiff,
9
.
CASE N O. :
v.
STK-CV-
u1) -2016-_3.__7_,__t_b_
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION -
SLANDER, SLAi'-IDER PER SE, AND
10
LIBEL
RICHARD SMCTH, and DOES l through SO, 1I
Defendant.
12 13 14
15 16
17 18
19
20 21
Plaintiff Samuel Fant, Jr. ("Plaintiff'), on information and belief alleges as follows: General Allegations I. This is an action for damages based on calculated acts of character assassination
conducted by Richard Smith against plainti.ff, Samuel Fant, Jr. 2. On or around, the evening of February 9, 2016, Richard Smith made a statement to Dale Fritchen that plaintiff said that he "was going to
us up." Smith made this statement to
Dale Fritchen, David Jackson, Julie Williams, and others that were present at a school board 22 23
24
meeting, where plaintiff serves as an elected member of the board. 3. On the morning of February 10, 2016, Dale fritchen published on Facebook at 7:06 a.m. referring to plaintiff as "School Board Member":
25
"Not everybody was happy though. Richard Smith told me he received a threatening
26
phone call from a School Board member. Disturbing.
27
Since I wasn't on /hat phone call, I 'I/ let him give the de/ails if he wants to. "
28
A true and correct copy of Dale Fritchen' s February 10, 2016 7:06 a.m . Facebook post is
- 1-
11-ns CASE HAS BE~ ASSKlNED'TO
_ _ _ _ _ ___c_o_M_l'_LA-,N-.r-1-·,o--R-l>-Ef-.; J!1-t~-tt"\.\Q~~~N
O~PARTMENT 41 FOR ALL PURPOSES.
INCLUDING TRIAL
attached as Exhibit '·A" to this complaint.
2
4. Defendant published on Facebook almost immediately, at 7:07 a.m .:
..
"Yes it was threatening and cerlain(v disturbing.,
.}
4
A true and correct copy of Richard Smith's February 10, 2016 Facebook post is attached as
5
Ex hi bit "B" to this complaint.
6 7
5. Andre Johnson believed the statem ent was true. Andre Johnson published oo February
10, 2016 at 7:07 a.m :
"School Board Memher are you kidding me I I 8 9 10
ll 12
c/011 ·,
take liking to threat . this cra=y
/1,farine would not have take it lyinJ: down .' ,. A true and correct copy of Andre Johnson 's February 10, 2016 Facebook post is attached as Exhibit "C" to this complaint. 6. Shana Hassan believed the statement was true. On the Facebook post, Hassan offered signatures for a recall ofplruntiff from his elected position . (See Exhibit C.)
13
7. Defendant's published statement was seen and read begi nning on or about February
14
I 0, 20 l 6 by dozens to hundreds of people, known and unknown. A true and correct copy of some
15
of the people who saw and acknowledged the post on Facebook is attached as Exhibit " D" to this
16 17
complaint. 6. Fritchen believed the statement was true. A true and correct copy of a text message dated, February 10, 2016 from Dale Fritchen to plaintiff is attached as Exhibit "E" to this
18 19
complaint. 7. On March 26, 2016, Ri chard Smith made a statement to vice-mayor of the City of 1
20
Stockton, Christina Fugazi, that plruntiff srud that he ·~was going to kick our asses."
21
8. On infonnation and belie( this message was disseminated to dozens, if not hundreds of
22
people, falsely spreading defamatory messages that plaintiff is violent, and that plaintiff will
23
threaten to take, and take violent, criminal action including but not limited to assault and/or
24
battery on members of the community.
25
26 27
9. None of the statements pertaining to plaintiff are true. 9 . Defendant made the statements wi th malice and intent to hann plaintiffs reputation to members of the community and leaders of the community.
IO. Plaintiff is the head ofa youth organization in the community and sign-ups this year
28 - 2COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
I
I I I are dismal compared to last year at this time. The program fai ling is a loss to the community.
I
The statements made by defendant are not only damaging to plaintiff. The community and
3
organizations where plaintiff serves as a founder, executive board member, and mentor to youth,
I I
4
are being damaged as wel I.
I
11 . As an elected official, a current school board member and a current candidate for city council , these utterly false statem ents have caused and will continue to cause plaintiff severe and 6
irreversible damage to his reputation and career. emotionally and financially. 7
8 9
10
Jurisdi cti o n and Venue L2 . This court has personal jurisdiction over the defend ant because he is a resident of and/or conducting business in the State of California.
11
13. Venue is proper in this county in accordance with Section 395(a) of the California
12
Code of Civil Procedure because the defendant resi des in this county, and the inju,ies a lleged
13
herein occurred in this county.
I I I I I I I
I I I
14
Parties
15 16 17
14. Plaintiff Samuel Fant, Jr. is an individual who at all relevant times during the events alleged herein, resided in the County of San Joaquin . 15. Defendant Richard Smith at all times relevant hereto was and is a resident of the
18 19
16. The true names of DOES I through 50, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff sues those defendants by such fi ctiti ous names pursuant to section 474 of the Code
21
of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is informed as believes, and based on that information and belie(
22
that each of the de fendants designated as a DOE is legally responsible for events and happeni ngs
23
referred to in this complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to plaintiff alleged
24
in this complaint.
25
27
28
I
I
County of San Joaq uin.
20
26
I I I
First Cause of Action - Slander 17. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one through eleven as thoug h fully set forth herein.
- 3COMPLAINT l'OR DEFAMATION
I
18. Defendant made statements that plaintiff was threatening, violent. and criminal to
2
dozens, and possibly hundreds of people. None of the statements about plaintiff are true.
3
19. Defendant's statements constitute slander.
4
20. Defendant made these false and defamatory statements with constitutional malice in
s
that defendant knew that the statements were false, or acted with reckless di sregard of the truth. 21. Plaintiff is entitled to special damages for the damage done to his career. including
6
7
amounts of money plaintiff expended as a result of the defendant's defamatory statements.
8
Second Cause of Action - Slander Per Se
9 10
22. Plaintiff again alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one through eleven as though fully set forth herein.
11
23. A false, unprivileged oral publication that tends directly to injure plaintiff in respect
12
to his ot1ice, profession~ trade, or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in
13
those respects which the office or occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with
14
reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its
15 16
profits, is considered to be slander per se, and malice and special damages are presumed as a matter of law. 24. Defendant's statements constitute slander per se.
17 18
19 20
Third Cause of Action - Libel 25. Plaintiff again alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one through eleven as though fuJty set forth herein.
21
26. Defendant published statements that plaintiff was threatening, violent, and criminal,
22
to dozens, and possibly hundreds of people on Facebook. None of the statements about plaintiff
23
are true.
24
27. Defendant's statements constitute libel.
25
28 . Detendant made these false and defamatory statements with constitutional malice in
26
that defendant knew that the statements were false, or acted with reckless disregard of the truth.
27
28
- 4COMPLAINT FOR DEl'A.\ UTION
Damages
2 3 4
5
29. Plaintiff is entitled to general damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and emotional distress in accordance with proof at trial. 30. Plaintiff is entitled to special damages for the damage done to his career, including amounts of money plaintiff expended as a result of the defendant's defamatory statements. J I . As a direct result of defendant's wrongful acts, plaintiff has suffered emotional
6 distress and other damage, as plaintiff has suffered an irreversible mark o n his reputation, in an 7
amount to be proven at trial . 8 9 10
32. Defendant acted with reckless, willful or callous disregard for plaintiffs tights and with malice, fraud, or oppression toward plaintiff, thereby entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in accordance ,.vith proof at trial.
1I Prayer for Relief
12
13
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment against defendant as follows:
14
I. For general damages according to proof;
15 16
2. For special damages according to proof; 3. For exemplary and/or punitive damages: 4. For plaintiff's cost of suit; and
17
5. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
18
19
20 21
Dated: March 30, 2016 Plaintiff, Samuel Fant, Jr.
22 23
24 25
26 27
28
-5COMPl-·\INT FOR DEFAMATION
EXHIBIT A
• ·•''_: ·;..~r.•
.·;.•-".'.•
·.' .'r
1r : ,,1 I .' '
~itzi Prater Stites and 28 others Dale Fritchen Not everybody was happy though. Last night Richard Smith told me he received , threatening phone call from a School Board member. Disturbing. -
I
I j
f}
:(..,
~-~·~
~:-
.- • ' ,... "'J
. . ·. 1, : •· :__ ·: -:- ': ·~ :: ~ ·: : .
P.O. Box 6831
2
Stockton, California 95206
3
In Pro Per
·r-n "u- r1·.,1· ·1 11:\I ,
an 1c ,, .~.,;
a :a i.· • -
,
4
.
. . ~~; . G~~;tX
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALfFORNI~. -e~hi?~~OAQUJN
s
I]., - --
-
-::.-, :,
-,r-, ---
STOCKTON BRi\NCH .
6
----·--- · - - -
7
SAMUEL FANT, JR.,
8
Plaintiff,
9
.
CASE N O. :
v.
STK-CV-
u1) -2016-_3.__7_,__t_b_
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION -
SLANDER, SLAi'-IDER PER SE, AND
10
LIBEL
RICHARD SMCTH, and DOES l through SO, 1I
Defendant.
12 13 14
15 16
17 18
19
20 21
Plaintiff Samuel Fant, Jr. ("Plaintiff'), on information and belief alleges as follows: General Allegations I. This is an action for damages based on calculated acts of character assassination
conducted by Richard Smith against plainti.ff, Samuel Fant, Jr. 2. On or around, the evening of February 9, 2016, Richard Smith made a statement to Dale Fritchen that plaintiff said that he "was going to
us up." Smith made this statement to
Dale Fritchen, David Jackson, Julie Williams, and others that were present at a school board 22 23
24
meeting, where plaintiff serves as an elected member of the board. 3. On the morning of February 10, 2016, Dale fritchen published on Facebook at 7:06 a.m. referring to plaintiff as "School Board Member":
25
"Not everybody was happy though. Richard Smith told me he received a threatening
26
phone call from a School Board member. Disturbing.
27
Since I wasn't on /hat phone call, I 'I/ let him give the de/ails if he wants to. "
28
A true and correct copy of Dale Fritchen' s February 10, 2016 7:06 a.m . Facebook post is
- 1-
11-ns CASE HAS BE~ ASSKlNED'TO
_ _ _ _ _ ___c_o_M_l'_LA-,N-.r-1-·,o--R-l>-Ef-.; J!1-t~-tt"\.\Q~~~N
O~PARTMENT 41 FOR ALL PURPOSES.
INCLUDING TRIAL
attached as Exhibit '·A" to this complaint.
2
4. Defendant published on Facebook almost immediately, at 7:07 a.m .:
..
"Yes it was threatening and cerlain(v disturbing.,
.}
4
A true and correct copy of Richard Smith's February 10, 2016 Facebook post is attached as
5
Ex hi bit "B" to this complaint.
6 7
5. Andre Johnson believed the statem ent was true. Andre Johnson published oo February
10, 2016 at 7:07 a.m :
"School Board Memher are you kidding me I I 8 9 10
ll 12
c/011 ·,
take liking to threat . this cra=y
/1,farine would not have take it lyinJ: down .' ,. A true and correct copy of Andre Johnson 's February 10, 2016 Facebook post is attached as Exhibit "C" to this complaint. 6. Shana Hassan believed the statement was true. On the Facebook post, Hassan offered signatures for a recall ofplruntiff from his elected position . (See Exhibit C.)
13
7. Defendant's published statement was seen and read begi nning on or about February
14
I 0, 20 l 6 by dozens to hundreds of people, known and unknown. A true and correct copy of some
15
of the people who saw and acknowledged the post on Facebook is attached as Exhibit " D" to this
16 17
complaint. 6. Fritchen believed the statement was true. A true and correct copy of a text message dated, February 10, 2016 from Dale Fritchen to plaintiff is attached as Exhibit "E" to this
18 19
complaint. 7. On March 26, 2016, Ri chard Smith made a statement to vice-mayor of the City of 1
20
Stockton, Christina Fugazi, that plruntiff srud that he ·~was going to kick our asses."
21
8. On infonnation and belie( this message was disseminated to dozens, if not hundreds of
22
people, falsely spreading defamatory messages that plaintiff is violent, and that plaintiff will
23
threaten to take, and take violent, criminal action including but not limited to assault and/or
24
battery on members of the community.
25
26 27
9. None of the statements pertaining to plaintiff are true. 9 . Defendant made the statements wi th malice and intent to hann plaintiffs reputation to members of the community and leaders of the community.
IO. Plaintiff is the head ofa youth organization in the community and sign-ups this year
28 - 2COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
I
I I I are dismal compared to last year at this time. The program fai ling is a loss to the community.
I
The statements made by defendant are not only damaging to plaintiff. The community and
3
organizations where plaintiff serves as a founder, executive board member, and mentor to youth,
I I
4
are being damaged as wel I.
I
11 . As an elected official, a current school board member and a current candidate for city council , these utterly false statem ents have caused and will continue to cause plaintiff severe and 6
irreversible damage to his reputation and career. emotionally and financially. 7
8 9
10
Jurisdi cti o n and Venue L2 . This court has personal jurisdiction over the defend ant because he is a resident of and/or conducting business in the State of California.
11
13. Venue is proper in this county in accordance with Section 395(a) of the California
12
Code of Civil Procedure because the defendant resi des in this county, and the inju,ies a lleged
13
herein occurred in this county.
I I I I I I I
I I I
14
Parties
15 16 17
14. Plaintiff Samuel Fant, Jr. is an individual who at all relevant times during the events alleged herein, resided in the County of San Joaquin . 15. Defendant Richard Smith at all times relevant hereto was and is a resident of the
18 19
16. The true names of DOES I through 50, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff sues those defendants by such fi ctiti ous names pursuant to section 474 of the Code
21
of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is informed as believes, and based on that information and belie(
22
that each of the de fendants designated as a DOE is legally responsible for events and happeni ngs
23
referred to in this complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to plaintiff alleged
24
in this complaint.
25
27
28
I
I
County of San Joaq uin.
20
26
I I I
First Cause of Action - Slander 17. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one through eleven as thoug h fully set forth herein.
- 3COMPLAINT l'OR DEFAMATION
I
18. Defendant made statements that plaintiff was threatening, violent. and criminal to
2
dozens, and possibly hundreds of people. None of the statements about plaintiff are true.
3
19. Defendant's statements constitute slander.
4
20. Defendant made these false and defamatory statements with constitutional malice in
s
that defendant knew that the statements were false, or acted with reckless di sregard of the truth. 21. Plaintiff is entitled to special damages for the damage done to his career. including
6
7
amounts of money plaintiff expended as a result of the defendant's defamatory statements.
8
Second Cause of Action - Slander Per Se
9 10
22. Plaintiff again alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one through eleven as though fully set forth herein.
11
23. A false, unprivileged oral publication that tends directly to injure plaintiff in respect
12
to his ot1ice, profession~ trade, or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in
13
those respects which the office or occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with
14
reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its
15 16
profits, is considered to be slander per se, and malice and special damages are presumed as a matter of law. 24. Defendant's statements constitute slander per se.
17 18
19 20
Third Cause of Action - Libel 25. Plaintiff again alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one through eleven as though fuJty set forth herein.
21
26. Defendant published statements that plaintiff was threatening, violent, and criminal,
22
to dozens, and possibly hundreds of people on Facebook. None of the statements about plaintiff
23
are true.
24
27. Defendant's statements constitute libel.
25
28 . Detendant made these false and defamatory statements with constitutional malice in
26
that defendant knew that the statements were false, or acted with reckless disregard of the truth.
27
28
- 4COMPLAINT FOR DEl'A.\ UTION
Damages
2 3 4
5
29. Plaintiff is entitled to general damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and emotional distress in accordance with proof at trial. 30. Plaintiff is entitled to special damages for the damage done to his career, including amounts of money plaintiff expended as a result of the defendant's defamatory statements. J I . As a direct result of defendant's wrongful acts, plaintiff has suffered emotional
6 distress and other damage, as plaintiff has suffered an irreversible mark o n his reputation, in an 7
amount to be proven at trial . 8 9 10
32. Defendant acted with reckless, willful or callous disregard for plaintiffs tights and with malice, fraud, or oppression toward plaintiff, thereby entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in accordance ,.vith proof at trial.
1I Prayer for Relief
12
13
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment against defendant as follows:
14
I. For general damages according to proof;
15 16
2. For special damages according to proof; 3. For exemplary and/or punitive damages: 4. For plaintiff's cost of suit; and
17
5. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
18
19
20 21
Dated: March 30, 2016 Plaintiff, Samuel Fant, Jr.
22 23
24 25
26 27
28
-5COMPl-·\INT FOR DEFAMATION
EXHIBIT A
• ·•''_: ·;..~r.•
.·;.•-".'.•
·.' .'r
1r : ,,1 I .' '
~itzi Prater Stites and 28 others Dale Fritchen Not everybody was happy though. Last night Richard Smith told me he received , threatening phone call from a School Board member. Disturbing. -
I
I j
f}
:(..,
~-~·~
~:-
