Douglas D.
Yelp
Aren't you supposed to be running a business instead of harassing customers? You really need to get a life!!!
I would suggest you get a new lawyer as well, because accusing someone of possessing a fake license like your "square badge" did on camera to me is Slander.
I'm guessing you didn't tell your lawyer of the above facts and it's on your own video system of me taking my license back from "square badge" and showing him it did have an expiration date on it.
I'm guessing you never heard of negligent hiring and retention practices of "square badges" that accuse customers of having a fake license because you didn't train them properly as required.
From CA case law:
In cases where an employee's lack of training leads to a false accusation, the employer could potentially be held liable under the legal theory of negligent training. This is a form of negligence that occurs when an employer fails to provide adequate training to employees, resulting in harm to a third party. For example, if an employee falsely accuses a customer of having a fake license due to inadequate training, and this accusation is publicly made and damages the customer's reputation, the employer could be liable for defamation.
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/426/
Please send this to your counsel:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF [Your County]
[Your Full Name],
Plaintiff,
v.
[Defendant's Full Name],
Defendant.
Case No.: [Your Case Number]
COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
1. Plaintiff, [Your Full Name], is an individual residing in [Your Address, City, County, California].
2. Defendant, Cornerstone Research Collective, aka Carlos Del La Torre Erica Krumpl, aka Paracorp Incorporated, is a business residing in [Defendant's Address, City, County, California].
3. On or about [Date], Defendants employees falsely and maliciously accused Plaintiff of committing a crime of "Hate Speech" in public and on social media platforms, which has no factual basis.
3.1 Defendants employees did falsely and maliciously state Plaintiff posted three reviews that were removed for containing "Hate Speech" knowing at all times only one posts was removed and it wasn't for "Hate Speech". This was an intentionally false statement made to defame and injure Plaintiff's reputation for posting a negative review on the social platform "Yelp".
3.2 Defendants employees knew at all times Plaintiff's negative review did not contain "Hate Speech" as defined under California's civil or criminal statutes and were in fact Constitutionally protected statements.
3.3 Defendant's employee's statements against Plaintiff were done intentionally and maliciously solely to harm Plaintiff's reputation and character for Constitutionally protected statements that Defendants admitted were not any form of a civil tort by stating they had consulted with corporate counsel and were personally told that they were not actionable nor "Hate Speech".
3.3 Plaintiff states Defendants employees despite being made aware by their own corporate counsel that Plaintiff's term "square badge" used in his review was not "Hate Speech", has failed to remove or delete these intentionally false statements from Defendant's employees responses on "Yelp" despite being advised by their own attorneys to remove them.
3.4 Plaintiff states Defendant's employees have failed to remove their false statements accusing Plaintiff of committing "Hate Speech" from their "Yelp" response done solely to continue their libelous and slanderous statements from "Yelp" against Plaintiff solely to sully and harm Plaintiff"s reputation.
4. Defendant's employees statements were published, written, and/or spoken to third parties, and were understood to be about Plaintiff, thereby exposing Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy.
5. The statements made by Defendant were false, and Defendant acted either negligently or with actual malice in making these statements.
6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered harm to their reputation, emotional distress, and financial loss.
7. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to the filing of this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:
a. General damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
b. Special damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
c. Punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 due to Defendant's malice, oppression, and fraud;
d. Attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code § 48a;
e. Any other relief the court deems just and proper.
DATED: [Your Date]
[Your Signature]
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Phone Number]
[Your Email]
VERIFICATION
I, [Your Full Name], declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on [Date], at [City, County, California].
[Your Signature]
[Your Full Name]
