NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILINGbloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/decaturdaily.com/content/... ·...
Transcript of NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILINGbloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/decaturdaily.com/content/... ·...
AlaFile E-Notice
To: KENNETH J. MENDELSOHN
03-CV-2017-900286.00
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
The following complaint was FILED on 2/23/2017 10:19:03 AM
WARREN CRAIG POUNCEY V. MARY SCOTT HUNTER ET AL
03-CV-2017-900286.00
Notice Date: 2/23/2017 10:19:03 AM
TIFFANY B. MCCORD
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
MONTGOMERY, AL, 36104
334-832-1260
251 S. LAWRENCE STREET
WDEA - Wrongful Death
/s/ KENNETH J. MENDELSOHN2/23/2017 10:18:47 AMMEN001ATTORNEY CODE:
UNDECIDEDNOYESMEDIATION REQUESTED:
NO MONETARY AWARD REQUESTEDMONETARY AWARD REQUESTEDRELIEF REQUESTED:
NOYESHAS JURY TRIAL BEEN DEMANDED?
OTHERO
TRANSFERRED FROMOTHER CIRCUIT COURT
APPEAL FROMDISTRICT COURT
REMANDED
INITIAL FILING
T
A
R
FORIGIN:
CVXX - Miscellaneous Circuit Civil Case COMP - Workers’ Compensation WTEG - Will/Trust/Estate/Guardianship/Conservatorship RPRO - Real Property FELA - Railroad/Seaman (FELA) PFAB - Protection From Abuse MSHC - Habeas Corpus/Extraordinary Writ/Mandamus/Prohibition FORF - Fruits of Crime Forfeiture FORJ - Foreign Judgment CVUD - Eviction Appeal/Unlawful Detainer
Equity Non-Damages Actions/Declaratory Judgment/Injunction Election Contest/Quiet Title/Sale For Division
EQND - TOCN - Conversion
Birth/Death Certificate Modification/Bond Forfeiture Appeal/Enforcement of Agency Subpoena/Petition to Preserve
CONT - Contract/Ejectment/Writ of Seizure CTMP - Contempt of Court COND - Condemnation/Eminent Domain/Right-of-Way CVRT - Civil Rights
MSXX -OTHER CIVIL FILINGS (cont'd)
ANPS - Adults in Need of Protective Service ADPA - Administrative Procedure Act APAA - Administrative Agency Appeal ACCT - Account & Nonmortgage ABAN - Abandoned Automobile
OTHER CIVIL FILINGS
TORE - Real Properly TOPE - Personal Property
TORTS: PERSONAL INJURY
TOXX - Other: TBFM - Fraud/Bad Faith/Misrepresentation TOOM - Malpractice-Other TOLM - Malpractice-Legal
TOWA - Wantonness TOPL - Product Liability/AEMLD TOMM - Malpractice-Medical
TOMV - Negligence: Motor Vehicle TONG - Negligence: General
TORTS: PERSONAL INJURY
NATURE OF SUIT:
OtherIndividual
GovernmentFirst Defendant: Business
OtherIndividual
GovernmentBusinessFirst Plaintiff:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
GENERAL INFORMATION
Judge Code:02/23/2017
03-CV-2017-900286.00Date of Filing:
Case Number:
(Not For Domestic Relations Cases)CIRCUIT COURT - CIVIL CASE
COVER SHEET
Form ARCiv-93 Rev.5/99
Unified Judicial System
State of Alabama
WARREN CRAIG POUNCEY v. MARY SCOTT HUNTER ET AL
Select primary cause of action, by checking box (check only one) that best characterizes your action:
Date
Note: Checking "Yes" does not constitute a demand for ajury trial. (See Rules 38 and 39, Ala.R.Civ.P, for procedure)
Signature of Attorney/Party filing this form
ELECTRONICALLY FILED2/23/2017 10:18 AM
03-CV-2017-900286.00CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMATIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK
DOCUMENT 1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
WARREN CRAIG POUNCEY, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
) CASE NO.:
MARY SCOTT HUNTER; )
PHILIP CLEVELAND; )
JULIANA TEIXEIRA DEAN; )
JAMES R. WARD, III; )
SUSAN TUDOR CROWTHER; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANT “A,” )
the person who drafted the anonymous letter that )
was delivered to the Members of the Alabama State )
Board of Education; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “B,” the person who )
accessed and printed out the emails that were )
attached to the anonymous letter delivered to the )
Members of the Alabama State Board )
of Education; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “C,” the person who )
sent or otherwise delivered the anonymous letter )
and emails to the Members of the Alabama State )
Board of Education; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “D,” “E” and “F,” )
the persons, partnerships, firms, corporations, )
lobbyists, PACs or other entities who participated )
in the scheme or influenced those involved in the )
scheme to disparage Dr. Pouncey’s reputation so as to )
improperly influence the votes of the Members of )
the Alabama State Board of Education for )
Superintendent; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “G,” “H” and “I,” )
the persons, who participated in the decision )
to send the anonymous letter to the Ethics )
Commission; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “J,” “K” and “L,” )
the persons who leaked the Ethics’ Commission )
letter to the Press; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “M,” “N” and “O,” )
the persons who falsely accused Pouncey of being )
under investigation by the Ethics Commission; and )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS “P,” “Q” and “R” )
ELECTRONICALLY FILED2/23/2017 10:18 AM
03-CV-2017-900286.00CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMATIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK
DOCUMENT 2
the other persons, firms, corporations or entities )
whose wrongful conduct caused harm to the Plaintiff. )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Dr. Warren Craig Pouncey is of legal age and is a citizen and resident of
the State of Alabama. Dr. Pouncey received his Bachelors of Science Degree in Elementary
Education from Troy State University in 1980; his Masters in Science Degree in Elementary
Education from Troy State University in 1985; his Administration Certification from Troy State
University 1987; his Educational Specialist Degree in Education Leadership from Auburn
University/Montgomery in 1993; and Doctor in Education Degree in Education Leadership from
Samford University 2010. From July 2003 through June 2014, Dr. Pouncey worked for the
Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) in various capacities including Director of
Administration and Finance; Assistant State Superintendent, Administrative and Financial
Services; Deputy State Superintendent of Education, Administrative and Financial Services; and
Chief of Staff. Dr. Pouncey currently serves as Superintendent of Jefferson County Schools and
has done so since July 2014.
2. Defendant Mary Scott Hunter is of legal age and is a citizen and resident of the
State of Alabama. At all material times, she served as a Member of the Alabama State Board of
Education (the “Board”). Defendant Hunter is not being sued in her official capacity. She is being
sued personally and in her individual capacity only.
3. Defendant Philip Cleveland is of legal age and is a citizen and resident of the State
of Alabama. At all material times, he served as the Interim State Superintendent of Education.
DOCUMENT 2
Defendant Cleveland is not being sued in his official capacity. He is being sued personally and in
his individual capacity only.
4. Defendant Julianna Teixeira Dean is a citizen and resident of the State of Alabama.
At all material times, she served as General Counsel for the Alabama State Department of
Education (ALSDE). Defendant Dean is not being sued in her official capacity. She is being sued
personally and in her individual capacity only.
5. Defendant James R. Ward, III, is a citizen and resident of the State of Alabama. At
all material times, he served as Associate General Counsel for the Alabama State Department of
Education (ALSDE). Defendant Ward is not being sued in his official capacity. He is being sued
personally and in his individual capacity only.
6. Defendant Susan Tudor Crowther, is a citizen and resident of the State of Alabama.
At all material times, she served as Associate General Counsel for the Alabama State Department
of Education (ALSDE). Defendant Crowther is not being sued in her official capacity. She is being
sued personally and in his individual capacity only.
7. Fictitious Defendant “A,” is the person who drafted the anonymous letter that was
delivered to the members of the Alabama State Board of Education.
8. Fictitious Defendant “B,” is the person who accessed and printed out the emails
that were attached to the anonymous letter delivered to the members of the Alabama State Board
of Education.
9. Fictitious Defendant “C,” is the person who sent or otherwise delivered the
anonymous letter and emails to the members of the Alabama State Board of Education.
10. Fictitious Defendants “D,” “E” and “F” are the persons, partnerships, firms,
corporations, lobbyists, PACs or other entities who participated in the scheme or influenced those
DOCUMENT 2
involved in the scheme to disparage Dr. Pouncey’s reputation so as to improperly influence the
votes of the members of the Alabama State Board of Education for Superintendent.
11. Fictitious Defendants “G,” “H” and “I” are the persons, firms, corporations or other
entities who participated in the decision to send the anonymous letter to the Ethics Commission.
12. Fictitious Defendants “J,” “K” and “L” are the persons who leaked the Ethics’
Commission letter to the Press.
13. Fictitious Defendants “M,” “N” and “O” are the persons who falsely accused Dr.
Pouncey of being under investigation by the Ethics Commission.
14. Fictitious Defendants “P,” “Q” and “R” are the other persons, firms, corporations
or other entities whose wrongful conduct caused harm to Dr. Pouncey.
15. The Fictitious Defendants are not known to Dr. Pouncey at this time or if their
identities are known to him at this time, their identities as proper party defendants are not known
to him. Their true and correct names will be substituted by amendments when the necessary
information is ascertained.
STATEMENTS REGARDING LACK OF IMMUNITY
16. All claims in this lawsuit are made against the Defendants and Fictitious
Defendants personally and individually. Their wrongful acts and omissions were willful,
malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and/or beyond their authority.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
17. On March 14, 2016, the Board held a Special Meeting to discuss the Process for
selection of an Interim Superintendent to replace then State School Superintendent Tommy Bice
DOCUMENT 2
who was retiring effective March 31, 2016. The Board also voted 5-4 that the Interim State
Superintendent would not be eligible to serve as State Superintendent.
18. On April 14, 2016, the Board named Defendant Cleveland as the Interim State
Superintendent. The Board also set out the following timeline for the selection of the State
Superintendent:
April 18, 2016 Alabama State Department of Education Releases Notice
of Interest Packet to the Public.
June 6, 2016 Deadline for Candidates to Submit Completed Notice of
Interest Packet to the Attention of Juliana Dean at
June 9, 2016 Packets Provided to the State Board of Education Members
by Close of Business.
July 2016 Candidate Interviews; dates to be determined at
www.alsde.edu
July 12, 2016 Statutory Alabama State Board of Education Meeting (Ala.
Code, Section 163-7); discussion of candidates and
possible selection of State Superintendent of Education,
with potential start date of August 1, 2016.
19. On May 18, 2016, Dr. Pouncey submitted his application for State Superintendent
of Education.
20. Michael Sentance also submitted an application for State Superintendent of
Education.
21. On June 27, 2016, Mr. Sentance withdrew his name from consideration.
22. Defendant Hunter expressed to Defendant Dean that she was disappointed that Mr.
Sentance had withdrawn his name and that Defendant Dean should call Mr. Sentance. Defendant
Dean then called Mr. Sentance and falsely told him that the Board of Education members wanted
him to reconsider when in fact, only Defendant Hunter had expressed a desire for Sentance to
DOCUMENT 2
reconsider.
23. Mr. Sentance agreed to resubmit his name in spite of the fact that the deadline to
submits one’s name had passed. Without consultation or approval by the Board, Defendant Dean
placed Mr. Sentance’s name back on the list of candidates for Superintendent.
24. At the Board Meeting on July 12, 2016, the members held an in-depth discussions
regarding the number of candidates to be interviewed for the Superintendent’s position. The Board
voted to limit the number of candidates to the top 5 candidates unless there was a tie. Every
member of the Board except Defendant Hunter and Governor Bentley listed Dr. Pouncey as one
of their preferences. Dr. Pouncey received the most recommendations, a total of 7. Mr. Sentance
was tied for 5th with 3 votes. Only one candidate received fewer recommendations than Mr.
Sentance.
25. At the July 12, 2016, meeting, some of the members of the Board were given an
anonymous letter that alleged Dr. Pouncey plagiarized his doctoral dissertation and misused state
resources to do so. The accusations related to events that occurred more than 6 years earlier.
Most of the members did not pay attention to the letter because it was anonymous.
26. On July 14, 2016, Defendant Hunter met Defendant Cleveland in a parking deck
and gave him her copy of the anonymous letter.
27. Defendant Cleveland delivered the anonymous letter to Defendant Dean and
stated in substance, “you are not going to let someone else beat you to the Ethics Commission,
are you?”
28. Alabama Code 1975 § 36-25-4 expressly prohibited the Ethics Commission from
taking any investigatory action against Dr. Pouncey on an anonymous complaint. The law also
provides that any felony Ethics prosecution must be commenced within four years after the
DOCUMENT 2
commission of the offense and any misdemeanor prosecution must be commenced within two
years after the commission of the offense. Thus, even if the allegations in the anonymous
complaint were true, the Ethics Commission was prohibited by law from investigating or
charging Dr. Pouncey with a crime.
29. On July 14, 2016, Defendant Hunter, without approval or consultation with the
other Board Members, called Tom Albritton, the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission.
Defendant Hunter told him about the allegations, but did not tell Albritton that the complaint was
anonymous or that the accusations related to things that, even if true, occurred more than 6 years
before and that the statute of limitations had run.
30. On July 15, 2016, Hugh Evans, the General Counsel of the Ethics Commission, at
Albritton’s direction, called Defendant Dean about the letter. At that time, Evans did not know
that the complaint against Pouncey was anonymous or that the statute of limitations had run even
if the accusations had any merit.
31. Defendant Dean then hand-delivered a copy of the anonymous complaint. Based
upon his conversations with Albritton and Defendant Dean, Evans concluded that there was
urgency on the part of the Department of Education in getting a response from the Ethics
Commission. Therefore, later on July 15, 2016, Evans wrote Defendant Dean to acknowledge
receipt of the complaint. Evans did not even suggest that an investigation would be done.
32. On July 20, 2016, Defendant Ward contacted Samford University and falsely
accused Dr. Pouncey of plagiarizing his dissertation.
33. On July 22, 2017, Defendant Ward sent a Memorandum to Defendant Dean in
reference to “Recommendations concerning the allegations about Dr. Craig Pouncey.” (Exhibit
A) Among other things, the Memorandum set out four options for Defendant Cleveland
DOCUMENT 2
regarding the anonymous letter and Ward’s recommendations, all of which were designed to hurt
Dr. Pouncey.
34. Defendants Hunter, Cleveland, Dean, Ward and Crowther had numerous
discussions and emails where they discussed various options to disparage Dr. Pouncey and to
make the false accusations against him public. The Defendants never consulted with the other
members of the Board and did not have Board approval for their wrongful conduct.
35. On August 2, 2016, Dr. Pouncey sent a letter to Defendant Dean to respond to the
anonymous complaint. (Exhibit B) and included letters from Dr. Pouncey’s primary dissertation
typist, his proofer and an adjunct professor at Samford who was a member of Dr. Pouncey’s
Dissertation Committee, each refuting the false allegations in the anonymous complaint.
36. Dr. Pouncey also provided Defendant Dean with substantial documentation of his
research and personal notes on yellow pads he used to prepare his dissertation.
37. Dr. Pouncey produced clear evidence to the Defendants that all of the accusations
contained in the anonymous complaint were false.
38. Defendant Dean notified Defendant Hunter about Dr. Pouncey’s response and the
yellow pads.
39. On August 4, 2016, Defendant Hunter emailed Defendant Dean about the yellow
pads and stated that “This has been a very troubling development. I’ll be disappointed if the Ethics
Commission and Samford can't update the Board in advance of the vote on August 11.”
40. Between August 4, 2016 and August 7, 2016, Defendant Hunter attended the
Business Council of Alabama (BCA) Conference at Point Clear, Alabama. Defendant Hunter told
many people, including state legislators, that Dr. Pouncey could not be considered for the
Superintendent’s position due to the ethics charges, which were not true.
DOCUMENT 2
41. On August 8, 2016, Alabama Political Reporter’s Editor in Chief emailed
Defendant Hunter saying he had heard that someone had filed an ethics complaint against Dr.
Pouncey; that Defendant Hunter had told people at the BCA gathering at Point Clear she could
not vote for Dr. Pouncey given the ethics complaint; and he requested verification of this
information from Defendant Hunter.
42. On the next day, August 9, 2016, the Alabama Political Reporter ran a story and
included the July 15, 2016, letter from the Ethics Commission, a letter which should never have
been released.
43. On August 11, 2016, the Board selected Mr. Sentance to be the Superintendent.
44. As a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants as set out herein, Pouncey
suffered the following injuries and damages: he lost the superintendent’s position and the income
and benefits associated with this position; his ability to earn a living has been damaged because
of the publication of these false accusations which will follow him for the rest of his career; his
reputation has been irreparably damaged; he has suffered emotional distress, mental anguish,
worry, anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment; and he has otherwise been injured and damaged.
COUNT I
(CONSPIRACY)
45. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
46. The Defendants conspired, acted in concert and developed a scheme for the
unlawful purposes of falsely accusing Dr. Pouncey of, among other things, plagiarizing his
dissertation; committing ethics violations; committing crimes; and being under investigation by
the Ethics Commission.
47. The Defendants intentionally and maliciously conspired to disparage Dr. Pouncey’s
reputation; to place him in a false light to the public; to have him investigated and prosecuted for
DOCUMENT 2
crimes he did not commit; to attempt to get Samford University to revoke Dr. Pouncey’s doctorate
degree; and committed other unlawful acts against Dr. Pouncey; all for the purpose of hurting Dr.
Pouncey and improperly influencing the votes of the members Board of Education for
Superintendent.
48. The Defendants were motivated by their own personal desires to prevent Dr.
Pouncey from becoming the Superintendent of Education.
49. The Defendants’ conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith, beyond
their authority and was not based on the good of the Department, the Board or the public education
of the children of the State of Alabama.
50. As a result, Dr. Pouncey was damaged as set out in the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against all Defendants in a fair and
reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.
COUNT II
(MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)
51. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
52. “The Code of Ethics for Public Officials, Employees, Etc.,” specifically Alabama
Code 1975 §36-25-24(c), provides that “no public employee shall file a complaint or otherwise
initiate action against a public official or other public employee without a good faith basis for
believing the complaint to be true and accurate.”
53. The Defendants knew or should have known of the following requirements of law
set out in Alabama Code 1975 § 36-25-4, entitled “State Ethics Commission -- Duties;
complaint; investigation; hearing; fees; finding of violation”:
DOCUMENT 2
A. That the Ethics Commission was prohibited by law from taking any
investigatory action Dr. Pouncey based on an anonymous complaint.
B. Investigatory action by the Ethics Commission from an identifiable
source, such as Defendants Hunter and Dean, shall not be initiated until
the true identity of the source has been ascertained and written verification
of such ascertainment is in the commission's files, neither of which was
done concerning Dr. Pouncey;
C. An Ethics Complaint can only be filed by a person who has or persons
who have credible and verifiable information supporting the allegations
contained in the complaint which none of the Defendants had related to
Dr. Pouncey;
D. A complainant may not file a complaint for another person or persons in
order to circumvent this anonymity prohibition;
E. Even if the accusations in the anonymous letter were true, the statute of
limitations had run and the Ethics Commission would have no jurisdiction
to consider the charges anyway; and
54. The Defendants knew that they did not have a good faith belief that that the
anonymous complaint made against Dr. Pouncey was true and accurate.
55. The Ethics complaint ended in favor of Dr. Pouncey.
56. The Defendants’ conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and
beyond her authority.
57. As a result of the Defendants actions in initiating an Ethic complaint, Dr. Pouncey
was harmed as set out above.
DOCUMENT 2
WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendant in a fair and
reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.
COUNT III
(ABUSE OF PROCESS)
58. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
59. The Defendants had an ulterior purpose when they contacted the Ethics
Commission and delivered the anonymous letter to it.
60. The Defendants willfully used the Ethics Commission processes to achieve ends it
was not meant for—to hurt Dr. Pouncey and to improperly influence the votes of the members of
the Board for Superintendent.
61. The Defendants were aware Dr. Pouncey had not committed any ethics violation
or crimes.
62. The Defendants knew that their abuse of the Ethics Commission processes would
harm Dr. Pouncey and they intended for their acts to harm Dr. Pouncey.
63. The Defendants abuse of the Ethics Commission processes was in violation of
Alabama Code 1975 §36-25-24(c) which provides that “no public employee shall file a complaint
or otherwise initiate action against a public official or other public employee without a good faith
basis for believing the complaint to be true and accurate.”
64. The Defendants’ conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and
beyond their authority.
65. As a result, Dr. Pouncey was injured and damaged as set out above.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendant Hunter in a fair and
reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.
COUNT IV
DOCUMENT 2
(INVASION OF PRIVACY)
66. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
67. The Defendants intentionally publicized false information about Dr. Pouncey
accusing him, among other things, of plagiarizing his dissertation; of committing ethics
violations and crimes; and of being under investigation by the Ethics Commission.
68. The Defendants knew when they publicized the information it would place Dr.
Pouncey in a false light, or they acted with reckless disregard to whether Dr. Pouncey would be
placed in a false light;
69. These statements were highly offensive and the Defendants knew they were false
and knew the false light in which Dr. Pouncey was placed.
70. The statements were made and published with malice and with knowledge and
intent to hurt and discredit Dr. Pouncey.
71. The information placed Dr. Pouncey in a false light in the public eye and the false
light would be highly offensive to any reasonable person.
72. The Defendants’ conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and
beyond their authority and was not based on the good of the Department, the Board or the public
education of the children of the State of Alabama.
73. The false light Dr. Pouncey was put in caused him harm as set out above.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendants in a fair and
reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.
COUNT V
(DEFAMATION by HUNTER)
74. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
DOCUMENT 2
75. Defendant Hunter maliciously told and/or published numerous false and
defamatory statements accusing Pouncey of being under investigation by the Ethics Commission.
76. The statements were made and published with malice and with knowledge of their
falsity.
77. Defendant Hunter’s conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and
beyond her authority and was not based on the good of the Department, the Board or the public
education of the children of the State of Alabama.
78. As a result, Dr. Pouncey was injured and damaged as set out above.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendant Hunter in a fair and
reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.
COUNT VI
(DEFAMATION by WARD)
79. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
80. Defendant Ward made false statements and assisted the other Defendants in making
false statements about Dr. Pouncey including contacting Samford University and stating that Dr.
Pouncey had plagiarized his doctoral dissertation.
81. Defendant Ward’s sole purpose was a part of the unlawful scheme of the
Defendants to get someone outside the Department to investigate or accuse Dr. Pouncey of crimes
or misconduct prior to the vote by the Board for Superintendent.
82. The statements were made and published with malice and with knowledge of their
falsity or were negligently, wantonly or recklessly done and were done for the purpose of
improperly influencing the votes of the members of the Board for Superintendent.
83. As a result, Dr. Pouncey was injured and damaged as set out above.
DOCUMENT 2
WHEREFORE, Pouncey demands judgment against Defendant Ward in a fair and
reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.
COUNT VII
(OUTRAGE)
84. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in
full.
85. The Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct was likely to cause
Dr. Pouncey emotional distress;
86. The Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous.
87. The Defendants’ conduct was so extreme in degree that it goes beyond all bounds
of decency and was atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society;
88. The Defendants’ conduct caused Dr. Pouncey to suffer emotional distress under
circumstances that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against all Defendants in a fair and
reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.
COUNT VIII
(NEGLIGENT, WANTON, RECKLESS and/or INTENTIONAL
MISCONDUCT)
89. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
90. The Defendants negligently, wantonly, recklessly and/or intentionally conducted
an unlawful scheme to ruin Dr. Pouncey’s name.
91. The Defendants were motivated by their own personal desires to prevent Dr.
Pouncey from becoming the Superintendent of Education.
92. The Defendants’ conduct was in bad faith, beyond their authority and was not based
DOCUMENT 2
on the good of the Department, the Board or the public education of the children of the State of
Alabama.
93. As a result of the wrongful conduct, Dr. Pouncey was injured and damaged as set
out above.
WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendants in a fair and just
amount of compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by a jury, plus interest and costs.
S/ Kenneth J. Mendelsohn Kenneth J. Mendelsohn (MEN 001)
Attorney for Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL:
JEMISON & MENDELSOHN
1772 Platt Place
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
(334) 213-2323 (Telephone)
(334) 213-5663 (Facsimile)
Email: [email protected]
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY ON
ALL ISSUES IN THE COMPLAINT
S/ Kenneth J. Mendelsohn OF COUNSEL
Defendants should be served by certified mail as follows:
MARY SCOTT HUNTER
Post Office Box 18572
Huntsville, AL 35804
DOCUMENT 2
PHILIP CLEVELAND
50 North Ripley Street
P.O. Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
JULIANA TEIXEIRA DEAN
50 North Ripley Street
P.O. Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
JAMES R. WARD, III
50 North Ripley Street
P.O. Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
SUSAN TUDOR CROWTHER
50 North Ripley Street
P.O. Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing pleading has been served
upon the Attorney General of the State of Alabama by United States Mail on this the 23rd
day of February, 2017.
S/ Kenneth J. Mendelsohn OF COUNSEL
DOCUMENT 2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED2/23/2017 10:18 AM
03-CV-2017-900286.00CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMATIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK
DOCUMENT 3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED2/23/2017 10:18 AM
03-CV-2017-900286.00CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMATIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK
DOCUMENT 4