STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Personal Injury
David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki, and
Gianna Rucki,
Plaintiffs,
“ SUMMONS
Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki; Deirdre Elise Evavold;
Destiny Equine fatervention d/b/a White Horse
Ranch, a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation; Gina
Schinit Dahlen; Douglas Dahlen, Destiny Church,
Steve Queromoen and Trish Quernomoon,
Defendants.
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
t YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiff has started a lawsuit against you. The
Plaintiff's Complaint against you is attached to this Summons. Do not throw these papers away
“They are official papers that affect your rights. You must respond to this lawsuit even though it
‘may not yet be filed with the Court and there may be no Court file number on this Summons.
2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.
‘You must give or mail to the person who signed this Summons a written response called an
‘Answer within 20 days of the date on which you received this Summons. You must send a copy
‘of your Answer to the person who signed this Summons located at Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC,
8050 West 78” Street, Edina, Minnesota 55439.
3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM, The Answer is your written
response to the Plaintiff's Complaint. In your Answer you must state whether you agree or
disagree with each paragraph of the Complaint. If you believe the Plaintiff should not be given
everything asked for in the Complaint, you must say so in your Answer.4. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A WRITTEN
RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT TO THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THIS
SUMMONS, If you do not Answer within 20 days, you will lose this case. You will not get to
tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiff
everything asked for in the Complaint. If you do not want to contest the claims stated in the
Complaint, you do not need to respond. A Default Judgment can then be entered against you for
the relief requested in the Complaint.
5. LEGAL ASSISTANCE, You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you
do not have a lawyer, the Court Administrator may have information about places where you can
get legal assistance, Even if you cannot get legal help, you must still provide written
Answer to protect your rights or you may lose the ease.
6. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The partics may agree to or be
ordered to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process under Rule 114 of the
Minnesota General Rules of Practice. You must still send your written response to the Complaint
even if you expect to use altemative means of resolving this dispute.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
Dated: November_9 , 2017
‘Marshall H. Tanick, (#01083030)
Teresa J. Ayling, (#0157478)
Edina, Minnesota 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
And
ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P.A.
Dated: November 9, 2017 By:__
Lisa M. Elliott (201923)
2409 West 66" St.
Minneapolis, Minnesota $5423
‘Telephone: (612) 861-3000
Facsimile: (612) 861-3004
lisa@ellioulaw.net
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFES,STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Personal Injury
David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki, and Court File No.:
Gianna Rucki,
Plaintiffs,
vs COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Sanda Sue Grazzini Rucki; Deirdre Elise Evavold;
Destiny Equine Intervention d*ofa White Horse
Ranch, ¢ Minnesota Nonprofit Comporation; Gina
Schmit Dahlen; Douglas Dablen, Destiny Church,
Steve Quemomoen and Trish Quemnomoen,
Defendants
Plaintifis David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki, for their Complaint
against Defendants Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki; Deirdre Elise Evavold; Destiny Equine
Intervention d/b/a White Horse Ranch, a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen;
Douglas Dahlen; Destiny Church; Steve Quernomoen; and Trish Quernomoen, state and allege
as follows:
‘THE PARTIES
1, Plaintiff David V. Rucki (‘Rucki”) is an individual residing in the City of Lakeville,
County of Dakota, State of Minnesota.
2. Plaintiff Gianna Rucki (“Gianna”) is the daughter of David V. Rucki and Sandra Sue
Grazzini-Rucki residing in the City of Lakeville, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota,
3. Plaintiff Samantha Rucki (“Samantha”) is the daughter of David V. Rucki and Sandra
Sue Grazzini-Rucki residing in the City of Lakeville, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota.
24633,0001 = 39125611 14. Defendant Destiny Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse Ranch (“White Horse
Ranch” or the “Ranch”) is a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation with its principal place of
business in the City of Herman, County of Grant, State of Minnesota,
5. Defendant Gina Schmit Dahlen (“Gina Dahlen”) is an individual who, upon
information and belief, at all material times, resided in the City of Herman, County of Grant,
State of Minnesota, and at all material times, was the President of White Horse Ranch.
6. Defendant Douglas Dahlen (“Douglas Dahlen”) is an individual who, upon
information and belief, at all material times resided in the City of Herman, County of Grant,
State of Minnesota, and at all material time was an employee or volunteer of White Horse Ranch.
7. Defendant Deirdre lise Evavold (“Evavold”) is an individual who, upon information
and belief, at all material times resided in the City of St. Cloud, County of Steams, State of
Minnesota,
8. Defendant Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki (“Grazzini-Rucki”) is an individual who, upon
information and belief, resides in the City of Stillwater, County of Washington, State of
Minnesota,
9. Defendant Destiny Church (“Church”) is a religious institution located in the City of
Ashby, County of Grant, State of Minnesota.
10. Steve Quemomoen is, on information and belief, the pastor of Destiny Church in the
City of Ashby, State of Minnesota and resides in the City of Elbow Lake, State of Minnesota.
11. Trish Quemomoen is, on information and belief, the wife of the pastor of Destiny
Church in the City of Ashby, State of Minnesota and resides in the City of Elbow Lake, County
of Grant, State of Minnesota.
24623.000k = 3912561_1 2JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12, Because Plaintiffs reside in Dakota County and part of the cause of action arose
there, the above-named court has jurisdiction over this matter and this matter is properly venued
in Dakota County,
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
13. Plaintiff David Rucki and Defendant Grazzini-Rucki were formerly married and
have five children, including Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha. They began contentious divorce
proceedings in Dakota County District Court (“Pamily Court”) in 2011.
14. On October 3, 2012, the presiding judge in the divorce placed temporary physical
and legal custody with the children’s paternal aunt and maternal aunt to allow time for a therapist
to work with the family. During the process the parents were allowed contact with the children
only at the direction of the therapist designated by the Court,
15. In February, 2013, the maternal aunt advised the court that she could no longer care
for the children, and their care was placed fully with the paternal aunt. At that time, the therapist
allowed Rucki to continue visitation, but recommended that Grazzini-Rucki not have
unsupervised contact with the children until she completed a psychological evaluation.
16. On the evening of April 19, 2013, custody of the children was transferred to the
paternal aunt, who was residing in the family home in Lakeville, Minnesota. The two daughters,
Gianna end Samantha, left the residence shortly after arriving without any of their belongings
and without shoes. The paternal aunt discovered a cell phone in one of the girls’ bags and it was
believed that the gitl likely had been picked up by their mother, Grazzini-Rucki.
17, In fact, it was Iater leamed that Grazzini-Rucki had indeed picked up the two
daughters near their Lakeville home, She drove them to the St. Cloud/Sauk Center area, where’
246930001 = 33125611 3Defendant Evavold arranged for Plaintifis Gianna and Samantha to be interviewed by a
television reporter. Evavold thereafter sheltered Grazzini-Rucki at her home for a period of time.
Evavold was present at the interview of Grazzini-Rucki and was aware that Grazzini-Rucki had
taken Gianna and Samantha from their home and the custody of their paternal aunt in violation of
an order of the court for the purpose of preventing their father, Plaintiff David Rucki, from
having contact with them.
18 Defendant Evavold suggested to Grazzini-Rucki that Gianna and Samantha be
taken to Defendant White Horse Ranch and left with Defendant Gina Dahlen, with whom she
was acquainted. On or about April 21, 2013, Defendants Grazzini-Rucki and Evavold drove
Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha to the White Horse Ranch, leaving them with Defendants
Douglas Dahlen and Gina Dahlen, Douglas Dahlen and Gina Dahlen were made aware that
Gianna and Samantha were being secreted from their father, that he had a right to parenting time,
and that court proceedings were pending concerning the custody of Gianna and Samantha. Thus,
all of the Defendants knew Gianna and Samantha had been taken to and left at the White Horse
Ranch ia order to deprive Plaintiff Rucki of parenting time, but took no action at any time to
inform authorities about their presence there,
19. On April 22, 2013, the patemal aunt received a certified letter ftom Grazzini-
Rucki including, among other things, a document purportedly signed by Gianna and Samantha
expressing their desire to be with their mother, The document was written on the computer of
Evavold and provided no information about the whereabouts of Gianna and Samantha.
20. On or about August 26, 2013, the Family Court ordered Defendant Grazzini-
Rucki and Plaintiff Rucki to provide the Family Court with any information they had on the
whereabouts of Gianna and Samantha. Defendant Grazzini-Rucki was aware thet Gianna and
24622.0001 ~3212561_1 4Samantha were at the White Horse Ranch, but did not disclose the information to the Court or
Defendant Rucki, Defendant Evavold was in the courtroom when the court issued this order.
21. On or about November 25, 2014, the Family Court awarded sole physical and legal
custody of the five minor children of Plaintiff Rucki and Defendant Grazzini-Rucki, including
Gisnna and Samantha, to Plaintiff Ruck.
22. During the over 2 ¥ years that Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha Rucki were at the
White Horse Ranch, Defendant Grazzini-Rucki did not visit them or talk to them, did not arrange
for their continued education or medical or dental care, and called only five or six times to check
on their welfure, She had not called at all to check on the welfare of Gianna and Samantha in
approximately the last year they were at White Horse Ranch.
23. During the time that they were at White Horse Ranch, neither Defendants Gina
Dahlen nor Douglas Dahlen reported to authorities that Gianna and Samantha were with them on
the Ranch. While purporting to “home school” Gianna and Samantha, they failed register the
home schooling with the state and failed to provide an appropriate and adequate education for
‘thom, causing them to fall behind their age cohorts in their education.
24. During the time they were at White Horse Ranch, Gianna and Samantha were
taken by the Dahlens or otherwise went to Defendant Destiny Church in Ashby, Minnesota, The
Pastor of Destiny Church, Defendant Steve Quemomoen and his wife, Defendant Trish
Quemomoen became aware that Gianna and Samantha were being hidden from Plaintiff David
Rucki in violation of court order and failed to inform authorities about their presence.
25. Gianna and Samantha were recovered fiom the White Horse Rench by law
enforcement authorities on November 18, 2015.
24633 0001 ~ 33125611 526. For 944 days (two years, six months and 30 days), from April 19, 2013, until
November 18, 2015, Plaintiff Rucki continued to search for, worry about, and miss the
companionship of Gianna and Samantha. He incurred lost wages and incurred expenses for
private investigative personnel in connection with the search for his daughters. He suffered
severe emotional distress and worry regarding their absence and their welfare.
27. Although now reunited with their father, Gianna and Samantha continue to suffer
emotional distress from the ordeal, and have fallen behind in educational and social development
uring the time they were at the White Horse Ranch and away from their family, friends, school
and community,
COUNT I: Loss of Services of Children
(by Plaintiff Rucki against all Defendants)
28. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the previous allegations as though
fully set forth herein.
29. Plaintiff Rucki, as the father of Gianna and Samantha, has a legal right to their
services, Between October 3, 2012 and November 25, 2013, he was to have court ordered
visitation with his children, and on November 25, 2013 he was awarded sole a legal and physical
custody of all of his minor children, including Gianna and Samantha.
30. As the father of Gianna and Samantha with rights of visitation and sole legal and
physical custody, Plaintiff Rucki had the rights to the service of his children Gianna and
Samantha.
31, The actions of the Defendants deprived Plaintiff Rucki of the services of his
children Gianna and Samantha between April 19, 2013 and November 18, 2015.
32, By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff Rucki is entitled to damages against all
Defendants, jointly and severally, for loss of services of Gianna and Samantha, loss of income
2633.01 ~212861.1 6and benefits, his expenses in searching for his children, and his emotional harm in a reasonable
‘amount in excess of $50,000.
Count JI; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(By all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
33. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the previous allegations as though
fully set forth herein.
34. The actions by Defendants were intentional, extreme, and outrageous,
35. The aforesaid action by Defendants caused Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional
and mental distress.
36. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs Rucki, Gianna and Samantha are entitled to
damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for intentional infliction of emotional
distress in @ reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.
Count IMI: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
‘(By all Plaintiffs against all Defendants)
37. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the previous allegations as though
fully set forth herein.
38. Defendants had a duty to refrain from depriving him of the services of his
children and from interfering with parenting time and custody, and from falsely imprisoning
Plaintiffs Samantha and Gianna.
39. Defendants breached these duties.
40. The actions by Defendants were negligent, extreme, and outrageous.
41, The aforementioned action caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress, physical
harm, and loss of income and benefits.
24633.0001 ~3312561_1 i42, By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages against all
Defendants for negligent infliction of emotional distress in a reasonable amount in excess of
$50,000.
Count IV: False i ent
(By Plaintiffs Gianna Rucki and Samantha Rucki against all Defendants)
43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the previous allegations as though
fully set forth herein.
44. Defendant Grazzini-Rucki was not legally justified in removing Plaintiffs Gianna
and Samantha from the home of their paternal aunt, and bringing them to St. Cloud/Sauk Center
and to the White Horse Ranch,
45. Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were compelled by Defendant Grazzini-Rucki to
leave their home and from the care of their paternal Aunt and to go with Defendant Grazzini-
Rucki to St. Cloud, Sauk Center and the White Horse Ranch based on the false statements and
false threats that they would be subjected to harm by Plaintiff Rucki if they did not do so.
46, Defendants Evavold aided and abetted Defendant Grazzini-Rucki by transporting
Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha to the White Horse Ranch. All Defendants aided and abetted
Defendant Grazzini-Rucki by failing to inform authorities that they had been taken there.
47. All Defendants, knowing that Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were being secreted
from their father in violation of his right to parenting time, aided and abetted Defendant
Grazzini-Rucki by keeping Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha at the White Horse Ranch, and by
failing to inform educational, social service and/or law enforcement authorities that they were
there.
24633,0001 3512561, 848, Plaintifls Gianna and Samantha would not have agreed to leave their home and
the care of their paternal aunt and remain at White Horse Ranch if they had not been provided
false information that their father was a threat to them.
49, Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were not aware that they confined in a rural area
in Minnesota based on false statements about their father, were not enrolled in or permitted to
atiend school, were not provided medical or dental care, were deprived of the company,
companionship and communication with their siblings, their father, their friends, and other
‘persons important to them.
50, By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs Gianna Rucki and Samantha Rucki are
entitled to damages against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for emotional distress and
physical harm for false imprisonment in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.
Count V. Intentional Interference with Custodial Relationship
(By Plaintiff Rucki against all Defendants)
51. Plaintiff Rucki realleges and incorporates by reference the previous allegations as
though fully set forth herein.
52, Plaintiff Rucki seeks a good faith modification of the existing law conceming his
claim of intentional interference with his custodial relationship with his daughters in light of the
‘unusual and egregious matters alleged herein.
53. Defendants Evavold aided and abetted Defendant Grazzini-Rucki by transporting,
Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha to the White Horse Ranch,
54, All Defendants kaew that Defendant Ruck had a legal right to parenting time and
custody of Gianna snd Samantha, and intentionally kept Gianna and Samantha hidden from him,
preventing him from exercising his parenting and custodial rights.
24433.0008 ~ 3312561 1 955. As a result of the actions and inactions of all Defendants, Plaintiff Rucki was
deprived of his parenting rights and custodial relationship with Gianna and Samantha.
56. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff Rucki incurred expenses in regard to his
efforts to locate his daughters, and suffered lost wages and benefits, was deprived of the
companionship of his daughters and suffered serious emotional distress.
57. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff Rucki is entitled to damages against all
Defendants, jointly and severally, for loss of income and benefits, expenses incurred in trying to
locate his daughters, emotional distress and physical harm for intentional interference with his
Custodial Relationship with Gianna and Samantha in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David V. Rucki, Plaintiff Samantha Rucki and Plaintiff Gianna
Rucki request the following relief:
1. Judgment for David V. Rucki against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and
severally, for loss of services of his children in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.00.
2. Judgment for Plaintiff David V. Rucki, Plaintiff Samantha Rucki and Plaintiff
Gianna Rucki, against all Defendants and cach of them, jointly and severally, for intentional
infliction of emotional distress in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.00,
3. Judgment for Plaintiff David V. Rucki, Plaintiff Samantha Rucki and Plaintiff
Gianna Rucki against all Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, for negligent
infliction of emotional distress in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.00.
4. Judgment for Plaintiff Samantha Rucki and Plaintiff Gianna Rucki against all
Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, for false imprisonment in a reasonable
amount in excess of $50,000.00.
24635,0001 ~3512561_1 105.
Judgment for David V. Ruck against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and
severally, for intentional interference with custodial relationship with his children in a reasonable
amount in excess of $50,000.00.
6. Awarding Plaintiffs prejudgment and post-judgment interest and awarding
Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements incurred herein.
Leave to amend the Complaint to assert e claim of punitive damages.
8
‘Such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.
9. A trial by jury is demanded.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
Dated: November_9_, 2017 BY Stace
‘Marshall H. Tanick, (#01083030)
‘Teresa J. Ayling, (#0157478)
8050 West 78” Street
Edina, Minnesota 55439
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
mitanick@hjlawfirm.com
And
ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P.A.
Dated: November.2,, 2017 By:
isa M. Elliot, (#201923)
2409 West 66" St.
‘Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423
Telephone: (612) 861-3000
Facsimile: (612) 861-3004
lisa@elliowlaw.net
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
24633.0001 ~3312861_1 WACKNOWLEDGMENT.
‘The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and
witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.211, to the party against whom the
allegations in this pleading are asserted,
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
Dated: November_9_, 2017
Marshall H. Tanick, ID #0108303
24633 0001 ~3812561_1 12