STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE TRIAL COURT FOR ISABELLA COUNTY TODD L. LEVITT, Plaintiff, ~v8- File No. 15- (9307 -NZ DIGITAL FIRST MEDIA, a corporate entity, THE MORNING SUN, a subsidiary of Digital First Media, LISA YANICK-JONAITIS, GORDON M. BLOEM, KENNETH JAMES SANNEY, JAMES MARTIN FELTON, and JOHN andjor JANE DOES 1 through 5, all whose names are unknown, Defendants, John J. Devine, J Attomey for Plaintiff 304 E. Broadway, Suite 201 Mt, Pleasant, MI 48858 (989) 773-3333 P12724 COMPLAINT There is no prior or resolved action betwesn the parties arising from the same transactions or occurrences as set forth herein. NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Todd L. Levitt (‘Levitt’), by and through his attorney, John J. Devine, Jr, and for his Complaint says: APR 23 2015 \SABELLA ‘ ME BLEASINT MH,RODUCTION This is an action for libel and slander, false light invasion of privacy, intentional interference with business expectancy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy as a result of intentional and reckless conduct by Defendants The Morning Sun ("The Morning Sun") and Lisa Yanick- Jonaitis’ (‘Yanick-Jonaitis”) in writing and publishing articles concerning Levit, and other tortious acts by Defendants. The subject articles were written by Yanick-Jonaitis and published by The Morning Sun. Levitt is an attorney licensed in Michigan, practicing in Isabella County. Gordon M. Bloem (‘Bloem’) is an attorney licensed in Michigan, practicing in 'sabella County, and was at all times also an adjunct professor in the College of Business at Central Michigan University. Yanick-Jonaitis is Bloem's client. Kenneth James Sanney (‘Sanney’) and James Martin Felton (‘Felton’) are professors in the College of Business at Central Michigan University. Both are Bioem's clients. Sanney is also believed to be an attorney, licensed in the State of Tennessee, The true names of Defendant John/Jane Does are unknown to Levitt at this time, and he will seek leave of Court to amend his Complaint to allege the actual names and capacities as soon as they are ascertained through discovery, or otherwise. Levitt is informed and believes, and alleges on that information and belief, that each of the Defendant John/Jane Does is responsible in some ‘manner for the occurrences alleged in the Complaint, and that Levitt's damages as alleged herein were proximately caused by those John/Jane Doe Defendants. Whenever it Is alleged hereinafter that any act or omission was done or committed by any specifically named Defendant, Levitt intends thereby to allege that the same acts or omissions were also done and committed by each such John/Jane Doe Defendant, both separately, in concert with, and/or through conspiracy with the specifically named Defendants, Levitt is informed and believes, and therefore alleges on that information and belief, that at all times herein Yanick-Jonaitis acted as the employee and/or authorized agent of The Morning Sun and further, in doing the things alleged herein, was acting within the course and scope of that employment and/or agency, and did so with the knowledge, consent, and ratification of The Moming Sun and its parent, Defendant Digital First Media (“Digital First’), As of April 14, 2014 Levitt had about 4,500 followers on his Twitter account, @levittlaw, most of whom were students. On that date he was contacted directly by another Twitter account, @levittlawyer, which was unmistakably similar to his personal Twitter account. The @levitlawyer account used his trademarked law firm picture, logo, law firm name, and his first and ‘ast name. This bogus account had begun a litany of malicious, insulting tweets,including that there was a group of people watching Levitt, or he should “hide his kids and wife.” Levitt hired Ghazey Aleck, who uttimately filed an action (‘the litigation”) against Zachary Felton, a Central Michigan University student and employee in the CMU tech department, who is James Felton’s son and Sanney's protégé. ‘One significant post read, "What's your favorite movie, Todd? Catch me if you can?" Once it was known that Levitt had discovered Zachary Felton's identity, the word “parody’ was added to the bogus Twitter account. Levitt alleges, upon information and belief, that Bloem, Sanney and Felton were active, and/or provided legal advice to Zachary Felton for use, in the bogus Twitter account. Bioem then appeared for Zachary Felton in the litigation, and raised the defense of *parody.” THE PARTIES 1. Levitt is a resident of Isabella County, and at all times herein was a practicing attorney; Defendant Digital First Media is a corporate entity and is the arent company, and does business as the publisher, of Defendant The Moming Sun, a daily newspaper published in Isabella County, Michigan; Defendant Lisa Yanick-Jonaitis is a resident of Isabella County, Michigan, and was at all times herein a staff reporter for, and employed by, The Moming Sun; Defendants Bloem, Sanney and Felton are residents of Isabella County, Michigan; and Defendant John and/or Jane Does are currently unknown to Plaintiff, but known to the named Defendants, and are believed to be residents of Isabella County, Michigan; 2. The incidents complained of herein occurred in Isabella County, Michigan 3. Sometime in 2014 a Twitter account was established in the name and likeness of the Levitt, without his knowledge or permission, 4, The Twitter account was titled “Todd Levitt 2.0°, and portrayed Levitt in a mocking and negative light. 5, Levitt thereafter brought an action against the person who allegedly ‘established the bogus Ty account seeking an order from the Court to, ‘essentially, enjoin that Twitter account. 6. In the course of that litigation The Morning Sun, through Yanick- Jonaitis, began coverage, and published several articles concerning Levitt.COUNT -LIBEL AND SLANDER 7. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein. 8. Sometime in 2014 a Twitter account was established in the name and likeness of the Levitt, without his knowledge or permission. 9, The Twitter account was titled “Todd Levitt 2.0°, and portrayed Levitt in ‘a mocking and negative light. 10. Levitt thereafter brought an action against the person who allegedly established the bogus Twitter account seeking an order from the Court to, essentially, enjoin that Twitter account. 11. In the course of the litigation, The Moming Sun, through Yanick- Jonaitis, began coverage, and published several articles concerning Levitt. 12. Nothing about the life or law practice of Levitt constituted a public issue, or made him a “public figure’, as defined by the applicable law concerning free speech and defamation. 13. On or about Sunday, August 10, 2014, The Moming Sun published front page, above-the-fold headline, “Attorney suing student admits to fake award’, for a following story written by Yanick-Jonaitis. 14. Yanick-Jonaitis wrote in that article, among other things: a. ‘a Mt Pleasant lawyer and former Central Michigan University instructor, who is suing a student for defamation, admitted in court documents filed Friday that he created a ‘top college lawyer’ recognition and awarded it to himself; and b. “one of those claims, supported by HTML coding information entered as an exhibit in the case, is that Levitt himself created the website topcollegelawyers.com, and then proclaimed himself ‘College Lawyer of the Year’, and used the manufactured award to promote himself’; and . “the website in part said that Levitt was, ‘Chosen by an independent search committee measuring social medial influence together with campus involvement to assist students academically in persuing [sic] their futures”; and d. made other false and defamatory statements therein, and did so in other headlines and/or news accounts. 15. The headline and statements concemed Levitt, and were false,16. The headline and statements were not privileged in any manner. 17. The headline and statements were false, and were known, or should have been so known, to The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, and they knew that the headline and each of the statements, depictions and/or implications were false, or reasonably should have known they were false, and they, and each of them, acted maliciously or with oppression with the intent, or with despicable conduct, to harm Levitt personally and/or in the legal community and the community at large. 18. The headline and statements were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or were made with malice. 19. The headiine, statements and defamatory implications by The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis have injured Levitt’s personal and professional reputation as an attorney, and were statements, depictions, and implications causing Levitt to suffer great humiliation and embarrassment, in addition to the considerable harm to his reputation in the community. 20. That as a direct and proximate result of the headline, statements, depictions and implications, Levitt has, and will into the future, suffer emotional distress, and has been, and will continue to be, embarrassed and humiliated by the false headline, statements, depictions and implications, and further reasonably fears that he will be shunned, avoided, and subjected to ridicule and loss of standing in the community. 21. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of the headfine, statements, depictions and implications Levitt has suffered, and will into the future suffer, significant damage to his reputation and to his livelihood in the legal community. Further, as a direct and proximate result of the headline, statements, depictions and implications Levitts business, professional, and personal relationships have been, and will continue to be, adversely affected. 22, The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, have acted with knowledge that their depictions of Levitt were false, and did so with a reckless disregard of their truth or falsity: further, their conduct was intended by them to cause injury to Levitt, and was despicable conduct carried on with a wilful and conscious disregard of Levit's rights, reputation, and safety. As such, Levitt is entitled to recover exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to deter them from such conduct in the future, and for other reasons. 23. Levitt made demand for retraction from The Morning Sun and Yanick- Jonaitis Defendants.WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, for damages in an amount that adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attorney fees, WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor’and against The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, for exemplary damages in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. COUNT Il - FALSE LIGHT 24. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein, 25. Without justification or any authorization from Levitt, The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis published the above-mentioned headline and stories. 26. These headlines and stories were unteasonable and_ highly objectionable by attributing to Levitt characteristics, conduct, or beliefs that were false, and thereby placed him in a false public light. 27. Nonetheless, The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, having known or teasonably should have known of this falsity, acted in reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the headline and statements, and published the same, placing Levitt in a false light. 28. These unlawful headlines and stories caused great damage to Levitt, as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, for damages in an amount that adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attomey fees. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, for exemplary damages in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. COUNT II I INSPIRACY 29. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein,30. At the foregoing and prior times, the dates of which are presently Unknown to Levit, The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis knowingly and willingly conspired and agreed among themselves, with the other named Defendants, and/or with the Doe Defendants to engage in a scheme to defame and harm Levitt. 31. In particular, Levitt is informed and believes that The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis aided, abetted and conspired with the other named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants, to defame him by publishing false information as recited above. 32, The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis performed the wrongful acts and things alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and agreement to defame and harm Levitt. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy and agreement to defame and harm Levitt, he has suffered, and will into the future suffer, significant damage to his reputation and to his livelinood in the lagal community Further, as a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy and agreement to defame Levitt, his business, professional and personal relationships have been, and will continue to be, adversely affected 34. The Moming Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, have acted with knowledge that their depictions of Levitt were false, or did so with a reckless disregard of their truth or falsity; further, their conduct was intended by them to cause injury to Levitt, and was despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of Levitt's rights, reputation, and safety. As such, Levitt is entitled to recover exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to deter The Moming Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis from such conduct in the future, and for other reasons, 35. That at all times relevant The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis and/or others, inciuding the other named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants, engaged in the concerted activities stated above by their express and/or implied agreement with each other, and/or others. 36. That Levitt may not be able to identify all of the activities due to the generic similarity of such activities as performed and promoted by The Morning ‘Sun and Yanick-Jonaits. 37. That said wrongful actions by The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, included, but are not limited to, malicious and wrongful conspiracy with each other, the other named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants and others, to harm Levitt,38. That due to the concert of action by The Morning Sun and Yanick- Jonaitis, the other named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants and others, both are liable to Levitt for his damages and losses, even if there was no direct relationship to the activity conducted by them. 39.That as a distinct and proximate result of these wrongful actions by The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, the other named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants and others, Levitt has sustained, and will continue to sustain into the future, the damages and losses set forth herein. 40. That The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis' actions were taken in bad faith, maticiously, and in knowing and reckless disregard of Levit’s rights and wellbeing. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against The Moming Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, for damages in an amount that adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, for exemplary damages in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attomey fees. COUNT IV - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 41. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein, 42. The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis published false headlines, stories, and/or intentionally misrepresented the content of court documents, purporting to indicate that Levitt “admitted to a fake award", when no such admission was made, nor was there a “fake award.” 43. The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis published these statements, consistently, as ‘proof’ of Levitt's alleged misconduct, and in an effort to embarrass, humiliate, and make a public spectacle of, him. 44. This was extreme and outrageous conduct by The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis, designed specifically to tamish Levitt's reputation in the ‘community at large and in the legal community, and was so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. 48. This conduct was intended to inflict emotional distress on Levitt, and/or was done in reckless disregard as to whether such conduct would cause Levittgreat emotional distress. 46. The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis did in fact cause Levitt great emotional distress by such conduct, including but not limited to embarrassing him within the legal community and the community at large, and otherwise damaged him as set forth herein. S 47. That as a direct and proximate result of these wrongful actions by The Morning Sun and/or Yanick-Jonaitis, Levitt suffered emotional distress and other damages as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against The Morning Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, for damages in an amount that adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against The Moming Sun and Yanick-Jonaitis, and each of them, for exemplary damages in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attomey fees COUNT V - LIBEL AND SLANDER 48. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein. 48. Bloem is a practicing attorney in Isabella County. 50. He was defense counsel in the litigation. 51. During the course of discovery in the litigation, Bloem asked Levitt numerous deposition questions, and in Requests for Admission, that were irrelevant to the issues in the litigation, but related to Levitt’s teaching style at CMU. 52. During the course of that litigation, Bloem gave a series of quotes to Lisa Yanick-Jonaitis, for publication in The Morning Sun 53. Yanick-Jonaitis is a law client of Bioem. 54. In an article published on February 19,2015, written by Yanick- Jonaitis, Bloem “said Fetton's legal team with [sic] be talking to their client and discussing next steps. Bloem said they feel some of the media techniques Levitt has used to market himself, including creating a ‘Top Lawyer’ prize he then awarded to himself, are unethical according to the guidelines that govern thelegal profession. it's possible they may persue [sic] those issues with the Attorney Grievance Committee.” 55. Bloem and Levitt have been adjunct professors in the College of Business at Central Michigan University. 56. Bloem has also made defamatory and false statements over the years about Levit's teaching style. 57. Bloem’s statements were defamatory, Levitt. false, and intended to harm 58. The statements were not privileged in any manner. 59. Bloem’s statements were false, and were known, or should have been so known, to him, and he knew that the statements, depictions and/or implications were false, or reasonably should have known they were false, and he acted maliciously or with oppression, and with the intent, or with despicable conduct, to harm Levitt personally and/or in the legal community, the CMU ‘community, and the community at large. 60. The statements were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or were made with malice. 61. The comments were knowingly false, or made with indifference as to their truth or falsity. 62. That Levitt has been damaged as a result as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Bloem for damages in an amount that adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attomey fees. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Bloem for exemplary damages in an amount not iess than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attorney fees, 63. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein. 64, Bloem is a practicing attorney in Isabella County. 65. He was defense counsel in the litigation. 1066, During the course of that litigation, Bloem gave a series of quotes to Lisa Yanick-Jonaitis, a reporter for The Morning Sun, and for the purpose of publication. 67. Yanick-Jonaitis is a client of Bloem. 68. In an article published on February 19,2015, written by Yanick- Jonaitis, Bloem "said Felton’s legal team with [sic] be talking to their client and discussing next steps. Bloem said they feel some of the media techniques Levitt has used to market himself, including creating a ‘Top Lawyer’ prize he then awarded to himself, are unethical according to the guidelines that govern the legal profession. it's possible they may persue [sic] those issues with the Attorney Grievance Committee.” 69. This was extreme and outrageous conduct by Bloem, designed specifically to tamish Levit’s reputation in the community at large and in the legal ‘community, and was so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. 70. This conduct was intended to inflict emotional distress on Levitt, and/or was done in reckless disregard as to whether such conduct would cause Levitt great emotional distress, and Bloem's statements had the intended effect. 71. Bloom did in fact cause Levitt great emotional distress by such conduct, including but not limited to embarrassing him within the legal community and the community at large, and otherwise damaged him as set forth herein. 72. That as a direct and proximate result of these wrongful actions and statements by Bloem, Levitt suffered emotional distress and other damages as sel forth herein. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Bloem for damages in an amount that adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attomey fees. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Bloem for exemplary damages in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attomey fees. 1COUNT VII - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 73. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein. 74. Sanney and Felton are professors in the College of Business at Central Michigan University. 75. Shortly after the litigation was filed, Sanney and Felton walked in front of Levitt's CMU campus law office, when Levitt was on the outdoor steps of his office. 76. Sanney, Felton, or both of them, said aloud, and directed to Levitt, “What a clown’, or something very similar to that effect. 77. An argument ensued between the men, wherein profanities and insults were traded, 78. Unbeknownst to Levitt, Felton audio-recorded the incident. 79. At the conclusion of the recording, Sanney is heard to ask Felton, “Did you get any of that?" 80. Sanney and Felton then edited the recording. 81. Thereafter Sanney and Felton uploaded the edited recording to a “sound cloud”, titled “Todd Levitt Mt Pleazy Deep Throat’ or, in the alternative, facilitated and allowed the same to be done. 82. Sanney and Felton thereafter posted the sound cloud edited recording ‘on the CMU campus-wide Reddit account, or in the alternative, facilitated and allowed the same to be done. 83. All the CMU campus — students, professors, and administrative personnel — have access to the Reddit site. 84. Sanney and Felton provided the recording to the CM Life newspaper. 85, Sanney and Felton provided the recording to the CM Life newspaper with the intent, and in the hope, that the recording would be published, with resulting humiliation and embarrassment to Levitt. 86. In the alternative, Sanney and Felton provided the recording to CM Life knowing, or they are charged with knowing, that it would likely be published to the CMU community, as well as the community at large, with resulting humiliation and embarrassment to Levitt 1287. Sanney's and Felton’s actions in posting the edited recording on CMU's Reddit account was done in bad faith, and in an effort to humiliate and embarrass Levitt, and cause harm and damage to his law practice and/or his standing as. an adjunct professor in the CMU community, and as an attorney whose client base consisted in large part of CMU students. Further, said actions were extreme and outrageous. 88. As a direct result of Sanney’s and Felton’s wrongful actions, Levitt was damaged and suffered losses to his practice, and within the CMU community, and suffered extreme emotional distress, and other damages as set forth herein. 89. These actions were taken with reckless disregard of Levitt's rights and were done with malice and intent to harm him. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Sanney and Felton, and each of them, for damages in an amount that adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attomey fees. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Sanney and Felton, and each of them, for exemplary damages in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. COUNT Vill — INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS EXPECTANCY 90. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as. though restated in full herein. 91. Levitt’s law practice clientele consists in large part of CMU students. 92. Levitt has established a successful social media plan to develop and cultivate this client base. 93. Sanney and Felton were aware of this aspect of Levit's law practice. 94. Sanney and Felton were, obviously, aware of the litigation, if not participants in the bogus Twitter account that was the subject of that litigation. 95. Shortly after the litigation was filed, Sanney and Felton walked in front of Levitt’s CMU campus law office. 96. Sanney, Felton, or both of them, said aloud, and directed to Levitt, “What a clown’, or something very similar to that effect. 1397. An argument ensued between the men, wherein profanities and insults were traded. 98. Unbeknownst to Levitt, Felton audio-recorded the incident. ‘99. At the conciusion of the recording, Sanney is heard to ask Felton, “Did you get any of that?" 100. Sanney and Felten then edited the recording. 101, Thereafter Sanney and Felton uploaded the edited recording to a “sound cloud”, titled “Todd Levitt Mt. Pleazy Deep Throat’, or, in the alternative, facilitated and allowed the same to be done. 102. Sanney and Felton thereafter posted the sound cloud edited recording to the CMU campus-wide Reddit account, or in the altemative, {facilitated and allowed the same to be done, 103. All of the CMU campus ~ students, professors, and administrative personnel — have access to the Reddit site. 104. Sanney's and Felton’s actions in posting the edited recording to the CMU Reddit account was done in bad faith, and in an effort to humiliate and embarrass Levitt, and cause harm and damage to his law practice and/or his standing as an adjunct professor in the CMU community, and as an attorney whose client base consisted in large part of CMU students. 108, Sanney and/or Felton further provided a copy of the audio recording CM Life, the campus-wide CMU newspaper. 106. Sanney and/or Felton did so with the intent, and in the hope, that the audio would be published by CM Life, and would humiliate and embarrass Levitt, and cause harm and damage to his law practice and/or his standing as an adjunct professor in the CMU community, and as an attomey whose client base consisted in large part of CMU students. 107. That Levitt had a real, and proven, valid business relationship or expectancy to represent CMU students as well as to teach as an adjunct professor at the University. 108. Sanney and Felton had knowledge of these relationships or expectancies. 109. Sanney and Felton intentionally interfered with these expectancies by posting the recording to the Reddit account or, in the altemative, facilitating and 14allowing the same to be done; and did the same by furnishing and publishing the recording to CM Life. 110. In doing so, Sanney and Felton induced and/or caused a breach or termination of these expectancies. 111, Sanney and Felton intended that Levitt would be damaged by their actions. 112. These actions were taken with reckless disregard of Levitt’s rights and were done with malice and intent to harm him. 113. As a proximate and direct result of Sanney's and Felton’s wrongful actions, Levitt was damaged, as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Sanney and Felton, and each of them, for damages in an amount that adequately ‘compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Sanney and Felton, and each of them, for exemplary damages in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. COUNT IX - CIVIL CONSPIRACY 114. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein. 115. At the foregoing times, Sanney and Felton knowingly and willingly conspired and agreed among themselves, with other named Defendants, and/or with the Doe Defendants to engage in a scheme to intentionally interfere with Levit's business expectancies and otherwise harm him. 116. Levitt is informed and believes that Sanney and Felton aided, abetted and conspired with the other named Defendants, and/or with the Doe Defendants, to defame him by posting the audio recording to the CMU Reddit account, furnishing the same to CM Life, and by other wrongful actions, as recited above. 117. That Sanney and Felton provided a copy of the audio recording to Bloem 148. That Bloem subsequently used the audio recording to file a grievance Request for Investigation against Levitt with the Attomey Grievance Commission. 15119. Sanney and Felton performed the wrongful acts and things alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and agreement to defame and harm Levit. 120. As a direct and proximate result of Sanney's and Felton’s conspiracy and agreement to intentionally interfere with his business expectancies, and otherwise, Levitt has suffered, and will into the future suffer, significant damage to his reputation and to his livelihood in the legal community. Further, as a direct, and proximate result of the conspiracy and agreement to defame Levitt, his business, professional and personal relationships have been, and will continue to be, adversely affected. 121. Sanney and Felton, and each of them, have acted with intent, and knowledge, that their posting of the audio recording to the CMU Reddit account, and providing it to CM Life, and other wrongful action, would harm and damage Levitt, and they did so with a reckless disregard of his rights; further, Saney’s and Felton’s conduct was intended by them to cause injury to Levitt, and was despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of Levit's rights, reputation, and safety, As such, Levitt is entitled to recover exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to deter Sanney and Felton from such conduct in the future, and for other reasons 122. That at all times elevant Sanney and Felton, and/or others including other named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants, engaged in the concerted activities stated above by their express and/or implied agreement with each other, and/or others. 123. That Levitt may not be able to identify all of the activities due to the generic similarity of such activities as performed and promoted by Sanney and Felton, 124, That said wrongful actions by Sanney and Felton included, but are fot limited to, malicious and wrongful conspiracy with each other, other named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants and others, to harm Levitt. 125. That due to the concert of action by Sanney and Felton, other named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants and others, Sanney and Felton are liable to Levitt for his damages and losses, even if there was no direct relationship to the activity conducted by Sanney and Felton. 126. That as a distinct and proximate result of these wrongful actions by Sanney and Felton, other named Defendants, and/or the Doe Defendants and others, Levitt has sustained, and will continue to sustain into the future, the damages and losses set forth herein. 18127. That Sanney's and Felton’s actions were taken in bad faith, maliciously, and in knowing and reckless disregard of Levitt’s rights and well- being. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Sanney and Felton, and each of them, for damages in an amount thet adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attorney foes. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Sanney and Felton, and each of them, for exemplary damages in an amount not jess ‘than $1,000,000,00, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. COUNT X iL CONSPIRACY 128. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein. 129. At the foregoing times, Bloem knowingly and willingly conspired and agreed with Sanney and Felton, and among themselves, other named Defendants, and/or with the Doe Defendants, to engage in a scheme to intentionally interfere with Levitt's business expectancies and professional ‘standing, to libel and slander and otherwise harm him. 130. Bloem performed the wrongful acts and things alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and agreement to harm Levitt 131. That Sanney and Felton immediately provided @ copy of the audio recording and a written summary of the incident to Bloem, “for your records”, as they put i; further Sanney filed a police report of the incident in which he told the investigating officer he “is currently working with Gordon Bloem, who is an attorney representing his boss, Felton." 132. Bloem used the audio recording provided by Sanney and Felton to fle a grievance Request for Investigation against Levitt with the Attorney Grievance Commission. 133. Bloem did so in furtherance of the conspiracy with Sanney and Felton to damage and harm Levitt as a licensed attorney and otherwise. 134, As a direct and proximate result of Bloem's conspiracy and agreement to intentionally interfere with his business expectancies, and otherwise, Levitt has suffered, and will into the future suffer, significant damage to his reputation and to his livelihood in the legal community. Further, as a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy and agreement to harm Levitt, his 7business, professional and personal relationships have been, and will continue to be, adversely affected 135. Bloem acted with the intent, and knowledge, that his wrongful actions would harm and damage Levitt, and he did so with a reckless disregard of their truth or falsity; further, Bloern’s conduct was intended by him to cause injury to Levitt, and was despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of Levi's rights, reputation, and safety. As such, Levitt is entitled to recover exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to deter Bloem from such ‘conduct in the future, and for other reasons. 136. That at all times relevant Bloem, in conspiracy with Sanney and/or Felton, and/or others including the Doe Defendants, engaged in the concerted activities stated above by their express and/or implied agreement with each other, and/or others, 137. That Levitt may not be able to identify all of the activities due to the generic similarity of such activities as performed and promoted by Bloem. 138. That said wrongful actions by Bloem included, but are not limited to, malicious and wrongful conspiracy with Sanney and Felton, and each other, and/or Defendant Does and others, to harm Levitt 139. That due to the concert of action by Bloem, with Sanney and Felton, and/or the Doe Defendants and others, Bloem is liable to Levitt for his damages and losses, even if there was no direct relationship to the activity conducted by Bloem. 140. That as a distinct and proximate result of these wrongful actions by Bloem, with Sanney and Felton, and/or the Doe Defendants and others, Levitt has sustained, and will continue to sustain into the future, the damages and losses set forth herein. 141. That Bloem's actions were taken in bad faith, maliciously, and in knowing and reckless disregard of Levit's rights and wellbeing. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Bloem for damages in an amount that adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Bloom for exemplary damages in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attomey fees. 18COUNT XI— FALSE LIGHT 142. Levitt incorporates each of the foregoing paragraphs as though restated in full herein. 143. In an article published on February 19,2015, written by Yanick-Jonaitis, Bloem “said Felton’s legal team with [sic] be talking to their client and discussing next steps. Bloem said they feel some of the media techniques Levitt has used to market himself, including creating a ‘Top Lawyer’ prize he then awarded to himself, are unethical according to the guidelines that govern the legal profession. It's possible they may persue [sic] those issues with the Attomey Grievance Committes.” 144. Without justification or any authorization from Levitt, Bloem made and published the above-mentioned, and other, statements, 145. These statements were unreasonable and highly objectionable by attributing to Levitt characteristics, conduct, or beliefs thal were false, and thereby placed him in a false public light. 146. Nonetheless, Bloem, having known or reasonably should have known of this falsity, acted in reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statements, and published the same, intending to and placing Levitt in a false light. 147. These statements caused great damage to Levit, as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Bloem, for damages in an amount that adequately compensates him for his damages and losses, together with costs, interest and attomey fees, WHEREFORE, Levitt prays for judgment in his favor and against Bloem, for exemplary damages in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00, together with costs, interest and attorney fees. Dated: April 23, 2015 19