PL Motion For Leave To File Fourth Amended Complaint - Filed

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND
WILLIAM MYRE, and SHERI MYRE, as co-personal

representatives of the estate of TATE MYRE, Deceased,
and WILLIAM MYRE, and SHERI MYRE, individually; Case No.: 22-192262-NO
Hon. Rae Lee Chabot
CRAIG SHILLING, and JILL SOAVE,
as co-personal representatives of the Estate of
JUSTIN CHARLES SHILLING, Deceased; and
CRAIG SHILLING, and JILL SOAVE, individually;
CHAD GREGORY, as Next Friend for

KEEGAN GREGORY, a minor, and CHAD GREGORY
and MEGHAN GREGORY, individually;
LAUREN ALIANO, as Next Friend for SOPHIA KEMPEN, a minor

and GRACE KEMPEN, a minor, and LAUREN ALIANO, individually;
LAURA LUCAS, as Next Friend for ASHLYNNE SUTTON, a minor,

and LAURA LUCAS, individually.
Plaintiffs,
Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

v.
PAM PARKER FINE, SHAWN HOPKINS,

NICHOLAS EJAK, JACQUELINE KUBINA,
BECKY MORGAN and ALLISON KARPINSKI,
KIMBERLY POTTS, in their individual
capacities, and ETHAN CRUMBLEY, and
JENNIFER CRUMBLEY, JAMES CRUMBLEY
and OXFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
Defendants.
__________________________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES, the Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, JOHNSON LAW,
PLC, and for their Motion for Leave to File their Fourth Amended Complaint, state
the following:
1. This cause of action arises out of the November 30, 2021, Oxford High
School shooting tragedy that resulted in the death for four minors and serious
injuries to many others.
2. The parties have appeared before this Court on numerous occasions
regarding discovery disputes.
3. Despite this Court having ordered the defendants and non-parties to
produce witnesses, documents, and videos from the date of incident, there has been
very minimal compliance.
4. Recently, the plaintiffs’ counsel had an opportunity to review the
school shooting video at the prosecutor’s office which revealed the identity of an
additional defendant, Kimberly Potts, who was employed as a security officer/armed
guard at Oxford High School. Ms. Potts is a retired law enforcement officer who is

seen in the video casually walking around in the hallway during active shooting.
She saw Tate Myre’s body on the floor with him bleeding to death and informed the
investigators that she thought he had “really good make-up” on. She informed the
investigators that when the shooting started, she assumed that it was an “ALICE”
drill.
5. The video shows Ms. Potts opening the bathroom door but not entering
the bathroom where Justin Shilling, Keegan Gregory, and Ethan Crumbley were
present. This event occurred before EC had shot Justin Shilling. Ms. Potts clearly
had an opportunity to intervene and prevent Justin’s death. Ms. Potts informed the
2
investigators that she did not see anything or hear anything which is why she
decided not to enter the bathroom.
6. The video also shows that when EC came out of the bathroom after
having shot Justin and noticed police officers entering the building and walking
towards him, he placed his handgun on top of a garbage can, kneeled, raised his
hands in the air, and uneventfully surrendered. This fact conclusively establishes
that EC would have surrendered had Ms. Potts entered the bathroom and
confronted EC before he shot Justin and threatened to shoot Keegan Gregory.
7. MCR 2.118(A)(2) provides that a party may amend a pleading only by
leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party and leave shall be
freely given when justice so requires.
8. Attached as Exhibit 1 is Plaintiffs proposed fourth amended
complaint which will be filed immediately upon this Court granting the said motion.

The proposed amended complaint adds these claims and corrects technical errors in
paragraph and Count numbering.
9. Up until this point, the counsel for plaintiffs and defendants have been
able to mutually agree that any amendments to the claims originally pled will be
subject to the same motion for summary disposition that defendants have filed so to
avoid any delay in the proceedings. This writer anticipates that a similar agreement
which will be reached as it relates to Ms. Potts.
10. Plaintiffs counsel requested concurrence in the relief requested on
August 1, 2022 but did not receive a response.
3
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to
grant their motion and allow the Plaintiffs to File their Fourth Amended
Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSON LAW, PLC
By: /s/ Ven R. Johnson

VEN R. JOHNSON (P39219)
JEFFREY T. STEWART (P24138)
KANWARPREET S. KHAHRA (P80253)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
535 Griswold St., Suite 2632
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 324-8300
kkhahra@venjohnsonlaw.com
Dated: August 3, 2022
4
BRIEF IN SUPPORT
I. THIS COURT SHOULD ALLOW THE PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND

THEIR COMPLAINT BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
WHICH THE DEFENDANTS AND NON-PARTIES SHOULD HAVE
PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT
ORDER.
MCR 2.118(A)(2) provides that a party may amend a pleading only by leave of
the court or by written consent of the adverse party and leave shall be freely given
when justice so requires. A motion to amend pleadings ordinarily should be granted
and denied only for particularized reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, and futility of amendment; the leave sought should,
as the rule requires, be freely given. Cummings v Detroit (1986) 151 Mich App 347,
390 NW2d 666, app den (1986) 426 Mich 851; Davis v. Chrysler Corp., 151 Mich.

App. 463, 391 N.W.2d 376, 1986 Mich. App. LEXIS 2657 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986), app.
denied, 428 Mich. 869 (Mich. 1987).
The Court of Appeals will not reverse a trial court’s decision on a motion to
amend a complaint absent an abuse of discretion that results in injustice. Taylor v.
Detroit, 182 Mich. App. 583, 452 N.W.2d 826, 1989 Mich. App. LEXIS 695 (Mich. Ct.
App. 1989), app. denied, 436 Mich. 875, 1990 Mich. LEXIS 2816 (Mich. 1990). A
trial judge, in denying a motion to amend a pleading, must specify a particularized
reason for its denial; failure to do so constitutes error requiring a reversal unless
the amendment would be futile. Terhaar v. Hoekwater, 182 Mich. App. 747, 452
5
N.W.2d 905, 1990 Mich. App. LEXIS 59 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990). On motion to amend
pleadings, the court is required to ignore substantive merits of claims or defense
unless it is legally insufficient on its face, thereby rendering it futile to allow
amendment. Ben P. Fyke & Sons, Inc. v. Gunter Co., 390 Mich. 649, 213 N.W.2d
134, 1973 Mich. LEXIS 168 (Mich. 1973).
There has been no delay from the plaintiffs in seeking the amendment. In
fact, this motion for leave to file an amendment complaint was prepared
immediately after plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed the school shooting video at the
prosecutor’s office and became aware of Ms. Potts involvement and statements to
the investigators, which have still not been produced despite this Court having
ordered the defendants and non-parties to do so. The plaintiffs’ ability to fully
understand the facts surrounding this unspeakable tragedy and identify potential
defendants has been hindered by the lack of compliance by the defendants and non-

parties in producing court Ordered investigation materials.
The plaintiffs fully understand and appreciate that the defendants have filed
a motion for summary disposition on the issue of governmental immunity which
will be decided sometime in October and have no objection in having that motion
apply to new Ms. Potts, if needed. In the interest of justice, the Plaintiffs
respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant their motion and allow them to
file the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached to this
motion as Exhibit 1.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to
6
grant their motion and allow the Plaintiffs to file their amended complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSON LAW, PLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff
535 Griswold St., Suite 2632
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 324-8300
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument

was served upon the attorneys of record of all parties to the

above cause at their respective addresses disclosed on the
pleadings on the 3rd day of August 2022 by:
US Mail Delivery Hand Delivery

Overnight Courier Facsimile
E-Correspondence E-File & Serve
By:/s/ Courtney Tucker

Courtney Tucker
7
8
Exhibit 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Hon. Rae Lee Chabot



Plaintiffs,
v.

KIMBERLY POTTS, in their individual capacities,
and ETHAN CRUMBLEY, and JENNIFER
CRUMBLEY and JAMES CRUMBLEY,
OXFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS.
Defendants.
__________________________________________________/
FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COMES, the Plaintiffs, WILLIAM MYRE and SHERI MYRE, individually and as
co-personal representatives of the Estate of TATE MYRE, Deceased; CRAIG SHILLING and
JILL SOAVE, individually, and as co-personal representatives of the Estate of JUSTIN
9
CHARLES SHILLING; CHAD GREGORY, as Next Friend for KEEGAN GREGORY, a minor,
and CHAD GREGORY and MEGHAN GREGORY, individually; LAUREN ALIANO, as Next
Friend for SOPHIA KEMPEN, a minor, and GRACE KEMPEN, a minor; and LAUREN
ALIANO individually; LAURA LUCAS, as Next Friend for ASHLYNNE SUTTON, a minor,
and LAURA LUCAS, individually; by and through their attorneys, JOHNSON LAW, PLC, and
for their Fourth Amended Complaint and cause of action against the Defendants, state the
following:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The acts or omissions which form the basis for this Complaint occurred in the
County of Oakland, State of Michigan.
2. The amount in controversy is in excess of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND
($25,000), exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney fee.
3. Venue is proper pursuant to MCL 600.1629 as the events giving rise to this claim

occurred here and all plaintiffs and defendants either reside or transact business in Oakland
County.
THE PLAINTIFFS
4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, TATE MYRE (“TATE”) was a minor
who lived with his parents, WILLIAM (“BUCK”) MYRE and SHERI MYRE (“SHERI”), who
have been duly appointed as co-personal representatives of TATE’S Estate.
5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, JUSTIN SHILLING (“JUSTIN”) was a
minor who lived with his mother, JILL SOAVE. Both parents, CRAIG SHILLING (“CRAIG”)
and JILL SOAVE (“JILL”) have been duly appointed as co-personal representatives of
JUSTIN’S Estate.
10
6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, KEEGAN GREGORY (“KEEGAN”), a
minor, lived with his parents. CHAD GREGORY (“CHAD”) has been appointed as Next Friend
for KEEGAN GREGORY.
7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, SOPHIA KEMPEN (“SOPHIA”) and
GRACE KEMPEN (“GRACE”), were minors who lived with their mother, LAUREN ALIANO
(“LAUREN”), who has been appointed as Next Friend for SOPHIA KEMPEN and GRACE
KEMPEN.
8. At all times relevant to this Complaint, ASHLYNNE SUTTON
(“ASHLYNNE”), a minor, lived with her mother, LAURA LUCAS (“LAURA”), who is being
appointed as Next Friend for ASHLYNNE SUTTON, with the filing of this Amended
Complaint.
9. All Plaintiffs herein are believed to be residents of Oxford, Oakland County,
Michigan.

(a) THE OXFORD DEFENDANTS
10. Oxford Community Schools ("OCS") is a governmental entity in the state of
Michigan in the business of operating a K-12 educational program in the Oxford, Michigan
community.
11. OCS was, on and before November 30, 2021, the employer of all of the
individual defendants in this case with the exception of Ethan Crumbley, James Crumbley and
Jennifer Crumbley.
12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Oxford High School (“OHS”) was a
secondary school, operating as an integral part of the Oxford Community Schools (“OCS”)
located in Oxford, Oakland County, Michigan.
11
13. At all times relevant to this Complaint, PAM PARKER FINE (“FINE”),
NICHOLAS EJAK (“EJAK”), SHAWN HOPKINS (“HOPKINS”), JACQUELINE KUBINA
(“KUBINA”), BECKY MORGAN (“MORGAN”), ALLISON KARPINSKI (“KARPINSKI”)
and KIMBERLY POTTS (“POTTS”) were employees, or were actual or apparent agents of
OCS, working in the course and scope of their employment or agency at OHS, in Oxford,
Oakland County, Michigan. As such, Oxford Community School is vicariously liable for the
negligence and gross negligence of the aforementioned Defendants.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendants FINE, EJAK, HOPKINS, KUBINA,
MORGAN, and KARPINSKI are residents of Oakland County, Michigan.
15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant EJAK was the Dean of
Students at OHS working in the course and scope of his employment with OCS.
16. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant HOPKINS was a counselor at
OHS, working in the course and scope of his employment with OCS.

17. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant FINE was a counselor at OHS,
working in the course and scope of her employment with OCS.
18. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant KUBINA was a classroom
teacher at OHS, working in the course and scope of her employment with OCS.
19. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant POTTS was a security
officer/armed guard at OHS, working in the course and scope of her employment with OCS.
20. Defendant KUBINA had direct contact with EC on November 29, 2021, when
EC violated multiple school policies, procedures, and rules by searching on the internet
information regarding ammunition for his Sig Sauer handgun used in the fatal shootings of
November 30, 2021, at OHS.
12
21. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant MORGAN, was a classroom
teacher at OHS, working in the course and scope of her employment with OCS.
22. MORGAN had direct contact with EC on November 30, 2021, when she caught
EC violating multiple school policies, procedures, and rules by drawing pictures of his
above-referenced handgun; a bullet; a person shot twice in the chest with blood displayed; and
when he wrote other highly concerning things while in class on a test review paper, instead of
doing his schoolwork.
23. MORGAN had direct contact with EC on November 29, 2021, when EC violated
multiple school policies, procedures, and rules by searching on the internet for information
regarding ammunition for his Sig Sauer handgun used in the fatal shootings of November 30,
2021, at OHS.
24. KARPINSKI had direct contact with EC on November 30, 2021, when she
caught EC violating multiple school policies, procedures, and rules by looking up violent videos

on his phone.
THE CRUMBLEY DEFENDANTS
25. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant, ETHAN CRUMBLEY
(“EC”), a minor, was the perpetrator of the assaults and murders committed on November 30,
2021, at OHS, and lived with his parents in Oxford, Oakland County, Michigan.
26. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant, JAMES CRUMBLEY (“MR.
CRUMBLEY”), was the father of EC, and was a resident of Oxford, Oakland County, Michigan.
27. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant, JENNIFER CRUMBLEY
(“MRS. CRUMBLEY”), was the mother of EC, and was a resident of Oxford, Oakland County,
Michigan.
13
28. EC, MRS. CRUMBLEY and MR. CRUMBLEY are sometimes referred to
collectively in this Complaint as “the Crumbley Defendants.”
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
29. Over the course of the school year 2020-2021, when EC was a freshman, through
approximately June 2021, until such time as he became a sophomore and returned to OHS in
September 2021, EC exhibited some concerning, strange and bizarre behavior which should
have alerted his parents, as well as other people who had extensive contact with him, that he was
suffering from significant psychiatric problems, and that he might have been subject to child
abuse and/or neglect by his parents.
30. In March 2021, EC, on multiple occasions, had texting conversations with his
mother, MRS. CRUMBLEY, while EC was at home and the Crumbleys were away from the
home working. In these text conversations, EC stated that he was afraid that there were demons,
ghosts, and someone else in the home.

31. Despite these concerning potential hallucinations and/or delusions, neither MR.
nor MRS. CRUMBLEY did anything to get an assessment of EC's medical or psychiatric
condition.
32. In May 2021, EC tortured and killed animals, which he videotaped on his cell
phone that was given to him by his parents.
33. One such animal was a bird, whose head EC kept in a jar in his bedroom for
several months, that would have been clearly seen by his parents. Hence, they either knew or
should have known about it.
34. During this period of time, EC was journaling and also shot videos of himself,
wherein he discussed his plan to shoot up the school.
14
35. Likewise, EC was so distraught and upset with his life, in and out of school, that
he stopped doing homework and journaled how shocked he was that his parents neither noticed
nor cared.
36. Throughout this same period of time, EC searched on his computer and/or cell
phone on multiple occasions for “school shootings” and firearms in general. This research was
so extensive that he began receiving notifications as to mental health and the purchase or use of
firearms.
37. This behavior was known or would have been known to his parents, had they
reviewed his search history on his computer and or cell phone. Thus, they knew and/or should
have known of this behavior.
38. Throughout the same period of time, EC researched Nazi propaganda on the
internet on multiple occasions, which also would have been known and/or should have been
known to his parents from his computer and/or phone at home.

39. In the same period of time, EC repeatedly asked his parents to buy him a 9 mm
handgun and take him to a shooting range.
40. In August of 2021, EC took a video that he sent to one of his OHS classmates,
which showed EC holding a gun, and said, “It's time to shoot up the school! JK JK JK." The
gun was his father’s 22 caliber handgun, thus proving that EC had 24/7 access to his parents’
firearms, without limitations or repercussions.
41. As with the other threatening and concerning behaviors described above, this
video and statement were on his computer and/or cell phone, and thus were known or should
have been known to his parents.
42. In October of 2021, a month after EC returned to OHS as a sophomore, EC
15
became very sad about his best friend leaving OHS. The Crumbley parents were aware of this
and knew how upset he was about it.
43. Despite all of the above-described concerning behaviors, and many others, which
should have alerted MR. and MRS. CRUMBLEY to the fact that their son was engaged in some
concerning, violent behavior, and needed an immediate psychiatric evaluation and treatment, the
Crumbley parents failed to obtain such help for EC. Their failure/refusal to get help for EC was
so significant that it rose to the level of child abuse and/or neglect.
44. On November 26, 2021, four days before the OHS shooting, MR. CRUMBLEY
and EC went to a local gun dealer and purchased a Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun (“the
handgun”), which, upon information and belief, they openly referred to as EC’s gun in front of
the salesperson.
45. Later that day EC posted a photo of himself with his new gun.
46. The next day, on or about November 27, 2021, three days before the OHS

shooting, MRS. CRUMBLEY, at EC’s request, took EC to a local gun shooting range so that EC
could fire “his” new handgun, load it with ammunition, practice shooting it, as well as learn its
other operations, including loading, reloading and firing.
47. On the same day, MRS. CRUMBLEY posted a picture of EC and his “new
Christmas present,” clearly referring to the Sig Sauer handgun.
48. Upon information and belief, at the conclusion of the firearm practice, EC’s
handgun was stored in his parents’ bedroom drawer, and either was not locked, or if locked, EC
was given the ability to unlock it; hence, the handgun was made accessible to him 24 hours per
day.
49. Two days later, on Monday, November 29, 2021, the day before the OHS
16
shootings and murders, EC was in the classroom of JACQUELINE KUBINA, who caught EC
looking at ammunition for his gun on his cell phone in violation of a variety of school, rules,
procedures, and policies.
50. Upon information and belief, KUBINA was so concerned by this behavior that
she took a picture on her cell phone of the ammunition that EC was searching.
51. Due to KUBINA’s grave concerns for EC’s and others’ safety, KUBINA took EC
to the counseling office, where EC was left with PARKER FINE.
52. PARKER FINE was given a copy of the photograph taken by KUBINA, showing
the ammunition for EC’s gun. PARKER FINE called MRS. CRUMBLEY to discuss this
concerning behavior and left a voicemail requesting the parents to return her call. Neither parent
returned the call, nor did they discuss EC’s above-referenced violent, concerning behaviors with
PARKER FINE.
53. In addition to EC looking up ammunition on his cell phone, other students saw

EC on November 29, 2021, with shell casings and live ammunition rounds at OHS.
54. The ammunition research, coupled with the refusal of the Crumbley parents to
respond to PARKER FINE, gave her reasonable cause to suspect child abuse and/or neglect.
Hence, PARKER FINE was required under the Michigan's Child Protection Act, MCL 722.623,
et seq, to contact Child Protective Services (“CPS”).
55. The risk posed by EC also required that PARKER FINE notify the police, namely
the OHS liaison officer, Oakland County Detective JASON LOUWAERT, that EC was a victim
of child abuse or neglect, and posed a threat to himself and others.
56. At no time did KUBINA or PARKER FINE report this information to Child
Protective Services or to local law enforcement, as required by the Michigan's Child Protection
17
Act; hence they both violated that law.
57. Instead of returning PARKER FINE’S phone call, MRS. CRUMBLEY texted her
son later that day and asked, “Did you show them a picture of your gun?” “LOL, I’m not gonna
get mad at you, you have to learn to not get caught.”
58. Despite learning about the ammunition search that day, neither MR.
CRUMBLEY nor MRS. CRUMBLEY took any action to secure EC’s handgun, nor did they
intercede in any way relative to taking EC to a counselor, psychiatric facility, emergency room,
or other mental health care provider.
59. The very next day, on Tuesday, November 30, 2021, the day of the shooting, EC
returned to school and was in the classroom of MORGAN, with the handgun and approximately
48 rounds of ammunition in his backpack.
60. EC was doing a Chapter 5 “Test Review” while he was in math class at 8:59 AM.
Instead of utilizing the test document to review for an upcoming test, EC drew a picture of his 9

mm handgun. See Exhibit 1, p 1, which shows the original drawings, followed by EC’s attempts
to change the drawings to hide their sinister content (Exhibit 1, pp 2-3). Immediately
underneath it, he wrote, “The thoughts won't stop. Help me.” To the right of that, he drew a
person who clearly has two gunshot wounds: one in the chest, one in the abdomen with blood
coming from his mouth. To the right of that the statement, he wrote “blood everywhere” and
underneath that, there is a hand-drawn shell casing or bullet. In another part of the same
document, EC drew a laughing face with tears, and wrote “My life is useless” and “The world is
dead.”
61. The drawing and statements were clearly so violent and disturbing; were an
obvious cry for help; and openly expressed EC’s thoughts of violence against himself and/or
18
others.
62. MORGAN became so understandably alarmed by seeing these clearly violent
tendencies and violent behaviors, that she took a picture of same on her cell phone and
forwarded that to counselor SHAWN HOPKINS.
63. KARPINSKI saw EC looking up violent videos that depicted a shooting. She and
MORGAN reported this to HOPKINS.
64. At some point, MORGAN took EC to HOPKINS’ office, but left EC’s backpack
in the classroom, without searching the backpack to ensure there were no weapons inside it.
65. HOPKINS spoke extensively with EC, who denied that there were any problems,
lied, and said that this was all about a videogame he was designing. Clearly, HOPKINS did not
believe this explanation, because of the obviousness of these violent threats; hence HOPKINS
called the Crumbley parents and asked them to come to school for a meeting.
66. MORGAN, HOPKINS and EJAK, believed, based on the drawings and other

information, that EC was having suicidal ideations. This prompted them to call the Crumbley
parents to insist on an immediate meeting.
67. Based on these drawings and statements, as well as the direct knowledge of
PARKER FINE’s involvement with EC the previous day, MORGAN, and/or KARPINSKI
and/or HOPKINS had reasonable cause to suspect child abuse and/or neglect and were required
to report same to CPS and law enforcement, specifically Detective JASON LOUWAERT, the
school liaison officer.
68. Upon information and belief, Defendant, EJAK, retrieved EC’s backpack from
the classroom where it had been left when EC was brought to the counselor. The backpack
contained the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-automatic handgun with 48 live bullets. HOPKINS brought
19
the backpack to the location where EC was being interviewed by school personnel, and restored
the backpack to EC’s possession.
69. Upon information and belief, HOPKINS, in the presence of EJAK, returned the
backpack containing the handgun to EC’s possession without inspecting the contents of the
backpack or turning it over to the liaison officer or other law enforcement officials, pending an
opportunity to conduct a proper and lawful search of the backpack.
70. EJAK and HOPKINS had just cause to either inspect the contents of the
backpack or, if they felt that such cause did not exist, to withhold the backpack from EC until
proper authority could be provided to them to inspect the backpack themselves or have law
enforcement do so.
71. Upon information and belief, once restored to him by HOPKINS, EC maintained
control of his backpack, permitting him to access it and carry out his assaults upon the shooting
victims.

72. The failure to keep the backpack, with the gun in it, from coming back into EC’S
possession was an essential factor in allowing EC to carry out his murderous assaults.
73. Upon information and belief, EC’s parents arrived at the school and a meeting
was held with Defendant HOPKINS and Defendant EJAK, at which EC was present. At that
meeting, the Crumbley parents they were shown the aforesaid drawing.
74. EC’s parents were advised by Defendants HOPKINS and/or EJAK that EC
needed immediate therapy that day.
75. In fact, HOPKINS and EJAK both knew that EC needed immediate psychiatric
intervention and evaluation.
76. The Crumbley parents refused to take EC out of school and obtain for him the
20
intervention that HOPKINS and/or EJAK recommended.
77. The Oxford Defendants knew that the refusal of the parents to address this
emergent medical need was: 1) an explanation of how EC had reached this level of desperation:
2) evidence of child abuse/neglect of the kind that needed to be reported immediately under the
Child Protection Act; and 3) evidence that EC was going to continue to be a grave risk of harm
to himself and others.
78. HOPKINS and/or EJAK then stated that, if the Crumbley parents did not obtain
counseling for EC within 48 hours, the school would contact Child Protective Services.
79. Moreover, HOPKINS and EJAK wanted the Crumbleys to take EC out of school
because of his need for immediate medical attention. But the Crumbleys again refused, using
work obligations as an excuse.
80. At that time, the Oxford Defendants stood in loco parentis as to EC and owed
him the obligation to protect him from his own suicidal ideation and the clear risk that he would

become a murderer, as he did.
81. Defendants HOPKINS and EJAK knew that threatening to call Child Protective
Services within 48 hours, and threatening to remove EC from his home, without actually taking
any action, would create or increase the likelihood that, if EC had violence in mind, he would act
before he lost the opportunity.
82. In making this demand upon the parents, Defendants HOPKINS and EJAK
evidenced their awareness that, at a minimum, EC was a threat to himself and others, and that
failure to address EC’s situation urgently was criminal neglect.
83. This in turn again triggered a requirement under the Michigan Child Protection
Act, i.e., MCL 722.621, et seq.
21
84. After the meeting which Defendants HOPKINS and EJAK attended with EC and
his parents, EC returned to the classroom with his backpack containing the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-
automatic handgun and 48 live bullets.
85. Defendants HOPKINS and EJAK deliberately conducted this meeting to the
exclusion of the school safety liaison officer, thereby preventing him from being present at the
meeting and taking action to prevent the mayhem that followed.
86. The affirmative acts of KUBINA, MORGAN, KARPINSKI, PARKER FINE,
HOPKINS and EJAK, as alleged in the foregoing allegations of this Complaint, greatly
increased the danger posed by EC and rendered the environment for the Plaintiffs and other
students less safe after their acts than before.
87. Upon information and belief, after being allowed to return to his classroom, EC
took his backpack to a school bathroom, loaded ammunition into the Sig Saur 9 mm semi-
automatic handgun and walked out of the bathroom to carry out the mass shooting, which

included the murder of TATE MYRE and JUSTIN SHILLING.
88. At approximately 12:52 p.m., the authorities were notified of an active shooter at
Oxford High School.
89. Upon information and belief, EC’s massacre was halted when he was
apprehended by law enforcement.
90. On December 1, 2021, EC was arraigned and charged as an adult with one count
of terrorism causing death, four counts of first-degree murder, seven counts of assault with intent
to murder, and twelve counts of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
91. By reason of the knowledge that the Oxford Defendants possessed before the
shootings began on November 30, 2021, it was foreseeable by said Defendants that EC would
22
carry out acts of violence on the Plaintiffs and others.
92. The Defendants’ affirmative actions were reckless and put the minor plaintiffs
herein and the decedents herein represented at substantial risk of serious and immediate harm.
93. The Defendants knew or clearly had to know that their actions would endanger
the Plaintiffs herein and other students at Oxford High School.
94. Defendant POTTS was, during the fall semester of the 2021-2022 school year, an
employee of the Oxford Community Schools, working as a security officer/armed guard. Hence,
OCS is vicariously liable for POTTS negligence and gross negligence.
95. Defendant POTTS was, prior to being a security officer/armed guard with the
Oxford Community Schools, Oakland County Sheriff's Deputy who had received training in the
use of firearms and deadly force.
96. Defendant POTTS was authorized to carry a firearm and was armed on
November 30, 2021. In addition, she was provided an on-body camera and a radio.

97. Defendant POTTS knew or should have known that there was an active shooter,
Ethan Crumbley, inside the school as of approximately 12:51p.m., when EC fired his first shot.
98. At that time, Defendant POTTS, should have immediately turned on her body
camera, called for backup and medical assistance, and taken affirmative action to expeditiously
locate and confront EC to prevent harm to other students.
99. Instead of doing the above, for the next approximately four to five minutes, while
the OHS student body were frantically running and hiding from Crumbley, Defendant POTTS as
per her statements to the investigators assumed that it was an “ALICE drill” as opposed to an
actual shooting and casually walked the halls with no apparent sense of urgency.
100. Defendant POTTS saw TATE MYRE lying on the hallway floor bleeding to
23
death and told the investigators that she believed it was still a drill and that TATE used “really
good makeup.”
101. Defendants POTTS’ informed the investigators that she eventually figured out as
she was walking the hallways that this was not a drill, pulled out her firearm and for some
“unknown reason,” went directly to the bathroom where JUSTIN SHILLING, KEEGAN
GREGORY, and ETHAN CRUMBLEY were present.
102. Allegedly, for some “unknown reason,” Defendant POTTS opened the bathroom
door, with gun drawn, and later told the investigators that she did not look inside or hear
anything in the bathroom.
103. As of that time, EC had not shot JUSTIN SHILLING and he was still alive.
104. Defendant POTTS then closed the bathroom door and walked away.
105. Shortly thereafter, EC shot JUSTIN SHILLING and threatened to shoot

KEEGAN GREGORY next.

106. Moments later, KEEGAN ran out of the bathroom and down the hallway.
107. At this time, Defendant POTTS finally turned on her body camera and began
recording the aftermath.
108. EC exited the bathroom and saw OCSD deputies with long guns approaching
him. He got down on his knees, put his firearm on top of the garbage can, had his hands in the
air and surrendered.
109. Notwithstanding her training, Defendant POTTS failed to clear the bathroom as
she had been taught and failed to take appropriate action to prevent the shooting of JUSTIN
SHILLING and the assault upon KEEGAN GREGORY.
110. Defendant POTTS had the opportunity to prevent the shooting of JUSTIN
24
SHILLING and the terrorizing of KEEGAN GREGORY had she taken appropriate action to
inspect, investigate, and clear the bathroom where EC was present.
COUNT I – WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AGAINST THE OXFORD DEFENDANTS

AS TO TATE MYRE BASED ON NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE
111. Plaintiffs, WILLIAM MYRE and SHERI MYRE, as co-personal representatives

of the Estate of TATE MYRE, reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the Complaint as
though fully restated herein.
112. MCL 600.2922, the Wrongful Death Act, provides a cause of action for those
persons specified in the statute, when the acts or omissions of others result in the wrongful death
of a person.
113. Plaintiffs, WILLIAM MYRE and SHERI MYRE, as co-personal representatives

of the Estate of TATE MYRE, deceased, bring this claim on behalf of those persons provided
for in MCL 600.2922.

114. On November 30, 2021, TATE MYRE (“TATE”) was a 16-year-old junior at
Oxford High School.
115. At that time, TATE was physically present at OHS and was aware that his life
was in danger or that he needed to take precautions, such as refraining from attending school
that day.
116. As a direct result of the actions of Defendants, set forth in the foregoing sections
of this complaint, TATE MYRE was shot and killed by EC.
117. The Oxford Defendants had the duty, at all times relevant hereto, to take
reasonable care to be aware of potential threats to the safety of students made known to them in
the course of their employment and to take reasonable measures to prevent an unreasonable risk
25
of harm to students and others on the premises of OHS.
118. The Oxford Defendants stood in loco parentis as to TATE MYRE and owed him
the obligation to protect him from the unreasonable risk of injury posed by EC.
119. The Oxford Defendants breached those duties in the ways and for the reasons set
forth in the foregoing allegations of this complaint.
120. The negligence of the Oxford Defendants was a proximate cause of TATE
MYRE’S death, and as a direct consequence, a proximate cause of the injuries and damages to
those persons entitled to make claim under the Wrongful Death Act.
121. To the extent that the court ultimately determines that this case requires
application of principles of governmental immunity under the statutes and case law of this state
and finds that the facts of this case fail to meet the definitions of gross negligence and “the
proximate cause” as determined by the Supreme Court, the requirement that a plaintiff establish
a higher standard for proximate cause and establish gross negligence in a case involving

governmental actors than would be required of the same plaintiff, on the same facts, in a case
against non-governmental defendants, is unconstitutional in that:
a. it denies the Plaintiffs in this case due process;
b. it denies the Plaintiffs in this case the equal protection of the law.
122. The Oxford Defendants were grossly negligent within the meaning of Michigan
law in that, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing allegations of the complaint, Defendants’
acts constituted, “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether
an injury results.”
123. The gross negligence of the Defendants was the proximate cause of injuries and
damages both to TATE MYRE and, as a consequence and by operation of law, to those persons
26
entitled to make claim by reason of his death.
124. As a direct and proximate result of the TATE’S death, his survivors under the
Wrongful Death Act have suffered the following injuries and damages:
a. loss of the society and companionship of the deceased;
b. loss of future support;
c. loss of other economic benefits that they otherwise would have received.
125. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, TATE MYRE
suffered terror, shock, awareness of his imminent death, excruciating pain, suffering and fear.
126. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants, TATE MYRE
suffered a loss of future earnings and earning capacity over what would have been the balance of
his expected lifetime.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, WILLIAM MYRE and SHERI MYRE, on behalf of the Estate
of TATE MYRE, deceased, and those persons entitled to make claim under the Wrongful Death

Act against defendants, claim judgment in an amount to which those persons, individually and
collectively, are found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, attorneys fees and exemplary
damages.
COUNT II - WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AGAINST ETHAN CRUMBLEY, JAMES

CRUMBLEY, AND JENNIFER CRUMBLEY AS TO TATE MYRE BASED ON
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
127. Plaintiffs, WILLIAM MYRE AND SHERI MYRE, co-personal representatives

of the Estate of TATE MYRE, reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the Complaint as
128. The actions of EC as set forth in the common allegations of this Complaint
27
constituted an assault and battery of TATE MYRE resulting in his death.
129. By virtue of furnishing EC the Sig Sauer handgun, encouraging EC to show it off
and obtain ammunition for it, endorsing his misusing the handgun, so long as he didn’t get
caught, withholding all information from the school officials concerning EC’s mental
disturbance and violent propensities and refusing to pull EC from school when the school
officials demanded it, JAMES CRUMBLEY and JENNIFER CRUMBLEY were acting in
concert with EC and are equally liable with him for his violent assaults and other intentional
torts committed as to the Plaintiffs.
130. As a direct and proximate result of the tortious conduct of the Crumbley
defendants and the resulting death of TATE MYRE, his survivors under the Wrongful Death Act
have suffered the following injuries and damages:

131. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, TATE MYRE
suffered terror, shock, awareness of his imminent death, excruciating pain, suffering and fear.
132. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Crumbley defendants, TATE
MYRE suffered a loss of future earnings and earning capacity over what would have been the
balance of his expected lifetime.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, WILLIAM MYRE and SHERI MYRE, on behalf of the Estate
of TATE MYRE, deceased, and those persons entitled to make claim under the Wrongful Death
Act against EC, claim judgment in an amount to which those persons, individually and
28
collectively, are found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, attorneys fees and exemplary
damages.
COUNT III – WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AGAINST THE OXFORD DEFENDANTS

AS TO JUSTIN SHILLING BASED ON NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE
133. Plaintiffs, CRAIG SHILLING and JILL SOAVE, as co-personal representatives

of the Estate of JUSTIN SHILLING, reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the Complaint as
134. MCL 600.2922, the Wrongful Death Act, provides a cause of action for those
persons specified in the statute, when the acts or omissions of others result in the wrongful death
of a person.

of the Estate of JUSTIN SHILLING, deceased, bring this claim on behalf of those persons
provided for in MCL 600.2922.

136. On November 30, 2021, JUSTIN SHILLING (“JUSTIN”), was a 17-year-old
junior at Oxford High School.
137. At that time, JUSTIN was physically present at OHS and was aware that his life
was in danger or that he needed to take precautions, such as refraining from attending school
that day.
138. As a direct result of the actions of Defendants, set forth in the foregoing sections
of this complaint, JUSTIN SHILLING was shot and killed by EC.
139. At all times relevant hereto, the Oxford Defendants had a duty to take reasonable
care and to be aware of potential threats to the safety of students made known to them in the
course of their employment and to take reasonable measures to prevent an unreasonable risk of
29
harm to students and others on the premises of OHS.
140. The Oxford Defendants stood in loco parentis as to JUSTIN SHILLING and
owed him the obligation to protect him from the unreasonable risk of injury posed by EC.
141. The Oxford Defendants breached those duties in the ways and for the reasons set
forth in the foregoing allegations of this complaint.
142. The negligence of the Oxford Defendants was a proximate cause of JUSTIN
SHILLING’s death, and as a direct consequence, a proximate cause of the injuries and damages
to those persons entitled to make claim under the Wrongful Death Act.

145. The gross negligence of the Defendants was the proximate cause of injuries and
damages both to JUSTIN SHILLING and, as a consequence and by operation of law, to those
30
persons entitled to make claim by reason of his death.
146. As a direct and proximate result of the JUSTIN’S death, his survivors under the
Wrongful Death Act have suffered the following injuries and damages:
147. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, JUSTIN
SHILLING suffered terror, shock, awareness of his imminent death, excruciating pain, suffering
and fear.
148. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants, JUSTIN
SHILLING suffered a loss of future earnings and earning capacity over what would have been
the balance of his expected lifetime.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, CRAIG SHILLING, and JILL SOAVE, on behalf of the

Estate of JUSTIN SHILLING, deceased, and those persons entitled to make claim under the
Wrongful Death Act against Defendants, claim judgment in an amount to which those persons,
individually and collectively, are found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, attorneys fees
and exemplary damages.
COUNT IV - WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AGAINST ETHAN CRUMBLEY, JAMES

CRUMBLEY, AND JENNIFER CRUMBLEY AS TO JUSTIN SHILLING BASED ON
ASSAULT AND BATTERY

of the Estate of JUSTIN SHILLING, reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint as
31
150. The actions of EC as set forth in the common allegations of this complaint
constituted an assault and battery of JUSTIN SHILLING resulting in his death.
and obtain ammunition for it, endorsing his misusing the handgun, so long as he didn’t get
disturbance and violent propensities and refusing to pull EC from school when the school
152. As a direct and proximate result of the tortious conduct of the Crumbley
defendants and the resulting death of JUSTIN SHILLING, his survivors under the Wrongful
Death Act have suffered the following injuries and damages:
a. loss of the society and companionship of the deceased.

b. loss of future support.
153. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, JUSTIN
SHILLING suffered terror, shock, awareness of his imminent death, excruciating pain, suffering
and fear.
154. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Crumbley defendants, JUSTIN
SHILLING suffered a loss of future earnings and earning capacity over what would have been
the balance of his expected lifetime.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, CRAIG SHILLING and JILL SOAVE, as co-personal
representatives of the Estate of JUSTIN SHILLING, deceased, and those persons entitled to
32
make claim under the Wrongful Death Act against EC, claim judgment in an amount to which
those persons, individually and collectively, are found to be entitled, together with interest,
costs, attorneys fees and exemplary damages.
COUNT V – CLAIMS AS TO KEEGAN GREGORY, CHAD GREGORY, AND

MEGHAN GREGORY AGAINST THE OXFORD DEFENDANTS BASED ON
NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE
155. Plaintiff, KEEGAN GREGORY, by his Next Friend, CHAD GREGORY,

reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint as though fully restated herein.
156. On November 30, 2021, the minor Plaintiff, KEEGAN GREGORY

(“KEEGAN”), was a student at Oxford High School during the shootings being carried out by
Defendant EC.
157. KEEGAN was hiding in one of the bathrooms in a stall with another student,
Justin Shilling, when EC entered the bathroom, discovered both JUSTIN and KEEGAN in the
bathroom stall and fatally shot Justin in the head. As this was happening, KEEGAN was texting

his family and describing these horrific events.
158. EC then ordered KEEGAN out of the stall and onto the floor, whereupon
KEEGAN instead dashed out the bathroom door to safety.
159. As a direct and proximate consequence of the experience of seeing JUSTIN

SHILLING murdered and nearly being murdered himself, KEEGAN has suffered severe anxiety
and emotional distress and is now suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
160. This has manifested in his inability to sleep, recurrent nightmares, fear of
attending school, inability to enjoy movies and games that reprise the shooting incident at
Oxford and fear of any loud, sudden noises such as fireworks. These damages are expected to
continue into the undetermined future.
33
161. As to the Oxford Defendants, their conduct was negligent and/or grossly
negligent because:
a. the Oxford Defendants stood in loco parentis as to KEEGAN and owed him
the obligation to protect him from the unreasonable risk of injury posed by
EC.
b. they had a duty to KEEGAN to protect him from the conduct of EC that said
Defendants knew or should have known was likely to occur.
c. it was foreseeable that, if EC caused great bodily harm to others, anyone in

the immediate vicinity would suffer great emotional harm.
d. EC caused great emotional harm to KEEGAN, both by making him witness

the murder of Justin Shilling but also by nearly murdering KEEGAN.
e. the negligence of the Oxford Defendants was a proximate cause of the

injuries and damages to KEEGAN.

a. it denies the Plaintiffs in this case due process.
34
164. The gross negligence of the Oxford Defendants was the proximate cause of the
injuries and damages to KEEGAN GREGORY.
165. As a direct and proximate result of the damages to their son, Plaintiffs, CHAD
GREGORY AND MEGHAN GREGORY, have suffered and will continue to suffer losses into
the future, due to the injuries and damages suffered by their Plaintiff child, including, but not
limited to:
a. the reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services

received by their child.
b. the reasonable value of the society, companionship, and relationship with their
child of which they have been deprived; and

c. all other damages that may be learned through the course of discovery.
166. To the extent that the claims on behalf of CHAD GREGORY and MEGHAN
GREGORY extend beyond what the law permits with respect to consortium claims for parents
arising from injuries to children, Plaintiffs maintain that this law is no longer good law and
should be overturned.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, KEEGAN GREGORY, by his Next Friend, Chad Gregory,
and CHAD GREGORY and MEGHAN GREGORY, individually, claim judgment against the
Oxford Defendants in an amount to which they are found to be entitled, together with interest,
35
COUNT IVI – ASSAULT AND NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS AGAINST ETHAN
CRUMBLEY, JAMES CRUMBLEY, AND JENNIFER CRUMBLEY AS TO KEEGAN
GREGORY, CHAD GREGORY, AND MEGHAN GREGORY
167. Plaintiff, KEEGAN GREGORY, by his Next Friend, CHAD GREGORY and
MEGHAN GREGORY, individually, reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint as
constituted an assault upon KEEGAN GREGORY.
and obtain ammunition for it, endorsing his misusing the handgun as long as he didn’t get
disturbance and violent propensities and their refusal to pull EC from school when the school

170. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, KEEGAN
GREGORY suffered terror, shock, awareness of his imminent death, excruciating pain, suffering
and fear.
171. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant EC, KEEGAN
GREGORY suffered severe emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep disturbance,
nightmares, fear of attending school, inability to enjoy movies and games that reprise the
shooting incident at Oxford and fear of any loud, sudden noises such as fireworks, and can be
expected to continue to suffer such damages into the undetermined future.
172. As a direct and proximate result of the damages to their son, Plaintiffs, CHAD
36
GREGORY and MEGHAN GREGORY, has suffered and will continue to suffer losses into the
future due to the injuries and damages suffered by their Plaintiff children, including, but not
limited to:

received by their children;
b. the reasonable value of the society, companionship, and relationship with

their children of which they have been deprived; and
173. To the extent that the claims on behalf of CHAD GREGORY and MEGHAN
GREGORY extend beyond what the law permits with respect to consortium claims for parents
arising from injuries to children, Plaintiffs maintain that this law is no longer good law and
should be overturned.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, KEEGAN GREGORY, by his Next Friend, CHAD

GREGORY, and CHAD GREGORY and MEGHAN GREGORY, individually, claim judgment
against the Crumbley defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to which they are found to
be entitled, together with interest, costs, attorneys fees and exemplary damages.
COUNT VII – CLAIMS AS TO SOPHIA KEMPEN, GRACE KEMPEN AND LAUREN

ALIANO AGAINST THE OXFORD DEFENDANTS BASED ON NEGLIGENCE AND
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
174. Plaintiffs, SOPHIA KEMPEN and GRACE KEMPEN, by their Next Friend,
Lauren Aliano, and Lauren Aliano, individually, reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the
complaint as though fully restated herein.
175. On November 30, 2021, the minor plaintiffs SOPHIA KEMPEN (“SOPHIA”)
and GRACE KEMPEN (“GRACE”) were students at Oxford High School during the shootings
37
being carried out by Defendant EC.
176. Both GRACE and SOPHIA were hiding in classrooms with their classmates
while EC was systematically murdering four people and injuring six others.
177. As a direct and proximate consequence of knowing that they had been close to
death and that several of their classmates had been killed or injured, both SOPHIA and GRACE
have suffered severe emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep disturbance,
nightmares, fear of attending school, inability to enjoy movies and games that reprise the
shooting incident at Oxford and fear of any loud, sudden noises such as fireworks, and can be
expected to continue to suffer such damages into the undetermined future.
178. As to the Oxford Defendants, their conduct was negligent because:
a. the Oxford Defendants stood in loco parentis as to GRACE and SOPHIA and
owed them the obligation to protect them from the unreasonable risk of injury
posed by EC;

b. they had a duty to GRACE and SOPHIA to protect them from the conduct of
EC that said Defendants knew or should have known was likely to occur;

the immediate vicinity would suffer great emotional harm;
d. EC caused great emotional harm to GRACE and SOPHIA, both by subjecting

them to the knowledge that their classmates were likely being killed and that
GRACE and SOPHIA could easily be injured and/or killed as well, all as a
direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Oxford Defendants as set
forth in the foregoing allegations of this complaint;
e. the negligence of the Oxford Defendants was a proximate cause of the
38
injuries and damages to GRACE and SOPHIA.
acts constituted “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether

an injury results."
injuries and damages to SOPHIA and GRACE.
182. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Oxford Defendants,
SOPHIA and GRACE have suffered severe emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder,
sleep disturbance, nightmares, fear of attending school, inability to enjoy movies and games that
reprise the shooting incident at Oxford and fear of any loud, sudden noises such as fireworks,
and can be expected to continue to suffer such damages into the undetermined future.
LAUREN ALLIANO has suffered and will continue to suffer losses into the future due to the
39
injuries and damages suffered by her Plaintiff children, including, but not limited to:
a. The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services

received by their children;
b. The reasonable value of the society, companionship and relationship with

their children of which they have been deprived; and
c. All other damages that may be learned through the course of discovery.
184. To the extent that the claims on behalf of LAUREN ALIANO extend beyond
what the law permits with respect to consortium claims for parents arising from injuries to
children, Plaintiff maintains that this law is no longer good law and should be overturned.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, SOPHIA KEMPEN AND GRACE KEMPEN, by their Next
Friend, Lauren Aliano, and LAUREN ALIANO, individually, claim judgment against the
Oxford Defendants in an amount to which they are found to be entitled, together with interest,

COUNT VIII - CLAIMS AGAINST ETHAN CRUMBLEY, JAMES CRUMBLEY AND
JENNIFER CRUMBLEY AS TO SOPHIA KEMPEN GRACE KEMPEN AND LAUREN
ALIANO FOR ASSAULT
185. Plaintiffs, SOPHIA KEMPEN and GRACE KEMPEN, by their Next Friend,
Lauren Aliano, and LAUREN ALIANO, individually, reincorporate the foregoing allegations of
the complaint as though fully restated herein.
constituted an assault upon SOPHIA KEMPEN and GRACE KEMPEN.
40
188. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, SOPHIA
KEMPEN and GRACE KEMPEN, suffered terror, shock, awareness of his imminent death,
excruciating pain, suffering and fear.
189. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant EC, SOPHIA KEMPEN
and GRACE KEMPEN suffered severe emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep
disturbance, nightmares, fear of attending school, inability to enjoy movies and games that
190. As a direct and proximate result of the damages to her daughters, Plaintiff,

LAUREN ALIANO has suffered and will continue to suffer losses into the future due to the

received by her daughters;
b. the reasonable value of the society, companionship, and relationship with her
daughters of which she has been deprived; and
191. To the extent that the claims on behalf of LAUREN ALIANO extend beyond
what the law permits with respect to consortium claims for parents arising from injuries to
children, Plaintiffs maintain that this law is no longer good law and should be overturned.
41
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, SOPHIA KEMPEN and GRACE KEMPEN, by their Next
Friend, LAUREN ALIANO, and LAUREN ALIANO, individually, claim judgment against the
Crumbley defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to which they are found to be entitled,
together with interest, costs, attorneys fees and exemplary damages.
COUNT IX – CLAIMS AS TO ASHLYNNE SUTTON AND LAURA LUCAS AGAINST

THE OXFORD DEFENDANTS BASED ON NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS
NEGLIGENCE
192. Plaintiffs, ASHLYNNE SUTTON, by her Next Friend, LAURA LUCAS, and
LAURA LUCAS, individually, reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint as
193. On November 30, 2021, the minor Plaintiff, ASHLYNNE SUTTON

(“ASHLYNNE”), was a student at Oxford High School during the shootings being carried out
by Defendant EC.
194. ASHLYNNE was hiding in the girl’s bathroom when EC was systematically

murdering four people and injuring six others.
195. At one point, ASHLYNNE stepped outside in the hallway and saw bodies of two
girls laying on top of each other who had been shot. Hanna St. Julian was one the two girls who
did not survive the assault.
196. After witnessing this traumatic event, ASHLYNNE ran back inside the bathroom
and locked her in the stall marked, “out of order.” She remained in that stall until a police officer
kicked open the stall and pointed the gun at her.
197. ASHLYNNE was subsequently rescued by the officer when he realized she was a
potential victim of the shooting and a victim of the terror being inflicted by EC.
42
198. As a direct and proximate consequence of knowing that she had been close to
death and that several of their classmates had been killed or injured, ASHLYNNE has suffered
severe emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep disturbance, nightmares, fear of
attending school, inability to enjoy movies and games that reprise the shooting incident at
Oxford and fear of any loud, sudden noises such as fireworks, and can be expected to continue
to suffer such damages into the undetermined future.
199. As to the Oxford Defendants, their conduct was negligent because:
a. the Oxford Defendants stood in loco parentis as to ASHLYNNE and owed

her the obligation to protect her from the unreasonable risk of injury posed by
EC;
b. they had a duty to ASHLYNNE to protect her from the conduct of EC that
said Defendants knew or should have known was likely to occur;

the immediate vicinity would suffer great emotional harm;
d. ASHLYNNE suffered great emotional harm to, resulting from her the
knowledge that her classmates were likely being killed and that she could
easily be injured or killed as well, all as a direct and proximate result of the
negligence of the Oxford Defendants as set forth in the foregoing allegations
of this complaint;
e. the negligence of the Oxford Defendants was the proximate cause of the
injuries and damages to ASHLYNNE.
f. In the alternative, the negligence of the Oxford Defendants was a proximate

cause of the injuries and damages to ASHLYNNE.
43
acts constituted “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether
an injury results."

injuries and damages to ASHLYNNE.
ASHLYNNE has suffered severe emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep
LAURA LUCAS has suffered and will continue to suffer losses into the future due to the
44
a. The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services
received by her child;
b. The reasonable value of the society, companionship, and relationship with her
child of which she has been deprived; and
c. All other damages that may be learned through the course of discovery.
205. To the extent that the claims on behalf of LAURA LUCAS extend beyond what
the law permits with respect to consortium claims for parents arising from injuries to children,
Plaintiff maintains that this law is no longer good law and should be overturned.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, ASHLYNNE SUTTON, by her Next Friend, LAURA
LUCAS, and LAURA LUCAS, individually, claim judgment against the Oxford Defendants in
an amount to which they are found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, attorneys fees
COUNT X - CLAIMS AGAINST ETHAN CRUMBLEY, JAMES CRUMBLEY, AND

JENNIFER CRUMBLEY AS TO ASHLYNNE SUTTON AND LAURA LUCAS FOR
ASSAULT
206. Plaintiffs, ASHLYNNE SUTTON, by their Next Friend, LAURA LUCAS, and
LAURA LUCAS, individually, reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint as
constituted an assault upon ASHLYNNE SUTTON.
45
209. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant EC, ASHLYNNE
SUTTON, suffered terror, shock, severe emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep
210. As a direct and proximate result of the damages to her daughter, Plaintiff,
LAURA LUCAS, has suffered and will continue to suffer losses into the future due to the
injuries and damages suffered by her child, including, but not limited to:
received by her daughters;

b. the reasonable value of the society, companionship, and relationship with her
daughters of which she has been deprived; and
211. To the extent that the claims on behalf of LAURA LUCAS extend beyond what
the law permits with respect to consortium claims for parents arising from injuries to children,
Plaintiffs maintain that this law is no longer good law and should be overturned.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, ASHLYNNE SUTTON, by her Next Friend, LAURA
LUCAS, and LAURA LUCAS, individually, claim judgment against the Crumbley defendants,
jointly and severally, in an amount to which they are found to be entitled, together with interest,
46
COUNT XI – CLAIMS UNDER CHILD PROTECTION ACT
212. All Plaintiffs reincorporate foregoing allegations of the complaint as though fully
restated herein.
213. MCL 722.623, the Child Protection Act, places upon certain persons the
obligation to report abuse and neglect that the persons reasonably suspect may be occurring.
214. Each and every one of the Oxford Defendants was a required reporter within the
definitions set forth in the statute.
215. Each and every one of the Oxford Defendants had information sufficient to give
them reasonable cause to suspect that EC was being abused and/or neglected by his parents
MRS. CRUMBLEY and MR. CRUMBLEY.
216. Defendants HOPKINS and EJAK on November 30, 2021, before EC was allowed
to walk out of the meeting with them and his parents and begin his shooting spree, knew that EC
had severe mental disturbance that his parents were refusing to address.

217. As alleged in the common allegations, defendants HOPKINS and EJAK knew
that the situation was so serious that they threatened to contact Child Protective Services
themselves if help was not obtained for EC within 48 hours.
218. By virtue of the fact that MR. CRUMBLEY and MRS. CRUMBLEY had refused
to take their son out of school that day despite the specific demand on the part of HOPKINS and
EJAK that they do so, said Defendants had ample reason to suspect that action would not be
taken by the parents to obtain immediate treatment for their son.
219. The statements made on the note and drawing found by MORGAN on November
30, photographed by her, and made available to defendants HOPKINS and EJAK were sufficient
to indicate an unreasonable risk that EC would harm himself and/or others.
47
220. The Oxford Defendants had been presented with evidence that EC had attempted
to purchase ammunition online on November 29, had drawn images of guns and bleeding
bodies, annotated with desperate statements about his mental state.
221. These Defendants had specific experience with suicides among students at
Oxford High school in the preceding five years, in that there had been at least two students who
had taken their own lives among the OHS student body. This experience heightened their aware
ness of the risk that EC would take his own life and/or the lives of others.
222. All of this information was more than sufficient, when coupled with the parents’
indifference and lack of willingness to address the matter immediately, to cause the Oxford
Defendants to suspect that EC was being the neglected and that the immediate and subsequent
reporting requirements set forth in the Child Protection Law needed to be complied with.
223. MCL 722.633 provides that a mandatory reporter who fails to report suspected
abuse or neglect is “civilly liable for the damages proximately caused by the failure.”

224. The failure to report by the Oxford Defendants was a proximate cause of the
injuries and damages suffered by the plaintiffs herein.
and finds that the law with respect to the Child Protection Act as applied to governmental actors
requires that Plaintiffs establish that failure to report as required by the Act requires that this
violation be found “the proximate cause,” the requirement that a plaintiff establish a higher
standard for proximate cause and establish gross negligence in a case involving governmental
actors than would be required of the same plaintiff, on the same facts, in a case against non-
governmental defendants, is unconstitutional in that:
48
226. Alternatively, the failure to report by the Oxford Defendants was the proximate
cause of the injuries and damages suffered by the plaintiffs herein.
WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs claim damages against the Oxford Defendants in an amount
to which they are found to be entitled, together with costs, interest, attorneys fees and exemplary
damages.
COUNT XII – ADDITIONAL CLAIMS AGAINST JAMES AND JENNIFER

CRUMBLEY BASED ON NEGLIGENT AND RECKLESS CONDUCT
227. All Plaintiffs hereby reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint as
228. In the months prior to the shootings of November 30, 2021, Defendants MR.
CRUMBLEY and MRS. CRUMBLEY had actual knowledge of mental disturbance in EC due

to:
a. their knowledge of text messages and other communications EC’s belief that
there were intruders, ghosts and/or demons in the home;
b. the fact that he was abusing and torturing animals and keeping a severed
bird’s head in his room;
c. the fact that EC was isolated, without friends, and that one of his only friends
had recently moved away.
229. Notwithstanding this knowledge, neither MR. nor MRS. CRUMBLEY did
anything to obtain counselling or other emotional support for EC.
230. Instead, MR. and MRS. CRUMBLEY determined to purchase a lethal semi-
49
automatic handgun and make it freely available to EC.
231. The conduct of MR. CRUMBLEY in purchasing a lethal weapon for EC and the
conduct of both MR. and MRS. CRUMBLEY in making it available to him without supervision,
and leaving it in an unlocked location readily accessible to EC, was negligent as to all plaintiffs
herein for the following reasons:
a. MR. CRUMBLEY purchased the weapon and filled out all required forms
relative to the purchase as though he were the purchaser and intended end-
user of the weapon when he knew that, in fact, he was purchasing it for a
minor;
b. the necessary forms, including information with respect to the fitness of the
purchaser to purchase a weapon, were filled out with regard to MR.
CRUMBLEY, thus providing information not about the intended owner of the
gun, EC, but MR. CRUMBLEY;

c. MR. CRUMBLEY knew that his son would not have been permitted to
purchase the gun for himself nor be the owner of the weapon when he made
the purchase;
d. neither MR. CRUMBLEY nor MRS. CRUMBLEY secured the weapon by

locking it into a secure location or, at a minimum, utilizing a trigger lock or
other means of rendering the gun unusable by EC;
e. neither MRS. CRUMBLEY nor MR. CRUMBLEY informed school officials

on November 30 before EC was released from the meeting with his backpack
containing the gun, that in fact EC had access to a gun and knew how to
operate it by virtue of, among other things, having been taken to a gun range
50
by MRS. CRUMBLEY in the days before the shooting;
f. MR. CRUMBLEY evidenced his awareness of the risk that EC was capable
of having committed the murders and assaults when he learned of the
shooting and immediately suspected that his son was the shooter;
g. having knowledge of his son's mental disturbance and knowing that his son
had access to the gun, MR. CRUMBLEY, together with his wife, refused to
take his son out of school when HOPKINS and EJAK demanded that they do
so;
h. when MR. AND MRS. CRUMBLEY met with school officials on November
30, 2021, and were told of EC’s troubling behaviors, they intentionally
withheld from the school personnel their prior knowledge of EC’s instability
and the fact that he had unrestricted access to a lethal handgun;
i. even though there was still time to prevent EC from carrying out his

murderous plans, neither R. CRUMBLEY nor MRS. CRUMBLEY took the
opportunity to go home after the meeting and before the shootings and be
certain that the handgun was still safely at home, and immediately alert the
school and the police if it was not.
232. The foregoing negligent acts and omissions of MR. CRUMBLEY and MRS.
CRUMBLEY, individually and collectively, constituted negligent supervision of his minor child
and a negligent failure to cooperate with school officials to prevent the tragedy that occurred.
233. The purchase of the handgun and the acts and omissions in leading EC to believe
that the gun was his and then making the gun available to him constitute negligent entrustment.
234. MRS. CRUMBLEY was further negligent in that she had actual knowledge that
51
EC was searching for ammunition on the Internet and, instead of intervening and making certain
that her son could neither obtain ammunition nor have access to a lethal weapon, encouraged his
behavior by specifically stating that she was not upset with him but simply wanted to caution
him to be more careful and not get caught.
235. The cooperation in her husband’s purchase of the handgun and the acts and
omissions in leading EC to believe that the gun was his and then making the gun available to
him constitute negligent entrustment by MRS. CRUMBLEY.
236. The foregoing acts and omissions by MR. and MRS. CRUMBLEY were a
proximate cause of the injuries and damages to all plaintiffs hereinbefore set forth.
WHEREFORE, all Plaintiffs claim judgment against the defendant MR. CRUMBLEY
and MRS. CRUMBLEY in amount to which they are found to be entitled, together with interest,
costs, attorneys fees, and exemplary damages.
COUNT XIII - CLAIMS AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST THE CRUMBLEY

DEFENDANTS FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
237. All plaintiffs reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint as though
fully restated herein.
238. The willful, malicious, reckless, and intentional acts of EC constituted an

intentional infliction of emotional distress as defined under Michigan law as to all Plaintiffs,
because the behavior was outrageous and specifically intended to inflict severe emotional as
well as physical harm on the plaintiffs and all others at OHS on November 30, 2021.
239. The willful, malicious, reckless and intentional acts of JAMES CRUMBLEY and
JENNIFER CRUMBLEY constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress as defined
under Michigan law as to all plaintiffs, because the behavior was outrageous, and they knew or
52
had to know that the result would be severe emotional as well as physical harm to the plaintiffs
and all others at OHS on November 30, 2021.
240. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants as alleged
herein, plaintiff suffered extreme emotional harm with physical manifestations.
WHEREFORE, all plaintiffs claim judgment against the Crumbley defendants, jointly
and severally, in an amount to which they are found to be entitled, together with costs, interest,
attorneys fees and exemplary damages.
COUNT VIIIV - NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UPON ALL

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS BY THE OXFORD DEFENDANTS
241. All individual Plaintiffs reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint
as though fully restated herein.
242. The Oxford Defendants negligently and grossly negligently inflicted emotional
distress upon all individual Plaintiffs in that:

a. the injury inflicted on their children, were serious and of a nature certain to
cause severe mental disturbance to these Plaintiffs;
b. the mental shock resulted in actual physical harm to these Plaintiffs;
c. these plaintiffs were members of immediate family of the direct victims of the
Oxford Defendants’ negligence and gross negligence;
d. these Plaintiffs suffered the shock of learning almost immediately following

the events that their children had been injured, physically and/or emotionally,
and, in the case of the MYRE and SHILLING Plaintiffs, that their sons had
been killed.
243. The negligence of these defendants was a proximate cause of the injuries and
53
damages to all Plaintiffs.
injuries and damages to all Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, all individual Plaintiffs claim judgment against the Oxford Defendants

in an amount to which they are found to be entitled, together with interest, costs, attorneys fees
COUNT XV - NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UPON ALL

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS BY THE CRUMBLEY DEFENDANTS
246. All individual Plaintiffs reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint
as though fully restated herein.
247. The Crumbley Defendants, apart from their willful and reckless conduct,
negligently inflicted emotional distress upon all individual Plaintiffs in that:
a. the injury inflicted on their children, were serious and of a nature certain to
cause severe mental disturbance to these Plaintiffs;
54
b. the mental shock resulted in actual physical harm to these Plaintiffs;
c. these plaintiffs were members of immediate family of the direct victims of the
Crumbley Defendants’ negligence;
d. these Plaintiffs suffered the shock of learning almost immediately following

the events that their children had been injured, physically and/or emotionally,
and, in the case of the MYRE and SHILLING Plaintiffs, that their sons had
been killed.
248. The negligence of these defendants was a proximate cause of the injuries and
damages to all Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, all individual Plaintiffs claim judgment against the Crumbley
Defendants in an amount to which they are found to be entitled, together with interest, costs,
attorneys fees, and exemplary damages.
COUNT XVI– NEGLIGENCE OF OXFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

249. Plaintiffs reincorporate the foregoing allegations of the complaint as though fully
restated herein.
250. As an entity operating the school system in environment in which it is known that
students and other persons in school buildings are constantly subject to potential acts of violence
by perpetrators such as EC, defendant OCS was under a duty to take reasonable and necessary
precautions to safeguard students and other persons on the premises.
251. That duty included, without limitation, the duty to:
a. Hire, train and supervise competent, employees willing to assume the

responsibility for following safety protocols and standards for the protection
of students in school buildings;
55
b. equip the building with security measures such as metal detectors to prevent
or discourage firearms from being brought into the building;
c. have personnel on site at all times that students were expected to be in the
building to provide both a deterrent and countermeasures against violence
that would otherwise be perpetrated on students and other persons in school
buildings;
d. establish, implement and enforce standards relative to how to deal with

students or other persons in the building demonstrating violent potential;
e. establish, implement and enforce a policy for divesting students of their

backpacks or other items in which firearms or other weapons could be
transported when the student demonstrates potential for violence;
f. establish, implement and enforce a protocol for contacting law enforcement at

any time that a student or other person with access to a school building or

access to students demonstrates potential violence toward him/herself or
others;
g. establish, implement and enforce protocols for isolating a potentially violent

person with access to school children from others until law enforcement can
be contacted and brought to bear;
h. establish, implement, and enforce protocols for invoking the mental health
intervention for a student demonstrating potential to harm him/herself or
others.
252. OCS breached each and every one of these duties.
253. These breaches of duty were, individually a proximate cause of the injuries and
56
damages hereinbefore set forth.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendant OCS in an amount to
which they are found to be entitled, together with costs, interest, and reasonable attorney fees.
COUNT XVII – GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF OXFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
restated herein.
255. The acts and omissions alleged in the foregoing count also constitute gross
negligence for the reason that they evidence conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial
lack of concern for whether an injury results.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim exemplary damages in an amount to which they are
found to be entitled, together with costs, interest, and reasonable attorney fees.
COUNT XVIII - VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF OXFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

restated herein.
257. The employees of the Oxford community schools named as individual defendants
herein were, at all times relevant hereto, acting within the course and scope of their employment
with the Oxford Community Schools.
258. At all times relevant hereto, those employees were subject to the duty of Oxford
Community Schools to supervise and control the employees’ conduct.
259. The Oxford Community Schools is therefore vicariously responsible under the
doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts and omissions of those employees as alleged in this
complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs claim judgment against the defendant Oxford Community
57
Schools in an amount to which they are found to be entitled, together with costs, interest, and
attorney fees.
COUNT XIX – NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT

KIMBERLY POTTS
restated herein.
261. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant POTTS had a duty to exercise reasonable
care and not be grossly negligent in the performance of her duties especially given her training
and experience as a law enforcement officer.
262. The acts and omissions of Defendant POTTS as set forth in the common
allegations, paragraphs 94-110, and those set forth below constitute breaches of these duties are
evidence of negligence and gross negligence for which OCS is vicariously liable:
a. Failing to timely and properly assess an active shooting situation.
b. Improperly assuming that an ALICE drill was being performed.

c. Failing to recognize an active shooting after witnessing TATE MYRE lying
on the floor bleeding to death and immediately turning on her body camera,
calling for backup, requesting medical help for TATE MYRE, and
expeditiously locating and confronting EC to prevent harm to other students.
d. Failing to properly inspect the bathroom where JUSTIN SHILLING,

KEEGAN GREGORY, and EC were present.
e. Failing to timely intervene by entering the bathroom, confronting EC, and

preventing JUSTIN SHILLING from being shot and KEEGAN GREGORY
from harm.
58
f. Other acts or omissions to be discovered.
263. Defendant POTTS negligence was “a” and/or “the” proximate cause of the
injuries and deaths of minor plaintiffs alleged in this complaint.
264. Defendant POTTS breaches of said duty constituted gross negligence since they
amounted to conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern as to whether
injury would occur and were a/the proximate cause of their injuries and deaths suffered by this
tragedy.
a higher standard for proximate cause and gross negligence in a case involving governmental
actors than would be required of the same plaintiff, on the same facts, in a case against non-

governmental defendants, is unconstitutional in that:
a. it denies the Plaintiffs in this case due process.
c. It denies Plaintiff's in this case the constitutional right to a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs claim judgment against the defendants’ OXFORD
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS and KIMBERLY POTTS, in an amount to which they are found to
be entitled, together with exemplary damages, costs, interest and attorney fees. interest and
attorney fees.
59
Respectfully Submitted
JOHNSON LAW, PLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

535 Griswold St. Ste 2632
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 324-8300
vjohnson@venjohnsonlaw.com
jstewart@venjohnsonlaw.com
60
STATE OF MICHIGAN

Hon. Rae Lee Chabot



Plaintiffs,

v.

KIMBERLY POTTS, in their individual capacities,
and ETHAN CRUMBLEY, and JENNIFER
CRUMBLEY and JAMES CRUMBLEY,
OXFORD COMMUNITY SCHOOLS.
Defendants.
__________________________________________________/
RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND
NOW COME, the Plaintiffs, WILLIAM MYRE and SHERI MYRE, individually and as
co-personal representatives of the Estate of TATE MYRE, Deceased; CRAING SHILLING and
61
JILL SOAVE, individually, and as co-personal representatives of the Estate of JUSTIN
CHARLES SHILLING; CHAD GREGORY, as Next Friend for KEEGAN GREGORY, a minor,
and CHAD GREGORY and MEGHAN GREGORY, individually; LAUREN ALIANO, as Next
Friend for SOPHIA KEMPEN, a minor, and GRACE KEMPEN, a minor; and LAUREN
ALIANO individually; LAURA LUCAS, as Next Friend for ASHLYNNE SUTTON, a minor,
and LAURA LUCAS, individually; by and through their attorneys, JOHNSON LAW, PLC, and
state their reliance on the jury demand, previously made with the filing of the original complaint.
Respectfully Submitted
JOHNSON LAW, PLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

535 Griswold St. Ste 2632
Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 324-8300
vjohnson@venjohnsonlaw.com
jstewart@venjohnsonlaw.com
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument

was served upon the attorneys of record of all parties to the
above cause at their respective addresses disclosed on the
pleadings on the 3rd day of August 2022 by:
US Mail Delivery Hand Delivery

Overnight Courier Facsimile
E-Correspondence E-File & Serve
By:/s/Courtney T. Saffron
COURTNEY T. SAFFRON
62

PL Motion For Leave To File Fourth Amended Complaint - Filed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

PL Motion For Leave To File Fourth Amended Complaint - Filed

Original Title:

Uploaded by

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

WILLIAM MYRE, and SHERI MYRE, as co-personal

CHAD GREGORY, as Next Friend for

LAUREN ALIANO, as Next Friend for SOPHIA KEMPEN, a minor

LAURA LUCAS, as Next Friend for ASHLYNNE SUTTON, a minor,

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

PAM PARKER FINE, SHAWN HOPKINS,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE

injuries to many others.

2. The parties have appeared before this Court on numerous occasions

regarding discovery disputes.

3. Despite this Court having ordered the defendants and non-parties to

very minimal compliance.

4. Recently, the plaintiffs’ counsel had an opportunity to review the

additional defendant, Kimberly Potts, who was employed as a security officer/armed

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

decided not to enter the bathroom.

confronted EC before he shot Justin and threatened to shoot Keegan Gregory.

7. MCR 2.118(A)(2) provides that a party may amend a pleading only by

freely given when justice so requires.

8. Attached as Exhibit 1 is Plaintiffs proposed fourth amended

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

paragraph and Count numbering.

which will be reached as it relates to Ms. Potts.

10. Plaintiffs counsel requested concurrence in the relief requested on

August 1, 2022 but did not receive a response.

JOHNSON LAW, PLC

By: /s/ Ven R. Johnson

Dated: August 3, 2022

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

I. THIS COURT SHOULD ALLOW THE PLAINTIFFS TO AMEND

when justice so requires. A motion to amend pleadings ordinarily should be granted

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

denied, 428 Mich. 869 (Mich. 1987).

amend a complaint absent an abuse of discretion that results in injustice. Taylor v.

trial judge, in denying a motion to amend a pleading, must specify a particularized

pleadings, the court is required to ignore substantive merits of claims or defense

unless it is legally insufficient on its face, thereby rendering it futile to allow

134, 1973 Mich. LEXIS 168 (Mich. 1973).

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

a motion for summary disposition on the issue of governmental immunity which

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to

JOHNSON LAW, PLC

By: /s/ Ven R. Johnson

Dated: August 3, 2022

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

US Mail Delivery Hand Delivery

By:/s/ Courtney Tucker

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND

WILLIAM MYRE, and SHERI MYRE, as co-personal

CHAD GREGORY, as Next Friend for

LAUREN ALIANO, as Next Friend for SOPHIA KEMPEN, a minor

LAURA LUCAS, as Next Friend for ASHLYNNE SUTTON, a minor,

Document Submitted for Filing to MI Oakland County 6th Circuit Court.

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT