Filing # 166896666 E-Filed 02/15/2023 05:02:00 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE
COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

MARC HAGLE and SHARON HAGLE

Plaintiffs,

VS.

RICHARD STOCKTON RUSH,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiffs, MARC HAGLE ("Mr. Nagle") and SHARON HAGLE ("Mrs.

Hag le") (together "Plaintiffs"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, and for causes of

action against Defendant, RICHARD STOCKTON RUSH ("Rush"), state as follows:

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

This is an action for damages against Defendant, which claim for damages exceeds

Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($50,000.00) exclusive of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

2. Mr. Hagle is an individual who resides in Orange County, Florida.

3. Mrs. Hagle is an individual who resides in Orange County, Florida.

4. Rush is an individual who, upon information and belief, resides in the State of

Washington.

5. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in Orange County, Florida because the tortious

conduct which is the subject of this action occurred within Orange County, Florida.

Common Allegations

6. Rush is the Chief Executive Officer of Argus Expeditions, Ltd. d/b/a OceanGate

Expeditions ("OceanGate)
 7. In or around 2016, Rush announced that Ocean Gate would offer manned

submersible dive expeditions to the wreck of the RMS Titanic aboard a vessel to be known as

"Cyclops 2" (the "Expedition")

8. Cyclops 2 was not yet fully developed such that it could embark on the Expedition

at the time the Expedition was announced.

9. On or about November 28, 2016, each of Mr. Hag le and Mrs. Hag le signed a

contract with OGE to participate in the Expedition (the "Original Contracts").

10. Pursuant to the Original Contracts, each of Mr. Hag le and Mrs. Hag le were only

required to (and did) pay to OGE at $10,000.00 deposit, which deposits were fully refundable.

11. On or about November 14, 2016, each of Mr. Hag le and Mrs. Hag le made their

required $10,000.00 deposits, for a total deposit of $20,000.00 (the "Deposit").

12. The remaining payments under the Original Contracts were as follows:

(a) a $40,000.00 "milestone payment" to be paid fifteen (15) days after the first

dive of Cyclops 2 (the anticipated due date of the milestone payment was stated to be

October 2017); and

(b) a $55,129.00 "final payment" due on February 1, 2018, which was

approximately four (4) months in advance of the estimated date of the Excursion as of the

date the Original Contracts were executed.

13. By mid-2017, Plaintiffs suspected (based upon the information and lack of

information received to date) that Cyclops 2 was not going to be ready for its initial dive as

previously communicated.

14. As such, Plaintiffs contemplated requesting a refund of their Deposit.

2
 15. On or about Septernber 27, 2017, Rush travelled to Plaintiffsresidence in Orange

County, Florida, in an effort to keep Plaintiffs invested in the Expedition.

16. Rush knew that if Plaintiffs requested a refund of their Deposit and withdrew from

the Expedition others may follow suit.

17. During the September 27, 2017 meeting, Plaintiffs expressed their concerns about

Cyclops 2 and the delayed timing of the Expedition as reasons that they were inclined to seek a

return of their Deposit and withdraw from the Expedition.

18. In response, during the September 27, 2017 meeting Rush:

(a) explained the design and structural concepts of Cyclops 2;

(b) explained the details of the anticipated Excursion, including the number of

people on each trip, the estimated time to reach the Titanic, and what could be expected

during the adventure;

(c) explained that a crew member would be piloting the ship and handling all

aspects of the dive such that the guests would be free to move around inside of the Cyclops

2 and take turns at the viewing portal;

(d) stated that Cyclops 2 was being launched in the Bahamas shortly after the

meeting for its initial deep diving tests and that Plaintiffs would be invited to attend the

tests should they choose to attend;

(e) explained the technical aspects of the tests, including the sound tests to be

perforrned on the capability and structural integrity of the Cyclops 2 hull system; and

(f) definitively stated that Cyclops 2 would be ready to dive on the Titanic

within the time periods indicated in the Original Contracts (i.e. June of 2018).

3
 19. Further, in response to specific questioning by Plaintiffs in the September 27, 2017

meeting, Rush expressly, unequivocally, and without exception represented to Plaintiffs that if they

had any questions or concerns as to the integrity of Cyclops 2 and/or the timing of the Expedition

if it were to be delayed, they could request, and would receive, a full refund of all monies paid

with no questions asked.

20. To further emphasize his point, Rush indicated that the Deposits were, and any

future payments would be, held in a dedicated client escrow account separate from his or

OceanGate's funds.

21. Rush made his statements and representations during the September 27, 2017

meeting knowing that he would cause OceanGate to request the remaining payrnents due and

owing for the Expedition to be advanced, and intending that Plaintiffs would rely on his statements

and representations when they received that request.

22. On or about January 30, 2018, Plaintiffs received new contracts that they were

asked to execute with respect to the Excursion in place of the Original Contracts.

23. The new contracts required Plaintiffs to pay the full sum contemplated for the

Expedition upon execution thereof, as opposed to the payment schedule contemplated by the

Original Contracts.

24. In reliance upon Rush's representations during the September 27, 2017 meeting,

Plaintiffs (a) executed the new contracts (the "Second Contracts") on February 1, 2018, and (b)

wired the balance due and owing under the Second Contracts, i.e. $190,258.00, to OceanGate on

February 6, 2018.

25. Only approximately a month after Plaintiffs wired the balance of the full Excursion

price, OceanGate changed the narne of "Cyclops 2" to "Titan".

4
 26. Approxirnately two months after that, Ocean Gate cancelled the June 2-9, 2018

Expedition. The stated reasons for the cancellation was that Ocean Gate had not had sufficient time

to conduct the full series of tests and dives needed to certify the Titan to the depth necessary to

reach the Titanic.

27. Thereafter, the Expedition was rescheduled to occur in July of 2019.

28. However, on June 11, 2019, the July 2019 Expedition was also cancelled because,

according to Ocean Gage, its contracted support vessel refused to participate.

29. Upon the June 2019 cancellation, Plaintiffs were notified that the Expedition would

now take place at an unidentified time in 2020.

30. As a result, the Expedition originally scheduled to occur during 2018 would likely

not take place until at least two (2) full years later, and at least approximately two and one-half (2

Y2) years after Mr. Hagle and Mrs. Nagle had each paid the full $105,129.00 per-person cost of the

Excursion.

31. Accordingly, in light of Rush's prior representations to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs spoke

with Rush and requested that they receive a full refund of the monies they had paid for the

Expedition ($105,129.00 each, for a total of $210,258.00).

32. In response, Rush had OceanGate's Expedition Manager inform Plaintiffstravel

coordinator on June 14, 2019 that OceanGate was "working on a full refund plan for those who

want it which we'll know more about in the weeks to come."

33. On June 19, 2019, OceanGage sent a second notice cancelling the 2019 Expedition,

this time indicating that the reason for the cancellation was "equipment failure."

34. Thereafter, it was officially announced that the Expedition was rescheduled for July

3-12, 2020.

5
 35. Nevertheless, in an email dated October 24, 2019, Ocean Gate announced the

cancellation of the 2020 Expedition.

36. Plaintiffs did not contribute to the cancellations of the 2018, 2019 or 2020

Expeditions.

37. Between June and October 2019, Plaintiffstravel coordinator continued to follow

up regarding Plaintiffs' request for a refund.

38. Finally, OceanGage responded to the requests be demanding that Plaintiffs

participate in a July 2021 Expedition, and stating that if Plaintiffs failed to participate in the 2021

Expedition they would not be entitled to a refund or credit.

39. All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have occurred, have been

performed or have been waived.

COUNT I —
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

40. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1

through 39 above as if fully set

forth herein.

41. During their September 27, 7017 meeting, R ush made several false statements of

material fact to Plaintiffs, including, without limitation: (a) regarding the status of developrnent

and testing of Cyclops 2 as of that date, (b) that Cyclops 2 would be ready to dive on the Titanic

by June of 2018, (c) if Plaintiffs had any questions or concerns as to the integrity of Cyclops 2

and/or the timing of the Expedition if it were to be delayed, they could request, and would receive,

a full refund of all monies paid with no questions asked, and (d) Plaintiffs' Deposits were, and any

future payments by Plaintiffs would be, held in a dedicated client escrow account separate from

his or OceanGate's funds.

42. The foregoing representations were false when made, or were made with a specific

intention not to perform the promises when made.

6
 43. Rush, who was the CEO of OceanGate and had full and complete knowledge of the

status of the Expedition planning and Cyclops 2 testing and control over OceanGate's deposit and

refund policies, knew or should have known of the falsity of these representations when they were

rnade.

44. Rush made the false representations to Plaintiff with the express intent that

Plaintiffs would (a) rely on the representations, (b) not withdraw from participating in the

Expedition, (c) sign the Second Contracts, and (d) accelerate the payment of the full balance of the

cost for the Expedition to OceanGate.

45. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on Rush's false representations.

46. In reliance on Rush's false representations, Plaintiffs did not withdraw from

participating in the Expedition at that time, signed the Second Contracts, and each paid the full

sum of $105,129.00 for the Expedition.

47. When the Expedition was delayed for multiple years, Plaintiffs requested a refund

in accordance with Rush's representations, but their refund requests were refused.

48. Plaintiffs wcrc also informcd that thcir monies were not maintained in a separate

escrow account.

49. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered and incurred damages.

50. Given the willful, wanton, and egregious nature of Rush's conduct, Plaintiffs

reserve the right to seek to have punitive damages awarded herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, MARC HAGLE and SHARON HAGLE, respectfully request

that the Court enter a Judgment in their favor and against Defendant, RICHARD STOCKTON

RUSH, for damages and for all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7
 COUNT II —
VIOLATION OF FLORIDA'S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR
TRADE PRACTICES ACT

51. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege paragraphs 1

through 39 above as if fully set

forth herein.

52. Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et. seq.

("FDUTPA") prohibits, and renders unlawful, unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts

or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

53. Plaintiffs are "persons" and "consumers" as defined in FDUTPA.

54. At all times relevant, Rush was engaged in trade or commerce as defined in

FDUTPA.

55. As set forth above, Rush committed unfair and deceptive acts in violation of

FDUTPA

56. Rush's conduct is injurious to consumers.

57. As a direct and proximate result of Rush's unfair and deceptive actions, Plaintiffs

have been damaged.

58. Plaintiffs retained the undersigned law firm, and have agreed to pay said attorneys

a reasonable fee for their services, the sum for which Defendant can (and should) be held liable

under FDUTPA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, MARC HAGLE and SHARON HAGLE, respectfully request

that the Court enter a Judgment in their favor and against Defendant, RICHARD STOCKTON

RUSH, for damages and for all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Ronald D. Edwards, Ur.

Florida Bar No. 0053233
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A.
215 North Eola Drive
Post Office Box 2809

8
 Orlando, Florida 32802
Telephone: (407) 843-4600
Fax No: (407) 843-4444
ronald.edwards@lowndes-law.com
lit.control@lowndes-law.com
tracy.kennison@lowndes-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
0909990\201211\12626515v1