Mecklenburg County Clerk of Superior Court

24C0V021125-590

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURTS OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG 24-CVS-

ANGELA MICHELLE HARMON,

individually and on behalf of JANE DOE,
and AVERY GRACE SEHORN,

Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT

v

CHRISTOPHER ANTHONEY REID, and

MAPLEBEAR INC. d/b/a INSTACART,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Angela Michelle Harmon, individually and on behalf of Jane Doe, and Avery
Grace Sehorn (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), complaining of Defendants Christopher Anthoney Reid,
and Maplebear Inc., allege and say as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff Angela Michelle Harmon (hereinafter "Ms. Harmon") is an adult citizen

and resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

2. Plaintiff Jane Doe is the minor child of Ms. Harmon and is a resident of
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Ms. Harmon is Jane Doe's legal guardian.

3. Plaintiff Avery Grace Sehorn (hereinafter "Ms. Sehorn") is an adult citizen and
resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

4. Defendant Christopher Anthoney Reid, (hereinafter "Defendant Reid") is an adult

citizen and resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

5. Upon information and belief Maplebear Inc., (hereinafter "Instacart") is a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Upon further
information and belief, Instacart is licensed to conduct business in North Carolina and has a
principal place of business in California. All allegations set forth herein against Instacart also refer
to and include the principals, agents, employees, and servants, either directly or vicariously, under
the principles of corporate liability, apparent authority, agency, ostensible agency, or respondeat
superior.

Electronically Filed Date: 5/10/2024 10:28AM Mecklenburg County Clerk of Superior Court
 6. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this dispute.

7. Venue is proper in Mecklenburg County.

8. The amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.00.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Instacart provides grocery delivery services through their app, by which customers
can order groceries, which are then shopped for at a third-party grocery store by Instacart
employees (referred to by Instacart as "Shoppers"), and subsequently delivered to the customer's
home.

10. Upon information and belief, Instacart employs or contracts with individuals to
assist Instacart customers in shopping for them, picking up the groceries and delivering those
groceries to the customers' residence or another destination selected by the customer. Ms. Harmon
was a customer that used Instacart for such purpose. Ms. Harmon has used Instacart numerous
times prior to March 30, 2024.

11. On March 30, 2024, Ms. Harmon scheduled a delivery of groceries to be picked up
from a Charlotte grocery chain and delivered to Plaintiff's residence.

12. According to the Instacart app, Ms. Harmon was interacting with a Shopper named
"Merle." Merle's Instacart profile picture was of an older woman.

13. Ms. Harmon had numerous text communications with Merle on March 30, 20204,
including conversations about the food to be retrieved, when the food would be delivered and other
questions about the delivery. All of Ms. Harmon's communications were with Merle.

14. Based on the way Instacart works, as well as Ms. Harmon's communications with
the Shopper, Ms. Harmon believed that the Instacart Shopper "Merle" would be the person
delivering the order to Ms. Harmon's property.

15. Ms. Harmon's Instacart order was scheduled to be completed on the afternoon of
March 30, 2024.

16. On the afternoon of March 30, 2024, instead of Merle, Defendant Reid entered
Plaintiffs' property to deliver Ms. Harmon's groceries. Defendant Reid was impersonating Merle
on the Instacart app. Ms. Harmon had no idea she had been communicating with Defendant Reid,
a tall and intimidating younger man.

2
 17. At the time of the delivery, Ms. Harmon's daughters, Jane Doe and Ms. Sehorn,
were home and Ms. Harmon was upstairs filling her squirrel feeders.

18. After Defendant Reid arrived, Ms. Harmon heard what sounded like a gun shoot.
At that same time, Ms. Harmon's children were in the back yard of the property.

19. Terrified for her children's safety, Ms. Harmon immediately ran downstairs to
determine to source of what she thought was a gun shot.

20. AsMs. Harmon walked outside, she saw Jane Doe and Ms. Sehorn in distress. Ms.
Harmon immediately noticed that Defendant Reid was placing a gun in the front of his pants,
potentially in his pant pocket. Looking to the side, she saw that her beloved dog, Oliver, was shot.
Although shot, Oliver was still alive.

21. Ms. Harmon rushed Oliver to the veterinarian's office, where Oliver died.

22. The police arrived and questioned only Defendant Reid. Before a necropsy was
conducted, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department closed the investigation.

23. Defendant Reid discharged his gun inside City limits, violating local laws.

24. Defendant Reid had no legal right to access Plaintiffs' property, and whilst
wrongfully trespassing, used the firearm he brought onto Plaintiffs' property to kill Plaintiff's dog.

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant Reid was not injured by Plaintiffs' dog,
was not seriously threatened by Plaintiffs' dog, and had ample opportunity to leave Plaintiffs'
property unharmed, without shooting Plaintiffs' dog.

26. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendant Reid accessing the property, delivering
groceries, or accessing Ms. Harmon's personal information in any way.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

[Trespass to Chattel -
All Defendants}

27. Plaintiffs reallege and restate the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

28. Defendant Reid's misconduct described herein is imputed to Instacart under the
doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, and agency, either express or implied.

29. Plaintiffs did not give Defendant Reid permission to interfere, interact with, or
otherwise disturb Oliver.

3
 30. At all times relevant hereto, Oliver was Plaintiffs' personal property, under
Plaintiffs' actual or constructive possession, particularly at the time of Defendant Reid's trespass.

31. Through Defendant Reid's actions of maliciously shooting Oliver, Plaintiffs have
been dispossessed of their personal property.

32. As a result of Defendants' trespass on and over Plaintiffs' personal property,

Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

[Conversion All Defendants]
-

33. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

34. Defendant Reid's misconduct described herein is imputed to Instacart under the
doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, and agency, either express or implied.

35. Atall times relevant hereto, Oliver was Plaintiffs' personal property.

36. As described more fully above, Defendants' wrongful killing of Oliver constitutes
a claim of dominion and control on Defendants' part, and a substantial interference with Plaintiffs'
possessory rights in the same.

37. Defendants intended to, and did wrongfully convert Plaintiffs' property, thereby
preventing Plaintiffs from asserting their right of ownership and possession over the same.

38. Defendants converted Plaintiffs' property wrongfully and without Plaintiff's

consent.

39. direct and proximate result of Defendants' conversion, Plaintiffs have been
Asa a

damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

40. Defendants' conversion was malicious, intentional, willful, and done with a
reckless and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover
punitive damages from Defendants pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1D-1, et seq., in an amount to
be determined at trial, sufficient to punish Defendants for their wrongful conduct and to deter such
conduct in the future by Defendants and others similarly situated.

4
 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Negligence/Gross Negligence All Defendants]
-

41. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

42. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Reid and Instacart owed a duty of
reasonable care to Plaintiffs.

43. Defendant Reid's misconduct described herein is imputed to Instacart under the
doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, and agency, either express or implied.

44. Defendant Reid knew or should have known that shooting Oliver would cause
Plaintiffs significant damage and had no justifiable reason to do so.

45. Defendant Reid breached his duty of reasonable care by shooting Oliver in a
manner that was negligent/grossly negligent.

46. Defendant Reid's negligent/grossly negligent acts and omissions constituted

wanton conduct done with conscious or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others,
including Plaintiff.

47. Considering all circumstances at issue as set forth herein and above, Defendant
Reid's conduct constitutes gross negligence.

48. The negligent/grossly negligent acts and omissions of Defendants, as described

hereinabove, are the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages.

49. Plaintiffs' damages were a reasonably foreseeable result of Defendants

negligent/grossly negligent acts and omissions.

50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence/gross negligence,

Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

51. Defendants' conduct was also malicious, willful, wanton, and done with a reckless
disregard for Plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from
Defendants pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1D-1, et seq., in an amount to be determined at trial,
sufficient to punish Defendants for their wrongful conduct and to deter such conduct in the future
by Defendants and others similarly situated.

5
 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[Negligent Hiring, Negligent Supervision, Negligent Retention -
Instacart]

52. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

53. Defendant Reid was an employee of Instacart at all times relevant herein.

54. Instacart had a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the screening,
hiring, training, retention, and supervision of its employees, including Defendant Reid.

55. Instacart breached such duties.

56. Instacart's actions and inactions were grossly negligent and/or committed in
reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' rights.

57. As a direct and proximate result of Instacart's negligence/gross negligence,

Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Trespass -
All Defendants]

58. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

59. Defendant Reid's misconduct described herein is imputed to Instacart under the
doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, and agency, either express or implied.

60. Atall times relevant, Plaintiffs owned their property, and was entitled to possession
thereof.

61. As described more fully above, Defendant Reid wrongly accessed Plaintiffs'
property by posing as an elderly woman named "Merle."

62. After wrongly accessing Plaintiffs' property, Defendant Reid caused significant
injury and damage to Plaintiffs by killing their dog.

63. Defendant Reid did not have Plaintiffs' permission to go onto Plaintiffs' property,
or to kill Plaintiffs' dog.

64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' trespass, Plaintiffs have been
damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

6
 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
{Invasion of Privacy -
Intrusion Upon Seclusion -
All Defendants]

65. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

66. Defendant Reid's misconduct described herein is imputed to Instacart under the
doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, and agency, either express or implied.

67. By his actions described above, Defendant Reid intruded upon the privacy of
Plaintiff.

68.Defendant Reid invaded the privacy of Plaintiffs despite their reasonable

expectation of privacy in their solitude, seclusion, private affairs, and personal concerns.

69. Specifically, Defendant Reid wrongly entered Plaintiffs' property and home
without permission and killed Plaintiffs' dog on her property.

Defendant Reid's intrusions into Plaintiffs' privacy were intentional and malicious,
70.
done with a reckless disregard for their rights, and done with a reckless disregard for the
consequences of his actions.

71. A
reasonable person would be highly offended by Defendant Reid's intrusions
under the same or similar circumstances.

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Reid's conduct, Plaintiffs ares
entitled to recover actual damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, in an amount to be proven
at trial.

73. Defendants' conduct was also malicious, willful, wanton, and done with a reckless
disregard for Plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from
Defendants pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1D-1, ef seg., in an amount to be determined at trial,
sufficient to punish Defendants for their wrongful conduct and to deter such conduct in the future
by Defendant and others similarly situated.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Negligent Misrepresentation -
Instacart]

74. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

7
 75. In the course of a business transaction in which Instacart had a pecuniary interest,
as described fully above, they supplied false information to Plaintiffs. Instacart had a duty to
provide accurate information to Plaintiffs.

76. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in obtaining and communicating such
material information to Plaintiffs, and Defendants either knew or should have known that their
representations were false.

77.Specifically, Instacart represented to Plaintiffs that an elderly woman named

"Merle" would be accessing the property and delivering the groceries.

78. Merle did not deliver Plaintiffs' groceries, and instead Defendant Reid, who did not
have permission to access Plaintiffs' property, completed Plaintiffs' delivery order.

79. Indeed, Instacart misrepresented Plaintiffs' delivery person, a misrepresentation

relied upon by Plaintiffs. This misrepresentation led to Defendant Reid wrongly accessing
Plaintiffs' property and killing Plaintiffs' dog.

80. It was foreseeable to Instacart that Plaintiffs would rely on their misrepresentations,
and Plaintiffs did in fact reasonably and justifiably rely on Instacart's misrepresentation to their
detriment.

81. As a direct and proximate result of Instacart's negligent misrepresentation,

Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress All Defendants]
-

82. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

83. Defendant Reid's misconduct described herein is imputed to Instacart under the
doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, and agency, either express or implied.

84. Defendants' conduct described herein was and is extreme and outrageous, and
exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by a civilized and decent society.

85. Defendants' conduct described herein was intended to cause Plaintiffs severe
emotional distress.

86. Plaintiffs in fact suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress as
a direct result of Defendants' conduct. Specifically, Plaintiffs have attended therapy and
counselling, and experiences PTSD as a result of Defendants' conduct.

8
 87. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants' intentional infliction of emotional
distress, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

88. Defendants' conduct was also malicious, willful, wanton, and done with a reckless
disregard for Plaintiffs' rights. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from
Defendants pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1D-1, et seq., in an amount to be determined at trial,
sufficient to punish Defendants for their wrongful conduct and to deter such conduct in the future
by Defendants and others similarly situated.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress All Defendants]
-

89. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

90. Defendant Reid's misconduct described herein is imputed to Instacart under the
doctrines of respondeat superior, vicarious liability, and agency, either express or implied.

91. As more fully described above and if not done intentionally, Defendants' conduct
was negligent.

92. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable care not to inflict severe emotional
distress.

93. Defendant Reid breached that duty by killing Plaintiffs' dog.

94. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants that such conduct would cause
Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress.

95. Defendants' conduct did, in fact, cause Plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress.

96. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent infliction of emotional

distress, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Punitive Damages All Defendants]
-

97. Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations contained above as if fully set forth
herein.

98.Defendants' actions as alleged herein and above constitute intentional, willful, and
wanton conduct, as set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1D-1, et seq.

9
 99. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1D-1, et seg., Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
punitive damages from Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined by a jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray the Court for the following relief against Defendants:
1. An award for Plaintiffs against Defendants based on Defendants' Trespass to
Chattel, Conversion, Negligence, Gross Negligence, Negligent Hiring, Negligent Supervision,
Negligent retention, Trespass, Invasion of Privacy, Negligent Misrepresentation, Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, in an amount to be
determined at trial, plus interest;

2. That the Court award the Plaintiffs punitive damages against Defendants pursuant
to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1D-1, et seq.;

3. That the Court tax the costs of this action against Defendants;

4. That all issues triable by a jury be so tried; and

5. For all other relief, both legal and equitable, which the Court deems just and proper.

This the 10" day of May, 2024.

R. Buric, N. tate Bar No. 22688

N. Tryon Stregt, Suite 700
harlotte, North é Carolina 28202
Telephone: (704) 372-9870
Facsimile: (704) 333-5508
Email: jburic@imdlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

10
 Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, in an amount to be determined at
trial, plus interest;

2. That the Court award the Plaintiffs punitive damages against Defendants pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1D-1, ef seq.;

3. That the Court tax the costs of this action against Defendants;

4. That all issues triable by a jury be so tried; and

5. For all other relief, both legal and equitable, which the Court deems just and proper.

This the day of May, 2024.

JAMES, McELROY & DIEHL, P.A.

John R. Buric, N.C. State Bar No. 22688

525 N. Tryon Street, Suite 700

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Telephone: (704) 372-9870

Facsimile: (704) 333-5508
Email: jburic@jmdlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

ANGELA MICHELLE HARMON, being first duly swan, «er ses and says that she has
read the foregoing Verified Complaint, that the statements canis are true of her own
knowledge, except as to those matters and things sct forth :pon and belief, and as to
those such matters and things, she believes them to be truc.

ANGELA MICHELLE HARMON

Swom tgand subscribed before me

this the day of May, 2024. mnt PA

Notary Public