UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Visitors since 07/12/06: 2541
ASA ACCUGRADE, INC., ALAN HAGER, and DIANE HAGER,
Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: 6:05-cv-1285-Orl-26DAB
vs.
AMERICAN NUMISMATIC ASSOCIATION, a Federally Chartered Non-Profit Association, HERITAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, COLLECTOR’S UNIVERSE, INC., a foreign corporation d/b/a Professional Coin Grading Service, BARRY STUPPLER & CO., INC., a foreign corporation, BARRY S. STUPPLER, individually and PROFESSIONAL NUMISMATISTS GUILD, INC., a foreign corporation.
Defendants. ____________________________________________/
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, ASA ACCUGRADE, INC., a Florida corporation, ALAN HAGER, and DIANE HAGER, by and through their undersigned attorneys, and hereby file this their Third Amended Complaint and state: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees, based on activities constituting civil conspiracy, business and personal defamation, and tortious interference with advantageous business relationships brought pursuant to Florida common law that have and continue to cause grave and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 2. Plaintiff, ASA ACCUGRADE, INC. (“ACG”), is a Florida corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business, at all times material hereto, located in Longwood, Florida. ACG has been incorporated and engaged in the rare coin grading, certification and authentication business in the State of Florida since 1995. 3. Plaintiff, ALAN HAGER is an individual sui juris who is over the age of eighteen years and, at all times material hereto, resided in Seminole County, Florida. ALAN HAGER is a rare coin expert and head grader for ACG. 4. Plaintiff, DIANE HAGER is an individual sui juris who is over the age of eighteen years and, at all times material hereto, resided in Seminole County, Florida. DIANE HAGER is an officer, director, and the sole shareholder of ACG. 5. Defendant, AMERICAN NUMISMATIC ASSOCIATION (“ANA”) is a federally chartered not-for-profit Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3) entity and is the preeminent trade association in the numismatic hobby and the multi-million dollar industry associated with the numismatic hobby. The ANA provides a forum for resolving complaints against its members and disputes between its members in a non-judicial setting. DIANE HAGER was a life member of the ANA in good standing until she resigned in April 2003 as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful activities. The ANA is headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado but does business throughout the United States, including in the State of Florida. During all times material hereto, BARRY S. STUPPLER (“STUPPLER”) was a member of the ANA’s Board of Governors. In March 2003, STUPPLER was Chairman of the ANA’s Consumer Protection Committee and is presently the Vice-President of the ANA. 6. Defendant, HERITAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION (“HERITAGE”) is a Texas corporation that does business throughout the United States, including in the State of Florida, as a rare coin dealer and auctioneer. The founders and principals of HERITAGE are R. Steven Ivy (“Ivy”) and James L. Halperin (“Halperin”). At all times material hereto, Ivy and/or Halperin were members of the board of directors of the PROFESSIONAL NUMISTMATISTS GUILD, INC. At all times material hereto, Gregory Rohan served as and represented himself publicly as President of HERITAGE. HERITAGE is a major financial contributor to the ANA. 7. COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC. d/b/a Professional Coin Grading Service (“PCGS”) is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in the State of California that, at all times material hereto, was a direct competitor of ACG as it is and was in the business of grading, certifying and authenticating rare domestic and international coins submitted from throughout the United States, including from the State of Florida. David HaIl is the founder and President of PCGS and President of COLLECTORS UNIVERSE. PCGS has hundreds of “featured dealers” and “authorized dealers” throughout the country, including HERITAGE and BARRY STUPPLER & CO. INC. which is both “featured” and “authorized”. PCGS is a major financial contributor to the ANA. At all times material hereto R. Steven Ivy and James L. Halperin were substantial shareholders of PCGS. PCGS hosts an Internet message board known as U.S. Coin Forum and, at all times material hereto, was liable for defamatory statements made on its message board and published throughout the world via the Internet at http://forums.collectors.com. 8. BARRY STUPPLER & CO., INC. (“STUPPLER & CO.”) is a California corporation that does business throughout the United States, including in the State of Florida. STUPPLER & CO. was, at all times material hereto, an authorized PCGS dealer.
10. The PROFESSIONAL NUMISMATISTS GUILD, INC. (“PNG”) is a California corporation that does business throughout the United States, including in the State of Florida. PNG consists of an elite group of rare coin dealers. At all times material hereto, STUPPLER, Hall, Halperin, and Ivy were members and/or directors of PNG. 11. rec.collecting.coins a/k/a RCC (“RCC”) was, at all times material hereto, an ANA sanctioned coin club and Internet users newsgroup consisting of coin dealers and collectors headed up by Gary E. Lewis, STUPPLER, Ira Stein, Mark Greene, Bruce Hickmott, and Eric Tillery. At all times material hereto, RCC members acted as agents of the ANA. RCC newsgroup transmissions are broadcast over the Internet internationally, including in the State of Florida at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.coins. Gary E. Lewis, while serving as President of the ANA, sponsored and paid the ANA dues for RCC when it became an ANA coin club and together with STUPPLER and Alan Herbert were the ANA officials that founded the club. 12. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 and has personal jurisdiction over the ANA, HERITAGE, PCGS, STUPPLER & CO., STUPPLER, and PNG due to the fact that each of the Defendants do more than nominal business in and have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the State of Florida. 13. Venue of this action is proper in this Court in that the defamatory statements at issue were published via correspondence, print media, electronic mail, and the Internet in Seminole County, Florida and intended by the Defendants to reach Seminole County, Florida which lies within the Orlando Division of the Middle District of Florida.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 14. Beginning in 1995, ACG incorporated in the State of Florida and has provided superior coin grading, certification and authentication services to rare coin dealers and collectors throughout the United States and Canada, including in Seminole County, Florida. ACG has historically been on the cutting edge in terms of innovation in the coin certification and grading industry, having been the first grading service to certify rare coins by certifying and “slabbing” them. ACG was the first entity to provide on-site coin certifying and “slabbing” at trade shows (utilizing both the traditional and two-hour methods) and offers the lowest certification and grading prices in the industry. ACG has not had any major complaints since its inception. 15. Commencing in or about 2001, Defendants, ANA, HERITAGE, PCGS, STUPPLER & CO., STUPPLER, and PNG, in an effort to drive ACG out of business, entered into an agreement to defame Plaintiffs and/or tortiously interfere with ACG’S advantageous business relationships with its dealers and customers. Subsequent to entering into the conspiracies alleged in Counts One and Six below, the Defendants committed a myriad of illicit and overt acts in an effort to further the purpose of the conspiracies including, but not limited to: a. The ANA (through RCC) and PCGS owned, hosted, controlled, and/or facilitated Internet newsgroups and message boards that permitted and/or condoned various forms of Internet communications containing false and disparaging statements about ACG, its President, and its head grader that were published with intent to injure Plaintiffs and to destroy the advantageous business relationships ACG had traditionally enjoyed with coin dealers and collectors. As a result, there exist hundreds of false and severely negative comments and statements about Plaintiffs in the RCC newsgroup and PCGS message board archives that remain readily available to coin dealers, collectors, and the coin trading public to this day on the web sites set forth in paragraphs 7 and 11, above; b. The ANA (through its RCC coin club) and STUPPLER proposed, organized, and carried out a group boycott of ACG products and services (See Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein); c. Michael S. Fey, an agent of the ANA, and STUPPLER made unwarranted complaints against ACG and its head grader to the ANA resulting in the ANA attempting to deny ACG “bourse” space at ANA coin shows (See ANA correspondence attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibits “B”). In addition, Fey, on behalf of the ANA, contacted an official of the Canadian Numismatic Association in an effort to injure Plaintiffs and to interfere with their business in the Canadian numismatic industry (See Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein); d. PNG and STUPPLER concocted coin grading surveys in 2002 and 2004, solicited opinions about ACG from coin dealers that they knew had little, if any, experience in buying and selling ACG graded coins (and ignored the positive comments of those dealers who had), and publicized the illegitimate results of the “survey” on the PNG and ANA websites and elsewhere (See Exhibit “D” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein); e. The ANA (through RCC) and STUPPLER published a list of ACG dealers on the Internet and thereafter caused ACG dealers to be systematically harassed until they ceased doing business with ACG (See Exhibit “K” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein); f. HERITAGE refused to sell ACG graded coins on consignment at auction, authorized its President, Gregory Rohan, to appear and present false and disparaging testimony about ACG at an ANA proceeding in March, 2003, and, through its employee (Dustin Johnston) acting in the course and scope of his employment, stated in electronic mail that ACG is “not a recognized grading service” (See Exhibit “E” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein); g. PNG disseminated a letter to PNG dealers who had dealt in ACG graded coins that stated that if they continued to sell ACG graded coins they could potentially lose their PNG membership privileges and formed an “Internet Rules Committee” for the specific purpose of deterring coin dealers from buying and selling ACG graded coins. (See copy of the PNG letter attached hereto and incorporated by herein as Exhibit “F”); 16. Beginning in 2001 and continuing thereafter through the present date, in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged in Count One, below, the ANA (through RCC) and PCGS began a campaign of defamation against ACG, its President, DIANE HAGER, and its head grader, ALAN HAGER. The campaign consisted of the publication of false and disparaging statements made by RCC members, via its Internet user newsgroup, and PCGS, through its message board, and by STUPPLER & CO. and/or STUPPLER via electronic mail, about ACG and the HAGERS. Many of the statements can be viewed to this date at the World Wide Web addresses set forth in paragraphs 7 (RCC) and 11 (PCGS), above. Specific examples of these defamatory statements are listed below: a. the statement on RCC by Ira Stein that ACG “knowingly grades ‘counterfeit’ coins, and ‘fakes”; b. the statement on RCC by Mark Greene that ALAN HAGER is a “blatant crook”; c. the statement on RCC by Byron L. Reed that DIANE HAGER is a “whore” and those who deal with ACG are her “johns”; d. the statement on RCC by Ira Stein that ACG overgraded a lot of coins that resulted in a California widow being defrauded in the amount of $270,000.00; e. the statement on RCC by Bruce Hickmott that DIANE HAGER is a “screaming fishwife”; f. the statements on RCC by Reid Goldsborough that “many people get cheated by ACG every day” and that there is a “huge repository of evidence... that ACG’S very business model is based on deception and cheating”; g. the statement on RCC by Bruce Hickmott that “ACG is knowingly providing a tool that others are using with intent to defraud”; h. the statements on RCC by Alan Williams that “the consistent public offering [by ACG] of overgraded and inauthentic coins only devalues everyone’s holdings” and that “ACG is bad for business and fraudulent to the public”; i. the statements on RCC by Bill Krummel that “…ACG does in fact overgrade and certify counterfeit coins" and that “the overgrading is done knowingly” j. the statement on RCC by Eric Tillery regarding “…the fraud that is being perpetrated by ACG”; h. Gregory Rohan’s statement at a March, 2003 ANA hearing that ACG is “basically a fraud” that was transcribed and posted on RCC (See Exhibit “G” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein); k. Gregory Rohan’s statement at a March, 2003 ANA hearing that “ I have lost track of the number of counterfeit coins I have seen in ACG holders” that was transcribed and posted on RCC (See Exhibit “G”); l. Barry Stuppler’s electronic mail to Anthony Royal that “coins in ACG holders can be 2 to 6 grades lower” and “have no liquidity” (See Exhibit “H” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein); m. PCGS, via its U.S. Coin Forum message board, facilitated and condoned the creation of false accounts that portrayed the publication of false statements about Plaintiffs as if they were made by ALAN HAGER and DIANE HAGER; n. the November 18, 2003 statement on the PCGS message board (U.S. Coin Forum) that compared Alan Hager to Charles Manson; o. the May 17, 2004 statement on the PCGS message board (U.S. Coin Forum) that DIANE HAGER had been arrested in Longwood, Florida and was being investigated for “same sex” prostitution activities (See Exhibit “I” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein); p. the March 9, 2005 statement on the PCGS message board (U.S. Coin Forum) that ACG engages in “reliably overgrading” coins; q. the November 5, 2005 statement on the PCGS message board (U.S. Coin Forum) that “most dealers are too embarrassed to have [ACG graded coins] in their display case”; and r. the December 24, 2005 statement on the PCGS message board (U.S. Coin Forum) that “the people who own ACG have been so nasty to so many people that they don’t deserve any breaks”. 17. The Defendants published and/or caused the publication of the aforementioned false and disparaging statements commencing in 2001 and their defamatory conduct continues in an unabated fashion to the present date such that the conduct of the Defendants constitutes a continuing tort. At the time of the publication of the defamatory statements, Defendants knew that the statements published were false and/or published or caused their publication with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statements. 18. ACG originally initiated the above-styled action against several individual RCC members for defamation and tortious interference based on, among other things, statements published as part of the aforementioned Internet users newsgroup. In July and August 2004, once this action was commenced and as part of and in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged in Count One of this action, STUPPLER and/or STUPPLER & CO. and the ANA published a libelous “paid advertisement” to tens of thousands of ANA members throughout the United States and internationally in the ANA monthly publication known as The Numismatist. The “paid advertisement” contained false and disparaging statements attributing fraud and counterfeiting to ACG (by, among other things, re-publishing Gregory Rohan’s slanderous statements made at the ANA complaint “hearing” in March 2003 and set forth in paragraph 16 h. and 16k., above and recounting the false and misleading allegations regarding an elderly woman being defrauded after purchasing ACG graded coins from a telemarketer) and that announced the creation of an unprecedented ANA legal defense fund for the individual RCC members who had been named in the action in order to obstruct ACG from vindicating its rights. Those RCC members being sued only had to pay ANA’S annual dues ($36.00) and they were then fully represented by ANA counsel. (True and correct copies of the “paid advertisement” published in the July and August 2004 issues of The Numismatist is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein Exhibit “J”) 19. In or about 2001, the Defendants, the ANA (through RCC), HERITAGE, PCGS, PNG, (through it’s “authorized dealer” STUPPLER & CO.), STUPPLER & CO., STUPPLER, utilizing their unique ability to intimidate coin dealers resulting from their combined experience and influence in the rare coin industry, agreed to and began to make false and threatening statements about ACG, both verbally and in writing, to coin dealers that ACG had traditionally enjoyed advantageous business relationships with in that, prior to the these Defendants’ tortious conduct, the coin dealers set forth below would routinely utilize ACG’S services and compensate ACG. (True and correct copies of some of the statements that constituted tortious interference with ACG’s dealer relationships are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Composite Exhibit “K”) The dealers who ceased doing business with ACG subsequent to and as a direct result of Defendants’ tortious conduct include: a. Causey’s; b. Greg Katz d/b/a Katz Coins; c. Rare Coins USA; d; Bob Johnson d/b/a Centsless; e. Sal Fusco d/b/a NCA; f. Joel Rettew, Sr. d/b/a Fast Pay; g. Rich Stiles d/b/a Rich Stiles & Company; h. Bruce Maag; i. Brian Beardsley d/b/a Worldwide Ventures, Inc. j. Numismatic Financial Corporation, Tim and Ryan Carol;
The statements and actions of the Defendants that began to alienate ACG dealers in 2001 continue in an unabated fashion through the present date such that they constitute a continuing tort and were knowingly made with intent to interfere with Plaintiffs’ advantageous business relationships. Defendants’ interference with ACG’S advantageous business relationships was undertaken in a willful and wanton manner. 20. All conditions precedent to this action have been fulfilled or waived. 21. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned attorneys and have agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their services.
COUNT ONE-CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT DEFAMATION
22. Plaintiffs adopt and re-allege paragraphs 1-21 above, as though fully set forth herein. 23. Beginning in or about 2001 and continuing through the present date, Defendants, the ANA, HERITAGE, PCGS, STUPPLER & CO., and STUPPLER have combined, confederated, conspired, and agreed to make false and disparaging statements concerning ACG, ALAN HAGER, and DIANE HAGER as set forth above, in an effort to injure the Plaintiffs in their occupation, business, and employment and to expose them to distrust, hatred, contempt and ridicule and to cause them to be avoided. 24. Subsequent to entering into the conspiracy, these Defendants made or caused to be made the false and disparaging statements set forth in paragraphs 16 and 18, above, that constituted overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conspiracy to commit defamation, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely. In addition, as a result of Defendants’ conspiratorial conduct the personal and professional reputations of the HAGERS have been severely, pervasively, and permanently harmed and they have suffered mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs respectfully demand a judgment against Defendants, the ANA, HERITAGE, PCGS, STUPPLER & CO., and STUPPLER, jointly and severally, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits and compensation for the injury to its reputation and awards ALAN HAGER and DIANE HAGER compensation for the harm to their personal and professional reputation and the mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity they have suffered, punitive damages to punish the Defendants and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT TWO-DEFAMATION AGAINST THE ANA
26. Plaintiffs adopt and re-allege paragraphs 2-5, 11, and 15-18 above, as though fully set forth herein. 27. This is an action for common law defamation against the ANA. 28. Beginning in or about 2001, the ANA facilitated and condoned the actions of the RCC and the statements made on the RCC newsgroup by paying RCC’s dues (through then ANA President Gary Lewis) as an ANA coin club, conducting RCC meetings at ANA coin trade shows, authorizing and/or allowing STUPPLER (ANA Governor) and other ANA officials to form and participate in RCC, and by failing to take any steps whatsoever to regulate the defamatory statements made by RCC even though it had full knowledge of them. 29. In March 2003, the ANA issued and published a decision resulting from a complaint made by DIANE HAGER against STUPPLER that contained highly disparaging language about Plaintiffs in that it accused ACG (and by implication DIANE HAGER and ALAN HAGER) of engaging in deceptive and misleading coin grading practices even though such language was wholly unsubstantiated and not necessary given the ANA finding that STUPPLER had engaged in wrongdoing as alleged by DIANE HAGER in her complaint. (See Exhibit “L” attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein) 30. In July and August 2004, the ANA published a “paid advertisement” in The Numismatist submitted by STUPPLER & CO. and/or STUPPLER that was replete with false and disparaging statements about Plaintiffs in that it accused them of fraud and knowingly certifying counterfeit coins. 31. The ANA published and/or caused the publication of the aforementioned false and disparaging statements in an unprivileged context and in an effort to injure the Plaintiffs in their occupation, business, and employment and to expose them to distrust, hatred, contempt and ridicule and to cause them to be avoided. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the ANA’s conduct, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely and the personal and professional reputations of the HAGERS have been severely, pervasively, and permanently harmed and they have suffered mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs respectfully demand a judgment against Defendant, the ANA, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits and compensation for the injury to its reputation and awards ALAN HAGER and DIANE HAGER compensation for the harm to their personal and professional reputation and the mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity they have suffered, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT THREE-DEFAMATION AGAINST HERITAGE 33. Plaintiffs adopt and re-allege paragraphs 2-4, 6, and 15-17 above, as though fully set forth herein. 34. This is an action for common law defamation against HERITAGE.
35. On July 13, 2001, Dustin Johnston, in the course and scope of his employment with HERITAGE, published via electronic mail a statement that HERITAGE was no longer accepting ACG graded coins on consignment because ACG is “not recognized in the numismatic industry.” 36. On March 20, 2003, Gregory Rohan, as President of HERITAGE, knowingly made false and disparaging statements about Plaintiffs that accused them of fraud and knowingly grading counterfeit coins. Specifically, Rohan stated that ACG is “basically a fraud” and “ I have lost track of the number of counterfeit coins I have seen in ACG holders”. By virtue of his position as President of HERITAGE, Rohan’s statements have been re-published on the Internet and in various media including in the July and August, 2004 issues of The Numismatist. 37. HERITAGE published and/or caused the publication of the aforementioned false and disparaging statements in an unprivileged context and in an effort to injure the Plaintiffs in their occupation, business, and employment and to expose them to distrust, hatred, contempt and ridicule and to cause them to be avoided. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the HERITAGE’s conduct, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely and the personal and professional reputations of the HAGERS have been severely, pervasively, and permanently harmed and they have suffered mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs respectfully demand a judgment against Defendant, HERITAGE, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits and compensation for the injury to its reputation and awards ALAN HAGER and DIANE HAGER compensation for the harm to their personal and professional reputation and the mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity they have suffered, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT FOUR-DEFAMATION AGAINST PCGS 39. Plaintiffs adopt and re-allege paragraphs 2-4, 7, and 15-17 above, as though fully set forth herein. 40. This is an action for common law defamation against PCGS. 41. At all times material hereto, PCGS owned and operated a message board on its website known as U.S. Coin Forum and is responsible for the messages and threads posted thereon. 42. As set forth in paragraph 16 above, from 2003 through 2005 many false and disparaging statements about Plaintiffs have been posted on the PCGS message board notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ written admonishment to PCGS that its message board was being used for this purpose. 43. In addition, PCGS allowed unknown individuals to create message board accounts on its U.S. Coin Forum in the names of DIANE HAGER and ALAN HAGER and to post false and disparaging messages about Plaintiffs. 44. PCGS published and/or caused the publication of the aforementioned false and disparaging statements in an unprivileged context and in an effort to injure the Plaintiffs in their occupation, business, and employment and to expose them to distrust, hatred, contempt and ridicule and to cause them to be avoided. 45. As a direct and proximate result of PCGS’ tortious conduct, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely and the personal and professional reputations of the HAGERS have been severely, pervasively, and permanently harmed and they have suffered mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs respectfully demand a judgment against Defendant, PCGS, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits and compensation for the injury to its reputation and awards ALAN HAGER and DIANE HAGER compensation for the harm to their personal and professional reputation and the mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity they have suffered, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT FIVE-DEFAMATION AGAINST STUPPLER & CO. and STUPPLER 46. Plaintiffs adopt and re-allege paragraphs 2-5, 7-11, and 15-18 above, as though fully set forth herein. 47. This is an action for common law defamation against STUPPLER & CO. and STUPPLER. 48. On or about January 14, 2001, STUPPLER posted a message on the RCC newsgroup entitled "Don't buy ACG graded coins" that contained the false and disparaging statement: " Another potential serious collector lost to the hobby by Accugrade graded coins." In this RCC newsgroup post, STUPPLER identified himself as being associated with STUPPLER & CO. and as ANA Governor. 49. On or about July 14, 2002, STUPPLER falsely stated in electronic mail to Anthony Royal that it is a "fact" that ACG graded coins "have no liquidity" and "most collectors and/or dealers will not buy or bid on certified coins in Accugrade holders." 50. In July and August 2004, STUPPLER & CO. and/or STUPPLER wrote and caused the publication of a "paid advertisement" in The Numismatist that was replete with false and disparaging statements about Plaintiffs in that it accused them of fraud and knowingly certifying counterfeit coins. 51. STUPPLER & CO. and/or STUPPLER published and/or caused the publication of the aforementioned defamatory statements in an unprivileged context and in an effort to injure the Plaintiffs in their occupation, business, and employment and to expose them to distrust, hatred, contempt and ridicule and to cause them to be avoided. 52. As a direct and proximate result of the tortious conduct of STUPPLER & CO. and/or STUPPLER, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely and the personal and professional reputations of the HAGERS have been severely, pervasively, and permanently harmed and they have suffered mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs respectfully demand a judgment against Defendant, PCGS, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits and compensation for the injury to its reputation and awards ALAN HAGER and DIANE HAGER compensation for the harm to their personal and professional reputation and the mental anguish, emotional injuries, humiliation, and loss of dignity they have suffered, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT SIX-CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH ACG’S ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS REATIONSHIPS
53. Plaintiffs adopt and re-allege paragraphs 1-21 above, as though fully set forth herein. 54. Beginning in or about 2001 and continuing through the present date, Defendants, the ANA, HERITAGE, PCGS, PNG, STUPPLER & CO., and STUPPLER have combined, confederated, conspired, and agreed to knowingly, intentionally, and unjustifiably interfere with the advantageous business relationships that ACG enjoyed with coin dealers that bought and sold ACG graded coins. 55. Defendants thereafter performed the overt acts alleged in paragraph 15, above, in furtherance of the conspiracy, with knowledge of ACG’s advantageous business relationships with the coin dealers listed in paragraph 19, above, and in an effort to unjustifiably interfere with and destroy these relationships. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy to interfere with ACG’s advantageous business relationships and the Defendants’ unique ability to intimidate coin dealers resulting from their combined experience and influence in the rare coin industry, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely. WHEREFORE Plaintiff, ACG, respectfully demands a judgment against Defendants, the ANA, HERITAGE, PCGS, PNG, STUPPLER & CO., and STUPPLER, jointly and severally, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits, punitive damages to punish the Defendants and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT SEVEN-TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AGAINST THE ANA 57. ACG adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 2, 5, 11, and 15-19 above, as though fully set forth herein. 58. This is an action for tortious interference with ACG’s advantageous business relationships 59. Since at least 1999, ACG enjoyed advantageous business relationships with certain coin dealers that dealt in ACG graded coins, as set forth in paragraph 19, above. 60. At all times material hereto, the ANA was aware of the advantageous business relationships that ACG enjoyed with these coin dealers. 61. Commencing in 2001, the ANA (through RCC) and on its own behalf, participated in a group boycott of ACG, published a list of ACG’S dealers on the Internet for the purpose of facilitating their harassment by others, attempted to deny ACG bourse space at ANA trade shows, created and published the disposition of a complaint made by DIANE HAGER against STUPPLER that contained false, disparaging, and unnecessary statements about ACG, and published a false and disparaging “paid advertisement” about ACG in its monthly membership periodical all as alleged in paragraphs 15, 16, 18, and 19, above. 62. The ANA engaged in the aforementioned conduct for the purpose of intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with the relationships between ACG and the dealers that had historically bought and sold ACG graded coins. 63. As a direct and proximate result of the ANA’S tortious interference with ACG’s advantageous business relationships, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely. WHEREFORE Plaintiff, ACG, respectfully demands a judgment against Defendant, the ANA, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT EIGHT-TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AGAINST HERITAGE 64. ACG adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 2, 6, and 15-19 above, as though fully set forth herein. 65. This is an action for tortious interference with ACG’s advantageous business relationships. 66. Since at least 1999, ACG enjoyed advantageous business relationships with certain coin dealers that dealt in ACG graded coins. 67. At all times material hereto, HERITAGE was aware of the advantageous business relationships that ACG enjoyed with these coin dealers. 68. Commencing in 2001, HERITAGE, refused to sell ACG graded coins on consignment at auction, authorized and/or condoned its President, Gregory Rohan, to appear and present false and disparaging testimony at an ANA proceeding in March, 2003, and, through its employee (Dustin Johnston) acting in the course and scope of his employment, stated in electronic mail that ACG is “not a recognized grading service” all as alleged in paragraphs 15 and 16, above. 69. HERITAGE engaged in the aforementioned conduct for the purpose of intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with the relationships between ACG and the dealers that had historically bought and sold ACG graded coins. 70. As a direct and proximate result of the HERITAGE’S tortious interference with ACG’s advantageous business relationships, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely. WHEREFORE Plaintiff, ACG, respectfully demands a judgment against Defendant, HERITAGE, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT NINE-TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AGAINST PCGS 71. ACG adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 2, 7, and 15-19 above, as though fully set forth herein. 72. This is an action for tortious interference with ACG’S advantageous business relationships. 73. Since at least 1999, ACG enjoyed advantageous business relationships with certain coin dealers that dealt in ACG graded coins. 74. At all times material hereto, PCGS was aware of the advantageous business relationships that ACG enjoyed with these coin dealers. 75. At all times material hereto, PCGS owned and operated a U.S. Coin Forum message board wherein it permitted and facilitated various forms of Internet communications containing false and disparaging statements about ACG, its President, and its head grader that were published with intent to destroy the advantageous business relationships ACG had traditionally enjoyed with coin dealers. 76. PCGS engaged in the aforementioned conduct for the purpose of intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with the relationships between ACG and the dealers that had historically bought and sold ACG graded coins. 77. As a direct and proximate result of PCGS’ tortious interference with ACG’s advantageous business relationships, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely. WHEREFORE Plaintiff, ACG, respectfully demands a judgment against Defendant, PCGS, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT TEN-TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AGAINST STUPPLER & CO. AND/OR STUPPLER
78. ACG adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 2, 8-9, 11 and 15-19 above, as though fully set forth herein. 79. This is an action for tortious interference with ACG’s advantageous business relationships. 80. Since at least 1999, ACG enjoyed advantageous business relationships with certain coin dealers that dealt in ACG graded coins. 81. At all times material hereto, STUPPLER & CO. and STUPPLER were aware of the advantageous business relationships that ACG enjoyed with these coin dealers. 82. STUPPLER & CO. and/or STUPPLER concocted coin grading surveys in 2002 and 2004, solicited opinions about ACG from coin dealers that had never dealt in ACG graded coins (and ignored the positive comments of those dealers who had), and publicized the illegitimate results of the “survey” on the PNG and ANA websites and elsewhere, published a list of ACG dealers on the Internet (through RCC) in 2001 and thereafter caused ACG dealers to be systematically harassed until they ceased doing business with ACG, and, commencing in 2001, proposed, organized, and carried out a group boycott of ACG products and services. 83. STUPPLER & CO. and/or STUPPLER engaged in the aforementioned conduct for the purpose of intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with the relationships between ACG and the dealers that had historically bought and sold ACG graded coins. 84. As a direct and proximate result of the tortious interference with ACG’s advantageous business relationships carried out by STUPPLER & CO. and/or STUPPLER, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely. WHEREFORE Plaintiff, ACG, respectfully demands a judgment against Defendant, STUPPLER & CO. and/or STUPPLER, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits, punitive damages to punish the Defendant(s) and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT ELEVEN-TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AGAINST PNG 85. ACG adopts and re-alleges paragraphs 2, 10, and 15-19 above, as though fully set forth herein. 86. This is an action for tortious interference with ACG’s advantageous business relationships. 87. Since at least 1999, ACG enjoyed advantageous business relationships with certain coin dealers that dealt in ACG graded coins. 88. At all times material hereto, PNG was aware of the advantageous business relationships that ACG enjoyed with these coin dealers. 89. PNG concocted coin grading surveys in 2002 and 2004, solicited opinions about ACG from coin dealers that had never dealt in ACG graded coins (and ignored the positive comments of those dealers who had), and publicized the illegitimate results of the “survey” on the PNG and ANA websites and elsewhere. Also, in 2001, PNG disseminated a letter to PNG dealers who had dealt in ACG graded coins that stated that if they continued to sell ACG graded coins they could potentially lose their PNG membership privileges and formed an “Internet Rules Committee” for the specific purpose of deterring coin dealers from buying and selling ACG graded coins. 90. PNG engaged in the aforementioned conduct for the purpose of intentionally and unjustifiably interfering with the relationships between ACG and the dealers that had historically bought and sold ACG graded coins. 91. As a direct and proximate result of PNG’S tortious interference with ACG’s advantageous business relationships, ACG has lost considerable income and profits and its goodwill has suffered immensely. WHEREFORE Plaintiff, ACG, respectfully demands a judgment against Defendant, PNG, that awards ACG its lost business income and profits, punitive damages to punish the Defendant and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and costs of this action and that provides such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
DATED this 11th day of July, 2006.
Respectfully Submitted,
BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P.A. 390 North Orange Avenue Suite 2500 Orlando, Florida 32801 Telephone: (407) 926-7700 Facsimile: (407) 926-7720 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By: /s/ Daniel N. Brodersen DANIEL N. BRODERSEN Florida Bar No. 0664197
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail this 11th day of July, 2006 to: Yates Rumbley, Esquire and Robert Mixson, Esquire; CAMERON, HODGES, COLEMAN, LAPOINTE, WRIGHT, P.A., 15 West Church Street, Suite 301, Orlando, Florida 32801-3351 (Counsel for Defendant Collector’s Universe); Robert E. O’Quinn, Jr., Esquire, COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A., 1805 Copeland Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32204 (Counsel for Defendant Professional Numismatists Guild, Inc.); David W. Henry, Esquire, ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST, P.A., 255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1401, Orlando, Florida 32801 (Counsel for American Numismatic Association); David Young, Esquire, AKERMAN, SENTERFEIT, et. al., 255 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1700, Orlando, Florida 32801 (Counsel for Stuppler & Co., Inc. and Barry S. Stuppler) and J. Scott Kirk, Esquire and LaShawnda K. Jackson, Esquire, RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1400, P.O. Box 1873, Orlando, Florida 32802-1873 (Counsel for Defendant Heritage Capital Corporation).
/s/ Daniel N. Brodersen Attorney
|