STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Hope Blackley, Plaintiff, vs. Spartanburg County, Terry O. Booker, Jeff Horton, David Britt, Katherine O’Neil, Mike Emory, Bob Walker, John N. McNamara, JMAC Environmental, LLC, and Asbestos Abatement Associates Inc., d/b/a AAA Environmental, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No.: 2019-CP-42-_______ SUMMONS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE-NAMED: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action, a copy of which is hereby served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer to the said Complaint on the subscribers at their offices, located at 1225 S. Church Street, Greenville, SC, 29605 and 1817 Hampton Street, Columbia, SC 29201, within thirty (30) days after service thereof exclusive of the day of such service, and if you fail to answer the Complaint within the time aforesaid, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. MOONEYHAM BERRY, LLC s/Joe Mooneyham Joe Mooneyham, SC Bar # 04041 Post Office Box 8359 Greenville, South Carolina 29604 864.421.0036 Fax 864.421.9060 [email protected]DICKEY LAW GROUP, LLC s/Joseph D. Dickey, Jr. Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., SC Bar No. 100064 1817 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201 [email protected](803) 380-5575Fax: (803) 380-5576 Attorneys for Plaintiff Greenville, South Carolina June 7, 2019 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 AM - SPARTANBURG - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2019CP4202080
Transcript
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG
) ) )
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Hope Blackley,
Plaintiff,
vs. Spartanburg County, Terry O. Booker, Jeff Horton, David Britt, Katherine O’Neil, Mike Emory, Bob Walker, John N. McNamara, JMAC Environmental, LLC, and Asbestos Abatement Associates Inc., d/b/a AAA Environmental,
Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C.A. No.: 2019-CP-42-_______
SUMMONS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE-NAMED:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action, a
copy of which is hereby served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer to the said Complaint
on the subscribers at their offices, located at 1225 S. Church Street, Greenville, SC, 29605 and 1817
Hampton Street, Columbia, SC 29201, within thirty (30) days after service thereof exclusive of the
day of such service, and if you fail to answer the Complaint within the time aforesaid, judgment by
default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
MOONEYHAM BERRY, LLC
s/Joe Mooneyham Joe Mooneyham, SC Bar # 04041 Post Office Box 8359 Greenville, South Carolina 29604 864.421.0036 Fax 864.421.9060 [email protected]
DICKEY LAW GROUP, LLC
s/Joseph D. Dickey, Jr. Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., SC Bar No. 100064
vs. Spartanburg County, Terry O. Booker, Jeff Horton, David Britt, Katherine O’Neil, Mike Emory, Bob Walker, John n. McNamara, JMAC Environmental, LLC, and Asbestos Abatement Associates Inc., d/b/a AAA Environmental,
Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C.A. No.: 2019-CP-42-_______
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMES NOW the plaintiff, Hope Blackley (hereinafter “Blackley” or “the plaintiff”) and
alleges the following in her Complaint against the defendants, in their corporate and individual
capacities, as set forth herein:
NATURE OF ACTION
The plaintiff is seeking actual, consequential and punitive damages as a result of the
defendants’ willful, reckless, and wanton conduct, as well as for the actions of the Spartanburg
County employees who acted with conscious disregard for her life, liberty and property.
PARTIES
1. The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Spartanburg County, South Carolina. She
was formerly the Clerk of Court for Spartanburg County, and as such was a popularly elected
official, charged with the operation, supervision and management of the Clerk of Court’s office. As
such, she is not and was not an employee of Spartanburg County. Further, the duties of her office
required her, during her term, to occupy an office in the Clerk’s Office in the Spartanburg County
Courthouse, located at 180 Magnolia Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
2
2. Spartanburg County is a political subdivision as that term is defined in S.C. Code,
Ann., §15-78-30(h) (1986, as amended). As such, Spartanburg County is generally amenable to suit
pursuant to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, found at S.C. Code, Ann., §§15-78-10, et. seq.
3. Terry O. Booker was, at all pertinent times, an agent, servant or employee of
Spartanburg County, and further is a resident of Spartanburg County. His actions and inactions, as
pled more fully below, occurred under color of state law, as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983. Mr.
Booker is a citizen and resident of Spartanburg County.
4. Jeff Horton was, at all pertinent times, an agent of Spartanburg County acting in his
capacity as a member of County Council. His actions and inactions, as pled more fully below,
occurred under color of state law, as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983. Mr. Horton is a citizen and
resident of Spartanburg County.
5. David Britt was, at all pertinent times, an agent of Spartanburg County acting in his
capacity as a member of County Council. His actions and inactions, as pled more fully below,
occurred under color of state law, as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983. Mr. Britt is a citizen and
resident of Spartanburg County.
6. Katherine O’Neil was, at all pertinent times, an agent, servant or employee of
Spartanburg County, and further is a resident of Spartanburg County. Her actions and inactions, as
pled more fully below, occurred under color of state law, as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Ms. O’Neal is a citizen and resident of Spartanburg County.
7. Mike Emory was, at all pertinent times, an agent, servant or employee of Spartanburg
County, and further is a resident of Spartanburg County. His actions and inactions, as pled more
fully below, occurred under color of state law, as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983. Mr. Emory is a
citizen and resident of Spartanburg County.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
3
8. Bob Walker was, at all pertinent times, an agent, servant or employee of Spartanburg
County, and further is a resident of Spartanburg County. His actions and inactions, as pled more
fully below, occurred under color of state law, as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983. Mr. Walker is a
citizen and resident of Spartanburg County.
9. John N. McNamara is the principal of JMAC, LLC. Mr. McNamara resides in
Spartanburg County and managed the day to day operations of JMAC Environmental, LLC, during
all pertinent times.
10. JMAC Environmental, LLC, is a South Carolina limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Spartanburg County, where it engages in, among other things, mold
remediation.
11. Asbestos Abatement Associates Inc., d/b/a AAA Environmental, is a South Carolina
corporation with its principal place of business in Spartanburg County, where it engages in, among
other things, mold remediation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of the
complaint, and venue is proper in Spartanburg County, as the place where all acts or omissions
occurred. See S.C. Code Ann. §15-78-100 (b).
FACTS
13. As set forth above, the plaintiff was a constitutionally elected official charged with
the duty of operation, supervision, and management of the Clerk of Court’s Office for Spartanburg
County. She was appointed to fill an unexpired term of office in 2010 and subsequently re-elected
for two additional terms and served in that capacity until January 3, 2019.
14. The plaintiff was required to occupy an office in the Courthouse. During her tenure,
mold was discovered growing in various departments, including in the Clerk’s Office.
15. Further, during her tenure, four separate mold remediation efforts occurred.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
4
16. Despite those efforts, mold continued (and continues) to flourish in the Courthouse.
The plaintiff was unnecessarily exposed to mold spores and to ambient toxins as a result of recurrent
mold growth.
17. As a result of that exposure, the plaintiff was rendered ill. She has incurred medical
expenses, has lost time from her gainful employment, has been totally disabled for periods of time,
and suffers permanent loss of function. Further, she has suffered with painful inability to breathe,
chest tightness, rhinitis, severe headaches, and other physical symptoms associated with toxic mold
exposure. Further, she has suffered cognitive dysfunction, including memory loss, irritability,
inability to focus, and other symptoms. Finally, she has suffered emotionally and has lost enjoyment
of life.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION—SPARTANBURG COUNTY
18. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
19. Spartanburg County, by its agents, servants, and employees, owed the plaintiff the
duty to provide her with a reasonably safe work environment.
20. That duty is codified in S.C. Code Ann. §41-15-80.
21. When the County had actual or constructive notice of the danger posed by the mold
infestation in the Courthouse, the County was required to take such steps as were necessary to
remediate the mold, to protect those required to work in the environment, including the plaintiff, and
to warn of the dangers posed by the mold of which it was aware.
22. Spartanburg County’s failure to protect the plaintiff from the danger posed by the
mold infestation, failure to remediate the mold, and failure to warn the plaintiff of the danger posed
by the mold to which the plaintiff was exposed constituted negligence.
23. As a proximate result of the County’s negligent acts and omissions, the plaintiff
suffered the damages alleged above.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
5
24. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes she is entitled to judgment against
Spartanburg County for actual damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—SPARTANBURG COUNTY VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983
25. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
26. At the time and place in question, Spartanburg County was charged with the
implementation, observance of, compliance with, and/or obedience to of such policies and
procedures as would ensure the substantive and procedural rights of plaintiff to prevent loss of life,
liberty, or property without due process of las as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
27. Notwithstanding its duties to enact, enforce, and/or comply with/obey such policies,
Spartanburg County, through its agents, servants and employees, failed to do so, and, as a direct and
proximate result, the plaintiff suffered the injuries detailed above.
28. Specifically, Spartanburg County, through its agents, servants and employees, acting
under color of state law, failed to protect the plaintiff from the violation of her substantive and
procedural rights at the time and place in question, in some one or more of the following particulars:
a. In failing to warn the plaintiff of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question,
after notice to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the
danger the mold posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
6
f. In failing to authorize appropriate testing of personnel and the environment to
evaluate levels of mold exposure;
g. In failing to obtain competent remediation; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
29. The above-referenced acts and omissions deprived the plaintiff of both liberty and
property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution.
30. The above-referenced acts and omissions further interfered with the plaintiff’s
fundamental constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the State of South Carolina vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.
31. Further the above-referenced acts and omissions constituted behavior that
demonstrated conscious indifference for the plaintiff’s rights.
32. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes that she is entitled to judgment for
actual and punitive damages against Spartanburg County.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—TERRY BOOKER VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983
33. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
34. At the time and place in question, Mr. Booker was charged with the implementation,
observance of, compliance with, and/or obedience to of such policies and procedures as would ensure
the substantive and procedural rights of plaintiff to prevent loss of life, liberty, or property without
due process of las as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
35. Notwithstanding his duties to enact, enforce, and/or comply with/obey such policies,
Mr. Booker failed to do so, and, as a direct and proximate result, the plaintiff suffered the injuries
detailed above.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
7
36. Specifically, Mr. Booker, in his official capacity and acting under color of state law,
failed to protect the plaintiff from the violation of her substantive and procedural rights at the time
and place in question, in some one or more of the following particulars:
a. In failing to warn the plaintiff of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question,
after notice to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the
danger the mold posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
f. In failing to authorize appropriate testing of personnel and the environment to
evaluate levels of mold exposure;
g. In failing to obtain competent remediation; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
37. The above-referenced acts and omissions deprived the plaintiff of both liberty and
property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution.
38. The above-referenced acts and omissions further interfered with the plaintiff’s
fundamental constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the State of South Carolina vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.
39. Further the above-referenced acts and omissions constituted behavior that
demonstrated conscious indifference for the plaintiff’s rights.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
8
40. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes that she is entitled to judgment for
actual and punitive damages against Mr. Booker.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION—JEFF HORTON VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983
41. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
42. At the time and place in question, Mr. Horton was charged with the implementation,
observance of, compliance with, and/or obedience to of such policies and procedures as would ensure
the substantive and procedural rights of plaintiff to prevent loss of life, liberty, or property without
due process of las as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
43. Notwithstanding his duties to enact, enforce, and/or comply with/obey such policies,
Mr. Horton failed to do so, and, as a direct and proximate result, the plaintiff suffered the injuries
detailed above.
44. Specifically, Mr. Horton, in his official capacity and acting under color of state law,
failed to protect the plaintiff from the violation of her substantive and procedural rights at the time
and place in question, in some one or more of the following particulars:
a. In failing to warn the plaintiff of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question,
after notice to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the
danger the mold posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
9
f. In failing to authorize appropriate testing of personnel and the environment to
evaluate levels of mold exposure;
g. In failing to obtain competent remediation; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
45. The above-referenced acts and omissions deprived the plaintiff of both liberty and
property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution.
46. The above-referenced acts and omissions further interfered with the plaintiff’s
fundamental constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the State of South Carolina vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.
47. Further the above-referenced acts and omissions constituted behavior that
demonstrated conscious indifference for the plaintiff’s rights.
48. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes that she is entitled to judgment for
actual and punitive damages against Mr. Horton.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION—DAVID BRITT VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983
49. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
50. At the time and place in question, Mr. Britt was charged with the implementation,
observance of, compliance with, and/or obedience to of such policies and procedures as would ensure
the substantive and procedural rights of plaintiff to prevent loss of life, liberty, or property without
due process of las as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
51. Notwithstanding his duties to enact, enforce, and/or comply with/obey such policies,
Mr. Britt failed to do so, and, as a direct and proximate result, the plaintiff suffered the injuries
detailed above.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
10
52. Specifically, Mr. Britt, in his official capacity and acting under color of state law,
failed to protect the plaintiff from the violation of her substantive and procedural rights at the time
and place in question, in some one or more of the following particulars:
a. In failing to warn the plaintiff of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question,
after notice to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the
danger the mold posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
f. In failing to authorize appropriate testing of personnel and the environment to
evaluate levels of mold exposure;
g. In failing to obtain competent remediation; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
53. The above-referenced acts and omissions deprived the plaintiff of both liberty and
property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution.
54. The above-referenced acts and omissions further interfered with the plaintiff’s
fundamental constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the State of South Carolina vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.
55. Further the above-referenced acts and omissions constituted behavior that
demonstrated conscious indifference for the plaintiff’s rights.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
11
56. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes that she is entitled to judgment for
actual and punitive damages against Mr. Britt.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION—KATHERINE O’NEIL VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983
57. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
58. At the time and place in question, Ms. O’Neal was charged with the implementation,
observance of, compliance with, and/or obedience to of such policies and procedures as would ensure
the substantive and procedural rights of plaintiff to prevent loss of life, liberty, or property without
due process of las as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
59. Notwithstanding her duties to enact, enforce, and/or comply with/obey such policies,
Ms. O’Neal failed to do so, and, as a direct and proximate result, the plaintiff suffered the injuries
detailed above.
60. Specifically, Ms. O’Neal, in her official capacity and acting under color of state law,
failed to protect the plaintiff from the violation of her substantive and procedural rights at the time
and place in question, in some one or more of the following particulars:
a. In failing to warn the plaintiff of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question,
after notice to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the
danger the mold posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
12
f. In failing to authorize appropriate testing of personnel and the environment to
evaluate levels of mold exposure;
g. In failing to obtain competent remediation; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
61. The above-referenced acts and omissions deprived the plaintiff of both liberty and
property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution.
62. The above-referenced acts and omissions further interfered with the plaintiff’s
fundamental constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the State of South Carolina vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.
63. Further the above-referenced acts and omissions constituted behavior that
demonstrated conscious indifference for the plaintiff’s rights.
64. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes that she is entitled to judgment for
actual and punitive damages against Ms. O’Neal.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION—MIKE EMORY VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983
65. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
66. At the time and place in question, Mr. Emory was charged with the implementation,
observance of, compliance with, and/or obedience to of such policies and procedures as would ensure
the substantive and procedural rights of plaintiff to prevent loss of life, liberty, or property without
due process of las as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
67. Notwithstanding his duties to enact, enforce, and/or comply with/obey such policies,
Mr. Emory failed to do so, and, as a direct and proximate result, the plaintiff suffered the injuries
detailed above.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
13
68. Specifically, Mr. Emory, in his official capacity and acting under color of state law,
failed to protect the plaintiff from the violation of her substantive and procedural rights at the time
and place in question, in some one or more of the following particulars:
a. In failing to warn the plaintiff of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question,
after notice to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the
danger the mold posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
f. In failing to authorize appropriate testing of personnel and the environment to
evaluate levels of mold exposure;
g. In failing to obtain competent remediation; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
69. The above-referenced acts and omissions deprived the plaintiff of both liberty and
property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution.
70. The above-referenced acts and omissions further interfered with the plaintiff’s
fundamental constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the State of South Carolina vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.
71. Further the above-referenced acts and omissions constituted behavior that
demonstrated conscious indifference for the plaintiff’s rights.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
14
72. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes that she is entitled to judgment for
actual and punitive damages against Mr. Emory.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION—BOB WALKER VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983
73. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
74. At the time and place in question, Mr. Walker was charged with the implementation,
observance of, compliance with, and/or obedience to of such policies and procedures as would ensure
the substantive and procedural rights of plaintiff to prevent loss of life, liberty, or property without
due process of las as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
75. Notwithstanding his duties to enact, enforce, and/or comply with/obey such policies,
Mr. Walker failed to do so, and, as a direct and proximate result, the plaintiff suffered the injuries
detailed above.
76. Specifically, Mr. Walker, in his official capacity and acting under color of state law,
failed to protect the plaintiff from the violation of her substantive and procedural rights at the time
and place in question, in some one or more of the following particulars:
a. In failing to warn the plaintiff of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question,
after notice to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the
danger the mold posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
15
f. In failing to authorize appropriate testing of personnel and the environment to
evaluate levels of mold exposure;
g. In failing to obtain competent remediation; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
77. The above-referenced acts and omissions deprived the plaintiff of both liberty and
property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution.
78. The above-referenced acts and omissions further interfered with the plaintiff’s
fundamental constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as applied to the State of South Carolina vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment.
79. Further the above-referenced acts and omissions constituted behavior that
demonstrated conscious indifference for the plaintiff’s rights.
80. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes that she is entitled to judgment for
actual and punitive damages against Mr. Walker.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION—JOHN N. McNAMARA
81. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
82. Mr. McNamara is the alter ego and decision maker as principal for JMAC
Environmental, LLC.
83. As such, he owed a duty to all parties involved, including the plaintiff, to advise
Spartanburg County through its agents, servants and employees, of the dangers posed by the mold in
question, and of the appropriate methods to achieve a safe remediation, to include the appropriate
precautions to protect those persons, such as the plaintiff, who occupied the Courthouse regularly.
84. Further, he owed all parties involved, including the plaintiff, the duty to take
reasonable steps to accomplish, through his company, a complete and permanent mold remediation.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
16
85. Breaches of those duties would constitute negligence and recklessness.
86. Notwithstanding his duties to the parties involved, including the plaintiff, Mr.
McNamara was negligent and reckless in his dealing with Spartanburg County in one or more of the
following particulars:
a. In failing to warn of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question, after notice
to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the danger the mold
posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
f. In failing to perform appropriate testing of the environment to evaluate levels of mold
exposure;
g. In failing to remediate the mold in a complete and permanent fashion; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
87. As a proximate result of Mr. McNamara’s negligent and reckless acts and omissions,
the plaintiff suffered the damages set forth above.
88. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes she is entitled to judgment for actual
and punitive damages against Mr. McNamara.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION—JMAC ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
89. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
17
90. At the time and place in question, JMAC Environmental, LLC, through its agents and
servants, held itself out as competent to remediate the mold infestation in the Spartanburg County
Courthouse.
91. For good and valuable consideration, JMAC Environmental was retained to perform
mold remediation during the period including the late summer and autumn of 2016, at which time the
plaintiff was the Clerk of Court
92. As such, it owed a duty to all parties involved, including the plaintiff, to advise
Spartanburg County through its agents, servants and employees, of the dangers posed by the mold in
question, and of the appropriate methods to achieve a safe remediation, to include the appropriate
precautions to protect those persons, such as the plaintiff, who occupied the Courthouse regularly.
93. Further, it owed all parties involved, including the plaintiff, the duty to act reasonably
and competently to obtain a complete and permanent remediation of the mold in question.
94. Breaches of those duties would constitute negligence and recklessness.
95. Notwithstanding its duties to the parties involved, including the plaintiff, JMAC
Environmental, through its agents and servants, was negligent and reckless in its dealing with
Spartanburg County in one or more of the following particulars:
a. In failing to warn of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question, after notice
to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the danger the mold
posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
18
f. In failing to perform appropriate testing of the environment to evaluate levels of mold
exposure;
g. In failing to remediate the mold in a complete and permanent fashion; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
96. As a proximate result of JMAC Environmental’s negligent and reckless acts and
omissions, the plaintiff suffered the damages set forth above.
97. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes she is entitled to judgment for actual
and punitive damages against JMAC Environmental, LLC.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION—ASBESTOS ABATEMENT ASSOCIATES INC., d/b/a AAA ENVIRONMENTAL
98. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
99. At the time and place in question, AAA Environmental, through its agents and
servants, held itself out as competent to remediate the mold infestation in the Spartanburg County
Courthouse.
100. For good and valuable consideration, AAA Environmental was retained to perform
mold remediation during the period including the late summer and autumn of 2016, at which time the
plaintiff was the Clerk of Court.
101. As such, AAA Environmental owed a duty to all parties involved, including the
plaintiff, to advise Spartanburg County through its agents, servants and employees, of the dangers
posed by the mold in question, and of the appropriate methods to achieve a safe remediation, to
include the appropriate precautions to protect those persons, such as the plaintiff, who occupied the
Courthouse regularly.
102. Further, it owed all parties involved, including the plaintiff, the duty to act reasonably
and competently to obtain a complete and permanent remediation of the mold in question.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
19
103. Breaches of those duties would constitute negligence and recklessness.
104. Notwithstanding its duties to the parties involved, including the plaintiff, AAA
Environmental, through its agents and servants, was negligent and reckless in its dealing with
Spartanburg County in one or more of the following particulars:
a. In failing to warn of the risks posed by exposure to the mold in question, after notice
to him of the existence and recurrence of the mold, as well as of the danger the mold
posed;
b. In failing to provide adequate protective gear to the plaintiff so as to prevent her
exposure to the mold in question;
c. In failing to close the Courthouse or to close portions of it during mold remediations;
d. In failing to remove the plaintiff from the environment that was mold contaminated
and therefore dangerous to her;
e. In minimizing and trivializing the danger posed by the mold;
f. In failing to perform appropriate testing of the environment to evaluate levels of mold
exposure;
g. In failing to remediate the mold in a complete and permanent fashion; and,
h. In such other ways as will become evident through discovery.
105. As a proximate result of AAA Environmental’s negligent and reckless acts and
omissions, the plaintiff suffered the damages set forth above.
106. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes she is entitled to judgment for actual
and punitive damages against Asbestos Abatement Associates, d/b/a AAA Environmental.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION—BOB WALKER DEFAMATION
107. The plaintiff repeats the previous allegations of her complaint as if repeated here
verbatim.
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
20
108. In May of 2018, while attending a meeting of the Spartanburg Republican Women,
Mr. Walker called the plaintiff a liar.
109. He did so from the lectern in the presence of multiple peers of the plaintiff as well as
in the presence of persons who did not know her.
110. He therefore published his remark.
111. His remark was false as the plaintiff is not a liar.
112. Walker knew that his statement was false when he made it, and the statement was
made with knowledge or with reckless disregard for the false and defamatory nature of the statement.
113. Walker therefore spoke with actual malice.
114. His remark was defamatory, and in fact defamatory per se.
115. As a direct and proximate result of Walker’s false and defamatory statement, the
plaintiff has suffered damage to her reputation and standing in the community.
116. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes that she is entitled to actual damages
and to punitive damages against Mr. Walker as a result of the false and defamatory statements made
by Walker.
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
117. The plaintiff is informed and believes that the defendants’ conduct combined and
concurred to cause her injury and damage, and that they should therefore be jointly and severally
liable to her for damages.
WHEREFORE, having fully set forth her allegations against the defendants, the plaintiff
respectfully prays that this Court enter judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, by:
a. Awarding the plaintiff actual and compensatory damages for economic and non-
economic injuries;
b. Awarding the plaintiff her costs and disbursements in this action, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and expert fees and costs;
ELE
CT
RO
NIC
ALLY
FILE
D - 2019 Jun 07 11:57 A
M - S
PA
RT
AN
BU
RG
- CO
MM
ON
PLE
AS
- CA
SE
#2019CP
4202080
21
c. Awarding the plaintiff punitive damages, as permitted by law;
d. Awarding the plaintiff prejudgment and other interest on all monetary damages, as
permitted by law; and
e. Granting the plaintiff such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
MOONEYHAM BERRY, LLC s/Joe Mooneyham Joe Mooneyham, SC Bar # 04041 Post Office Box 8359 Greenville, South Carolina 29604 864.421.0036 Fax 864.421.9060 [email protected]
DICKEY LAW GROUP, LLC
s/Joseph D. Dickey, Jr. Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., SC Bar No. 100064
1817 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201 [email protected] (803) 380-5575 Fax: (803) 380-5576 Attorneys for Plaintiff
vs. Spartanburg County, Terry O. Booker, Jeff Horton, David Britt, Katherine O’Neil, Mike Emory, Bob Walker, John McNamara, JMAC Environmental, LLC, and Asbestos Abatement Associates Inc., d/b/a AAA Environmental,
Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C.A. No.: 2019-CP-42-_______
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff, by her their undersigned attorneys, demands a jury trial on all issues set forth in this cause as the Court deems just and proper.
MOONEYHAM BERRY, LLC s/Joe Mooneyham Joe Mooneyham, SC Bar # 04041 Post Office Box 8359 Greenville, South Carolina 29604 864.421.0036 Fax 864.421.9060 [email protected]
DICKEY LAW GROUP, LLC
s/Joseph D. Dickey, Jr. Joseph D. Dickey, Jr., SC Bar No. 100064
