8/3/2019 Stormy Magiera VS. John Doe

1/8

"

, i,

STORMY MAGIERA ;PLAINTIFF

VS.JO HN DOE;

DEFENDANTPLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:P laintiff Storm y M agiera files this law suit com plaining of John D oe. Plaintiff respect-

f ully show s th e fo llow ing:PARTIES

1. The Defendant is an individual who, based on credible information and belief,bo th w ork s an d lives in D allas C oun ty, T ex as.

2. The identity of the Defendant is currently unknown and thus, the Defendant isbeing sued as "John D oe" at this tim e.

3. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Texas.4. A ll parties are properly before the Court.

JURISDICTION &DISCOVERY LEVEL5. This Court has subject m atter jurisdiction under Texas law . The amount ill

con trov ersy in th is claim is w ithin th e jurisdictio nal am ou nt of this C ou rt.VENUE

6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Tex. C iv. Rem . Code 1 5.00 2 and 15.017.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page I or8

8/3/2019 Stormy Magiera VS. John Doe

2/8

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. The Plaintiff is a police officer and decorated eleven (11) year veteran of the DallasPolice Department. The Plaintiff currently holds the rank of Sergeant and is thus a supervisor ofother Dallas police officers.

8. Based on credible information and belief, the Defendant is also a police officeremployed by the Dallas Police Department ("DPD"). In addition, it is believed, based onstatements made by the Defendant's alter ego, that the Defendant is currently employed as aDallas police detective.

9. It is an unspoken fact that the majority of Dallas police officers are also membersof a quasi-private internet chat room called "Underground Cop," which may be located at the uriwww.undergroundcop.com. To become a member, one must submit information to thewebmaster that only a Dallas police officer would know. While the majority of the posters arebelieved to be both active and retired DPD officers, it is also widely known that a considerablenumber of civilians maintain user identities and frequent the site as well, including a number ofreporters.

10. The Defendant is a frequent poster on Underground Cop and posts using theonline alias "Eskimodx." Notably, the Defendant is outspoken about the importance of postingtruthful comments and has repeatedly criticized other anonymous posters for starting "rumors."The Defendant is also aware that the site is frequented by reporters and intentionally writes hisposts in such a way as to target the attention of reporters, WFAA news reporter Rebecca Lopezamong others.

11. For reasons that currently remain unclear, the Defendant maintains a clear andunfettered hatred for the Plaintiff. All that is known at this point is that, according to the

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 2 er s

http://www.undergroundcop.com./http://www.undergroundcop.com./

8/3/2019 Stormy Magiera VS. John Doe

3/8

Defendant's own posts, at one time the Defendant had some sort of "contact with her" (i.e. thePlaintiff) that resulted in the Defendant developing an unfavorable personal opinion of thePlaintiff. It is against this background that the Defendant has engaged in a pattern of intentionalconduct that was clearly designed to torment and abuse the Plaintiff and her family by hidingbehind the Defendant's currently anonymous online alter ego.The orr Duty Shooting

12. On Wednesday December 28, 2011, the Plaintiff was the victim of an off dutyaggravated robbery. More specifically, the Plaintiff was robbed of personal belongings at knife-point while trapped in her personal vehicle. Though the Plaintiff was able to draw and fire herservice weapon one time at the robber, the Plaintiff, who is extremely physically petite, wasnonetheless ultimately overpowered and also robbed of her pistol as well.

13. This incident quickly made the news because it involved an off duty DPD officer.The Defendant quickly jumped at the opportunity to use this incident to post defamatory

statements about the Plaintiff on Underground Cop in an apparent effort to both undermine theinvestigation of the off duty shooting and to inflict emotional distress upon the Plaintiff. TheDefendant has made the following statements about the Defendant, undoubtedly knowing thateverything that the Defendant writes would cause distress to both the Defendant and her familyand husband, a Dallas police officer currently maintaining the rank of Lieutenant:

- That the Plaintiff is "batshit crazy"- That "SHES AN IDIOT."- That the Plaintiff is "nuts and is a horrible police officer."- That "she has no credibility."- That the Defendant is a "danger to herself and others."

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 3 ers

8/3/2019 Stormy Magiera VS. John Doe

4/8

- That the Plaintiff is a "loose cannon."The Defendant May Actually be InvolvedIn the Investigation of the Off Duty Shooting

14. As noted above, the Defendant's identity and employment position with the DPDis currently unknown. But one thing is clear - that a) the Defendant is either privy to confidentialinformation or people involved with the investigation of the off duty shooting, or that b) theDefendant is actually involved in the investigation and is in fact one of the investigators.

15. The Defendant himself is believed to be close to the DPD command staff and hasposted that he speaks freely and personally with at least one of the Chiefs. The Defendant haswritten that he personally knows both Sergeants in the DPD Public Integrity Unit, the divisionassigned to investigate DPO personnel. And, the Defendant has written that he has "reliablesources" that are "close to the investigation," allegedly including members of the DPO's PhysicalEvidence Unit (PES), which is the DPD's version ofC.LS.

16. In addition, the Defendant has posted online that he has personally been involvedin two police shootings. The Defendant went on to write that after his shootings, he didn't needtime before giving a written statement to make up a story, suggesting that the Plaintiff, whoexercised her right to counsel after the shooting, really needed time to make up a "story." Thismalicious series of comments would be somewhat unremarkable but for the fact that one of thedetectives involved in the investigation of the off duty shooting criticized the Plaintiff for theexact same thing, and then advised her that he too had personally been involved in "twoshootings."

17. Thus, it is very possible that the bad acts complained of herein may in fact havebeen committed with the authority of, either implied or express, or, at a minimum, with the

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 4 of S

8/3/2019 Stormy Magiera VS. John Doe

5/8

acquiescence or ratification of the DPD, and possibly even a detective involved In theinvestigation of the off duty shooting.The Defendant Has Crafted His Comments inSuch a Way as to Harm the Plaintiff Personally

18. The Dallas police family is a tight nit group. Dallas police officers put their livesin each other's hands and depend on each other to make sure they each go home at the end of theday to their families. Likewise, a police officer's credibility is everything. When a police officeris labeled as not credible, it affects that officer's ability to both work and testify effectively as awitness. The Defendant's conduct was clearly designed to attack and damage the Plaintiffscareer, and quite possibly to draw so much negative attention to her and distress her to the pointthat she quits.

19. In addition to damaging the Plaintiffs relationship with her police family, theDefendant has also attacked the Plaintiffs personal family. While hiding behind his anonymousonline identity, the Defendant has gone so far as to take a swipe at the Defendant's husband,decorated OPO Lieutenant Michael "Mike" Magiera." While it is unknown at this time if eitherthe Plaintiff or her husband even knows the Defendant personally, it is a fact that in one of hisposts, the Defendant both defamed the Plaintiff and chided her husband, Lieutenant Magiera,suggesting that he might be the "one person" left to defend her.

COUNT 1 - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS20. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.21. Defendant's conduct described above was extreme and outrageous and intentionally

and/or and recklessly directed, and did proximately cause Plaintiff to suffer severe emotionaldistress. See American Med. In! 'I, Inc. v. Giurintano, 821 S.W.2d 331, 341-42 (Tex. App.-

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 5 of8

8/3/2019 Stormy Magiera VS. John Doe

6/8

Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ) (finding outrageous conduct where, among other things,plaintiff was called a Jew, Nazi, facist, m--r f--r, son of a bitch, and Benito Mussolini, andasked whether he had undergone a lobotomy as a child); see also GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce,998 S.W.2d 605, 617 (Tex. 1999) (Texas Supreme Court concluded that, taken as a whole,ongoing acts of humiliation, harassment, intimidation, and physical threats had created a "den ofterror" that was sufficient to support extreme and outrageous conduct).

22. Plaintiffs emotional distress cannot be remedied by any other cause of action. As aresult of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of thisCourt.

COUNT 2 - DEFAMATION & DEFAMATION PER SE23. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.24. In the alternative, and without waiving the foregoing, Plaintiff asserts that

Defendant's conduct as described above constituted defamation and defamation per se.

25. Defendant published defamatory statements asserting facts that proximately causedinjury to Plaintiff's reputation and exposed Plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule and furtherimpeached Plaintiff's honesty, integrity, virtue, competency and reputation as a police officer andprivate individual. See Henriquez v. Cemex Mgmt., 177 S.W.3d 241, 252 (rex App.-Houston[1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Austin v. Inet Techs., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 491,496 (Tex .App.-Dallas(5th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

26. The defamatory statements made by Defendant were without legal excuse and arenot protected by any privilege recognized under Texas law.

27. Defendant's defamatory statements also constitute defamation per se. Thestatements are so obviously harmful to Plaintiff that no independent proof of their injurious effect is

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 6 of8

8/3/2019 Stormy Magiera VS. John Doe

7/8

necessary to make them actionable. See Moore v. Waldrop, 166 S.W.3d 380, 384 (Tex. App.-Waco [10th Dist.] 2005, no pet.); Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Tucker, 806 S.W.2d 914(Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, writ dism'd w.o.j.) (the courts have held two generalcategories of words to be defamatory per se: (i) words that affect a person injuriously in his orher office, business, profession, or occupation; and (ii) words that impute to another thecommission of a crime.). Id.

28. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff seeks damages within thejurisdictional limits of this Court.

DAMAGES29. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks all actual and consequential damages

including, mental anguish, loss of reputation, loss of professional opportunity, lost earnings,humiliation, embarrassment, damage to reputation and character, loss of past and future wages andwage-earning capacity.

EXMPLARY DAMAGES30. Pleading further, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's conduct was willful, malicious,

reckless or constitute gross negligence, and because of said conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to an awardof exemplary damages.

PRAYERWHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that a cause number be

issued, and that after the Plaintiff has had the time to utilize the tools of discovery to determine theidentity of the Defendant, that the Defendant be cited to appear and answer this lawsuit, and thatupon final judgment after trial, Plaintiff be granted judgment for actual, consequential, andexemplary damages, pre and post-judgment interest, costs of court, and permanent injunctive relief.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 70f8

8/3/2019 Stormy Magiera VS. John Doe

8/8

" ,

Plaintiff further prays for all such other and further relief, at law or in equity, as to which she maybe justly entitled,

Respectfully submitted,Tom M, Thomas IIERICK &THOMAS4144 N. Central Expy., Ste 870Dallas, TX 75204214.691.6200214.691.6205 - FAX

1 - (L--- IfTom M. Thomas IISBN: 24030184Casey S, ErickSBN: 24028564ATTORNEYS FOR PLAfNTIFF

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 80f8