Park v. Todd

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1

DeVoy Law - Logo.png

COMPLAINT - 1
J. Malcolm DeVoy IV (NV Bar No. 11950)
DeVoy Law P.C.
521 S. 6th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
t: 702-706-3051
f: 702-977-9359
ecf@devoylaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs,
Robert Park &
Robert Park, Incorporated
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ROBERT PARK, an individual; and
ROBERT PARK, INCORPORATED, a Nevada
corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

DAVID TODD, an individual,
Defendant.
Case No.: _____________________________
COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Robert Park and Robert Park, Incorporated (individually a Plaintiff and
collectively the Plaintiffs) bring suit against Defendant David Todd based on the following
allegations.
Introductory Statement
1. On July 13, 2012, David Todd physically attacked Robert Park, his supervisor and
a widely recognized landscape photographer. Park did not retaliate, and instead ordered Todd to
leave the premises. Based on Todds conduct, his employer terminated his contract. In the two
years since that event, Todd has stalked, harassed, and defamed Park without end in order to
harm his business. Todd even registered numerous domain names using Robert Parks full name,
which Todd planned to develop into websites used to sell the works of Parks competitors.
Case 2:14-cv-01626 Document 1 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 2
2. Robert Park now brings this action to redress and refute David Todds vicious
lies. Because of David Todds falsehoods, Robert Park and his corporation have suffered from
reputational and business injuries that would have never occurred absent David Todds numerous
harmful and untrue statements. The grievous harms David Todd have caused Robert Park and
his business demand a remedy.
I. Jurisdiction and Venue
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and
1332.
4. Parks claim for violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
(ACPA) arises under federal law, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d), and confers this Court with original
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, with supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law
claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367.
5. Additionally, Plaintiffs and Defendant are completely diverse, as both Plaintiffs
reside in the State of Nevada and Defendant is a resident of the State of Florida.
6. Plaintiffs allege more than $75,000 in controversy as set forth below, fully
satisfying the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1332.
7. Venue is proper before this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because the events and
conduct giving rise to this action occurred within this jurisdiction, and Defendant is subject to the
Courts personal jurisdiction.
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because his relationship with
Plaintiffs took place within Nevada, and the conduct underlying this action were directed into the
State of Nevada.
9. Defendant knew both Plaintiffs resided within Nevada, directed his tortious
conduct into the State, and both intended and knew the harms resulting from his actions would be
felt within the State of Nevada.
II. Parties
10. Plaintiff Robert Park (Park) is an individual and resident of Nevada.
11. In addition to being a nationally recognized photographer, Park and his company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 3
were previously under contract to supply original images and management services to a
photography gallery and production company based in Las Vegas, Nevada (the Gallery).
12. Park is the sole shareholder and officer of Robert Park, Incorporated.
13. Plaintiff Robert Park, Incorporated (the Corporation) is a corporation existing
under the laws of Nevada, with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
14. Defendant David Todd (Todd, or the Defendant) is an individual who, upon
information and belief, currently resides in the State of Florida.
15. Todd previously was employed within the State of Nevada by Peter Lik USA,
Incorporated and, subsequently, was a contractor for the Gallery under the Corporations
supervision.
16. Through his relationships with Peter Lik USA, Incorporated, and the Gallery,
Todd conducted business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
17. Todds contacts with Nevada through this employment provided the basis for his
relationship with Plaintiffs, and now unlawful conduct toward them.
III. Facts Common to All Claims
18. Park is a nationally recognized landscape photographer who has made a living off
the sale of his photographs since 2001, and has owned and operated two galleries on his own.
19. Beginning in 2004, Park began selling his photographs to the company that
preceded the Gallery.
20. Over time, Parks relationship with the individuals who founded the Gallery grew
to be very successful, and its founders invited Park to work for the Gallery at the time of that
companys founding.
21. To accept this offer, Park founded his Corporation, which provided management
services to the Gallery.
22. Concomitant its obligations to the Gallery, the Corporation had the power to hire,
manage, and terminate employees and contractors while managing the Gallerys Las Vegas
showroom and production facility.
23. Additionally, Park and the Corporation entered into a separate agreement to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 4
supply the Gallery with original landscape photography, with Plaintiffs to be compensated based
on the sales of their works.
24. As a result of these agreements, Park and the Corporation began the task of
opening and managing the Gallerys showroom in at the Shops at the Palazzo the Gallerys
only Las Vegas location as well as managing the Gallerys separate production facility.
A. Todd Begins Working With the Corporation.
25. In Summer of 2012, the Gallery engaged Todd on a contract basis in order to
assist in managing its Las Vegas gallery under Plaintiffs supervision, with Todds duties to
include including selling photography to gallery customers and the renegotiation of the gallerys
lease.
26. The Corporation encountered numerous problems with Todds performance.
27. Most importantly, Todd failed to attend 75% of the meetings essential to the
Gallerys lease negotiations.
28. Park and the Corporation continued managing the Gallerys Palazzo showroom
despite Todds conduct, including the successful renegotiation of its lease.
B. Todd Attacks Park, Leading to Todds Termination.
29. On or about July 12, 2012, Todd missed a conference call he was scheduled to
attend with Park.
30. Park attempted to have a discussion with Todd about his immediate failure to
attend that conference call, as well as his other performance deficits including his absenteeism
from three out of four lease negotiation meetings for the Gallerys Las Vegas showroom.
31. Todd returned to the Gallerys production facility on Friday July 13, 2012, in
order to meet with Park.
32. While Todd claimed that he wished to discuss the Corporations confidentiality
agreement with Park, he quickly turned the conversation to Parks previous statements about
Todds poor performance.
33. During the conversation, and at Todds insistence, Park defended and elaborated
upon his prior negative assessment of Todds performance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 5
34. In response to Parks statements, Todd punched Park in the face.
35. Park did not retaliate, and immediately ordered Todd to leave the premises.
36. Todd left the Gallerys production facility, but waited for Park in the buildings
parking lot for the rest of the afternoon.
37. Eventually, other employees persuaded Todd to leave the premises completely.
38. Todd subsequently pled guilty to one count of battery, in violation of NRS
200.481, arising from this incident.
C. Todd Retaliates Against Park With Harassing, Compulsive, and Erratic Behavior.
39. Following his termination, Todd began to constantly contact and harass Park, who
Todd knew resided in Nevada.
40. Todd regularly sent Park dozens of unanswered SMS text messages.
41. The content of these messages included:
a. Todd claiming to tell Peter Lik, in private, how poor Parks work was;
b. Todds accusations that Park was incompetent; and
c. Tasteless and crude commentary about other members of Parks family.
42. Todds messages continued regularly for months.
43. Additionally, Todd repeatedly called Park in the early morning hours.
44. During these episodes, Todd called Park numerous times, with one call
immediately succeeding the last without leaving any message in order to disturb and harass
Park between midnight and 6:00 am.
45. To the best of Plaintiffs knowledge, Todd engaged in similar conduct toward
other Gallery employees, including its chief executive officer and general counsel.
46. Upon information and belief, Todd also sent threatening and harassing
communications to certain of the Gallerys officers.
47. All of these actions were taken in response to Parks termination of Todd.
D. Todd Engages in Cybersquatting to Further Harass and Intimidate Park.
48. In January 2013, Todd registered numerous domain names that wholly
incorporated Parks name, despite having no authorization or authority to do so.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 6
49. Between January 10 and 11, 2013, Todd registered the following domain names,
as seen in Exhibit A, wholly incorporating Robert Parks name:
a. <RobertPark.me>;
b. <RobertPark.mobi>;
c. <RobertPark.org>;
d. <RobertPark.biz>;
e. <Robert-Park.co>;
f. <Robert-Park.mobi>; and
g. <Robert-Park.net>.
50. Additionally, Todd first registered <RobertPark.co> to a Las Vegas, Nevada
address in October of 2012,
1
portending his intent to improperly register multiple domain names
consisting entirely of Robert Parks name. See Exhibit B.
51. At the time of these registrations, Todd intended to use these domain names to sell
the works of a competing photographer, Peter Lik.
52. Upon information and belief, Todd intended to use his relationship with Peter Lik
in order to earn a commission of the competing Peter Lik photographs sold through the
Infringing Domain Names.
53. In his communications with Park, Todd repeatedly and strongly implied that he
and Peter Lik were in frequent contact and maintained a prosperous economic relationship.
54. Todd explained his scheme for registering the Infringing Domain Names in a May
24, 2013 text message to Park:
2

My new robert park website is coming out awesome just a picture of you with
the saying Dont be an idiotbuy the Peter Lik! Google it for yourself
BEFORE you make an expensive mistake!!!! [] Then a link to Peter
Liknever had this much fun.

1
Collectively, the domain names <RobertPark.co>, <RobertPark.me>, <RobertPark.mobi>,
<RobertPark.org>, <RobertPark.biz>, <Robert-Park.co>, <Robert-Park.mobi>, and <Robert-
Park.net> shall be referred to as the Infringing Domain Names.
2
Todds text message is reproduced as it was sent to Park, including its original capitalization,
spelling and formatting.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 7

55. Since 2001, Park has used his name in commerce without interruption as a source
identifier for his landscape photography.
56. From 2001 to 2011, Park conducted business as Robert Park Photography.
57. Today, Park uses his name as his Corporations name, and has provided landscape
photography through Robert Park, Incorporated since 2011.
58. During that time, Parks name has become synonymous with high quality
landscape photography, acquiring significant secondary meaning and goodwill within the
landscape photography marketplace.
59. As such, Parks name serves primarily as a designation of origin for his landscape
photography.
60. As a salesperson for the Gallery, Todd knew firsthand that Robert Park and his
Corporation sold Robert Park-branded photography through the gallery.
61. Despite his knowledge of Robert Parks use of his name as a source identifier for
his original photographic works, Todd registered the Infringing Domain Names from October
2012 through January 2013.
62. Todd took these actions knowing and intending for them to harm Plaintiffs in
Nevada, where they conduct business.
E. Todd Defames Park to His Business Partners and Competitors.
63. On May 6, 2013, Todd sent an e-mail to the Gallerys chief executive officer that
contained numerous false and defamatory statements.
64. To the best of Parks knowledge, the only other recipient of this e-mail was Mike
Hill, the chief executive officer of Peter Lik USA, Incorporated.
65. Peter Lik USA, Incorporated is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of
business in Nevada, and upon information and belief, Mr. Hill was a Nevada resident at the time
of Todds e-mail to him.
66. Todd deliberately contacted Mr. Hill to degrade Plaintiffs relationships and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 8
reputations within Nevada.
67. In this e-mail, Todd urged Peter Liks company to file a copyright infringement
lawsuit against the Gallerys officers and Park.
68. Specifically, Todds e-mail accused Park of constantly looking at [Peter Liks]
merchandisetrying to make small changes and then filing for copyright protection/patent
he is also doing this to the other ESTABLISHED landscape phtographers [sic].
69. Todds e-mail went on to state: Robert Park pulled a weapon on me and said he
was going to put me in the hospital in front of his entire production staff.
70. Todds e-mail also stated, referring to Park and other Gallery employees, they
lied to the judge in your case and committed perjury.
71. Finally, Todd closed his e-mail with this note:

FYIRobert Park told me personally he was going to pop a cap in you! if
you ever entered his gallery to take photographs again.
(emphasis in original)

F. Todds Campaign of Falsehoods Harms Parks Business.
72. As a result of Todds calls, text messages, e-mails, cybersquatting, and other
harassment directed at both Plaintiffs and the Gallerys officers and employees, the Gallery
terminated its ongoing sales arrangement with both Plaintiffs, depriving them the use of the
Gallerys showrooms and commissions resulting from the sales of their photographs.
73. As Todds previously detailed harassment of Park and certain Gallery personnel
increased, the Gallerys terminated the Corporations contract for managing its Las Vegas gallery
and production facility.
IV. First Cause of Action
Defamation Per Se
By Park Against Todd
74. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every preceding paragraph as if set forth fully
herein.
75. On May 6, 2013, Todd sent an e-mail to two other individuals making false
statements including:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 9
a. Robert park pulled a weapon on me and said he was going to put me in the
hospital in front of his entire production staff; and
b. Robert Park lied to the judge and committed perjury.
76. Todd had no privilege or justification for making these statements.
77. Todd made these statements to the recipients of the e-mail.
78. Moreover, Todd made these statements with knowledge that they were false, or
with reckless disregard for their falsity.
79. Specifically, Todd falsely stated that Park violated NRS 200.471(2)(b) (assault
with a deadly weapon, a category B felony), NRS 199.120 (perjury, a category D felony), and
NRS 200.571(1)(a) (harassment by threatening bodily injury).
80. Because Todds statements accused Park of criminal activity, they are defamatory
per se and damages to Parks reputation are presumed under Nevada law.
81. Todds conduct was undertaken with malice, fraud, or oppression, further entitling
Park to an award of punitive damages under Nevada law.

V. Second Cause of Action
Defamation

herein.
83. On May 6, 2013, Todd sent an e-mail to two other individuals that contained false
statements including:
a. Park is constantly looking at your merchandise[,] trying to make small changes
and then filing for copyright protection/patent;
b. Park said he was going to put [Todd] in the hospital; and
c. Robert Park told me personally he was going to pop a cap in you! if you ever
entered his gallery to take photographs again (emphasis in original).
84. Todd had no privilege or justification for making these statements.
85. Todd made these statements to the recipients of the e-mail.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 10
86. Moreover, Todd made these statements with knowledge that they were false, or
with reckless disregard for their falsity.
87. As a result of Todds statements, he suffered reputational harm in the eyes of his
competitors and former business associates.
88. In addition to his general reputational damages, Todds statements caused Park
specific damages as the actual and proximate cause of the Gallery terminating his lucrative
contracts for supplying the gallery with his original photography and managing its Las Vegas
gallery and production facility.
89. Todds conduct was undertaken with malice, fraud, or oppression, further entitling
Park to an award of punitive damages under Nevada law.

VI. Third Cause of Action
Cybersquatting in Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(d)

herein.
91. Todd registered the Infringing Domain Names, thus registering, using, or
trafficking in domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to Parks trademark.
92. Based on Todds admissions to Park, he registered, used, or trafficked in the
Infringing Domain names in bad faith and with the intent to profit off Parks trademark
specifically, by promoting and selling competing goods on or through the Infringing Domain
Names.
93. Todds registration of the Infringing Domain Names was not, nor was ever used,
for any bona fide offering of goods or services.
94. As a result of Todds conduct, Park has suffered and continues to suffer monetary
loss in addition to irreparable injury to his business, reputation, and goodwill.
//
//
//
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 11

VII. Fourth Cause of Action
Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations
By the Corporation Against Todd

herein.
96. At the time of Todds unlawful conduct, the Corporation held a valid contract
with the Gallery, wherein the Corporation would provide management services for the Gallerys
retail showroom in the Shops at the Palazzo and production facility.
97. The Corporations contract was to last for 10 years, the life of the Gallerys lease
with the Shops at the Palazzo.
98. Todd knew of this agreement between the Corporation and the Gallery.
99. Todd improperly harassed Park and other Gallery employees, defamed Park to
other Gallery employees as specified in this Complaint, and even harassed other Gallery
personnel.
100. Todd took these actions in order to interfere with the Corporations contract with
the Gallery, and to cause the Gallery to breach its agreement with the Corporation.
101. Todds above-described actions were taken without any privilege or justification.
102. On information and belief, Todd also regularly contacted other Gallery employees
in order to pressure them to improperly terminate their contact with the Corporation before the
contracts expiration.
103. As a result of Todds actions, the Gallery prematurely terminated its contract with
the Corporation prior to its scheduled expiration date.
104. Todds actions forcing the Gallerys premature termination of the contract caused
the Corporation to lose in excess of $702,000 in revenue, thus damaging the Corporation in that
amount.
//
//
//
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 12

VIII. Fifth Cause of Action
Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage
By Both Plaintiffs Against Todd
herein.
106. At the time of Todds unlawful conduct, both Plaintiffs had an ongoing business
relationship with the Gallery for the sale of Parks original photographs, from which Plaintiffs
would earn a percentage of those images sales.
107. Plaintiffs had maintained this relationship with the Gallery for more than a year
prior to Todds unlawful conduct and reasonably expected their relationship to continue.
108. Todd knew of this ongoing economic relationship between Plaintiffs and the
Gallery.
109. Specifically, Todd knew that the Gallerys showroom in Las Vegas sold Parks
works.
110. Todd improperly harassed Park and other Gallery employees, defamed Park to
other Gallery employees as set forth in this Complaint, and even harassed other Gallery
personnel.
111. Todd deliberately took these actions to interfere with and terminate the Plaintiffs
ongoing economic relationship with the Gallery.
112. Todds above-described actions were taken without any privilege or justification.
113. On information and belief, Todd also regularly contacted other Gallery employees
in order to pressure them to improperly terminate their contact with the Corporation before the
contracts expiration.
114. On information and belief, Todd even persuaded a Gallery employee present in its
showroom to act at his behest by actively dissuading customers from purchasing Parks works,
interfering with the sale of Plaintiffs photographs.
115. As a result of Todds actions, the Gallery ended its ongoing economic relationship
with Plaintiffs and ceased making their photographs available for sale depriving Plaintiffs of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 13
their commissions from their photographs sales.
116. Based on prior sales of Plaintiffs photographs, Todds intentional and unlawful
conduct has damaged Plaintiffs in excess of $425,000.
IX. Request For Relief
Based upon the foregoing allegations, Plaintiffs request the following relief, and that the
Court enter an order and judgment against Defendant as follows:
1. For damages in excess of $75,000 arising from Defendants false statements about
Park that were defamatory per se;
2. For damages in excess of $75,000 arising from Defendants defamation of Park;
3. For the maximum statutory damage of $100,000 allowed under 15 U.S.C.
1117(d) for each of the Infringing Domain Names Todd registered in violation of 15 U.S.C.
1125(d), totaling $800,000;
4. For damages in excess of $75,000 arising from Defendants intentional
interference with the Corporations contractual relationships;
5. For damages in excess of $75,000 arising from Defendants intentional
interference with the Plaintiffs prospective economic advantages;
6. For an award of Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in the
action as allowed by 15 U.S.C. 1117(a)(3).
7. For an order that any Infringing Domain Names currently registered by David
Todd be transferred to Robert Park.
8. For an award of punitive damages arising from Defendants defamatory
statements, without limitation, as allowed by NRS 42.005(2)(e); and
9. Awarding any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
necessary.
//
//
//
//
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
2
1

S
o
u
t
h

S
i
x
t
h

S
t
r
e
e
t

L
a
s

V
e
g
a
s

N
V

8
9
1
0
1


COMPLAINT - 14
X. Jury Trial Demand
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b)(1), Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all
of their claims.
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2014.
/s/ J. Malcolm DeVoy IV
J. Malcolm DeVoy IV

Attorney for Plaintiffs,
Robert Park &
Robert Park, Incorporated


Park v. Todd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Park v. Todd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

You might also like