Carney Lawsuit Full

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
THOMAS FRANCIS CARNEY Ill,
THOMAS FRANCIS CARNEY JR,
LUCIE CARNEY,
Plaintiffs
v.
CARDINAL NEWMAN HIGH SCHOOL, INC
FRANCIS BYRNE GEARY Ill,
DIOCESE OF PALM BEACH, INC.
Defendants
------------------------'
COMPLAINT
Case No.:
•
I I
-.-
2dt2

V   XXXX.AB
41
COMES NOW, The Plaintiffs, Thomas Francis Carney Ill, Thomas Francis
Carney Jr. and Lucie Carney, by and through the undersigned attorney and sues the
Defendants, Cardinal Newman High School, Inc., Francis Byrne Geary Ill and Diocese
of Palm Beach, Inc. and states as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute because this complaint seeks
damages in excess of $15,000.00 dollars, exclusive of interest and
attorneys' fees.
2. Defendant Francis Byrne Geary Ill is amenable to jurisdiction as he is an
individual and resides in Palm Beach County, Florida.
3. Defendant Cardinal Newman High School, Inc. is amenable to jurisdiction
as it regularly conducts business in Palm Beach County and throughout
Florida and maintains a High School in Palm Beach County.
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
4. Defendant Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc., was, at all times relevant hereto, a
religious establishment, that is amenable to jurisdiction as it has its principal
place of business in Palm Beach County, Florida.
s. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida because the events from
which this cause of action arises occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida.
PARTIES
6. On or about December 18, 2008, nearing the end of the first semester of
his junior year at Cardinal Newman High School (herein after "Cardinal"),
Thomas Francis Carney Ill (herein after "Francis") developed a hearing
condition after attending a rock concert. The ringing in Francis' ears
persisted and worsened despite medical attention. In fact, Francis
developed a phobia about noise causing serious ramifications at school
whereby he was drawing negative attention from his peers by wearing
earplugs/headphones everywhere.
7. Due to this hearing condition, Francis did not want to attend school.
However, with the knowledge of this hearing condition, Cardinal permitted
and encouraged Francis to stay enrolled, which enabled him to study from
home and attend school for review classes and exams.
a. In the summer of 2009 Francis' hearing condition vastly improved. Francis
saw a specialist and it was revealed that there was no permanent damage
to his ears. It was suggested, that the best thing Francis could do was try to
lead a normal life.
9. Accordingly, based on this advice, Francis decided to return to the school
for his senior year whereby he returned to band, worked hard academically,
and applied to colleges. As a precaution, with the knowledge and
agreement of Cardinal, Francis wore earplugs, earmuffs and/or a sound
dampening headset around the school.
10. In November of 2009, as Francis' mother, Lucie Carney (herein after
"Lucie"), waited to pick up Francis from school, she was approached by
Cardinal's vice principal Theresa Fretterd (herein after "Fretterd"). Fretterd
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
summoned Lucie to her office to discuss a situation where "a teacher
overheard two students talking about [Francis] making a bomb." She also
informed Lucie that there was "talk that the ear damage [Francis] was due
to exposure to explosions caused by him."
11. Upon being questioned about Francis' activities at home, Lucie pressed
Fretterd to reveal the name of the teacher and the students to no avail.
Lucie stated that Francis' ear troubles were due to the rock concert which
Cardinal was already made aware of in December 2008.
12. Nevertheless, Lucie was then brought into a room where the principal of
Cardinal, Father Carr, a police officer from the West Palm Beach Police
Department and Francis were assembled. She was questioned further
about Francis' activities and she categorically denied any possibility of
explosives being purchased or assembled in the home. Lucie expressed
total disbelief and shock over these allegations. This was a completely
baseless accusation without any merit. In fact, this questioning occurred
despite the fact that Cardinal knew why Francis was wearing ear-guards
and knew that it was a result of the injury to his ears.
13. Notwithstanding the school's knowledge of Francis' ear condition, prior to
Lucie's arrival at Cardinal, and in full view of the other students, Francis'
locker was searched by Cardinal authorities. Only school books and papers
were found, which further demonstrated. that the accusations were
completely mendacious.
14. The Carney family was profoundly upset by this incident. In fact, Lucie wrote
to Cardinal's principal John Clarke expressing her concern at the meanness
of spirit of such unfounded and baseless accusations (especially in light of
the facts and real reasons of which Cardinal was intimately aware).
Additionally, Tom Carney followed this up with a conversation with John
Clarke expressing his displeasure at the needless humiliation of Francis,
who was pulled out of class and whose locker was searched in full view of
other students. John Clarke agreed this situation should have been handled
differently. John Clarke even stated directly to Lucie that he would
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
investigate the matters, root out the rumors and address them.
15. On or about mid April 2010, Lucie was contacted by Cardinal's
guidance counselor, Sherri Boyce. Sherri Boyce advised Lucie that a new
rumor surfaced. The rumor was that Francis planned to bring a gun to
school on the last day of the year. Again, Lucie pressed to find out more
details but Sherri Boyce's responses were very vague.
16. On or about April 26, 2010, the Carneys were contacted by Cardinal about
another serious rumor, that Francis was going to bring a gun to school,
which was spreading quickly throughout the whole school. This rumor was
also discussed around school and on Facebook. The Carneys immediately
went to Cardinal and learned that Francis' locker and backpack had been
searched again and that he was again being questioned by Cardinal
authorities and a police officer in view of other students.
17. A private interview was held between the responding police officer and
Francis, whereby again the police officer determined that the whole incident
was based on nothing but a malicious rumor.
18. Immediately upon his arrival to school on April 27, 2010, Francis had been
called into the Dean's office and told to open his Facebook page as there
had been yet another rumor that he had posted: "Tuesday was going to be
Boom-Day". This was an apparent reference that he was going to set a
bomb off. There was no such reference on his Facebook page and Francis
was accused by the Dean of Students, Ms. Gomez, of deleting the post.
19. On April 27, 2010, Lucie received a call from Ms. Gomez stating that
"[Francis'] presence at Cardinal Newman had become a major disruption"
and that he must leave the school immediately.
20. Upon arriving at Cardinal less than 30 minutes later, Lucie found Francis'
backpack lying open on the floor of the administrative office, revealing a few
papers, books and a new set of drumsticks recently purchased for the
express purpose of performing in an end of school-year show, and
graduation.
21. Lucie was brought into an office where Francis was sitting with Fretterd and
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
Father Carr. Father Carr immediately stated "we are in panic mode right
now." He explained that parents were arriving in droves to pull their children
out of school and "the situation was too big to handle."
22. Father Carr did not try to hide the fact that he wanted Francis out of the
School immediately and permanently. He offered to make a deal to ensure
that Francis' grades would be worked out and that he would receive his
diploma as long as the Carneys agreed to keep him out of school. Again
Francis stated he did nothing wrong and did not understand why he was
being punished and stigmatized. He stated to Father Carr that he wanted to
take the school exams and his banishment from Cardinal would be viewed
as an admission of guilt.
23. Father Carr stated that Francis remaining in the school would hinge upon
the result of the police investigation and after the Dioceses of Palm Beach
reviewed it.
24. The police immediately commenced an investigation to determine whether
there was any merit to the accusations. Francis cooperated with police and
answered all their questions. Fretterd, who had full control of the names to
be given to Police, was provided with several names by Francis of the
individuals who were spreading the rumors, including the Defendant,
Francis Byrne Geary Ill, (herein after "Geary"). Despite this fact, Geary was
never questioned.
25. In addition, as per the police report, Fretterd gave names to the police of
those who apparently saw the "Post" on Facebook, yet no one questioned
admitted to seeing any post from Francis. Frettered also affirmed Ms.
Gomez's accusation and stated that Francis had deleted the post.
26. On April 27, 2010, two television stations, WPTV and WPEC, interviewed
students about the rumors. One of the students interviewed was Defendant
Geary, who was outside of school waiting to be picked up. The story was on
the evening news which was then published and talked about on Facebook.
27. Three separate articles appeared in The Palm Beach Post on April 27, 2010
and April 28, 2010: "West Palm Police continue to interview Cardinal
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
Newman High students about reported threats by one student," "West Palm
Beach police investigate talk of student with gun," and 'West Palm Beach
police looking into student threat at Cardinal Newman High."
28. Additionally, at this time Cardinal's spokesperson Alexis Weinstein, issued a
statement to the Palm Beach Post in which she said "there is no established
credibility to this rumor."
29. The Carneys obtained a copy of the final police report on or about May 7,
2010 in which the officer wrote, "I found no actual basis in the allegations
and found no evidence of any criminal violations."
30. Although the report specifically stated that there was no basis to believe any
of the allegations as true, including the specific allegation which was the
source of Cardinal's actions, Francis was banned from school and was not
permitted to partake in the graduation ceremony.
31. The actions by the School patently contributed to the belief that there must
have been something to the story and rumors even though it was clearly
untrue.
32. Cardinal did nothing to attempt to quell the rumors, allowing the other
students and faculty to believe the allegations against Francis to be correct.
33. Cardinal hired extra security guards, all who were conspicuous, for the
remaining school events to again reinforce the threat within the School
community.
34. Cardinal's actions were designed to ally the fears of the students,
notwithstanding the fact that the School had received the police report
which found no basis in the allegations, nor any evidence of criminal
activity.
35. Francis suffered and continues to suffer to this day from the events that
transpired. He has lost interest in many things that he used to enjoy, and
refuses to go to events in fear that he will be talked about, and put on the
defensive.
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
COUNT 1- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SLANDER PER QUOD
AS TO DEFENDANT GEARY
36. Plaintiff, Thomas F. Carney Ill ("Francis"), realleges the allegations set forth
above in paragraphs 1 - 34 above as if set forth herein in full.
37. Defendant, Francis Byrne Geary Ill ("Geary") has made false statements to
Plaintiffs classmates and third parties.
38. Geary published the defamatory statement by orally communicating the
them to Plaintiffs classmates, friends and/or third parties
39. Geary made the defamatory statement with malice or negligence.
40. These statements include but are not limited to, false statements that
Plaintiff (i) intended on placing an explosive device or devices on school
grounds for the purposes of injuring or killing fellow classmates and faculty,
(ii) intended on bringing a firearm to school on graduation day for the same
purposes of injuring or killing fellow classmates and faculty (iii) created a
"hit-list" for the purposes of carrying out the aforementioned acts of violence
on school grounds and/or (iv) lost his hearing due to a self-manufactured
explosive device accidentally detonating.
41. These false statements have damaged Plaintiffs reputation among
classmates, the faculty, in the neighborhood, in the church and among third
parties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis demands judgment against Defendant, Geary,
for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SLANDER PER SEAS
TO DEFENDANT GEARY
42. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 -
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
43. Defendant, Geary, has made false statements to Plaintiffs friends and third
parties alleging Plaintiff was committing, or was intending to commit, crimes
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
of moral turpitude.
44. These crimes include, but are not limited to, false statements that Plaintiff (i)
intended on placing an explosive device or devices on school grounds for
the purposes of injuring or killing fellow classmates and faculty, (ii) intended
on bringing a firearm to school on graduation day for the same purposes of
injuring or killing fellow classmates and faculty; (iii) created a "hit-list" for the
purposes of carrying out the aforementioned acts of violence on school
grounds.
45. Geary's oral publications to third parties of the defamatory statements,
when considered alone, without innuendo, have subjected Plaintiff to
hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace.
46. Geary's oral publication to third parties of the defamatory statements, when
considered alone, without innuendo, are crimes of moral turpitude.
47. The true extent of this damage is still unknown; however, Plaintiff believes
that discovery will uncover further damage by Geary against Plaintiff.
48. Plaintiff plans on adding Defendant to his count for Defamation upon further
discovery
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands judgment against Defendant, Geary,
for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT Ill- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LIBEL PER SEAS TO
DEFENDANT GEARY
49. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
50. Plaintiff was a person of good name and reputation and enjoyed the esteem
and good opinion of his neighbors, classmates, and others who knew him.
51. Plaintiff was a hard working student at Cardinal Newman High School
52. Defendant was aware of the good name and reputation of Plaintiff.
53. Upon information or belief, on or about April 26, 2010, . Defendant Geary
sent messages to friends via email and text message, communicated to
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
news reporters, and may have discussed on Facebook that Plaintiff had (i)
intended to place an explosive device or devices on school grounds for the
purposes of injuring or killing fellow classmates and faculty, (ii) intended to
bring a firearm to school on graduation day for the same purposes of
injuring or killing fellow classmates and faculty (iii) created a "hit-list" for the
purposes of carrying out the aforementioned acts of violence on school
grounds.
54. These statements and accusations were completely false.
55. Such false accusations are libel per se, because, among other things, they
accused Plaintiff of crimes of moral turpitude.
56. Defendant Geary published the false and defamatory statements to third
parties.
57. Defendant Geary knew at the time he published the statements that all of
his classmates would be able to view them.
58. As a result of Defendant Geary's false and defamatory statements, Plaintiff
has suffered damages in that (1) his good name and reputation have been
brought into public scandal and disgrace; (2) he was banished from school
grounds and all school activities (3) was not allowed to attend his own
graduation; (4) was not allowed to play in the school band at graduation; (5)
has lost any and all interest in college as a consequence of not being able
to "be around" his former classmates (6) has been shunned by many
persons with whom he previously had social relations (7) has suffered
mental anguish and has been injured in his health and education.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands judgment against Defendant, Geary,
for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LIBEL AS TO
DEFENDANT GEARY
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
59. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
60. Plaintiff was a person of good name and reputation and enjoyed the esteem
and good opinion of his neighbors, classmates, and others who knew him.
61. Plaintiff was a hard working student at Cardinal.
62. Defendant was aware of the good name and reputation of Plaintiff.
63. On or about April 26, 2010, Defendant, Geary, sent messages to friends via
email and text message, communicated to news reporters, and may have
discussed on Facebook that Plaintiff had (i) intended to place an explosive
device or devices on school grounds for the purposes of injuring or killing
fellow classmates and faculty, (ii) intended to bring a firearm to school on
graduation day for the same purposes of injuring or killing fellow classmates
and faculty (iii) created a "hit-list" for the purposes of carrying out the
aforementioned acts of violence on school grounds; and/or: (iv) lost . his
hearing due to a self manufactured explosive device accidentally
detonating.
64. These statements and accusations were completely false.
65. Defendant Geary knew that the statements were false.
66. Defendant Geary willfully and deliberately disregarded the truth, and
maliciously published the statements to third parties.
67. Defendant Geary had no privilege to publish these statements.
68. Defendant Geary knew, or should have known, at the time he published the
statements that all of his classmates would be able to view them.
69. As a result of Defendant Geary's false and defamatory statements, Plaintiff
has suffered damages in that (1) his good name and reputation have been
brought into public scandal and disgrace; (2) he was banished from school
grounds and all school activities (3) was not allowed to attend his own
graduation; (4) was not allowed to play in the school band at graduation; (5)
has lost any and all interest in college as a consequence of not being able
to "be around" his former classmates (6) has been shunned by many
persons with whom he previously had social relations (7) has suffered
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
mental anguish and has been injured in his health and education.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands judgment against Defendant, Geary,
for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V- PlAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR liBEl PER SEAS
TO DEFENDANT CARDINAl
70. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 and 49-50 above as if set forth herein in full.
71. Defendant, Cardinal Newman High School, Inc., its agents, employees, and
representatives, herein after "Cardinal," was aware of the good name and
reputation of Plaintiff.
I
72. On or about April 26, 2010, Defendant, Cardinal, negligently or maliciously
re-published statements to faculty, Plaintiff's parents and third parties, which
accused Plaintiff of crimes of moral turpitude.
73. On or about April 26, 2010, Defendant, Cardinal, negligently or maliciously
republished false statements made by Defendant Geary.
74. These statements and accusations were completely false.
75. Such false accusations are libel per se, because, among other things, they
accused Plaintiff of crimes of moral turpitude.
76. As a result of Defendant Cardinal's negligent or malicious republication of
false and defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered damages in that (1)
his good name and reputation have been brought into public scandal and
disgrace; (2) he was banished from school grounds and all school activities
(3) was not allowed to attend his own graduation; (4) was notallowed to
play in the school band at graduation; (5) has lost any and all interest in
college as a consequence of not being able to "be around" his former
classmates (6) has been shunned by many persons with whom he
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
previously had social relations (7) has suffered mental anguish and has
been injured in his health and education.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands judgment against Defendant,
Cardinal, for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VI- PLAINTIFF. FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LIBEL AS TO
DEFENDANT CARDINAL
77. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 and 49-50 above as if set forth herein in full.
78. Defendant was aware of the good name and reputation of Plaintiff.
79. Upon information or belief, on or about April 26, 2010, Defendant
negligently or maliciously re-published statements to faculty, Plaintiff's
parents and third parties, which were false, scandalous and defamatory.
80. On or about April 26, 2010, Defendant, Cardinal, negligently or maliciously
republished false statements made by Defendant Geary.
81. Defendant Cardinal did not investigate to determine if the statements were
true, because it, through its agents, knew the statements were false.
82. Defendant Cardinal willfully and deliberately disregarded the truth
83. Defendant recklessly and maliciously republished the defamatory
statements.
84. As a result of Defendant Cardinal's false and defamatory statements,
Plaintiff has suffered damages in that (1) his good name and reputation
have been brought into public scandal and disgrace; (2) he was banished
from school grounds and all school activities (3) was not allowed to attend
his own graduation; (4) was not allowed to play in the school band at
graduation; (5) has lost any and all interest in college as a consequence of
not being able to "be around" his former classmates (6) has been shunned
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
by many persons with whom he previously had social relations (7) has
suffered mental anguish and has been injured in his health and education.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands judgment against Defendant,
Cardinal, for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VII- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS'. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICARIOUS
LIABIL TV FOR LIBEL PER SE AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
85. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 and 49-50 above as if set forth herein in full.
86. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese of Palm Beach (herein after "Disocese"), under its supervision and
control and acting within the course and scope of its agency or employment.
87. Defendant was aware of the good name and reputation of Plaintiff.
88. On or about April 26, 2010, Defendant negligently or maliciously re-
published statements to faculty, Plaintiffs parents and third parties, which
accused Plaintiff of crimes of moral turpitude.
89. On or about April 26, 2010, Defendant, Cardinal, negligently or maliciously
republished false statements made by Defendant Geary.
90. These statements and accusations were completely false.
91. Such false accusations are libel per se, because, among other things, they
accused Plaintiff of crimes of moral turpitude.
92. As a result of Defendant Cardinal's false and defamatory statements,
Plaintiff has suffered damages in that (1) his good name and reputation
have been brought into public scandal and disgrace; (2) he was banished
from school grounds and all school activities (3) was not allowed to
attend his own graduation; (4) was not allowed to play in the school
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
band at graduation; (5) has lost any and all interest in college as a
consequence of not being able to "be around" his former classmates (6) has
been shunned by many persons with whom he previously had social
relations (7) has suffered mental anguish and has been injured in his health
and education.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands judgments against Defendant,
Diocese, for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VIII- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION OF VICARIOUS
liABILITY FOR LIBEL AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
93. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 and 49-50 above as if set forth herein in full.
94. All times material hereto Defendant, Cardinal, was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
95. Defendant was aware of the good name and reputation of Plaintiff.
96. On or about April 26, 2010, Defendant negligently or maliciously re-
published statements to faculty, Plaintiff's parents and third parties, which
were false, scandalous and defamatory.
97. On or about April 26, 2010, Defendant, Cardinal, negligently or maliciously
republished false statements made by Defendant Geary.
98. Defendant Cardinal did not investigate to determine if the statements were
true, and in fact knew the statements were false.
99. Defendant Cardinal's willful and deliberate disregard of the truth could have
been easily ascertained.
100. Nevertheless, Defendant maliciously made the publication of the
defamatory statements.
tot. As a result of Defendant Cardinal's false and defamatory statements,
Plaintiff has suffered damages in that (1) his good name and reputation
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
have been brought into public scandal and disgrace; (2) he was banished
from school grounds and all school activities (3) was not allowed to attend
his own graduation; (4) was not allowed to play in the school band at
graduation; (5) has lost any and all interest in college as a consequence of
not being able to "be around" his former classmates (6) has been shunned
by many persons with whom he previously had social relations (7) has
suffered mental anguish and has been injured in his health and education.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands judgment against Defendant,
Diocese, for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IX- PLAINTIFF. FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO DEFENDANT GEARY
102. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
103. The Defendant, Geary, maliciously embarked on a course of conduct which
intended to cause the Plaintiff to suffer mental and emotional distress,
tension, anxiety and loss of sleep.
104. Defendant, Geary, has routinely harassed Plaintiff, accusing him of criminal
acts that were untrue.
105. Defendant, Geary, knew or should have known that these statements would
cause serious emotional and psychological harm to the Plaintiff.
106. The Defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless. He intended his
behavior when he knew or should have known that the emotional distress
would likely result in debilitating plaintiff's physical condition.
107. The conduct was so outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of
decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.
108. The conduct caused emotional distress; and permanent damages to the
Plaintiff.
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
109. As a result of the Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has been made nervous,
tense, has continued stress at prospect of running into former classmates at
various venues, physically ill and has lost any desire to continue his
education because he is ashamed to see his former classmates in college.
110. Based upon the malicious, reckless and intentional actions on the part of
the Defendant, the Plaintiff had been damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands damages against Defendant, Geary, for
damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff reserves
his right to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.72.
COUNT X- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO DEFENDANT CARDINAL
111. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
112. Defendant Cardinal, intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional
distress to Plaintiff by its willful, wanton, extremely reckless and indifferent
conduct, of repeatedly and falsely accusing Plaintiff without merit.
113. Defendant Cardinal humiliated Plaintiff Francis, by and through its agents,
who was pulled out of class and whose locker was searched in full view of
other students.
114. Defendant Cardinal was aware of Plaintiff's known sensitivities and ear
condition.
115. Defendant Cardinal, through its agents, had previously encouraged Francis
to remain in school despite his sensitivities and ear injury.
116. Defendant Cardinal, through its agents, did not allow Plaintiff to attend
classes, attend graduation, or play in the band at graduation.
117. Plaintiff had worked extremely hard to excel in school and bought his own
musical equipment to rehearse for the graduation musical.
118. Nevertheless, Defendant Cardinal, with complete disregard to Plaintiff's best
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
interests, placed its own financial interests and well being in front of
Plaintiff's by banishing him from school grounds and all school activities as
a result of other parents' threats to remove their children from the school.
119. Defendant Cardinal was, or should have been, aware of Plaintiff's
innocence because it received a police report that stated that there was no
basis to believe the rumors were true and that there was no evidence of
criminal activity.
120. The actions of Defendant go well beyond all bounds of decency and were
done with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress and intimidation.
121. The aforesaid actions by Defendant Cardinal were so outrageous in
character and were so extreme in degree that a reasonable member of the
community would regard such conduct as atrocious, going beyond all
possible bounds of decency and as being utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.
122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Cardinal's intentional acts
Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands judgment against Defendant, Cardinal, for
damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff reserves
his right to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.72.
COUNT XI- PLAINTIFF. FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICARIOUS
LIABILITY FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO
DEFENDANT DIOCESE
123. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 and 112-122 above as if set forth herein in full.
124. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands damages against Defendant, Diocese, for
damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff reserves
his right to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.72.
COUNT XII- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
125. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
126. All times material hereto Defendant Diocese supervised and controlled the
actions, standards and policies of Cardinal Newman High School.
127. Defendant Diocese, intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional
distress to Plaintiff by ordering School to ostracize Plaintiff from school
grounds, school activities and by not allowing him to attend his graduation
ceremony.
128. There was no basis for disciplinary action, as Plaintiff had not violated any
school policy.
129. Although the police investigation revealed no criminal activity on the part of
Plaintiff, defendant succumbed to ochlocracy and directed Cardinal faculty
not to allow Plaintiff to return to school.
130. These actions were taken strictly out of fear of lost profits due to parents'
threats to remove their children from the school because of false rumors
that Plaintiff could possibly harm their children.
131. Plaintiff's well being, good name, and reputation were never taken into
account prior to, or during, the decision to immediately and permanently
banish Plaintiff from school just weeks prior to his high school graduation.
132 .. The actions of Defendant go well beyond all bounds of decency and were
done with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress and intimidation.
133. The aforesaid actions by Defendant Diocese were so outrageous in
character and were so extreme in degree that a reasonable member of the
community would regard such conduct as atrocious, going beyond all
possible bounds of decency and as being utterly intolerable in ·a civilized
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
community.
134. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Cardinal's intentional acts
Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis, demands judgment against Defendant Diocese for
damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff reserves
his right to amend the complaint to seek punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.72.
COUNT XIII- PLAINTIFFS, FRANCIS, THOMAS F. CARNEY, JR .• AND LUCIE
CARNEY'S. CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS
TO DEFENDANT CARDINAL
135. Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas F. Carney, Jr. (''Thomas") and Lucie Carney
("Lucie"), reallege the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-34 above
as if set forth herein in full.
136. Defendant, Cardinal, through its employees, representatives and agents
made a false statement and misrepresented material facts to Plaintiffs.
137. Defendants had a pecuniary interest in providing Plaintiffs with the false
information, and banning their son from school in that several· parents
threatened to "pull their children out" of school due to the false accusations.
138. Defendant Cardinal intended to induce Plaintiffs to act on a
misrepresentation.
139. On April 27, 2010, Defendant Cardinal stated that Francis' academic future
would "hinge" upon the findings in the police report. Yet on May 5, 2010, via
electronic mail to Plaintiffs father, Defendant, Cardinal, communicated that
it made a final decision before ever obtaining a copy of such report. This is
evidenced by the date on the completed Supplemental Report, which shows
the report was not even completed and reviewed until May 6, 2010.
140. The e-mail stated that the school administration had determined that
Plaintiff was "not to return to school," or "take part in any school-sponsored
activities," and "not attend the graduation ceremony."
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
141. Defendant, Cardinal's statements made to Plaintiff's parents on April 27,
2010 were false because it had no intention of allowing Plaintiff Francis to
return to school or to follow through with its promise to investigate.
142. Further, Defendant, through its agent and spokesperson Alexis Weinstein,
issued a statement to the Palm Beach Post on April 27, 2010 in which she
said "There is no established credibility to this rumor" and the school
remained "open and safe." This statement was made on the same day that
Defendant claimed that Plaintiff could not return to school prior to the
outcome of police investigation.
143. The aforementioned is evidence that Defendant Cardinal had no intention of
allowing Plaintiff Francis to return to school or to follow through with its
promise to investigate.
144. Plaintiffs have suffered injury as a result of justifiably relying on the
misrepresentations.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie, demand judgment against
Defendant, Cardinal, for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT XIV - PLAINTIFFS, FRANCIS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S CAUSE OF
ACTION OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
145. Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie, reallege the allegations set forth
above in paragraphs 1-34 and 136-144 above as if set forth herein in full.
146. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie demand judgment against
Defendant, Diocese, for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
COUNT XV - PLAINTIFFS, FRANCIS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S, CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AS TO DEFENDANT CARDINAL
147. Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie, reallege the allegations set forth
above in paragraphs 1-34 above as if set forth herein in full.
148. A duty arises, in part from Florida law, as Defendant Cardinal stood in Loco
parentis at the time the false statements were made. However, Cardinal
also owed this duty as the result of its specific representation, as stated in
the Student-Parent Handbook, that it would provide a safe, catholic,
environment for students to learn.
149. Defendant Geary was a Cardinal Newman High School student.
150. Defendant Geary, at all times relevant to this complaint, had made prior
slanderous and malicious statements about Plaintiff to which the school had
prior knowledge.
151. The false and defamatory statements by which Plaintiff, Francis were
victimized were clearly foreseeable.
152. The Defendant, Cardinal, was on actual or constructive notice or
alternatively, knew or should have known, of the repetitive humiliating,
slanderous and malicious behavior.
153. Defendant, Cardinal, through its authorized agents, servants, or employees
breached its duty to Plaintiffs by negligently supervising Defendant Geary
and by failing to take steps to terminate the harassment, embarrassment,
intimidation, and defamatory statements of Plaintiff, Francis by Defendant
Geary.
154. As a direct and proximate result of the breach, plaintiff has lost all direction
in life, has suffered mental anguish, is continuously stressed to be around
his peers, is the subject of ridicule and has suffered a complete loss of
enjoyment of life.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie, demands judgment against
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
Defendant Cardinal for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT XVI - PLAINTIFFS. FRANCIS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S, CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AS TO DEFENDANT
DIOCESE
155. Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie reallege the allegations set forth
above in paragraphs 1-34 and 148-154 above as if setforth herein in full.
156. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie, demands judgment against
Defendant Diocese for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT XVII- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT
SUPERVISION AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
157. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
158. At all times material to this action, Defendant Diocese owed a duty to the
Plaintiff to adequately train supervise and control and or otherwise monitor
the activities of its agents, servants and/or employees at Cardinal Newman
High School.
159. During the months of November 2008 and April 2009, Defendants agents,
specifically school authorities, failed to accurately terminate repeated
defamatory and malicious statements made to Plaintiff by a classmate,
Byrnes Geary.
160. Defendant Diocese had a duty to adequately supervise, control, and/or
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
otherwise monitor its agents and confirm that they were adequately and
diligently performing their duties.
161. Defendant Diocese knew, or should have known of its agents mistakes,
negligence; incompetence, and/or lack of attention to the students, including
Plaintiff; however, it failed to (i) take any action to correct the mistakes and
negligence (ii) take steps to terminate the harassment, embarrassment,
intimidation, and defamatory statements of Plaintiff by Mr. Geary (iii)
supervise and /or train its employees to ensure those employees complied
with those policies and procedures relating student welfare safety and
adopted by Diocese (iv) identify those faculty, including but not limited to
Theresa Fretterd, Father Carr, John Clarke whose performance was
substandard and thereby retaining incompetent staff.
162. Defendant Diocese's failure to take any action to correct its agent's
mistakes and negligence was a breach of its duty.
163. These events led to Plaintiffs banishment from school and school activities
and Plaintiff was ultimately not allowed to attend his own high school
graduation.
164. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Diocese's agent's breach of
duty, Plaintiff Francis suffered immediate physical injury caused by
psychological trauma, severe emotional distress and suffers continuing
physical manifestations of the severe emotional distress.
165. These losses are either permanent or continuing, and Plaintiff will suffer the
losses in the future.
166. Plaintiff is entitled to damages for his emotional/mental anguish and grief,
pain and suffering, and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis, demand judgment against Defendant Diocese for
damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XVIII- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE
AS TO DEFENDANT CARDINAL
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
167. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
168. At all times material hereto, Defendant Cardinal owed Plaintiff a duty to
supervise activities of students enrolled at their school and to ensure that
precautions were taken to avoid harm to the students including Plaintiff,
Francis.
169. At all times material hereto; Defendant Cardinal, negligently created and/or
allowed a dangerous condition to exist by failing to properly supervise,
monitor and handle children conflicts.
170. At all times all times material hereto, Defendant Cardinal, breached its duty
to Plaintiff by the following negligent acts, which were the legal cause of the
Plaintiffs injuries and damages:
a. Failing to properly supervise students under the care and supervision of
Cardinal with vigilance or level of attentiveness necessary to protect such
children from harm.
b. Creating a dangerous condition and/or failing to remedy a dangerous
condition which was KNOWN or with the exercise of reasonable, should
have been known by Cardinal.
c. Failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent Defendant Geary, a
student that had previously made slanderous and malicious remarks about
Plaintiff and other students, to which Defendant Cardinal was well aware,
from engaging in such harmful conduct with Plaintiff.
d. Failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent harassment of its
students, to wit, the spreading of defamatory rumors and failing to remedy
the rumors after knowledge of there falsity.
e. Failing to adhere to their Anti-Bullying Policy which is delineated in the
student handbook by allowing Plaintiff to be the victim of bullying and cyber
bullying, despite being put on notice of harassment. .
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
f. Failing to promote a safe, healthy, caring and respectful learning
environment for Plaintiff Francis as promised in the Student-Parent
Handbook.
171. As a direct and proximate result of the breach, plaintiff has lost direction in
life, has suffered mental anguish, is continuously stressed to be around his
peers, is the subject of ridicule and has suffered a loss of enjoyment of life.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis, demands judgment against Defendant, Cardinal, for
damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XIX- PlAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION OF VICARIOUS
liABiliTY FOR NEGLIGENCE ACTION AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
172. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 and 169-171 above as if set forth herein in full.
173. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
174. At all times material hereto, Defendant Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty .to
ensure that precautions were taken to avoid harm to the students including
Plaintiff, Francis.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis demand judgment against Defendant, Diocese, for
damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XX- PlAINTIFFS, THOMAS, lUCIE'S, CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
NEGLIGENCE AS TO DEFENDANT CARDINAl
175. Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie, reallege and incorporates the allegations set
forth in paragraphs 1-34 and 168-171 above as if set forth herein in full.
176. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie, lived together with
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
Plaintiff, Francis as parents and natural guardians of Francis.
177. As a result of the foregoing negligence of the Defendant Cardinal and
subsequent injuries to their minor child, the Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie,
have in the past and will continue to suffer damages includes loss of
society, loss of services, loss of consortium, monetary damages, and
medical care of Francis.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie demand judgment against Defendant,
Cardinal for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XXI - PLAINTIFFS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S, CAUSE OF ACTION OF
VICARIOUSLY LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
178. Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie, reallege and incorporates the allegations set
forth in paragraphs 1-34, 168-171 and   7 3 ~   7 7 above as if set forth herein
in full.
179. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
180. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie, lived together with
Plaintiff, Francis, as parents and natural guardians of Francis.
181. As a result of the foregoing negligence of the Defendant Cardinal and
subsequent injuries to their minor child, the Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie,
have in the past and will continue to suffer damages includes loss of
society, loss of services, loss of consortium, monetary damages, and
medical care of Francis.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie demand judgment against Defendant,
Diocese, for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
COUNT XXII - PLAINTIFFS, FRANCIS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S, CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AS TO DEFENDANT CARDINAL
182. Plaintiff, Francis, Thomas, and Lucie, reallege and incorporates the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-34 above as if set forth herein in full.
183. Defendant, through its authorized agents, servants, or employees,· entered
into a written agreement which provided for the Plaintiff to attend classes at
Cardinal Newman High School located at 512 Spencer Drive, West Palm
Beach, FL 33409.
184. The above described Agreement would have ended pursuant to its terms
and conditions in May 2010.
185. Plaintiff Francis, a minor at the time, entered into the contract by and
through his parents Thomas and Lucie Carney.
186. The contract was clearly intended to benefit Plaintiff by conferring upon him
a complete high school education and experience.
187. Plaintiffs Francis, Thomas and Lucie fully performed all of his obligations
under the terms of the Agreement.
188. Defendant failed to perform all obligations under . the terms of the
Agreement, thereby breaching the contract, by not allowing Plaintiff to
attend classes, school activities and further, by not allowing Plaintiff to
attend his high school graduation.
189. The Plaintiffs have satisfies all conditions precedent upon their part to be
performed in order to maintain this action.
190. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the
Agreement, the Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages.
191. The Defendant is justly and truly indebted to the Plaintiff for loss of the
educational experience, future educational experiences and social
experiences.
192. The plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney, and pursuant to Florida
law, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff's attorney's fees due its
breach of the contract Agreement.
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie demands compensatory damages
for breach of contract in the amount of $40,000 and such other relief this Court deems
just and proper.
COUNT XXIII - PLAINTIFFS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S, CAUSE OF ACTION OF
VICARIOUSLY LIABLITY FOR BREACH OF STUDENT CONTRACT AS TO
DEFENDANT DIOCESE
193. Plaintiffs, Thomas, and. Lucie, reallege and incorporate the allegations set
forth in paragraphs 1-34 and 183-192 above as if set forth herein in full.
194. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie demands compensatory damages
for breach of contract in the amount of$ 40,000 and such other relief this Court deems
just and proper.
COUNT XXIV - PLAINTIFFS, FRANCIS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S, CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AS TO DEFENDANT CARDINAL
195. Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie, reallege and incorporates the ·
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-34 above as if set forth herein in full.
196. In consideration of tuition monies paid by Plaintiffs, Defendant, Cardinal,
entered into an Express Contract in which it undertook an obligation to
provide a safe, non-hostile learning environment.
197. The terms and conditions of said manual are well known to Defendant.
198. Defendant's failure to comply with the duty contained within the contract is a
breach of that duty.
199. Defendant, Cardinal, breached said contract by (1) not exercising due care
with respect to enforcement of its "Anti- Bullying" policy; (2) allowing Plaintiff
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
to be exposed to an intimidating and hostile environment that substantially
interfered with his educational opportunities and the Catholic mission of
Cardinal Newman High School.
200. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the
Agreement, the Plaintiff has suffered and will in the future suffer emotional,
mental and physical damages.
201. The Defendant is justly and truly indebted to the Plaintiff for loss of the
educational experience, future educational experiences and social
experiences.
202. All conditions precedent necessary to maintain this action have been met by
Plaintiff, or have been waived.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie demands compensatory
damages for breach of contract in the amount of $40,000 and such other relief this
Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XXV - PLAINTIFFS, FRANCIS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S, CAUSE OF
ACTION VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT
AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
203. Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie, reallege and incorporates the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-34 and 196-202 above as if set forth
herein in full.
204. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie demands compensatory
damages for breach of contract in the amount of $40,000 and such other relief this
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XXVI - PLAINTIFFS, FRANCIS, THOMAS AND LUCIE 'S, CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AS TO DEFENDANT CARDINAL
205. Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas, and Lucie, reallege and incorporates the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-34 above as if set forth herein in full.
206. Plaintiffs and Defendant share a relationship whereby (a) Plaintiffs Francis,
Thomas, and Lucie reposes trust and confidence in Defendant, and (b)
Defendant undertakes such trust and assumes a duty to advise, counsel
and/or protect Plaintiff Francis.
207. Upon information and belief, Defendant's agents, servants, or employees
were notified by students of continuing bullying, abusive, and defamatory
language directed at Plaintiff Francis.
208. The Defendant was in a position to protect Plaintiff Francis from the abuse.
209. Defendant breached that duty by failing to confront Defendant, Geary, in a
timely manner to ensure that the continuing bullying, abusive, and
defamatory language directed towards Plaintiff ceased.
210. Defendant, despite being put on notice, and repeated requests by Plaintiff
Francis and his parents to intervene, recklessly, negligently or intentionally
did nothing to protect Plaintiff, Francis. Such an omission further conveys
merit to all the falsities spread and further damaged the Plaintiffs.
211. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the
Agreement, the Plaintiff has suffered and will in the future suffer emotional,
mental and physical damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Francis, Thomas, and Lucie demand judgment against
Defendant, Cardinal, for breach of fiduciary duty and such other relief this Court deems
just and proper.
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
COUNT XXVII - PLAINTIFFS, FRANCIS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S, CAUSE OF
ACTION VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
212. Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas, and Lucie, reallege and incorporates the
allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-34 and 206-211 above as if set forth
herein in full.
213. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Francis, Thomas, and Lucie demand judgment against
Defendant, Diocese for breach of fiduciary duty and such other relief this Court deems
just and proper.
COUNT XXVIII- PLAINTIFF. FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO DEFENDANT GEARY
214. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
215. Defendant Geary was a student at Cardinal Newman High School and
attended classes at the same time as Plaintiff.
216. Defendant negligently, recklessly or wantonly spread false rumors and
made malicious statements about Plaintiff.
217. Defendant Geary owed a duty to use the degree of care of that of a
reasonable person.
218. Defendant Geary breached this duty, thereby creating a foreseeable zone of
risk of emotional harm to Plaintiff by spreading false rumors and making
malicious statements about Plaintiff.
219. Defendants' conduct was (i) negligent, reckless or wanton, (ii) evidenced an
entire want of care of attention to duty, (iii) with great indifference to
Plaintiffs' rights, and (iv) with such disregard of rights that Defendant's
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
conduct is equivalent to an intentional act and/or conscious indifference.
220. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned breach of duty owed
to the Plaintiff by Defendant, and as a result of the immediate impact of the
physical injuries, including, but not limited to, loss of appetite, mental
anguish, insomnia, missed school, and severe emotional suffering,
Defendant's conduct caused Plaintiff to suffer harmful and irreparable
emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Francis, demands judgment against Defendant, Geary, for
negligent infliction of emotional distress and such other relief this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT XXIX - PLAINTIFFS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO DEFENDANT GEARY
221. Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie, reallege the allegations set forth above in
paragraphs 1-34 and 214-220 above as if set forth herein in full.
222. Plaintiffs have a close personal relationship with their son, Francis.
223. As described above, Defendant, Geary, negligently and maliciously made
defamatory comments about their son.
224. As such, Francis was not allowed to return to school or attend graduation
and has lost any and all interest in college as a consequence, and has been
injured in his health and education.
225. By making these comments Defendant Geary breached his duty of
reasonable care.
226. It was foreseeable that these comments would cause a risk of harm to those
in a close relationship with Francis.
227. Plaintiffs were involved in the incident in that they were summoned to the
vice-principal's office multiple times to answer shocking, yet false,
accusations about their son; were forced to send and receive dozens of
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
emails to and from school official about their son's academic status; miss
work; view false accusations about their son in the Palm Beach Post and
one the evening news; and were not able to see their son graduate after
helping and supporting him throughout high school.
228. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned breach of duty owed
to the Plaintiffs by Defendant, they have witnessed severe injuries to their
son and the resulting pain and suffering.
229. By witnessing this, Plaintiffs immediately suffered, and continue to suffer,
from serious and permanent psychological and psychiatric trauma and
injury which has manifested itself in severe physical symptoms causing
bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, loss of earnings,
mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
230. As a result of the impact of the physical injuries, Plaintiffs have been caused
to suffer sever harmful and irreparable emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie demands judgment against Defendant,
Geary, for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XXX- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO DEFENDANT CARDINAL
231. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 above as if set forth herein in full.
232. As described above, Defendant Geary negligently and maliciously made
defamatory comments about Plaintiff Francis.
233. Defendant Geary was a student at Cardinal Newman High School and
attended classes at the same time as Plaintiff Francis.
234. Defendant Cardinal owed a duty to use that degree of care that would
provide for the maximum safety of students on and off school grounds.
235. Said duty of reasonable care included, but was not limited to, the duty to
enforce policies and procedures that provide for the safe environment for
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
students, to ensure that safety rules and regulations adopted and
recognized by Cardinal, and to vigorously monitor students to maintain
safety and to correct inappropriate conduct:
236. Defendant Cardinal breached aforementioned duties creating a foreseeable
zone of risk of harm by failing:
a. to ensure that reasonabl.e rules and regulations including its own rules
and regulations stated in the Student-Parent Handbook were properly
implemented;
/
b. to supervise its students, including Defendant Geary and others who
spread false rumors about Plaintiff on and off school grounds.
c. to take steps to terminate the harassment, embarrassment, intimidation-,
and defamatory statements of Plaintiff by Defendant Geary after being
placed on notice of the defamatory and malicious statements, despite the
fact that the school knew why Francis was wearing ear-guards and knew
that it was a result of the injury to his ears.
d. to supervise and /or train its employees to ensure those employees
complied with those policies and procedures adopted by the cardinal
relating to student welfare safety and safety, to wit, failing to obtain the
source of those statements from a faculty member who heard them
verbatim.
e. to identify those faculty, including but not limited to Theresa Fretterd,
Father Carr, John Clarke whose performance was substandard and
thereby retaining incompetent staff.
f. to honestly respond to emails by Plaintiff's parents regarding the Plaintiff
Francis' academic status.
g. to handle the investigation of Plaintiff discretely, not openly and
obviously in front of other students and media.
237. Emotional harm resulting from Defendant Cardinal's breach of duty was
clearly foreseeable.
238. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breach of duty, Plaintiff
Francis suffered immediate physical injury caused by psychological trauma,
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
severe emotional distress and suffers continuing physical manifestations of
the severe emotional distress.
239. These losses are either permanent or continuing, and Plaintiff will suffer the
losses in the future.
240. Plaintiff is entitled to damages for his emotional/mental anguish and grief,
pain and suffering, and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis demands judgment against Defendant, Cardinal,
for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XXXI- PLAINTIFF, FRANCIS', CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICARIOUS
LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.AS TO
DEFENDANT DIOCESE
241. Plaintiff, Francis, realleges the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1-
34 and 232-240 above as if set forth herein in full.
242. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Francis demands judgment against Defendant, Diocese,
for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT XXXII - PLAINTIFFS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO DEFENDANT
CARDINAL
243. Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie, reallege the allegations set forth above in
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
paragraphs 1-34 and 232-340 above as if set forth herein in full.
244. Plaintiffs had a close personal relationship with their son, Francis.
245. Emotional harm to those in a close relationship to Francis resulting from
Defendant Cardinal's breach of duty was clearly foreseeable.
246. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned breach of duty owed
to the Plaintiffs by Defendant Cardinal, they have witnessed severe injuries
to their son and the resulting pain and suffering.
247. By witnessing this, Plaintiffs immediately suffered, and continue to suffer,
from serious injury which has manifested itself in severe physical symptoms
causing bodily injury and resulting in pain and suffering, disability, loss of
earnings, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
248. As a result of the impact of the physical injuries, Plaintiffs have been caused
to suffer sever harmful and irreparable emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Thomas and Lucie, demands judgment against
Defendant Cardinal for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT XXXIII - PLAINTIFFS, THOMAS AND LUCIE'S, CAUSE Of ACTION Of
VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION Of EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
AS TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE
249. Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie, reallege the allegations set forth above in
paragraphs 1-34, 232-340 and 244-248 above as if set forth herein in full.
250. All times material hereto Defendant Cardinal was an agent of Defendant
Diocese, under its supervision and control and acting within the course and
scope of its agency or employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie demands judgment against
Defendant Diocese for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
COUNT XXXIV - PLAINTIFFS, FRANCIS, THOMAS, LUCIE 'S, CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS TO DEFENDANT
DIOCESE
251. Plaintiffs, Francis Thomas and Lucie, reallege the allegations set forth
above in paragraphs 1-34 above as if set forth herein in full.
252. Plaintiffs had a close personal relationship with their son, Francis.
253. As described above, Defendant Geary negligently and maliciously made
defamatory comments about their son.
254. Defendant Geary was a student at Cardinal Newman High School and
attended classes at the same time as Plaintiffs' son, Francis.
255. Defendant Diocese oversees and dictates the policies, conduct, standards
of Cardinal Newman High School.
256. Defendant Diocese owed a duty to use that degree of care that would
ensure that Cardinal and its officials provide the maximum safety of
students on school grounds.
257. Said duty of reasonable care included, but was not limited to, the duty to
enforce policies and procedures that provide for the safe environment for
students, to ensure that safety rules and regulations adopted and
recognized by Diocese as stated in its Anti-Bullying Policy in the Student-
Parent Handbook.
258. Defendant Diocese breached the aforementioned duties creating a
foreseeable zone of risk of emotional harm to Plaintiffs by failing
a. to ensure that reasonable rules and regulations including its own rules
and regulations stated in the Student-Parent Handbook were properly
implemented;
b .. to supervise its students employees and agents that were employed at
Cardinal Newman High School
c. to take steps to terminate the harassment, embarrassment, intimidation, ·
and defamatory statements of Plaintiff by Defendant Geary.
d. to supervise and /or train its employees to ensure those employees
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
complied with those policies and procedures relating student welfare
safety and adopted by Cardinal;
e. to identify those faculty, including but not limited to Theresa Fretterd,
Father Carr, John Clarke whose performance was substandard and
thereby retaining incompetent staff.
f. to allow Plaintiffs' son due process prior to not allowing him to return to
school.
g .. to see that the School handled the investigation of Plaintiff discretely, .
not openly and obviously in front of other students and media.
259. Emotional harm to those in a close relationship to Francis resulting from
Defendant Cardinal's breach of duty was clearly foreseeable.
260. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of duty, Plaintiff,
Francis, suffered immediate physical injury caused by psychological trauma,
severe emotion distress and suffers continuing physical manifestations of
the severe emotional distress.
261. The losses are either permanent or continue, and Plaintiff, Francis will suffer
the losses in the future.
262. Plaintiff, Francis, is entitled to damages for his emotional/mental anguish
and grief, pain and suffering, and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life.
263. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned breach of duty owed
to the Plaintiffs, Thomas and Lucie by Defendant Diocese, they have
witnessed severe injuries to their son and the resulting pain and suffering.
264. By witnessing this, Plaintiffs immediately suffered, and continue to suffer,
from serious injury which has manifested itself in severe physical symptoms
causing bodily injury and resulting in pain and suffering, disability, loss of
earnings, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
265. As a result of the impact of the physical injuries, Plaintiffs have been caused
to suffer sever harmful and irreparable emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Francis, Thomas and Lucie, demand judgment against
Defendant Diocese for damages and such other relief that this Court deems just and
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
proper.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, Thomas F. Carney Ill, Thomas F. Carney Jr. and
Lucie Carney, demands judgment against the Defendants, Francis Byrne Geary Ill,
Cardinal Newman High School, Inc., and Diocese of Palm Beach Inc., together with
costs and demands a trial set by jury for all issues triable as a matter of right.
Dated this ).'1 day of April, 2012.
TISON LAW FIRM, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8050 N. Nob Hill Rd., Suite 303
Tamarac, FL 33321
(954) 597-9580
(954) 532-0990 Facsimile
DEVIN P. TISON, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 95225
M
A
O
S

m
y
a
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m