Restaurant Sues Customer For Defamation

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Dec 17 12:00 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2607062
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF HORRY ) CIVIL ACTION No. 2018-CP-26-
High Hook, LLC d/b/a Buoys on )

the Boulevard & Weldon Boyd, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
-vs- ) Summons to Complaint
)
) (Jury Trial Demanded)
Doreen Gale-Alfano, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE-NAMED:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Plaintiffs’ Complaint in
this action, a copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer to
said Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the subscriber at his office at 628A Sea Mountain Highway North
Myrtle Beach, SC 29582 within thirty (30) days after service hereof, exclusive of the day of
service hereof AND IF YOU FAIL to answer the Plaintiffs’ Complaint within the time aforesaid,
the Plaintiffs in this action will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the Plaintiffs’
Complaint.
Wright, Worley, Pope, Ekster & Moss, PLLC

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
s/Kenneth R. Moss
Kenneth R. Moss, SCB # 15520
Laura A. Hunter, SCB # 103410
628A Sea Mountain Highway
North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29582
Tel: (843) 281-9901 / Fax: (843) 281-9903
KennethMoss@wwpemlaw.com
LauraHunter@wwpemlaw.com
December 14, 2018
Page 1 of 11
File No. SC-8278-001
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF HORRY ) CIVIL ACTION No. 2018-CP-26-
High Hook, LLC d/b/a Buoys on )

the Boulevard & Weldon Boyd, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
-vs- ) Complaint
)
) (Jury Trial Demanded)
Doreen Gale-Alfano, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
Now comes the Plaintiffs, High Hook, LLC d/b/a Buoys on the Boulevard (hereinafter
referred to as “Buoys”) and Weldon Boyd (hereinafter “Boyd”)(hereinafter Bouys and Boyd
collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and
complaining of the Defendant Doreen Gale-Alfana (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and
would show this Honorable Court:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. High Hook, LLC d/b/a Buoys on the Boulevard is a limited liability company organized
in the State of South Carolina that regularly transacts business and provides services in
Horry County, South Carolina.
2. Boyd is a citizen and resident of Horry County, South Carolina.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant is currently a citizen and resident of Pinellas
County, Florida.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant, at all relevant times herein, was a citizen and
resident of Horry County, South Carolina.
Page 2 of 11
5. This Honorable Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties to this Civil Action,
including by and through S.C. Code §36-2-803, subject matter jurisdiction over the issues
hereto, and venue for this action is proper in Horry County, South Carolina.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

6. All allegations of fact made previously are repeated as if set forth here verbatim.
7. On or about March 2018, Boyd purchased the restaurant business formally known as
“Buoys Beach Bar & Grille” (the purchase of which is hereafter referred to as “Sale
Transaction”).
8. After the Sale Transaction, the business name was changed to “Buoys on the Boulevard.”
9. Prior to the Sale Transaction, the previous owner of the restaurant disbursed coupons to
potential customers for “Lunch or Dinner for 2 Up to $30.00,” the coupon of which
clearly stated that it was associated with the “Grand Strand Dining Group Family of
Restaurants,” including “Buoys Beach Bar & Grille” (hereinafter referred to as the
“Coupon”).
10. The Plaintiffs were and are not affiliated with, owner of, or part of “Grand Strand Dining
Group Family of Restaurants” or “Buoys Beach Bar & Grille.”
11. On or about October 31, 2018, Defendant came to Plaintiffs’ business with a gentleman
and ordered drinks.
12. Defendant then presented the Coupon in an attempt to order food, at which point
Plaintiffs’ employees explained that the restaurant was under new ownership, that it was
not the same entity, and that they could not honor the Coupon.
Page 3 of 11
13. Plaintiffs’ employee offered to not charge for the drinks they had already ordered as a
good faith effort to satisfy their customer even though Plaintiffs had no obligation to do
so.
14. As Defendant was still not satisfied after speaking with her server and the head server,
Plaintiffs’ manager spoke with Defendant wherein he further explained the change of
ownership.
15. Defendant responded to Plaintiffs’ manager stating that if they did not honor the Coupon
she would destroy their reputation.
16. Plaintiffs’ employees again offered to provide their drinks for free; however, Defendant
replied she did not want their offer and stated that she would “…destroy you on social
media.”
17. Plaintiffs’ employees informed Defendant that she could use the Coupon at another local
restaurant as stated on the Coupon.
18. Defendant and the gentleman she came with left without receiving or eating any food at
Buoys and checked into another local restaurant approximately seven (7) minutes later on
Facebook.
19. On or about November 1, 2018, Defendant falsely posted on Buoy’s Facebook page a one
star review stating “Awful food….found a worm in my sushi. Also had a fast crawling
bug on the wall. The Junga game is a germ carrier. Go and enjoy if you don’t care cuz the
new owner doesn’t at all.”
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant has also spoken similar untruths regarding
Plaintiffs to other customers and potential customers.
Page 4 of 11
21. Plaintiffs have suffered damages related to its reputation as a result and, upon information
and belief, Defendant’s comments have caused a decrease in Plaintiffs’ profits.
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFAMATION

(LIBEL)
23. Upon information and belief, Defendant knowingly wrote false statements asserting
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ agents have engaged in professional misconduct and negligence
in their restaurant operations and provided those statements to third parties by and
through social media wherein any user can access and view.
24. The written allegations of the Plaintiffs were defamatory and written with actual malice.
25. Upon information and belief, the unsubstantiated, written allegations by the Defendant
were false and made with the expectation and intention by the Defendant that such
allegations would: harm Plaintiffs’ reputations, deter customers from going or returning
to Buoys, lower Plaintiffs in the estimation of the community, decrease Plaintiffs’ profits,
and deter third persons from associating or dealing with the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’
agents.
26. Upon information and belief, as a result of Defendant’s libel, Plaintiffs have been
specially harmed and damages have been incurred, including but not limited to, actual
and future damage to reputation.
27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that they are entitled to recover its consequential,
nominal, actual, and special damages, costs, attorney fees, and punitive damages from
Defendant upon a finding of libel.
Page 5 of 11
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFAMATION
(LIBEL PER SE)
29. Upon information and belief, Defendant knowingly wrote false statements asserting
Plaintiffs are unfit in their business to provide food, customer service, and a sanitary
environment for its customers, and provided those statements to third parties by and
through social media wherein any user can access and view.
30. The written allegations that Plaintiffs are unfit for their business were defamatory and
written with actual malice.
31. Upon information and belief, the unsubstantiated, written allegations by the Defendant
were false and made with the expectation and intention by the Defendant that such
allegations would: harm Plaintiffs’ reputations, deter customers from going or returning
to Buoys, lower Plaintiffs in the estimation of the community, decrease Plaintiffs’ profits,
and deter third persons from associating or dealing with the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’
agents.
32. Upon information and belief, as a result of Defendant’s libel per se, Plaintiffs have been
33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that they are entitled to recover its consequential,
Defendants, jointly and severally, upon a finding of libel per se.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFAMATION

(SLANDER)
Page 6 of 11
35. Upon information and belief, Defendant has knowingly spoken false or reckless
allegations asserting Plaintiffs have engaged in professional misconduct and negligence
in their restaurant operations to third parties.
36. Upon information and belief, the allegations of professional misconduct and negligence
of the Plaintiffs were defamatory and spoken with actual malice.
37. Upon information and belief, the unsubstantiated allegations by the Defendant of
professional misconduct and negligence by the Plaintiffs were false and made with the
expectation and intention by the Defendant that such allegations would: harm Plaintiffs’
reputations, deter customers from going or returning to Buoys, lower Plaintiffs in the
estimation of the community, decrease Plaintiffs’ profits, and deter third persons from
associating or dealing with the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ agents.
38. Upon information and belief, as a result of Defendant’s slander, Plaintiffs have been
39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that they are entitled to recover their consequential,
Defendant upon a finding of slander.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFAMATION

(SLANDER PER SE)
41. Upon information and belief, Defendant has knowingly spoken false or reckless
allegations asserting Plaintiffs are unfit for their business and profession to third parties.
Page 7 of 11
42. Upon information and belief, the allegations of Plaintiffs’ unfitness for their business and
profession were defamatory and spoken with actual malice.
43. Upon information and belief, the unsubstantiated allegations by the Defendant that
Plaintiffs are unfit for their business and profession were false and made with the
expectation and intention by the Defendants that such allegations would: harm Plaintiffs’
reputations, deter customers from going or returning to Buoys, lower Plaintiffs in the
estimation of the community, decrease Plaintiffs’ profits, and deter third persons from
associating or dealing with the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ agents.
44. Upon information and belief, as a result of Defendant’s slander per se, Plaintiffs have
been specially harmed and damages have been incurred, including but not limited to,
actual and future damage to reputation.
45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that they are entitled to recover their consequential,
Defendant upon a finding of slander per se.
FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(INJURIOUS FALSEHOOD)
47. Upon information and belief, by falsely alleging professional misconduct and negligence
by the Plaintiffs the Defendant committed the tort of injurious falsehood against
Plaintiffs, intending to cause proximate and consequent economic damage to Plaintiffs.
48. Upon information and belief, the Defendant’s conduct has caused the Plaintiffs to suffer
proximate and special damages as will be more fully set forth during the trial of this
action.
Page 8 of 11
49. The Plaintiffs are entitled to an inquiry by the Court in to the underlying facts and
circumstances and to judgment against the Defendant, in such amount and upon such
terms that will fully compensate the Plaintiffs for nominal, actual, consequential, special,
and punitive damages together with prejudgment interests on the amount determined.
FOR A SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
51. Plaintiffs contacted Facebook and requested that the defamatory comments posted by
Defendant be removed; however, Facebook refused to do so.
52. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for its damages of which cannot be adequately
and accurately valued.
53. Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm, damage, and injury unless the
Defendant is compelled to remove the defamatory comments from Facebook.
54. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent
injunction of this Court compelling Defendant to remove the defamatory comments from
Facebook and to refrain from any further defamation.
55. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed in the absence of injunctive relief.
56. A balancing of the equities favors Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.
57. Plaintiffs are entitled to an Order awarding preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
Page 9 of 11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having fully set forth his Complaint against the Defendant, the Plaintiffs
pray for the following relief:
A. That a jury be impaneled to decide all disputed issues of fact;
B. That Plaintiffs have and recover judgment against the Defendant in such amounts and
upon such terms as will fully and fairly compensate Plaintiffs for their nominal, actual,
general and consequential damages as will be proven during the trial of this action;
C. Schedule a hearing for the granting of a Preliminary Injunction compelling Defendant to
remove the defamatory comments from Facebook and to refrain from any further
defamation;
D. Upon a final hearing, grant a Permanent Injunction compelling Defendant to remove the
defamatory comments from Facebook and to refrain from any further defamation;
E. That Plaintiffs have and recover judgment against the Defendant for pre-judgment
interest;
F. That Plaintiffs have and recover judgment against the Defendant for the costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiffs in this action;
G. That Plaintiffs have and recover judgment against the Defendant for punitive damages as
found appropriate by the Court and trier of fact; and
H. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
{Signature Page to Follow}
Page 10 of 11
Respectfully submitted.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
s/Kenneth R. Moss
Kenneth R. Moss, S.C. Bar No. 15520
Laura A. Hunter, S.C. Bar No. 103410
628A Sea Mountain Highway
North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29582
Tel: (843) 281-9901 / Fax: (843) 281-9903
KennethMoss@wwpemlaw.com
LauraHunter@wwpemlaw.com
December 14, 2018
Page 11 of 11

Restaurant Sues Customer For Defamation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Restaurant Sues Customer For Defamation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Dec 17 12:00 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2607062

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

High Hook, LLC d/b/a Buoys on )

TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE-NAMED:

Wright, Worley, Pope, Ekster & Moss, PLLC

December 14, 2018

High Hook, LLC d/b/a Buoys on )

collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and

complaining of the Defendant Doreen Gale-Alfana (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and

would show this Honorable Court:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Horry County, South Carolina.

2. Boyd is a citizen and resident of Horry County, South Carolina.

resident of Horry County, South Carolina.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

Group Family of Restaurants” or “Buoys Beach Bar & Grille.”

and ordered drinks.

she would destroy their reputation.

restaurant as stated on the Coupon.

new owner doesn’t at all.”

Plaintiffs to other customers and potential customers.

and belief, Defendant’s comments have caused a decrease in Plaintiffs’ profits.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFAMATION

and future damage to reputation.

Defendant upon a finding of libel.

written with actual malice.

and future damage to reputation.

Defendants, jointly and severally, upon a finding of libel per se.

FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFAMATION

allegations asserting Plaintiffs have engaged in professional misconduct and negligence

in their restaurant operations to third parties.

of the Plaintiffs were defamatory and spoken with actual malice.

associating or dealing with the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ agents.

and future damage to reputation.

Defendant upon a finding of slander.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – DEFAMATION

profession were defamatory and spoken with actual malice.

associating or dealing with the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ agents.

actual and future damage to reputation.

Defendant upon a finding of slander per se.

FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Plaintiffs, intending to cause proximate and consequent economic damage to Plaintiffs.

FOR A SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND MOTION FOR

Defendant be removed; however, Facebook refused to do so.

and accurately valued.

Defendant is compelled to remove the defamatory comments from Facebook.

Facebook and to refrain from any further defamation.

55. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed in the absence of injunctive relief.

as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

pray for the following relief:

A. That a jury be impaneled to decide all disputed issues of fact;

C. Schedule a hearing for the granting of a Preliminary Injunction compelling Defendant to

reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiffs in this action;

found appropriate by the Court and trier of fact; and

{Signature Page to Follow}

December 14, 2018

You might also like