Preview
2017-52769a / Court: 080
NO.
JUSTIN PANNELL, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PLAINTIFF,
V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CITY OF ROSENBERG, ROSENBERG
POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLIS
WARREN, JEREMY EDER, FORT
BEND COUNTY, FORT BEND
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, JOSH
DALE, BRYAN BAKER, ROGER
ABSHIRE, and USK9 UNLIMITED,
INCORPORATED,
DEFENDANTS, OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Justin Pannell (“Mr. Pannell , files this First Amended Petition
against Defendant City of Rosenberg, Rosenberg Police Department Dallis Warren, Jeremy
Eder Roger Abshire, USK9 Unlimited, Inc., Fort Bend County, ort Bend County Sheriff’s
Office, Josh Dale, and Bryan Baker (“Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
A. DISCOVERY CONTROL LAN
1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
190.4 and affirmatively pleads that this suit is not governed by the expedited actions process
in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169.
B. RELIEF
2. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000. Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(5).
C. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Justin Pannell is an individual residing in Harris County.
4. Defendant Fort Bend County is located at 401 Jackson St., Richmond, TX 77469, and
may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, the County
Judge Honorable Robert Herbert, at 401 Jackson St., Richmond, TX 77469.
5. Defendant Dallis Warren is an individual and a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas,
and may be served at 6110 Watford Bnd., Rosenberg, TX 77471, or wherever Defendant may
be found.
6. Defendant Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office is located at 1410 Williams Way Blvd.,
Richmond, TX 77469, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for
service of process, Sheriff Troy Nehls, at 1410 Williams Way Blvd., Richmond, TX 77469.
7. Defendant City of Rosenberg is located at 2110 4th St., Rosenberg, TX 77471, and may
be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, Mayor William
T. Benton, at 2110 4th St., Rosenberg, TX 77471.
8. Defendant City of Rosenberg Police Department is located at 2120 4th St., Rosenberg,
TX 77471, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of
process, the Chief Dallis Warren, at 401 Jackson St., Richmond, TX 77469.
2
9. Defendant Jeremy Eder is an individual and a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas, and
may be served at 6110 Miramont Dr., Rosenberg, TX 77471, or wherever Defendant may be
found.
10. Defendant Joshua Dale is an individual and a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas, and
may be served at 9627 Highland Pointe Dr., Needville, TX 77461, or wherever Defendant
may be found.
11. Defendant Bryan Baker is an individual and a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas,
and may be served at 2218 Crescent Water, Rosenberg, TX 77471, or wherever Defendant
may be found.
12. Defendant United States K-9 Unlimited, Incorporated is a Louisiana Corporation
located at 10919 Odilon Rd., Kaplan, LA 70548, and may be served with process by serving
its registered agent for service of process, Roger Abshire, at 10919 Odilon Rd., Kaplan, LA
70548.
13. Defendant Roger Abshire is an individual and a resident of Vermilion Parish,
Louisiana, and may be served at 10919 Odilon Rd., Kaplan, LA 70548, or wherever
Defendant may be found.
D. JURISDICTION
14. The amount in dispute and other equitable remedies sought are within the jurisdictional
limits and powers of this Court.
3
E. VENUE
15. Venue is mandatory in Harris County under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code
section 15.017 because this suit involves libel and slander and this is the county where
Plaintiff resided when this claim occurred.
F. FACTS
16. Plaintiff Pannell filed his Original Petition and Request for Disclosure on August 8,
2017, and incorporates it in its entirety herein and throughout this First Amended Petition,
including all exhibits of the Plaintiff’s Original Petition.
17. Plaintiff Pannell’s cause of action is required due to the manner in which Plaintiff’s
law enforcement career was ruined by being defamed, demoted, and stonewalled from the
Rosenberg Police Department and Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force.
18. Plaintiff Justin Pannell was a certified K9 handler and K9 handler for “Rik”, a Belgian
Malinois police dog, with the Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force (hereinafter referred to
as “Task Force” or “FBCNTF”). Plaintiff began experiencing behavioral “kennel” issues
with K9 Rik in the preceding months. These behavioral issues existed prior to the Plaintiff
becoming certified with K9 Rik. Plaintiff sent text messages and made phone calls asking his
supervisors for assistance with this matter, which was misconstrued as a resignation. This
false resignation statement became the subject of a targeted defamatory statement by
Defendants Roger Abshire (“Mr. Abshire”), Chief Dallis Warren (“Chief Warren”),
Lieutenant Jeremy Eder (“Eder”), Captain Josh Dale (“Dale”), and Sergeant Bryan Baker
(“Baker”).
4
19. Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated conduct
business in Texas. Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated
receive payments from various government and police agencies from around the State of
Texas. Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated have been
sold defective canine/K9’s in Matagorda County, Texas which did bite people.1 Defendant
Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated received and trained police
officers from Texas including officers in Fort Bend county and the surrounding counties. 2
Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated did make phone
calls and statements targeting a local audience in Texas regarding Plaintiff Justin Pannell as
further delineated herein.
20. On July 21, 2016 at 11:53 a.m., Plaintiff Justin Pannell sent a text message to his
immediate supervisor in the Task Force, Defendant Sergeant Bryan Baker. The text message
stated, “If I’m done with this [with the daily assignment Plaintiff was on] before you leave
can we talk at the office? I think I’m turning in my leash. I can’t handle this dog anymore. I
don’t enjoy coming to work anymore bc of the stress level it’s causing me.”
21. Later the same day, Defendant Baker telephoned Plaintiff inquiring about the earlier
text message, to which Plaintiff reiterated he was only “thinking about” it and was reaching
out for assistance concerning K9 Rik’s issues. Defendant Baker advised Plaintiff that he
would call Defendant Captain Dale and schedule a meeting later that day and to call him after
Plaintiff was done with his operation.
1
Exhibit B: News Article about Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated’s defective
K9 “Rico.”
5
22. Once Plaintiff was done with his operation, he contacted Defendant Baker as requested
and Defendant Baker asked if he was serious to turn in his leash. Plaintiff stated that he was
attempting to find a solution to the known ongoing problems with K9 Rik’s kennel behavior.
Defendant Baker stated that there is no point in meeting with the Plaintiff and to turn in his
equipment. Plaintiff Pannell explained that he did not want that to happen and that he loved
his current position, but Defendant Baker denied Plaintiff any solutions, assistance, or
guidance.
23. Plaintiff stated that in consideration of everything he had accomplished in terms of
arrests, seizures, and investigations that now he could not even get a meeting to address the
behavioral issues of his K9. Defendant Baker told Plaintiff the solution was again to turn in
his leash, which prompted Plaintiff to say Defendant Baker was acting like an asshole.
Defendant Baker then stated to Plaintiff that that is not how you talk to a supervisor. Plaintiff
Pannell then told Defendant Baker he would go through his chain of command with
Rosenberg PD.
24. It should be noted that Plaintiff Pannell is required to go through chain of command at
the Task Force and if the issue is not resolved he is to resume the chain of command with
Rosenberg PD (Plaintiff’s employing agency). It should also be noted that K9 Rik is owned
by the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office.
25. Emotionally upset after following the protocol using his chain of command with the
Fort Bend Narcotics Task Force and being denied assistance, Plaintiff then reached out to
2
Exhibit C: Plaintiff’s USK9 Dog Training Academy Certificate.
6
Defendant Lieutenant Eder by phone. Lieutenant Eder advised Plaintiff that he would let him
know if he heard anything.
26. A short time later, Lieutenant Eder telephoned Plaintiff stating that he had spoken to
Defendant Josh Dale who advised him that Plaintiff Pannell was not to return to the Task
Force until a meeting sometime after August 1, 2016 because Chief Warren was on vacation.
Plaintiff was further advised to use sick days, vacation days, or work regular patrol until
Chief Warren returned from vacation to attend the meeting.
27. On Friday July 22, 2016 Plaintiff was advised a meeting would take place including
himself, Defendants Lieutenant Eder, Captain Dale, and Assistant Chief Tracie Dunn on July
22, 2016. However, the meeting took place but only with Defendants Eder, Dale, and Baker.
Plaintiff was then told by Defendant Eder that the meeting previously scheduled was moved
to Monday July 25, 2016.
28. On Monday, July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, Defendants Lieutenant Eder, Sergeant Justin
Crocker, and the Human Resource Director Lori Remington had a meeting despite it being
specifically postponed until Chief Warren’s return from vacation. Plaintiff was advised he
would not be meeting with anyone else including Chief Warren. Plaintiff was given letters
from Defendants Lieutenant Eder and Captain Dale concerning reassignment effective
immediately back to Patrol Division with Rosenberg PD, for “stress levels” and
“unhappiness.”
29. That letter justified the “reassignment” by falsely claiming that Plaintiff resigned from
his position at the Task Force. As it clearly states and is known per the Department’s own
policy, a formal resignation must be submitted in writing and to the employee’s direct
7
supervisor. Lieutenant Eder claimed that a text message sent by Plaintiff to Sergeant Baker
was a resignation. Plaintiff Pannell’s action did not constitute a resignation whatsoever.
30. On Tuesday, July 26, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a letter to Defendant Lieutenant Eder
requesting reassignment back to the Task Force and a remedy list to dealing with K9 Rik’s
kennel issues. No response was ever given from Defendant Lieutenant Eder in regard to
Plaintiff’s request and proposed solutions.
31. On July 27, 2016, Plaintiff opened a department-wide email sent out by Lieutenant
Eder for an open position of K9 handler with the Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force.
32. On July 29, 2016, after receiving no promised meeting with Defendants Lieutenant
Eder, Captain Dale, Sergeant Baker, Assistant Chief Dunn, or Chief Warren in regard to
previous requests through Plaintiff’s chain of command, Plaintiff filed an official grievance
with the City of Rosenberg.
33. On August 9, 2016, Defendant Roger Abshire, owner and operator of USK9
Unlimited, Inc. (“USK9”), stated in a conversation with Chief Warren that his assessment
was that “Pannell was not a good fit as a K9/canine handler and was using inconsistent
correction techniques, this has led to the behaviors in K9 Rik.”
34. It should be noted that Plaintiff Pannell has made approximately three trips to USK9 to
correct the behavioral issues with K9 Rik. The last trip for corrective behavior was made by
Plaintiff and Defendant Baker. Both planned on staying overnight at USK9 for training.
Upon arriving, Defendant Abshire rode in the vehicle with Plaintiff Pannell and advised both
Plaintiff Pannell and Defendant Baker that Plaintiff Pannell knows what he is doing and has
8
been doing a great job and there is nothing more for him to do. Plaintiff Pannell and
Defendant Baker departed from USK9 a few hours after arriving.
35. On or about August 11, 2016, Chief Warren republished this defamatory statement in
his capacity as Chief of Police in an official record for Rosenberg Police Department. Under
the terms of the Texas Defamation Mitigation Act, Chief Warren, the Rosenberg Police
Department (“Rosenberg PD”), Roger Abshire, and USK9 Unlimited, Inc. (“USK9”) were
given notice as of an April 19, 2017 demand letter to retract and correct the disparaging and
defamatory statement, which they failed to do.
36. The August 11, 2016 Defendant Chief Warren circulated an Interoffice Memorandum
(“Memo”) made a specific defamatory statement follows: “During my conversation with Mr.
Abshire, his stated assessment was that Pannell was not a good fit as a K9/canine handler and
was using inconsistent correction techniques, this has led to the behaviors in K9 Rik.”
37. The defamatory meaning of this statement plainly means that Plaintiff Mr. Pannell is
an unqualified K9/canine handler who incorrectly handles canines, and is defamatory
because (1) being a specially trained K9/canine handler is a professional niche both in
government and private industries, and (2) the statement is false, published with malice, and
not a mere opinion.
38. On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an official grievance letter addressed to Chief
Warren. Defendant Chief Warren contacted Plaintiff and asked him for a one-week extension
to respond. Approximately 11 days later, on August 17, 2017, Chief Warren provided
Plaintiff with his letter of response.
9
39. Plaintiff was denied his right to voice his concerns with Chief Warren and Captain
Dale due to the meeting taking place without Plaintiff, whose messages were misconstrued
and made into a resignation as retaliation. Plaintiff’s text message was clearly an outreach
and was in no way, shape, or form an official letter of resignation. When the aforementioned
issues were noted in the grievance letter to Defendant Chief Warren, he then changed his
statement by stating it was not a resignation, but a reassignment as stated by Defendant
Lieutenant Eder.
40. To Plaintiff’s knowledge, Defendants Chief Warren, Lieutenant Eder, Sergeant Baker,
Captain Josh Dale, and Assistant Chief Tracy Dunn have never been certified as a K9/canine
handler, and thus they have no grounds to provide expert opinions on Plaintiff’s ability as a
K9/canine handler.
41. Importantly, Defendant Mr. Abshire and Defendant US K9 Unlimited, Inc. have
certified Plaintiff Mr. Pannell with a rating of excellent for three consecutive years and again
in March of 2016 with no contact after his quarterly training, further noting that Mr. Abshire
and US K9 Unlimited, Inc. have no factual evidence to state that Mr. Pannell is unfit to be a
K9/canine handler. Plaintiff is also certified with the National Narcotic Detector Dog
Association (NNDDA) for three consecutive years. The NNDDA has no affiliation with
USK9 Unlimited, Inc. and is unbiased. Having a separate certification from an unbiased
entity is highly recommended by Defendants Abshire and USK9 Unlimited, Inc.
42. Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated have trained
several of Defendant Rosenberg Police Department’s K9 handlers as well as other Fort Bend
K9 handlers. Statements made by Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited,
10
Incorporated to the chain of command, such as Defendant Police Chief Warren, have bearing
on the decision since Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited,
Incorporated are viewed as an authority to rate K9 handlers. A statement made telephonically
to a local police chief of a city in the State of Texas, in addition to the history and
relationship of having sold K9’s and trained officers from the local police department,
demonstrates repeated and continual contact availing oneself to the State of Texas regarding
K9 issues or actions related to the K9 services committed by Defendants Abshire and US K9
Unlimited.
43. The defamatory statements originally made by Defendants Sergeant Baker, Mr.
Abshire and republished by Chief Warren have caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s career
as a professional K9/canine handler.
G. DEFAMATION
44. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
45. The right to file suit and seek justice for libel, slander, and other damages to reputation
is even guaranteed by the Texas Constitution itself: “All courts shall be open, and every
person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by
due course of law.” Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52, 60 (Tex. 2013), reh’g denied (Jan. 31,
2014) (citing Tex. Const. art. I, § 13)).
46. On August 9 and August 11, 2016, Defendants published a defamatory statement
concerning Plaintiff in regard to a private matter by way of oral communication and written
11
communication asserting as fact that Plaintiff was an unqualified K9 handler and thus should
be demoted from the Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force.
47. Clearly, Defendants’ statement involved a matter of private concern.
Public controversy, for purposes of defamation action, is not simply matter of interest to
the public; it must be a real dispute with an outcome of which affects general public or some
segment of it in appreciable way. Einhorn v. LaChance, 823 S.W.2d 405, (Tex. App.—
Houston [1 Dist.] 1992, writ dismissed w.o.j.).
48. Plaintiff’s requisite skills in regard to his ability to perform K9 handler duties on behalf
of the Task Force is not a real dispute on which the outcome affects the general public or
segment of it in an appreciable way.
49. Law enforcement personnel are almost universally held to be public officials. Hailey
v. KTBS, Inc., 935 S.W.2d 857, 860 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, no writ) (citing Times–
Mirror Co. v. Harden, 628 S.W.2d 859, 860 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.)).
50. At the time of publishing of the defamatory statements, Plaintiff Mr. Pannell was a
respected, accomplished, and valuable member of the Rosenberg PD and assigned Task
Force.
51. The discussions from both Defendant Abshire and Defendant Chief Warren clearly
referred to Plaintiff by name. On August 9, 2016, Defendant Abshire stated in a conversation
to Chief Warren that in his assessment was that Justin Pannell was “not a good fitas a
K9/canine handler and was using inconsistent correction techniques, this has led to the
behaviors in K9 Rik.”
12
52. On August 11, 2016, Defendant Chief Warren made a defamatory statement in the
Memo circulated to employees and co-workers concerning Plaintiff’s bad fit as a K9 handler
making him unqualified to continue working in the Task Force.
LIBEL
53. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
54. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute libel under common law.
55. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which
entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
41.003(a)(2).
SLANDER
56. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
57. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute slander under common law.
58. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which
entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
41.003(a)(2).
13
COMMON-LAW DEFAMATION PER SE
59. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
60. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute defamation per se under common
law. To establish a prima facie case of defamation, the Plaintiff must show each of the
following: (1) the defendants made a false statement of fact to a third party; (2) the statement
was defamatory concerning the plaintiff; (3) the defendants acted negligently if the plaintiff
is a private individual, or with actual malice if the plaintiff is a public official or figure; and
(4) the statement caused damages, unless the statement is defamatory per se, in which case
damages may be presumed. Deaver v. Desai (App. 14 Dist. 2015) 483 S.W.3d 668.
61. In regard to element one (1) the Defendants Abshire, US K9 Unlimited, Inc., and
Warren made false statements of fact to third parties. On August 9 and 11, 2016 defamatory
statements concerning the Plaintiff’s unfitness and unqualified performance made by
Defendants were demonstrably false. On Friday July 22, 2016 after the meeting between
Defendants Dale, Eder, and Baker, Defendant Baker told FBCNTF member Daniel Tondera
that Plaintiff Pannell had been fired from FBCNTF because he couldn’t handle it.
62. Plaintiff Justin Pannell is an eight-year veteran and began his career on or about
January 2008 when he received his Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE)
certification as a peace officer. Additionally, Plaintiff was a Field Training Officer, Member
of the Fort Bend County Regional S.W.A.T Team, Intoxilyzer Operator, acquired his
Advanced Peace Officer Certificate and has over 2,300 law enforcement training hours with
numerous commendation awards, and was certified from 2013-2016 with the National
14
Narcotic Detector Dog Association (NNDDA) for three consecutive years. Importantly,
Plaintiff had also maintained an “excellent” rating for three consecutive years from
Defendants Roger Abshire and USK9 Unlimited, Inc.
63. In regard to element two (2) the defamatory statement concerning the Plaintiff as is
evidenced by the Interoffice Memorandum circulated August 11, 2016. The Memo sent out
was addressing Plaintiff’s grievance filed July 29, 2016.
64. On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff Pannell received a text from Daniel Tondera and multiple
other law enforcement agents from various agencies around the State of Texas, concerning if
Plaintiff had quit and/or been fired from his position within the FBCNTF due to an inability
to handle it.
65. In regard to element three (3) the Defendants acted with the requisite degree of
fault. Plaintiff under the public figure standard clearly can demonstrate Defendants Mr.
Abshire and Chief Warren’s defamatory publication were clearly made with Actual Malice.
Both because first, being a specially trained K9/canine handler is a professional niche both in
government and private industries, and second, the statement is false, published with malice,
and not a mere opinion.
66. Actual malice in a defamation case is a term of art. To establish actual malice, a
plaintiff must prove that the defendant made the statement with knowledge that itwas false
or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not. Huckabee v. Time Warner Entm't Co.
L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex. 2000) (citing New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254,
279–80 (1964)).
15
67. Plaintiff will show Defendants acted with the requisite actual malice. Defendant
Abshire had certified Plaintiff Mr. Pannell through USK9 Unlimited, Inc.’s rigorous and
nationally recognized law enforcement K9 program. For the owner-operator of such an entity
to make a defamatory statement that a K9 handler trained through your own program and
certified in others is unqualified clearly could only be made knowing that it is false or acting
with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity.
68. Chief Warren acted with actual malice by publishing the Memo to other law
enforcement personnel both inside and outside of Rosenberg PD, containing the statement
that Plaintiff was unqualified as a K9 handler. Because Chief Warren does not have the
requisite training and certification in recognizing when and if a K9 handler is qualified, his
statement was made knowing that it is false or acting with reckless disregard for the
statement's truth or falsity.
69. On July 22, 2016 Defendant Sergeant Baker acted with the requisite intent when he
made the statement that Plaintiff Pannell was fired and/or quit the FBCNTF because of an
inability to cope with the pressure because Defendant Baker made the statement with
knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not.
70. Defendant Baker was privy to the July 22, 2016 meeting with Defendants Eder and
Dale, and began falsely communicating to other law enforcement personnel Plaintiff had quit
due to being an unqualified K9 handler. Per Rosenberg PD’s Employee Handbook §15.02
resignation policies, a formal resignation must be submitted in writing and to the employee’s
direct supervisor. Defendant Baker was cognizant of the policy’s requirements yet
16
disregarded them in communicating to individuals the false statement Plaintiff had quit
because of his inability to handle the K9.
71. In regard to element four (4) the statements caused damages, unless the statement is
defamatory per se, in which case damages may be presumed. Here, the statement made by
Defendant Mr. Abshire, and Defendant US K9 Unlimited, Inc., and republished by
Defendant Chief Warren caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s career as a professional
K9/canine handler, in that it sullied an otherwise illustrious reputation for a professional
expert level K9 handler. Being a specially trained K9/canine handler is a professional niche
both in government and private industries, and a K9 handler’s reputation and goodwill will
either advance or destroy a career, as is the case at bar.
72. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which
entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
41.003(a)(2).
COMMON-LAW LIBEL PER SE
73. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
74. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute libel per se under common law.
75. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which
entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
41.003(a)(2).
17
COMMON-LAW SLANDER PER SE
76. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
77. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute slander per se under common law.
78. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which
entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
41.003(a)(2).
DEFAMATION PER QUOD
79. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
80. Defendants’ statements constitute defamation because it is defamatory by innuendo or
implication, in that being assessed as a not good fit as a K9/canine handler and using
inconsistent correction techniques led to an ineffective K9 Rik. The implication or innuendo
made is that the Plaintiff is incompetent or a liability in his position.
81. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which
resulted in the following general damages: injury to Plaintiff’s professional reputation,
exposure to public ridicule within a large swath of law enforcement personnel working in
Fort Bend County, and financial injury due to a de facto demotion based on a perceived
inability to work cogently with a police K9 dog even after the certification, training, and
follow up training.
18
82. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which
entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
41.003(a)(2).
LIBEL PER QUOD
83. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
84. Defendants’ statements constitute libel because it is libelous by innuendo or
implication, in that being assessed as a not good fit as a K9/canine handler and using
inconsistent correction techniques led to an ineffective K9 Rik. The implication or innuendo
made is that the Plaintiff is incompetent or a liability in his position.
85. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which
resulted in the following general damages: injury to Plaintiff’s professional reputation,
exposure to public ridicule within a large swath of law enforcement personnel working in
Fort Bend County, and financial injury due to a de facto demotion based on a perceived
inability to work cogently with a police K9 dog even after the certification, training, and
follow up training.
86. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which
entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
41.003(a)(2).
19
SLANDER PER QUOD
87. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
88. Defendants’ statements constitute slander because it is slanderous by innuendo or
implication, in that being assessed as a not good fit as a K9/canine handler and using
inconsistent correction techniques led to an ineffective K9 Rik. The implication or innuendo
made is that the Plaintiff is incompetent or a liability in his position.
89. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which
resulted in the following general damages: injury to Plaintiff’s professional reputation,
exposure to public ridicule within a large swath of law enforcement personnel working in
Fort Bend County, and financial injury due to a de facto demotion based on a perceived
inability to work cogently with a police K9 dog even after the certification, training, and
follow up training.
90. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which
entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section
41.003(a)(2).
H. REQUEST FOR CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION
91. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual
allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow.
20
92. On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendant with a request to retract the false and
defamatory statement. The request was served on Defendant within the limitations period.
The request and its supporting documents is attached as Exhibit A.
I. JURY DEMAND
93. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee with this petition.
J. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
94. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendants disclose,
within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule
194.2.
K. OBJECTION TO ASSOCIATE JUDGE
95. Plaintiff objects to the referral of this case to an associate judge for hearing a trial on
the merits or presiding at a jury trial.
L. PRAYER
WHEREFORE THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Pannell moves and prays this
Honorable Court grant Plaintiff Pannell the following Relief:
That the Defendants be summoned and required to answer;
That upon a jury verdict after a trial on the merits that these Courts enter a judgment favorable
to Plaintiff Pannell consistent with such verdict;
That Plaintiff Pannell be awarded nominal, actual, compensatory and punitive damages, as
allowable by law;
21
That Plaintiff Pannell be awarded pre-judgement and post judgement interest, as allowable by
law;
That Plaintiff Pannell be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs, as allowable by law;
That these Honorable Courts grant to Plaintiff Pannell whatever other relief at law or in equity
to which they might be entitled, or the nature of this Cause might require, as these Honorable
Courts deem meet, just and proper.
Plaintiff Pannell prays for general relief.
Plaintiff Pannell demands trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
ROY & GABEL, PLLC
By: /s/Christopher Augustine Gabel
Preview
2017-52769a / Court: 080 NO. JUSTIN PANNELL, IN THE DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF, V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT CITY OF ROSENBERG, ROSENBERG POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLIS WARREN, JEREMY EDER, FORT BEND COUNTY, FORT BEND COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, JOSH DALE, BRYAN BAKER, ROGER ABSHIRE, and USK9 UNLIMITED, INCORPORATED, DEFENDANTS, OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION COMES NOW Plaintiff, Justin Pannell (“Mr. Pannell , files this First Amended Petition against Defendant City of Rosenberg, Rosenberg Police Department Dallis Warren, Jeremy Eder Roger Abshire, USK9 Unlimited, Inc., Fort Bend County, ort Bend County Sheriff’s Office, Josh Dale, and Bryan Baker (“Defendants”), and alleges as follows: A. DISCOVERY CONTROL LAN 1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4 and affirmatively pleads that this suit is not governed by the expedited actions process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169. B. RELIEF 2. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $1,000,000. Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c)(5). C. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Justin Pannell is an individual residing in Harris County. 4. Defendant Fort Bend County is located at 401 Jackson St., Richmond, TX 77469, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, the County Judge Honorable Robert Herbert, at 401 Jackson St., Richmond, TX 77469. 5. Defendant Dallis Warren is an individual and a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas, and may be served at 6110 Watford Bnd., Rosenberg, TX 77471, or wherever Defendant may be found. 6. Defendant Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office is located at 1410 Williams Way Blvd., Richmond, TX 77469, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, Sheriff Troy Nehls, at 1410 Williams Way Blvd., Richmond, TX 77469. 7. Defendant City of Rosenberg is located at 2110 4th St., Rosenberg, TX 77471, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, Mayor William T. Benton, at 2110 4th St., Rosenberg, TX 77471. 8. Defendant City of Rosenberg Police Department is located at 2120 4th St., Rosenberg, TX 77471, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, the Chief Dallis Warren, at 401 Jackson St., Richmond, TX 77469. 2 9. Defendant Jeremy Eder is an individual and a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas, and may be served at 6110 Miramont Dr., Rosenberg, TX 77471, or wherever Defendant may be found. 10. Defendant Joshua Dale is an individual and a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas, and may be served at 9627 Highland Pointe Dr., Needville, TX 77461, or wherever Defendant may be found. 11. Defendant Bryan Baker is an individual and a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas, and may be served at 2218 Crescent Water, Rosenberg, TX 77471, or wherever Defendant may be found. 12. Defendant United States K-9 Unlimited, Incorporated is a Louisiana Corporation located at 10919 Odilon Rd., Kaplan, LA 70548, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent for service of process, Roger Abshire, at 10919 Odilon Rd., Kaplan, LA 70548. 13. Defendant Roger Abshire is an individual and a resident of Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, and may be served at 10919 Odilon Rd., Kaplan, LA 70548, or wherever Defendant may be found. D. JURISDICTION 14. The amount in dispute and other equitable remedies sought are within the jurisdictional limits and powers of this Court. 3 E. VENUE 15. Venue is mandatory in Harris County under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 15.017 because this suit involves libel and slander and this is the county where Plaintiff resided when this claim occurred. F. FACTS 16. Plaintiff Pannell filed his Original Petition and Request for Disclosure on August 8, 2017, and incorporates it in its entirety herein and throughout this First Amended Petition, including all exhibits of the Plaintiff’s Original Petition. 17. Plaintiff Pannell’s cause of action is required due to the manner in which Plaintiff’s law enforcement career was ruined by being defamed, demoted, and stonewalled from the Rosenberg Police Department and Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force. 18. Plaintiff Justin Pannell was a certified K9 handler and K9 handler for “Rik”, a Belgian Malinois police dog, with the Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force (hereinafter referred to as “Task Force” or “FBCNTF”). Plaintiff began experiencing behavioral “kennel” issues with K9 Rik in the preceding months. These behavioral issues existed prior to the Plaintiff becoming certified with K9 Rik. Plaintiff sent text messages and made phone calls asking his supervisors for assistance with this matter, which was misconstrued as a resignation. This false resignation statement became the subject of a targeted defamatory statement by Defendants Roger Abshire (“Mr. Abshire”), Chief Dallis Warren (“Chief Warren”), Lieutenant Jeremy Eder (“Eder”), Captain Josh Dale (“Dale”), and Sergeant Bryan Baker (“Baker”). 4 19. Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated conduct business in Texas. Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated receive payments from various government and police agencies from around the State of Texas. Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated have been sold defective canine/K9’s in Matagorda County, Texas which did bite people.1 Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated received and trained police officers from Texas including officers in Fort Bend county and the surrounding counties. 2 Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated did make phone calls and statements targeting a local audience in Texas regarding Plaintiff Justin Pannell as further delineated herein. 20. On July 21, 2016 at 11:53 a.m., Plaintiff Justin Pannell sent a text message to his immediate supervisor in the Task Force, Defendant Sergeant Bryan Baker. The text message stated, “If I’m done with this [with the daily assignment Plaintiff was on] before you leave can we talk at the office? I think I’m turning in my leash. I can’t handle this dog anymore. I don’t enjoy coming to work anymore bc of the stress level it’s causing me.” 21. Later the same day, Defendant Baker telephoned Plaintiff inquiring about the earlier text message, to which Plaintiff reiterated he was only “thinking about” it and was reaching out for assistance concerning K9 Rik’s issues. Defendant Baker advised Plaintiff that he would call Defendant Captain Dale and schedule a meeting later that day and to call him after Plaintiff was done with his operation. 1 Exhibit B: News Article about Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated’s defective K9 “Rico.” 5 22. Once Plaintiff was done with his operation, he contacted Defendant Baker as requested and Defendant Baker asked if he was serious to turn in his leash. Plaintiff stated that he was attempting to find a solution to the known ongoing problems with K9 Rik’s kennel behavior. Defendant Baker stated that there is no point in meeting with the Plaintiff and to turn in his equipment. Plaintiff Pannell explained that he did not want that to happen and that he loved his current position, but Defendant Baker denied Plaintiff any solutions, assistance, or guidance. 23. Plaintiff stated that in consideration of everything he had accomplished in terms of arrests, seizures, and investigations that now he could not even get a meeting to address the behavioral issues of his K9. Defendant Baker told Plaintiff the solution was again to turn in his leash, which prompted Plaintiff to say Defendant Baker was acting like an asshole. Defendant Baker then stated to Plaintiff that that is not how you talk to a supervisor. Plaintiff Pannell then told Defendant Baker he would go through his chain of command with Rosenberg PD. 24. It should be noted that Plaintiff Pannell is required to go through chain of command at the Task Force and if the issue is not resolved he is to resume the chain of command with Rosenberg PD (Plaintiff’s employing agency). It should also be noted that K9 Rik is owned by the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office. 25. Emotionally upset after following the protocol using his chain of command with the Fort Bend Narcotics Task Force and being denied assistance, Plaintiff then reached out to 2 Exhibit C: Plaintiff’s USK9 Dog Training Academy Certificate. 6 Defendant Lieutenant Eder by phone. Lieutenant Eder advised Plaintiff that he would let him know if he heard anything. 26. A short time later, Lieutenant Eder telephoned Plaintiff stating that he had spoken to Defendant Josh Dale who advised him that Plaintiff Pannell was not to return to the Task Force until a meeting sometime after August 1, 2016 because Chief Warren was on vacation. Plaintiff was further advised to use sick days, vacation days, or work regular patrol until Chief Warren returned from vacation to attend the meeting. 27. On Friday July 22, 2016 Plaintiff was advised a meeting would take place including himself, Defendants Lieutenant Eder, Captain Dale, and Assistant Chief Tracie Dunn on July 22, 2016. However, the meeting took place but only with Defendants Eder, Dale, and Baker. Plaintiff was then told by Defendant Eder that the meeting previously scheduled was moved to Monday July 25, 2016. 28. On Monday, July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, Defendants Lieutenant Eder, Sergeant Justin Crocker, and the Human Resource Director Lori Remington had a meeting despite it being specifically postponed until Chief Warren’s return from vacation. Plaintiff was advised he would not be meeting with anyone else including Chief Warren. Plaintiff was given letters from Defendants Lieutenant Eder and Captain Dale concerning reassignment effective immediately back to Patrol Division with Rosenberg PD, for “stress levels” and “unhappiness.” 29. That letter justified the “reassignment” by falsely claiming that Plaintiff resigned from his position at the Task Force. As it clearly states and is known per the Department’s own policy, a formal resignation must be submitted in writing and to the employee’s direct 7 supervisor. Lieutenant Eder claimed that a text message sent by Plaintiff to Sergeant Baker was a resignation. Plaintiff Pannell’s action did not constitute a resignation whatsoever. 30. On Tuesday, July 26, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a letter to Defendant Lieutenant Eder requesting reassignment back to the Task Force and a remedy list to dealing with K9 Rik’s kennel issues. No response was ever given from Defendant Lieutenant Eder in regard to Plaintiff’s request and proposed solutions. 31. On July 27, 2016, Plaintiff opened a department-wide email sent out by Lieutenant Eder for an open position of K9 handler with the Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force. 32. On July 29, 2016, after receiving no promised meeting with Defendants Lieutenant Eder, Captain Dale, Sergeant Baker, Assistant Chief Dunn, or Chief Warren in regard to previous requests through Plaintiff’s chain of command, Plaintiff filed an official grievance with the City of Rosenberg. 33. On August 9, 2016, Defendant Roger Abshire, owner and operator of USK9 Unlimited, Inc. (“USK9”), stated in a conversation with Chief Warren that his assessment was that “Pannell was not a good fit as a K9/canine handler and was using inconsistent correction techniques, this has led to the behaviors in K9 Rik.” 34. It should be noted that Plaintiff Pannell has made approximately three trips to USK9 to correct the behavioral issues with K9 Rik. The last trip for corrective behavior was made by Plaintiff and Defendant Baker. Both planned on staying overnight at USK9 for training. Upon arriving, Defendant Abshire rode in the vehicle with Plaintiff Pannell and advised both Plaintiff Pannell and Defendant Baker that Plaintiff Pannell knows what he is doing and has 8 been doing a great job and there is nothing more for him to do. Plaintiff Pannell and Defendant Baker departed from USK9 a few hours after arriving. 35. On or about August 11, 2016, Chief Warren republished this defamatory statement in his capacity as Chief of Police in an official record for Rosenberg Police Department. Under the terms of the Texas Defamation Mitigation Act, Chief Warren, the Rosenberg Police Department (“Rosenberg PD”), Roger Abshire, and USK9 Unlimited, Inc. (“USK9”) were given notice as of an April 19, 2017 demand letter to retract and correct the disparaging and defamatory statement, which they failed to do. 36. The August 11, 2016 Defendant Chief Warren circulated an Interoffice Memorandum (“Memo”) made a specific defamatory statement follows: “During my conversation with Mr. Abshire, his stated assessment was that Pannell was not a good fit as a K9/canine handler and was using inconsistent correction techniques, this has led to the behaviors in K9 Rik.” 37. The defamatory meaning of this statement plainly means that Plaintiff Mr. Pannell is an unqualified K9/canine handler who incorrectly handles canines, and is defamatory because (1) being a specially trained K9/canine handler is a professional niche both in government and private industries, and (2) the statement is false, published with malice, and not a mere opinion. 38. On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an official grievance letter addressed to Chief Warren. Defendant Chief Warren contacted Plaintiff and asked him for a one-week extension to respond. Approximately 11 days later, on August 17, 2017, Chief Warren provided Plaintiff with his letter of response. 9 39. Plaintiff was denied his right to voice his concerns with Chief Warren and Captain Dale due to the meeting taking place without Plaintiff, whose messages were misconstrued and made into a resignation as retaliation. Plaintiff’s text message was clearly an outreach and was in no way, shape, or form an official letter of resignation. When the aforementioned issues were noted in the grievance letter to Defendant Chief Warren, he then changed his statement by stating it was not a resignation, but a reassignment as stated by Defendant Lieutenant Eder. 40. To Plaintiff’s knowledge, Defendants Chief Warren, Lieutenant Eder, Sergeant Baker, Captain Josh Dale, and Assistant Chief Tracy Dunn have never been certified as a K9/canine handler, and thus they have no grounds to provide expert opinions on Plaintiff’s ability as a K9/canine handler. 41. Importantly, Defendant Mr. Abshire and Defendant US K9 Unlimited, Inc. have certified Plaintiff Mr. Pannell with a rating of excellent for three consecutive years and again in March of 2016 with no contact after his quarterly training, further noting that Mr. Abshire and US K9 Unlimited, Inc. have no factual evidence to state that Mr. Pannell is unfit to be a K9/canine handler. Plaintiff is also certified with the National Narcotic Detector Dog Association (NNDDA) for three consecutive years. The NNDDA has no affiliation with USK9 Unlimited, Inc. and is unbiased. Having a separate certification from an unbiased entity is highly recommended by Defendants Abshire and USK9 Unlimited, Inc. 42. Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated have trained several of Defendant Rosenberg Police Department’s K9 handlers as well as other Fort Bend K9 handlers. Statements made by Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, 10 Incorporated to the chain of command, such as Defendant Police Chief Warren, have bearing on the decision since Defendant Roger Abshire and Defendant USK9 Unlimited, Incorporated are viewed as an authority to rate K9 handlers. A statement made telephonically to a local police chief of a city in the State of Texas, in addition to the history and relationship of having sold K9’s and trained officers from the local police department, demonstrates repeated and continual contact availing oneself to the State of Texas regarding K9 issues or actions related to the K9 services committed by Defendants Abshire and US K9 Unlimited. 43. The defamatory statements originally made by Defendants Sergeant Baker, Mr. Abshire and republished by Chief Warren have caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s career as a professional K9/canine handler. G. DEFAMATION 44. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 45. The right to file suit and seek justice for libel, slander, and other damages to reputation is even guaranteed by the Texas Constitution itself: “All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.” Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52, 60 (Tex. 2013), reh’g denied (Jan. 31, 2014) (citing Tex. Const. art. I, § 13)). 46. On August 9 and August 11, 2016, Defendants published a defamatory statement concerning Plaintiff in regard to a private matter by way of oral communication and written 11 communication asserting as fact that Plaintiff was an unqualified K9 handler and thus should be demoted from the Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force. 47. Clearly, Defendants’ statement involved a matter of private concern. Public controversy, for purposes of defamation action, is not simply matter of interest to the public; it must be a real dispute with an outcome of which affects general public or some segment of it in appreciable way. Einhorn v. LaChance, 823 S.W.2d 405, (Tex. App.— Houston [1 Dist.] 1992, writ dismissed w.o.j.). 48. Plaintiff’s requisite skills in regard to his ability to perform K9 handler duties on behalf of the Task Force is not a real dispute on which the outcome affects the general public or segment of it in an appreciable way. 49. Law enforcement personnel are almost universally held to be public officials. Hailey v. KTBS, Inc., 935 S.W.2d 857, 860 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, no writ) (citing Times– Mirror Co. v. Harden, 628 S.W.2d 859, 860 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.)). 50. At the time of publishing of the defamatory statements, Plaintiff Mr. Pannell was a respected, accomplished, and valuable member of the Rosenberg PD and assigned Task Force. 51. The discussions from both Defendant Abshire and Defendant Chief Warren clearly referred to Plaintiff by name. On August 9, 2016, Defendant Abshire stated in a conversation to Chief Warren that in his assessment was that Justin Pannell was “not a good fitas a K9/canine handler and was using inconsistent correction techniques, this has led to the behaviors in K9 Rik.” 12 52. On August 11, 2016, Defendant Chief Warren made a defamatory statement in the Memo circulated to employees and co-workers concerning Plaintiff’s bad fit as a K9 handler making him unqualified to continue working in the Task Force. LIBEL 53. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 54. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute libel under common law. 55. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a)(2). SLANDER 56. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 57. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute slander under common law. 58. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a)(2). 13 COMMON-LAW DEFAMATION PER SE 59. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 60. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute defamation per se under common law. To establish a prima facie case of defamation, the Plaintiff must show each of the following: (1) the defendants made a false statement of fact to a third party; (2) the statement was defamatory concerning the plaintiff; (3) the defendants acted negligently if the plaintiff is a private individual, or with actual malice if the plaintiff is a public official or figure; and (4) the statement caused damages, unless the statement is defamatory per se, in which case damages may be presumed. Deaver v. Desai (App. 14 Dist. 2015) 483 S.W.3d 668. 61. In regard to element one (1) the Defendants Abshire, US K9 Unlimited, Inc., and Warren made false statements of fact to third parties. On August 9 and 11, 2016 defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff’s unfitness and unqualified performance made by Defendants were demonstrably false. On Friday July 22, 2016 after the meeting between Defendants Dale, Eder, and Baker, Defendant Baker told FBCNTF member Daniel Tondera that Plaintiff Pannell had been fired from FBCNTF because he couldn’t handle it. 62. Plaintiff Justin Pannell is an eight-year veteran and began his career on or about January 2008 when he received his Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) certification as a peace officer. Additionally, Plaintiff was a Field Training Officer, Member of the Fort Bend County Regional S.W.A.T Team, Intoxilyzer Operator, acquired his Advanced Peace Officer Certificate and has over 2,300 law enforcement training hours with numerous commendation awards, and was certified from 2013-2016 with the National 14 Narcotic Detector Dog Association (NNDDA) for three consecutive years. Importantly, Plaintiff had also maintained an “excellent” rating for three consecutive years from Defendants Roger Abshire and USK9 Unlimited, Inc. 63. In regard to element two (2) the defamatory statement concerning the Plaintiff as is evidenced by the Interoffice Memorandum circulated August 11, 2016. The Memo sent out was addressing Plaintiff’s grievance filed July 29, 2016. 64. On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff Pannell received a text from Daniel Tondera and multiple other law enforcement agents from various agencies around the State of Texas, concerning if Plaintiff had quit and/or been fired from his position within the FBCNTF due to an inability to handle it. 65. In regard to element three (3) the Defendants acted with the requisite degree of fault. Plaintiff under the public figure standard clearly can demonstrate Defendants Mr. Abshire and Chief Warren’s defamatory publication were clearly made with Actual Malice. Both because first, being a specially trained K9/canine handler is a professional niche both in government and private industries, and second, the statement is false, published with malice, and not a mere opinion. 66. Actual malice in a defamation case is a term of art. To establish actual malice, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant made the statement with knowledge that itwas false or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not. Huckabee v. Time Warner Entm't Co. L.P., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex. 2000) (citing New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964)). 15 67. Plaintiff will show Defendants acted with the requisite actual malice. Defendant Abshire had certified Plaintiff Mr. Pannell through USK9 Unlimited, Inc.’s rigorous and nationally recognized law enforcement K9 program. For the owner-operator of such an entity to make a defamatory statement that a K9 handler trained through your own program and certified in others is unqualified clearly could only be made knowing that it is false or acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity. 68. Chief Warren acted with actual malice by publishing the Memo to other law enforcement personnel both inside and outside of Rosenberg PD, containing the statement that Plaintiff was unqualified as a K9 handler. Because Chief Warren does not have the requisite training and certification in recognizing when and if a K9 handler is qualified, his statement was made knowing that it is false or acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity. 69. On July 22, 2016 Defendant Sergeant Baker acted with the requisite intent when he made the statement that Plaintiff Pannell was fired and/or quit the FBCNTF because of an inability to cope with the pressure because Defendant Baker made the statement with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not. 70. Defendant Baker was privy to the July 22, 2016 meeting with Defendants Eder and Dale, and began falsely communicating to other law enforcement personnel Plaintiff had quit due to being an unqualified K9 handler. Per Rosenberg PD’s Employee Handbook §15.02 resignation policies, a formal resignation must be submitted in writing and to the employee’s direct supervisor. Defendant Baker was cognizant of the policy’s requirements yet 16 disregarded them in communicating to individuals the false statement Plaintiff had quit because of his inability to handle the K9. 71. In regard to element four (4) the statements caused damages, unless the statement is defamatory per se, in which case damages may be presumed. Here, the statement made by Defendant Mr. Abshire, and Defendant US K9 Unlimited, Inc., and republished by Defendant Chief Warren caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s career as a professional K9/canine handler, in that it sullied an otherwise illustrious reputation for a professional expert level K9 handler. Being a specially trained K9/canine handler is a professional niche both in government and private industries, and a K9 handler’s reputation and goodwill will either advance or destroy a career, as is the case at bar. 72. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a)(2). COMMON-LAW LIBEL PER SE 73. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 74. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute libel per se under common law. 75. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a)(2). 17 COMMON-LAW SLANDER PER SE 76. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 77. Defendants’ oral and written statements constitute slander per se under common law. 78. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a)(2). DEFAMATION PER QUOD 79. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 80. Defendants’ statements constitute defamation because it is defamatory by innuendo or implication, in that being assessed as a not good fit as a K9/canine handler and using inconsistent correction techniques led to an ineffective K9 Rik. The implication or innuendo made is that the Plaintiff is incompetent or a liability in his position. 81. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the following general damages: injury to Plaintiff’s professional reputation, exposure to public ridicule within a large swath of law enforcement personnel working in Fort Bend County, and financial injury due to a de facto demotion based on a perceived inability to work cogently with a police K9 dog even after the certification, training, and follow up training. 18 82. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a)(2). LIBEL PER QUOD 83. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 84. Defendants’ statements constitute libel because it is libelous by innuendo or implication, in that being assessed as a not good fit as a K9/canine handler and using inconsistent correction techniques led to an ineffective K9 Rik. The implication or innuendo made is that the Plaintiff is incompetent or a liability in his position. 85. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the following general damages: injury to Plaintiff’s professional reputation, exposure to public ridicule within a large swath of law enforcement personnel working in Fort Bend County, and financial injury due to a de facto demotion based on a perceived inability to work cogently with a police K9 dog even after the certification, training, and follow up training. 86. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a)(2). 19 SLANDER PER QUOD 87. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 88. Defendants’ statements constitute slander because it is slanderous by innuendo or implication, in that being assessed as a not good fit as a K9/canine handler and using inconsistent correction techniques led to an ineffective K9 Rik. The implication or innuendo made is that the Plaintiff is incompetent or a liability in his position. 89. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the following general damages: injury to Plaintiff’s professional reputation, exposure to public ridicule within a large swath of law enforcement personnel working in Fort Bend County, and financial injury due to a de facto demotion based on a perceived inability to work cogently with a police K9 dog even after the certification, training, and follow up training. 90. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from Defendants’ malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a)(2). H. REQUEST FOR CORRECTION, CLARIFICATION, OR RETRACTION 91. Plaintiff Pannell reasserts, repleads and incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and those that hereinafter follow. 20 92. On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff served Defendant with a request to retract the false and defamatory statement. The request was served on Defendant within the limitations period. The request and its supporting documents is attached as Exhibit A. I. JURY DEMAND 93. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee with this petition. J. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 94. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendants disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2. K. OBJECTION TO ASSOCIATE JUDGE 95. Plaintiff objects to the referral of this case to an associate judge for hearing a trial on the merits or presiding at a jury trial. L. PRAYER WHEREFORE THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Pannell moves and prays this Honorable Court grant Plaintiff Pannell the following Relief: That the Defendants be summoned and required to answer; That upon a jury verdict after a trial on the merits that these Courts enter a judgment favorable to Plaintiff Pannell consistent with such verdict; That Plaintiff Pannell be awarded nominal, actual, compensatory and punitive damages, as allowable by law; 21 That Plaintiff Pannell be awarded pre-judgement and post judgement interest, as allowable by law; That Plaintiff Pannell be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs, as allowable by law; That these Honorable Courts grant to Plaintiff Pannell whatever other relief at law or in equity to which they might be entitled, or the nature of this Cause might require, as these Honorable Courts deem meet, just and proper. Plaintiff Pannell prays for general relief. Plaintiff Pannell demands trial by jury. Respectfully submitted, ROY & GABEL, PLLC By: /s/Christopher Augustine Gabel