For those who are interested, Mary’s next door neighbor filed a lawsuit against her and her husband on October 9, 2001 in Los Angeles Superior Court Case #BC259366. The complaint was for trespass, conversion, nuisance, slander of title, assault, defamation, false imprisonment, invasion of right to privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence and declaratory relief.
Here are excerpts from the document:
Paragraph 4: Defendants have embarked on a campaign of terror and abuse directed against Simas. Simas’ repeated requests of Defendant’s to refrain from their wrongful conduct ahve been ignored, thus necessitating the filing of this Complaint.
Paragraph 8: Defendants Cummins, Waddington, and Does 1-10 (collectively the “Trespassers”), have, within the last three years and continuing up to the present, without the consent or authority and against the will of Simas, entered onto the Simas property, including to harrass Simas, steal mail delivered to Simas, eavesdrop on Simas, threaten Simas with physical harm, and attempt to construct a fence on Simas’ property.
Paragraph 13: Simas is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants, beginning in or about the year 2000, wrongfully exercised dominion over property of Simas, including by damaging or destroying United States mail sent and delivered to Simas by trespassing onto Simas property and stealing said mail, and by taking the other acts alleged in this pleading.
Paragraph 15: Defendant Cummins even called Simas’ attorney based on a letter she converted and made false disparaging statements of Simas to Simas’ attorney.
Paragraph 23: Within the last three years, defendants have falsely claimed to have an ownership interest in a portion of the Simas property. Specifically, defendants have asserted that the northern portion of the Simas property lies on the Cummins property, even though a survey conducted by defendants’ own agents demonstrated this claim to be false, and even though a survey conducted on behalf of Simas confirmed the falsity of of defendant’s claims.
Paragraph 27: On or about Saturday September 2001, Simas was trimming bushes located on the Simas property. Defendant Waddington, who is approximately six feet four inches tall – significantly taller than Simas – screamed at Simas to stop cutting the bushes. Simas tried to explain to Waddington that Simas had a right to cut bushes on Simas property. Waddington then came over to Simas and told Simas that he would “kick your ass” and said “let’s go”, motioning as though he was about to strike Simas. Simas retreated.
Paragraph 28: In taking the actions so alleged, Waddington unlawfully attempted and threatened to commit physical injury upon Simas. Waddington, subsequent to September 1, 2002, has continued to threaten Simas with physical harm.
Paragraph 33: On or about July 13, 2001, Simas noticed two individuals on his property. He went outside to ask what these individuals were doing. The individuals advised that they had been instructed by the defendant Cummins to build a fence on top of a wall located on the Simas property. Simas explained that the wall was on his property and that he did not want the fence built.
Paragraph 34: Defendant Cummins then approached Simas, and in the presence of the other individuals and various neighbors, started screaming at Simas, over and over, “You are a squatter. You stole this property from a little old man.”
Paragraph 35: The statements made by Cummins were false and unprivileged, and charged Simas with a crime which he did not commit. As such, these statements were slanderous per se.
Paragraph 36: Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants have repeated their slanderous statements to neighbors of Simas. As a result of these statements, Simas is subject to ridicule, contempt, and hatred.
Paragraph 39: On three separate occasions within the past five months, defendants have called the Los Angeles Police Department and reported false wrongful acts purportedly committed by Simas. Each time, the police, as intended by the defendants, responded by restraining Simas for an appreciable amount of time until the police were able to ascertain that Simas had not acted wrongfully, as had been reported by the defendants, as which time the restraints on Simas liberty were terminated.
Paragraph 43: In addition to taking the acts herein alleged, which include trespassing onto Sima’s property, including for the purpose of converting and reading his personal mail, defendants have eavesdropped on Simas’ private conversations and have videotaped and otherwise conducted surveillance of Simas, including while he is at his home. Defendants have even sent a letter to Simas purporting to give him legal advice and opinions concerning a legal matter which Simas never discussed with defendants, but which defendants ahd knowledge based on their conversion of Sima’s mail and eavesdropping on Sima’s private conversations. Such acts by defendants constitute an intentional or reckless intrusion upon Simas’ solitude and seclusion concerning his private affairs which is highly offensive to Simas and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person if such conduct was directed at them. |
