10 nl 2 B y 18 19 20 a Code: 4085 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, Case, No, vs. Dept. No, SHAWN MEEHAN Defendant / Respondent /Toint Petitioner. / SUMMONS TO THE DEFENDANT: YOU HAVE BEEN SUED. THE COURT MAY DECIDE AGAINST YOU WITHOUT YOUR BEING HEARD UNLESS YOU RESPOND _IN WRITING WITHIN 20 CALENDAR DAYS. READ THE INFORMATION BELOW VERY CAREFULLY. A civil complaint or petition has been filed by the plaintifi(s) against you for the relief as set forth in that document (see complaint or petition). When service is by publication, add a brief statement of the object of the action. See Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(b). The object of this action is:_objain an injunction and judgment against Defendant 1. Ifyou intend to defend this lawsuit, you must do the following within 20 calendar days after service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service: a. File with the Clerk of the Court, whose address is shown below, a formal written answer to the complaint or petition, along with the appropriate filing fees, in accordance with the rules of the Court, and; b, Serve a copy of your answer upon the attorney or plaintiff(s) whose name and address is shown below. 2. Unless you respond, a default will be entered upon application of the plaintifi(s) and this Court may enter a judgment against you for the relief demanded in the complaint or petition. Dated this 5th day of __June p20us ea, Issued on behalf of Plaintifi(s): JACQUELINE BRYANT. CLERK OF THE COURT ¢. Lloyd Name: J- Robert Smith By: Address: 5441 Kietzke La, 2nd F Deputy Clerk Reno, NV_ 89511 Second Judicial District Court Phone Number: 775-327-3000 75 Court Street Reno, Nevada 89501 [REVISED 11/2014 ER suMMoNs‘Secor FLook Hottano & Har Li Reno. NV 89511 ‘S441 KioTZKe Lan FILED Electronically 2018.06-08 12:09:09 Jacqueline Bryant Clerk of the Court Transaction # 4986197 : yyloria 1425 J. Robert Smith, Esq., NV Bar #10992 ‘Tamara Reid, Esq., NV Bar #9840 Holland & Hart LLP 5441 Kietzke Lane, Second Floor Reno, NV 89511 Phone: 775-327-3000 | Fax: 775-786-6179 rsinith@hollandhary, treid@hollandhart,com | IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA | IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE FRANK SCHNORBUS, an individual, Case No. cv15-01085 Plaintiff, Dept. No. 6 v, COMPLAINT f Arbitration Exemption Requested SHAWN MEEHAN, an individual, (njunctive Relief Requested and Amount In ) Controversy Exceeds $50,000) | Defendant | Plaintiff Frank Schnorbus alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1, This is an action by Frank Schnorbus, a well-respected lobbyist and prominent citizen in Nevada, against Shawn Mechan for defamation and false light. Defendant has published harmful, malicious and false statements against Mr. Schnorbus, including that he committed criminal acts. 2. Defendant made these false accusations with full knowledge that they were false. 3. Despite knowing that the statements were false, Defendant published these i statements via a video on the website www.youtube.com, and sent a link of this video via e- mail to many individuals, including Nevada legislators, in order to injure and harass Mr. ‘Schnorbus.Hottano & Hane ue S441 Kiera LANE ‘SECOND FLOOR Reno, NV 89511 19) ul 12| 13 14] 15| 16 7 18 19] 20] 2 22| 23 2a 25| 26| 21| 28| 4, Defendants accusations of crimes and dishonesty would tend to damage any person’s reputation, both personally and professionally. But these accusations have particularly harmfal effects on Mr. Schnorbus whose reputation for honesty and integrity is paramount in his activities as a lobbyist, as a nationally prominent leader in homeschooling, as a licensed foster parent and a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) volunteer. 5. Mr. Schnorbus has been forced to bring this action in order to protect his reputation and livelihood from Defendant’s false and malicious attacks IL PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Frank Schnorbus is a resident of Douglas County, Nevada. 7. Defendant Shawn Meehan is, on information and belief, a resident of Douglas County, Nevada I, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to NRS 14.065. 10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to NRS 13.040. IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 11, Mr. Schnorbus is a lobbyist in Nevada. 12, Citizens for Self-Governance (“CSG”) is a national organization whose purpose is to elevate awareness and provide resources, advocacy and education to grassroots organizations and individuals exercising their right to govern themselves. As part of its activities, CSG launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article V of the U.S. Constitution to propose amendments to the Constitution. Thirty-four state legislatures must make an application to Congress during their legislativeHottann & Har Lue S441 Kartext LANE ‘SECOND FL.00) Reno, NV89SI1 wise een 10 u 12| 13 14] 15 16 7 18 19 20] 21 22| 23 24 25| 26 21] 28| sessions, after which Congress must convene an Article V Convention, In 2015, CSG was active in many state legislatures, including Nevada. 13. In connection with its goal of urging state legislatures to properly use Article V to call a Convention of the States, CSG accepted Mr. Schnorbus’ application as a volunteer to represent its interests before Nevada State legislators 14, In connection with his representation of CSG's interests, Mr. Schnorbus attended a luncheon on January 20, 2015 in which Nevada State legislators were in attendance. ‘When the event was over, Mr. Schnorbus met with a Senator to discuss a bill draft request that, if passed by the Nevada legislature, would be a Joint Resolution applying to Congress for an Article V Convention. This was a continuation of previous discussions on this matter between Mr. Schnorbus and the Senator, Unbeknown to Mr. Schnorbus, a video camera aimed at the table where he and the Senator were standing was still recording the live video and audio. 15. Defendant Shawn Mechan, who on information and belief is a political activist, cither recorded the video and audio stream of the luncheon, downloaded the video from the event sponsor’s website, or otherwise obtained a copy of the video. 16. On information and belief, Defendant then edited the pirated video to add his own statements and writings regarding Mr. Schnorbus. 17. On February 8, 2015, Defendant posted and published his edited video and audio on www.youtube.com (“YouTube”) where it could be viewed by anyone. 18. In the edited video posted on YouTube, and without any basis for his allegations, Defendant made the following false statements about Mr. Schnorbus: © “Convention of States lobbyist caught lying,” © “Convention of States lobbyists caught lying to Nevada legislator.” © “We caught some Convention of States lobbyists telling a big fib to a legislator.”HoLLano & HaRrte ‘S441 Kictax LANE ‘SECOND FLOOR RENO. NV 89511 N 12| 13) 14 15 16 17 18| 19] 20} 2 22 23 24 25 26 2 28 * “Frank Schnorbus, a lobbyist for Convention of States, tells Nevada Senator Don Gustavson a big lie that Nevada won't be able to play unless we help call the convention.” * “Here comes the big scary lie!” * “Are these the type of people and the type of ethies we want rolling our Constitution into the operating room.” © “Did this lobbyist commit a crime.” © “Is this a crime?” (citing NRS 218.930 — Unlawful Acts Involving Lobbyists and Lobbying), * “Help prevent our legislators from being lied to and calling for a Constitutional Convention.” © “So why lie to legislatures to make a call or be left out of a Convention?” © “Could it be that they are willing to risk it all: integrity, ethics, the sacrifice of our founding fathers, all to get our Constitution into the operating room?” © “Let's not let our Constitution be held hostage with a criminal deception.” 19. The above-described statements will be referred to collectively as “Misrepresentations.” 20. In posting the edited video on YouTube, and on information and belief, Defendant disabled the “Comments” portion of the website, which prevented Mr. Schnorbus from defending himself on the website to whomever viewed the video. 21. On information and belief, the event sponsor requested YouTube take down the pirated copy of the video. YouTube, however, refused the request. 22, On information and belief, Defendant also circulated via e-mail the link to his ‘YouTube video to numerous individuals, including State Senators and members of the Assembly.Hottann & Hane Le ‘S441 KIETZKE LANE ‘SECOND FLOOR RENO, NV S9SII 22| 23] 2a 25) 26 27 28 23. Anyone who viewed the video would reasonably understand that these Misrepresentations referred to Mr. Schnorbus personally. 24. In addition, a recipient of the Misrepresentations would reasonably understand them to contain factual statements that Mr. Schnorbus was a criminal, a liar, and unethical, 25. The Mistepresentations are all false and published with malice. 26. On information and belief, Defendant published the Misrepresentations with actual knowledge that the statements were false or had serious doubts as to their truth. 27. Defendant circulated and intended to widely publish the Misrepresentations by publishing them on YouTube and sending them to others, including government officials and other prominent government leaders in Nevada and elsewhere. 28. In Nevada particularly, Mr. Schnorbus’ reputation is his most valuable and essential asset because, as a lobbyist, is legislative activities are dependent on his reputation for honesty, integrity, and continued good standing in the community. 29. Moreover, the State of Nevada has extensive interests in upholding. the character, reputation and integrity of lobbying activities in the State. As a result, Nevada has stringent rules regulating lobbyists. See NRS 218H.010, et seg. 30. Asa lobbyist, Mr. Schnorbus is monitored by the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). Accusations of criminal misconduct and making false statements could have adverse consequences with regard to his lobbying activities, and imperil his future aspirations he may have in Nevada political activities. 31. On February 13, 2015, Defendant submitted a complaint to the LCB alleging violations of the law. A subsequent amended complaint was filed March 5, 2015, alleging further violations of the law. 7Howiano & Hane ie S441 Kinrzice Lane SStcoNo FL0ok eNO, NV 89511 waoauwsron 10 u 2 1B 4 15 16 7 18 19) 20 21 22| 23] 2a 26| 21] 28) 32. On March 25, 2015, Defendant was notified by Mr. Combs, LCB Director, that after his investigation he believed there was no evidence that Mr. Schnorbus provided false or misleading information to the Senator, and that no further action would be taken. The LCB finding notwithstanding, Defendant left the video up on YouTube. This may have been an. irreparable cloud on Mr. Schnorbus’ testimony and advocacy during hearings on March 26 and April 9, 2015, on AJR7, a resolution to call for an Article V Convention. 33. The serious criminal accusations in the Misrepresentations may have harmed, and could continue to harm, Mr. Schnorbus’ reputation, political aspirations and business interest in the community in which he resides, if not stopped and disproven. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation) 34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein, 35. Defendant composed and intentionally published the Misrepresentations to rmumerous third parties. 36. People who viewed the YouTube video reasonably understood the Misrepresentations to be factual statements about Mr. Schnorbus, and that he was involved in illegal activities, including make false statements to a Nevada Senator. 37. The Misrepresentations were false, misleading, disparaging and defamatory of Mr. Schmorbus. 38. Defendant sent the Misrepresentations with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard as to the truth of such statements, 39. The false statements contained in the Misrepresentations, including that Mr. Schnorbus committed a crime, would tend to harm his reputation in the estimation of the ‘community, and deter third persons from associating and dealing with him. 6Hottann & Hane tae ‘S441 KIETZ2KE LANE ‘SECOND FLOOR RENO. NV 89511 40. Damages are presumed because the Misrepresentations constitute defamation pet se: the Misrepresentations tended to (a) damage Mr. Schnorbus’ reputation in business, (b) injure his reputation for honesty and integrity, and (¢) indicate that Mr. Schnorbus committed crimes, ineluding making false statements to a Nevada Senator. 41. Defendant acted either with express malice (publishing the defamatory YouTube ‘video and sending links to the video with the intent to harm Mr. Schnorbus) or with implied ‘malice (performing despicable conduct with a conscious disregard for Mr. Schnorbus” rights). 42. Asa result of Defendant’s conduct, Mr. Schnorbus has been damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000.00, 43. Defendant is also liable for punitive damages in addition to general damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (False Light) 44, Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein. 45, By disseminating the Misrepresentations, Defendant portrayed Mr. Schnorbus in a false in order to harm Mr, Schnorbus’ personal and business reputation and business ‘opportunities, and cause embarrassment and personal humiliation 46. The Misrepresentations placed Mr. Schnorbus in a false light that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. 47. Defendant sent the Misrepresentations with malice. Defendant either knew that the statements were false or recklessly disregarded the false light in which Mr. Schnorbus was being placed. 48. As a proximate result, Mr. Schnorbus has suffered damages, including but not limited to embarrassment and humiliation, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00.HoLLann & Harte 5441 KIET2KE LANE ‘SecoxD FL.00R Reno, NV S951 49. Because Defendant acted with express and/or implied malice, Defendant is also liable for punitive damages in addition to general damages, ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunction) 50. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of all preceding paragraphs as though set forth fully herein. 51. Defendant's Misrepresentations are greatly injurious to Mr. Schnorbus” personal and business reputation. 52, Defendant's Mistepresentations have imeparably harmed and continue to irreparably harm Mr, Schnorbus’ personal and business reputation, thereby damaging his personal and business relationships, as well as his livelihood. 53. In addition, if Defendant's YouTube video is not removed, Defendant's Mistepresentations could result in another investigation by the LCB, as well as other governmental agenices, subjecting Mr. Schnorbus to further expense, harassment, and potential liability. 54. The damage to Mr. Schnorbus’ personal and professional reputation arising from the publishing of the Misrepresentations by Defendant are a sufficient immediate and irreparable harm to warrant issuing a temporary restraining order and a mandatory injunction requiring Defendant to remove the YouTube video. 55. Defendant will suffer no harm in removing the YouTube video. 56. If Defendant is not immediately enjoined from continuing to post his YouTube video, Mr. Schnorbus will suffer harm that is not capable of being remedied at law because it is immeasurable. 57. There is no way to determine the precise harm or the extent thereof that Mr. Schnorbus will suffer if Defendant's unlawful activities are permitted to continue throughout 8HOLLAND & HARTLLP ‘S441 KIETZKE LANE ‘SECOND FLOOR RENO, NV 89511 ee 3 10} i 12 13) 14 15 16 17 18) 19) 20 21 22| 24| 2s 26 21| 28 this litigation because it is impossible to quantify the damage to Mr. Schnorbus’ personal and professional reputation, as well as his personal and business relationships. 58, Mr. Schnorbus has at least a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits because Mr. Schnorbus has a right to civil remedies as a result of Defendant’s defamatory statements and attempts to portray Mr. Schnorbus in a false light. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: 1, For judgment against the Defendant; 2, For an award of general damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than $10,000; 3. For exemplary and punitive damages; 4, Foran injunction ordering Defendant to remove the YouTube video; 5. For attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs as provided by statute, contract, and/or equity; 6. For pre- and post-judgment interest; 7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. ‘The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding does not contain the social security numbers of any person. al DATED this ~~ day of June, 2015. id, NV Bar No. 9840 441 Kietzke Lane, Second Floor Reno, NV 89511 T: (775) 327-3000 / F: (775) 786-6179 Attorneys for Plaintiff reisi2i1