Compliant 2016 Icc- 13dx

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

FOUAD SAEED ABDULKADIR, 11490 Bobko Blvd, Parma, OH 44130 Plaintiff,

vs.

OBAY S ALTAHER, 9000 Edgewood Drive, North Royalton, OH 44133 AHMAD JAMAL, 10250 Kings Way, North Royalton, OH 44133 AZZAM N. AHMED, 50 Woodburn Dr, Moreland Hills, OH 44022 MOHAMED ABDELSALAM, 4496 West 137th St, Cleveland, Ohio 44111 AHMAD S. ANSARI, 8183 Lorraine Dr, Strongsville, OH 44149 MOHAMMAD M. SOHRABI, 9000 Edgewood Drive, North Olmsted, OH 44070 TALAL HAMED, 2155 Berkeley Drive, Westlake, OH 44145 SAMI MOHAMMED, 6025 Pebblebrook Lane, North Olmsted, OH 44070 MAHMOUD MUHIEDDINE, 7309 Craigmere Dr., Middleburg Hts, OH 44130

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

BATTERY ASSUALT AGGRAVATED ASSUALT HARASSMENT DEFEMATION RETALIATION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 8. BELIEF BASED DISCRIMINATION 9. NEGLIGENCE 10.INJUCTIVE RELIEF, FOR COSTS AND FOR PUNITVE DAMAGES. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NATURE OF THE ACTION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF COURT: 1.

This is a civil action for compensatory and punitive damages for common law defamation. Defendants out of bad faith and ill-will have intentionally, recklessly, willfully, and wantonly created approximately two dozen false statements. Additionally, these defamatory falsehoods have been spread without privilege in an attempt to destroy the Plaintiff’s professional reputation, civil rights, and religious freedom within the Muslim community as a respected religious leader.

{}

2.

As a direct consequence of these unlawful acts, the Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress (post-traumatic stress disorder), as well as financial, interpersonal, and other damages, all to his detriment. The Defendants’ actions have forced the plaintiff to hire attorneys and file suit and he, therefore, has incurred substantial attorneys’ fees and costs. PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir is a member of the Islamic Center of Cleveland, a resident of Ohio and served as an Imam in the Islamic Center of Cleveland from October, 2014 – May 2016.

4.

Defendants are citizens and resident of Ohio and at all times relevant hereto were of the Islamic Center of Cleveland.

5.

Defendant, OBAY S ALTAHER, an individual, is resident of North Royalton, Cuyahoga County, Ohio and may be served with process at Defendant’s home address: 9000 Edgewood Drive, North Royalton, OH 44133.

6.

Defendant, AZZAM N. AHMED, an individual, is resident of Moreland Hills, Cuyahoga County, Ohio and may be served with process at Defendant’s home address: 50 Woodburn Dr, Moreland Hills, OH 44022.

7.

Defendant, AHMAD JAMAL, an individual, is resident of North Royalton, Cuyahoga County, Ohio and may be served with process at Defendant’s home address: 10250 Kings Way, North Royalton, OH 44133.

8.

Defendant, AHMAD S. ANSARI, an individual, is resident of Strongsville, Cuyahoga County, Ohio and may be served with process at Defendant’s home address: 8183 Lorraine Dr, Strongsville, OH 44149.

{}

2

9.

Defendant, MOHAMMAD M. SOHRABI, an individual, is resident of North Olmsted, Cuyahoga County, Ohio and may be served with process at Defendant’s home address: 9000 Edgewood Drive, North Olmsted, OH 44070.

10.

Defendant, SAMI MOHAMMED, an individual, is resident of North Olmsted, Cuyahoga County, Ohio and may be served with process at Defendant’s home address: 6025 Pebblebrook Lane, North Olmsted, OH 44070.

11.

Defendant, TALAL HAMED, an individual, is resident of Westlake, Cuyahoga County, Ohio and may be served with process at Defendant’s home address: 2155 Berkeley Drive, Westlake, OH 44145.

12.

Defendant MOHAMED ABDELSALAM, an individual, is resident of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and may be served with process at Defendant’s home address: 4496 West 137th St, Cleveland, Ohio 44111

13.

MAHMOUD MUHIDEIN an individual, is resident of Middleburg Hts, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and may be served with process at Defendant’s home address: 7309 Craigmere Dr., Middleburg Hts, OH 44130

VENUE AND JURIDICTION 14.

This court has personal jurisdiction of Defendants, and each of them, because they are residents of and/or doing business in the State of Ohio. The wrongful conduct alleged against each Defendants, occurred in the County of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio. This is the proper court because the injury and/or wrongful acts that are the subject of this action occurred in its jurisdictional area and/or at least one Defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area.

{}

3

Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct 15.

Over the last several months, the Defendants have engaged in repeated, relentless efforts to harm Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir.

16.

The Defendants have engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir reputation and career by spreading numerous defamatory statements against him.

17.

The defamatory statements and efforts by which the Defendants engaged have harmed Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir.

18.

Defendant MAHMOUD MUHIEDDINE informed Plaintiff in a warning tone that, “good people have gotten killed in Cleveland and God know what might happen to you, just leave this place”. Such statement in the state of law and order alarmed the Plaintiff, and out of fear for his life and his family’s safety he filed this complaint.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 19.

At all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiff was the Imam and Chairman of religious affairs at the Islamic Center from October, 1, 2014 to May, 23 rd, 2016.

20.

Each Defendant knowingly made false and defamatory statements which were negligent and reckless which were purposeful, intentional, and with malice.

21.

Defendants profiled and discriminated against Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir to destroy his image and reputation with the intent to end his employment at the Islamic Center of Cleveland.

22.

In blatant violation of Ohio law, the Defendants bluntly retaliated against the Plaintiff for raising legitimate concerns regarding the Defendants’ breaches of constitution and civil rights.

{}

4

23.

These actions left the Plaintiff no choice but to turn to the judicial system for redress. The Plaintiff brings these claims in an effort to put an end to the Defendants’ destructive and illegal campaign and to hold each of the Defendants responsible for the monetary and irreparable harm caused.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION 24.

Plaintiff FOUAD SAEED ABDULKADIR (“Plaintiff” or “Fouad”) brings this lawsuit complaint of the Defendants and would respectfully request the following: DISCOVERY

25.

Plaintiff respectfully requests “Discovery” in this case be conducted pursuant to rule 2317.48 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff’s complain and for cause of action alleges as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Aggravated Assault and Battery) 26.

Plaintiff is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

27.

Defendant Obay S. Altaher is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

28.

On or about January 31st 2016, at approximately 9:00 PM, the plaintiff was on his way to pay his respect for the death of a respected community member, in the community hall of Islamic Center of Cleveland.

{}

5

29.

Defendant stopped the Plaintiff and asked him to greet him. Plaintiff greeted the Defendant and turned to go to the funeral.

30.

Defendant then called plaintiff's name and plaintiff turned and faced defendant. Defendant stood very close to plaintiff, shook his fist in the plaintiff's face, used foul language, and threatened to strike plaintiff.

31.

As the Plaintiff began to back away from the Defendant, moving toward the community hall, the Defendant spat into the plaintiff’s face. Plaintiff tried to avoid and defendant got closer to pursue a physical altercation with the Plaintiff.

32.

The President of the Islamic Center, then Akrum Jamal, stood between the Defendant and the Plaintiff.

33.

Defendant kept on shouting using foul language and continued threatening a physical altercation with the Plaintiff.

34.

Ahmed Hamed, a community member, attempt to defend the Plaintiff. The Defendant pushed the aforementioned and threatened a physical altercation with him as well.

35.

Without consent or legal privilege, Defendant OBAY S ALTAHER intentionally assaulted and physically battered the Plaintiff with the intent to harm the Plaintiff as described herein. Such conduct was extreme and would be deemed highly offensive to a reasonable person.

36.

As a result of the aforementioned conduct, the Plaintiff suffered psychologically damage.

37.

Defendant intended to cause and did cause a harmful .

38.

Defendant OBAY S ALTAHER had knowledge that his conduct was unwelcome and offensive to Plaintiff, Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir.

39.

Plaintiff did not consent to defendant's act.

{}

6

40.

Defendant OBAY S ALTAHER acted with malice, oppression, and with a conscious disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights, making him liable for punitive damages under Ohio Civil code 2315.2

41.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct plaintiff suffered mental anguish. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation & Verbal Harassment)

42.

Defendant OBAY S ALTAHER made false and defamatory statements negligently, recklessly, purposefully, and intentionally with malice.

43.

Defendant OBAY S ALTAHER, in fact, knew that his statements concerning Plaintiffs were false and misleading.

44.

Defendant OBAY S ALTAHER’s statements were made public, and disseminated through various social gatherings to persons and entities of the Cleveland area, and were understood to be of or concerning the Plaintiff.

45.

The false and defamatory statements made by DEFENDANT OBAY S ALTAHER concerning the personal, professional, and religious reputation and character of Plaintiff were made maliciously and with intent to destroy the Plaintiff’s professional reputation and career.

46.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant OBAY S ALTAHER’s statements, Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary damage, as well as injury to reputation, impairment to standing within his community, personal humiliation, pain and suffering, and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against the Defendant for actual, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, in a sum to be determined by {}

7

the court, for costs herein incurred, courts’ fees, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation PER SE and Assaults) 47.

Defendant AHMAD JAMAL set out to destroy the plaintiff’s professional reputation and deny his religious freedom at the Islamic Center of Cleveland by creating pre-textual assertions about his character and job performance.

48.

One such false assertion which the Defendant used was the false claim that since the Plaintiff investigated the Quran School of the center, that he must be the person who closed the school.

49.

DEFENDANT AHMAD JAMAL also spread and has continued to spread false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff in the community of Islamic Center and surrounding communities.

50.

The false and defamatory statements made by DEFENDANT AHMAD JAMAL concerning the personal, professional, and religious reputation and character of Plaintiff were made maliciously and with intent to destroy Plaintiff’s professional reputation and career.

51.

Defendant AHMAD JAMAL attacked Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir verbally and physically assaulted him by grapping him forcefully with his hand while making false accusation and statements.

{}

8

52.

The statements made by DEFENDANT AHMAD JAMAL clearly designated Plaintiff’s reputation, and accused him of engaging in conduct and having traits incompatible with his position as a religious leader, and are thus defamatory per se under Ohio law.

53.

Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir suffered life altering emotional harm as a result of Defendant’s outrageous, unwanted, harmful and offensive conduct.

54.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant AHMAD JAMAL’s conduct, Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir was released from his position as religious leader of the Islamic Center of Cleveland.

55.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant AHMAD JAMAL’s conduct, Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has been impaired in his ability to earn a living as a religious leader, and has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of income in amount that will be established at trial.

56.

As a direct and proximate results of Defendant AHMAD JAMAL’s conduct, Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has suffered and will continue to suffer mental anguish and distress.

57.

As a direct and proximate results of Defendant AHMAD JAMAL’s conduct, the reputation of Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has been damaged and has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of income in amount that will be established at trial.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff request judgement against defendant AHMAD JAMAL for compensatory and punitive damages, together with cost of the legal suit, and other relief as the court may deem proper.

{}

9

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Ohio Revised code 2921.02) 58.

Plaintiff incorporate by reference as though full set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth above in this complaint. As a Fourth separate distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains against Defendant AHMAD JAMAL as follows: 1. Defendant recklessly and intentionally accused Plaintiff of accepting bribe to make a public speech to serve the interest of Mr. Ali Faraj. 2. Defendant offered Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir a bribe, 3% out of 2 million dollars if Plaintiff accepted and agreed to make a motivational speech encouraging his clients to pay him back the money. 3. Ohio Revised code 2921.02, section (C) states, “No person, with purpose to corrupt a witness or improperly to influence a witness with respect to the witness's testimony in an official proceeding, either before or after the witness is subpoenaed or sworn, shall promise, offer, or give the witness or another person any valuable thing or valuable benefit.” Defendant AHMAD JAMAL in his official capacity as Board member of the Islamic Center of Cleveland, offered viable individual to this ongoing matter Mr. Musa Assad a bribe to side with him against the Plaintiff. 4. Defendant committed the despicable acts as herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent of injuring Plaintiff, and have acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and fraud and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

{}

10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request judgement against defendant AHMAD JAMAL for compensatory and punitive damages, together with costs of suit, and other relief as the court may deem proper.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE) 59.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges that the allegations of the previous COUNTS as if same were set forth at length herein.

60.

The proclamation by Defendant AHMAD JAMAL of the false and malicious statements about the plaintiff set forth in the previous COUNT, as well as other actions and statements by Defendant, interfered with the prospective economic advantage of the Plaintiff. By inducing prospective advantages of the plaintiff not to engage as their religious leader, the Plaintiff suffered damages in amount that will be established at trial.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff request judgement against defendant AHMAD JAMAL for compensatory and punitive damages, together with cost of the legal suit, and other relief as the court may deem proper. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation PER SE) 61.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegation of the previous COUNTS as if same were set forth at length herein.

62.

Defendant Azzam Ahmed resides at 50 Woodburn Dr., Moreland Hills, OH 44022.

{}

11

63.

Publically proclaimed false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir including, but not limited to, claiming that Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir closed the school because they refused to give him a financial share, stole public money, was not a fit religious leader, and that he was a liar and untrustworthy.

64.

The false and defamatory statements made by Azzam Ahmed concerning the personal, professional, and religious reputation and character of Plaintiff was made maliciously and with the intent to destroy Plaintiff’s professional reputation and career.

65.

The statements made by Azzam Ahmed clearly designated the Plaintiff’s reputation along with accusing him of engaging in inappropriate conduct and exhibiting traits incompatible with his job as religious leader, and are thus defamatory per se under Ohio law.

66.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant AZZAM AHMED’s conduct, Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has been impaired in his ability to earn a living as a religious leader, and has sustained and will continue to sustain a loss of income in amount that will be established at trial.

67.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant AZZAM AHMED’s conduct, Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has suffered and will continue to suffer mental anguish and distress.

68.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant AZZAM AHMED’s conduct, the reputation of Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has been damaged and has sustained and will continue to sustain a loss of income in amount that will be established at trial.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff request judgement against defendant AZZAM AHMED for compensatory and punitive damages, together with cost of the legal suit, and other relief as the court may deem proper. {}

12

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress) 69.

Plaintiff repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

70.

Defendant SAMI MOHAMMED intentionally acted to threaten, intimidate, frighten, and harm the Plaintiff including to retaliate and punish the Plaintiff for his exercise of the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to criticize bad decisions.

71.

The Defendants harmed the Plaintiff out of spite, bitterness, anger, and animosity in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ professional critiques and suggestions for and criticism of the optimal and unwise decisions.

72.

Defendants’ actions and omission were intended to frighten, threaten, intimidate, and manipulate the Plaintiff by causing him emotional distress.

73.

Defendants’ actions and omission were willful malicious, deliberate, or were done with reckless indifference to the possibility that such behavior would cause severe emotional distress and with utter disregard for the consequences of such actions.

74.

Defendants’ conduct is unreasonable and outrageous and exceeds the bounds tolerated by decent society, and was done willfully, maliciously and deliberately, or with reckless indifference, to cause Plaintiff severe mental and emotional pain, distress, and anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation PER SE)

75.

Defendant MOHAMED ABDELSALAM’s accusation that Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir is a “sorcerer” is false and defamatory. It was made with common law malicespite and ill-will. It was also made with actual malice-reckless disregard of the truth and/or

{}

13

knowing falsity. MOHAMED ABDELSALAM, someone who is Muslim by faith, knows the impact of such word among the Muslim community. Additionally, he knew the statement to be false wherein, and lacked the facts necessary to confirm it. Defendant MOHAMED ABDELSALAM described Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir to be a sorcerer without regard to the statement’s falsity and with the intent to discredit, disgrace, and defame Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir. 76.

Defendant MOHAMED ABDELSALAM’s, accusation that Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir “lies” is false and defamatory. It is made with common law malice-spite and ill-will. It is also made with actual malice-reckless disregard of the truth and/or knowing falsity. Defendant MOHAMED ABDELSALAM described Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir to be a liar without regard to the statement’s falsity and with the intent to discredit, disgrace, and defame Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir.

77.

The statements “he is a sorcerer” and “he lies” is libelous per se because the statement on its face describes Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir as a person lacking faith, honesty, and integrity. Thus making him a person to be shunned or excluded by those who seek information and opinion upon which to rely on in the conduct of their affairs. In addition, the statement prejudices Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir in his profession as the religious leader of the largest mosque in Northeast Ohio, the chairman of religious affair, as a preacher, and as public spokesperson for the Islamic center of Cleveland. The statement impugns his reputation for truthfulness and deter those who must depend on accurate and truthful information from associating or dealing with him. By falsely labeling Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir as a “sorcerer” and “liar”, the Defendant has made Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir appear odious, wicked, and ridiculous. By doing so, Defendant

{}

14

MOHAMED ABDELSALAM have imposed a false credibility barrier between Plaintiff FOUAD SAEED ABDULKADIR and the Muslim community in Northeast Ohio. 78.

Defendant MOHAMED ABDELSALAM made the defamatory statement with actual malice, i.e knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard thereof, and with the intent to injure, debase, and defame Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir; in the alternative, Defendant made the defamatory statement without due care to the identification of falsity.

79.

As a direct and proximate result of the publication of the untrue and defamatory statement by the Defendant, Plaintiff FOUAD SAEED ABDULKADIR has been exposed to public hatred, ridicule, and contempt. The statement has been spread by the Defendant, and has become a source of embarrassment and humiliation to the Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir. Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir’s character and reputation for faith, honesty, and integrity cannot be fully restored because of the broad spreading of these statements. Moreover, his professional standing as a religious leader, his religious role as an Imam in the community at large will never return to the original state before he was labeled a sorcerer and a liar. The stigma caused by these defamatory statements will distance others from trusting his statements and opinions and will cause the community to view him with loathing and disapprobation. Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has suffered a terrible wrong and injury on of the per se, “he lies” and “he practices magic” and the related content that portrays him as an evil person.

80.

As a direct and proximate results of Defendant MOHAMED ABDELSALAM’s conduct, the reputation of Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has been damaged and has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of income in amount that will be established at trial.

{}

15

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff request judgement against defendant MOHAMED ABDELSALAM for compensatory and punitive damages, together with cost of the legal suit, and other relief as the court may deem proper.

NINETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation PER SE) 81.

Defendant TALAL HAMED, accusation that Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir is a “Child Molester” is false and extremely defamatory. It is made with common law malice-spite and ill-will. It is also made with actual malice-reckless disregard of the truth and/or knowing falsity. TALAL HAMED is a board member in the Islamic Center and was amongst the group of people defaming the plaintiff. Defendant TALAL HAMED described Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir as being a child molester without regard to the statement’s falsity or with the intent to discredit, disgrace, and defame Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir.

82.

The statements “he is a child molester” is libelous per se because the statement on its face describes Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir as a person lacking faith, honesty and integrity, making him a person to be shunned or excluded by those who seek information and opinion upon which to rely in the conduct of their affairs. In addition, the statement prejudices Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir in his profession as the religious leader of the largest mosque in Northeast Ohio, as a chairman of religious affair, as a preacher, and as public spokesperson. The statement impugns his reputation for truthfulness and deter those who must depend on accurate and truthful information from associating or dealing with him. By falsely labeling Plaintiff a “child molester” the Defendant have made Plaintiff appear as a predator, odious, wicked and criminal. By so doing, Defendant TALAL HAMED have

{}

16

imposed a false credibility barrier between Plaintiff and the Muslim community in Northeast Ohio. 83.

Defendant made the defamatory statement with actual malice, i.e with knowledge of its falsity and with reckless disregard thereof, and with the intent to injure, debase and defame Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir; in the alternative, Defendant made the defamatory statement without due care to the identification of falsity.

84.

As direct and proximate result of the publication of the untrue and defamatory statement by the Defendant, Plaintiff has been exposed to public hatred, ridicule, and contempt. The statement has been spread by the Defendant and by numerous others, and has become a source of great embarrassment and humiliation to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s character and reputation for faith, honesty, and integrity cannot be fully restored because of the broad spreading of the statement. Moreover, his professional standing as a religious leader, his religious role as an Imam, and in the community at large will never be as it was before he was labeled a child molester. The stigma caused by the defamatory statement will disused others from trusting his statement and opinions; and will cause the community to view him with loathing and disapprobation as a sex offender. Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has suffered a terrible wrong and injury on of the per se, “he is a child molester” and the related content that portrays him as an evil person.

85.

As a direct and proximate results of Defendant’s conduct, the reputation of Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir has been damaged and has sustained and will continue to sustain loss of income in amount that will be established at trial.

{}

17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request judgement against defendant TALA HAMED for compensatory and punitive damages, together with costs of suit, and other relief as the court may deem proper.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) 86.

The Defendants actions were extreme and outrageous beyond bounds of decency so as to be deemed intolerable in a civilized community. The Defendants intentionally and recklessly caused the Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir to suffer severe emotional distress. The recitation of the Defendants’ actions arouses resentment in an average member of the community and causes them to exclaim “outrageous”.

87.

Defendants Ansari and Soharabi were parts of the group above who intentionally assassinated the Plaintiff’s character and participating in destroying his career.

88.

Defendant MOHAMED SOHRABI described the Plaintiff as such “he is a hypocrite”, and Defendant Ansari described Plaintiff as “Wahabi”.

89.

This conduct by the Defendants was intended to cause the Plaintiff emotional distress and was done with reckless disregard of the possibility of causing the Plaintiff emotional distress.

90.

The Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ outrageous conduct. The Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, severe mental distress, suffering, and anguish as a result of the defendants’ outrageous conduct. Reacting to his

{}

18

discharge with humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment, and worry; all of which is substantial and enduring. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DEFAMATION – Against All Defendants) 91.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth above in this complaint. As an eight, separate and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff complains against Defendants as follow:

92.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendants, recklessly and intentionally caused excessive and unsolicited internal and external publication of defamation, of and concerning Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir, to the Muslim community of Cleveland or at least or at least some. These false and defamatory statements included express and implied accusations that the Plaintiff was incompetent in his work, profession, knowledge, and that he was engaging in improper and unethical sexual conduct with community .

93.

These statements were defamatory per se insofar as they related to Plaintiff’s qualifications in his profession.

94.

While the precise date of these publications are not known to the Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir, the Plaintiff was informed and believes that these various publications started in or about October 2015 which has continued to the present, and that it was foreseeable that they would be re-published by the Defendants and a non-privileged third parties to whom the Defendants spread the defamatory statements.

95.

During the above described time-frame, the Defendants did negligently, recklessly, and intentionally cause excessive and unsolicited publication of defamation, of and concerning

{}

19

Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir, to a third party who had no need or desire to know. The third party to whom the Defendants published this defamation are believed to include, but are not limited to the other Defendants named in this Action, and each of them, as well as the Doe Defendants. 96.

These defamatory publications consisted or oral, knowingly false and unprivileged communications, tending directly to injure the Plaintiff and his personal and professional reputation along with casting him in a false light.

97.

In addition, the Plaintiff has been compelled to self-disclose this false information and untrue statements. Plaintiff is informed and believes that because of the negligent, reckless, and intentional publications made by Defendants, and each of them, that it was foreseeable that these statements would be published and re-published.

98.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and fears that these unprivileged defamatory statements will continue to be published by the Defendants and will be re-published by their recipients, all to the ongoing harm an injury to Plaintiff’s business, professional, and personal reputation.

99.

The defamatory meaning of all the above-described, false and defamatory statements and their reference to the Plaintiff was understood by the Defendants. These statements were false and were understood as assertion of fact, and not as opinion.

100.

Each of these false defamatory per se publications (as set forth above) were negligently, recklessly, and intentionally published in a manner equating to malice and abuse of any alleged conditional privilege. These publications, and each of them, were made with hatred, ill will, and intent to vex, harass, annoy, and injure the Plaintiff to justify the illegal and cruel actions of the Defendants. Furthermore, causing damage to the Plaintiff’s

{}

20

professional and personal reputation, and for the purpose of causing the Plaintiff to be terminated and subsequent retaliation for the Plaintiff reporting and opposing corruption, discrimination, and harassment. 101.

Each of these publications by the Defendants had been made with the knowledge that no investigation ed the unsubstantiated and false statements. The Defendants published these statements knowing them to be false and unsubstantiated by any reasonable investigation.

102.

Not only did Defendants have no reasonable basis to believe these statements, but the Defendants also had no belief in the truth of these statements and, in fact, knew the statements to be false.

103.

Defendants committed these acts with alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intent of injuring the Plaintiff, and have acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, fraud, and conscious disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights. Because these acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out in a deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage the Plaintiff, he is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in amount according to the proof. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS – Against All Defendants) 104.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, each andvery allegation set forth above in this Complaint. As a ninth, separate and distinct claim for relief, Plaintiff complains against Defendants:

105.

This is an action for, among other things, damages, pursuant to the common law of the State of Ohio.

{}

21

106.

Defendants engaged in the outrageous conduct herein above alleged with wanton and reckless disregard of the probability of causing the Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

107.

As approximate result of the extreme and outrageous conduct engaged in by the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and extreme emotional and physical distress. All to his general damage in amount according to proof at trial.

108.

Defendants’ conduct as herein alleged was malicious and oppressive in that it was conduct and carried on by the Defendants in a willful and conscious disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights and subjected him to cruel and unjust hardship. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damage against the Defendants.

109.

As a direct, foreseeable, and legal result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, bonuses, and other employment benefits. In addition to expenses incurred for obtaining alternative employment, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, severe mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all to the Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

110.

The Plaintiff, individually, incorporates by reference as though full set forth herein, every allegation set forth above in this Compliant. As a ninth, separate and distinct cause of action, the Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follow: 1. Defendants owned the Plaintiff a duty of care not cause him emotional distress. 2. Defendants breached this duty of care by way of their own conduct as alleged hereinabove.

{}

22

3. Defendants’ conduct starting in 2015 and continuing into the present has caused the Plaintiff emotional distress. 4. As a proximate result of Defendants’ extreme and outrageous acts, the Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment. 5. Defendants’ conduct has caused and continues to cause the Plaintiff substantial loss of earning and benefits, cost of legal action, embarrassment, and anguish, all to his damage in an amount according to proof. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (CIVIL CONSPIRACY – Against All Defendants) 111.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 112.

Starting in or about 2015, Defendants among other began a campaign to knowingly and willfully conspire and agree amongst themselves to discriminate against Plaintiff based on his beliefs. The Defendants, and each of them, knowingly and willfully conspired to permit, facilitate, and cooperate in and/or cover-up the illegal conduct, including the misconduct of Defendant AHMAD JAMAL.

113.

As a proximate result of the wrongful actions of the Defendants, and each of them, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer harm including but not limited to lost earnings, wages and employment, humiliation, embarrassment, damages to his professional reputation, and mental anguish.

114.

The Plaintiff is further informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendants acted and continue to act with full knowledge of the consequences and damage being caused to the Plaintiff by their actions and that the Defendants’

{}

23

actions are willful, malicious, and oppressive. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount determined by the Jury at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir prays for judgment against the Defendants, and each of them, as follow: 1. The Defendants Libel per se has caused him irreparable damages in excess of $ 450,000 [ Four Hundred Fifty thousand dollars] for which he seeks recompense from the Defendants tly and severally in this litigation. 2. The untrue defamatory statements made by the Defendants was made with actual malice and is subject to punitive damages to which he is entitled from the Defendants tly and severally in this litigation. 3. For an award of money judgement for mental pain and anguish and severe emotional distress; 4. For an award of money judgement for defamation per se; 5. For an award of money judgement for libel per se; 6. For declarative and injunctive relief; and 7. For any other relief is just and proper. Wherefore, Plaintiff Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir demands compensatory damages of at least $450,000.00 [ Four hundred Fifty thousand dollars] and punitive damages atop compensatory damages in an amount deemed just, along with costs and such other and further relief as justice requires.

{}

24

JURY TRIAL DEMAND Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ Proc. 38, Plaintiff in above captioned matter demands a trial by jury of all issues in this matter and respectfully requests this matter to be placed on the jury docket.

DATED: August 22, 2016

Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir

_________________________ Fouad Saeed Abdulakdir 11490 Bobko Blvd, Parma OHIO 44130 [email protected] +1 (510) 394-7574

{}

25