page 1 first amended complaint - lincoln city homepage

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT JFF\14287 first amended complaint\dmw

Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF LINCOLN

ROCK CREEK EQUESTRIAN SERVICES, LLC, ) No. 20CV18732

an Oregon limited liability company, dba )

ROCK CREEK STABLES, and ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

JUSTIN ALDERMAN, an individual, ) DEFAMATION, NEGLIGENCE,

) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE

Plaintiffs, ) WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS,

) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v. )

)

GREEN ACRES BEACH & TRAIL RIDES, )

LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, )

aka SAND DOLLAR RANCH; HAPPY )

TRAILS FEED & TACK LLC, an Oregon ) Additional Filing Fee: None

limited liability company; DANIEL RYAN ) Fee Statute: ORS 21.160(1)(c)

STUEBGEN and THERESA JO STUEBGEN, ) Claim Amount: $329,782.76

husband and wife, TINA CABAL, an )

individual, JEFFREY CUTLER, an individual, )

and LISA BAGBY, an individual, )

) NOT SUBJECT TO

Defendants. ) MANDATORY ARBITRATION

Comes now Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Jill F. Foster and Churchill Leonard

Lawyers, and allege as follows:

1.

At all material times herein, Plaintiff Rock Creek Equestrian Services, LLC, (hereinafter “Rock

Creek”) is an Oregon limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of

Oregon. Rock Creek Equestrian Services, LLC conducts business using the trade name “Rock Creek

Stables.”

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

2.

At all material times herein, Plaintiff Justin Alderman (hereinafter “Alderman”) is an individual

and is the owner and member of Plaintiff Rock Creek Equestrian Services, LLC. Justin Alderman

operates Rock Creek Stables, and is also the owner and chief executive officer of a national software

company.

3.

Defendant Daniel Ryan Stuebgen and Defendant Theresa Jo Stuebgen (hereinafter Defendants

“Stuebgen”) are residents of Lincoln County, Oregon, and have several entities and/or trade names

under which they do business in Lincoln and Tillamook counties. Those trade names include Green

Acres Beach & Trail Rides LLC, Happy Trails Feed & Tack LLC, and Sand Dollar Ranch. Defendants

utilize the trade name Sand Dollar Ranch, however, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge and belief, the trade name

has not been registered with the Oregon Secretary of State.

4.

At all material times herein, Defendant Green Acres Beach & Trail Rides LLC (hereinafter

“Green Acres”) was an Oregon limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Oregon, however, from April 2019 until March 2020, but was not registered as active with the

Oregon Secretary of State at all times material herein. Defendants’ trade name Green Acres Beach &

Trail Rides LLC should not be confused with Green Acres Boarding, LLC, a limited liability company

under the control of third-party Gary Fromm, and not affiliated with Defendants.

5.

At all material times herein, Defendant Happy Trails Feed & Tack LLC (hereinafter “Happy

Trails”) was an Oregon limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of

Oregon, however, it is currently registered as inactive according to the Oregon Secretary of State.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

6.

At all material times herein, Defendant Tina Cabal (hereinafter “Cabal”) is an individual who

resides in Lincoln County, Oregon and under information and belief is employed by Defendants

Stuebgen and/or one or more of their related entities. Defendant Cabal was previously an employee of

Rock Creek.

7.

At all material times herein, Defendant Jeffrey Cutler (hereinafter “Cutler”) is an individual

who resides in Lincoln County, Oregon and was previously employed by Plaintiffs. Under information

and belief, Defendant Cutler is employed by Defendants Stuebgen and/or one or more of their related

entities. Defendant Cutler was previously an employee of Rock Creek.

8.

At all material times herein, Defendant Lisa Bagby (hereinafter “Bagby”) is an individual who

resides in Lincoln County, Oregon.

9.

For purposes of each claim alleged in this Amended Complaint, the term “All Defendants” shall

refer to all Defendants herein, including Green Acres, aka Sand Dollar Ranch, Happy Trails, Daniel

Stuebgen, Theresa Stuebgen, Tina Cabal, Jeffrey Cutler, and Lisa Bagby.

10.

Defendants Stuebgan leased the property at 2915 S Hill Road, Otis OR 97368 from a third party,

Green Acres Boarding, LLC, which is owned by Gary Fromm. On the leased property, Defendants

conducted business as a horse boarding facility and provided guided horse trail rides under the trade

name Green Acres Beach & Trail Rides LLC.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

11.

Defendants Stuebgan serve as registered agents and members of Green Acres Beach & Trail

Rides LLC and Happy Trails Feed & Tack LLC. Green Acres was inactive from April 2019 to March

of 2020 despite the fact registration as an active entity is required to be a licensed outfitter. Happy

Trails has been inactive with the Secretary of State since October, 2019.

12.

At all material times herein, Defendants Stuebgan conducted business and continue to conduct

business under the names Green Acres Beach & Trail Rides LLC and Happy Trails Feed & Tack LLC.

At all material times herein, Defendants Stuebgan conduct business under the trade name Sand Dollar

Ranch.

13.

On or about late June, 2019, Defendant Cutler, before the time of his employment by Plaintiff

Rock Creek, used a truck owned by the Defendants Stuebgen to tow a horse trailer owned by him to

pick up four (4) horses for Plaintiff Alderman from a third-party seller. Defendant Cutler used a truck

owned by Defendants to tow his horse trailer to pick up the horses, without instruction from Plaintiff

Alderman. Three of the horses were bonded and Defendant Cutler intended to purchase one of the

horses (Bug) that was transported from Plaintiff Alderman.

14.

In late June, 2019, Plaintiffs and Defendants Stuebgen and Green Acres entered into an

agreement for boarding of Plaintiff Alderman’s horses at Defendants’ horse boarding facility.

15.

As part of the purchase agreement for the horses with a third-party, Plaintiff Alderman agreed

to continue to keep the three horses together at the same facility with the fourth horse purchased by

Defendant Cutler for a period of one year after purchase. It was Plaintiff Alderman’s intent that the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

horses would remain together at the boarding facility run by Defendants Stuebgan under the name

Green Acres Beach & Trail Rides, LLC.

16.

Defendants Stuebgan ran a trail riding business out of the boarding facility. Defendants

Stuebgan also operate a business offering trail riding on the beach from a separate location at 5985

Pacific Avenue, Pacific City, Oregon.

17.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, Defendants Stuebgan leased two of Plaintiff

Justin Alderman’s horses (Jesse and Cagey) for use in their trail riding business at the Pacific City

location, in exchange for ensuring necessary and prudent care of the horses. Defendant Green Acres,

by and through Defendants Stuebgen, falsely claimed that they were licensed outfitters through the

Oregon State Marine Board, a requirement for operating any guided trail rides on public lands,

including Oregon beaches and Bob Straub State Park where Defendants provided trail rides. Plaintiff

relied on the statements of Defendants Stuebgen when leasing his horses for use by Defendant Green

Acres for guided trail rides, but later learned that Defendants’ license expired in June, 2019, according

to Oregon State Marine Board records.

18.

Without Plaintiff’s knowledge or agreement, Defendants used Plaintiff’s horses for an

unlicensed trail riding business after June, 2019. Defendants’ actions were not in good faith, and

Defendants Stuebgen used Plaintiff’s horses to commit a Class A Misdemeanor for the unlicensed trail

rides, without his knowledge or consent to the unauthorized actions.

///

///

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

19.

During the time that Defendant Green Acres was leasing Plaintiff’s horses for trail rides,

Defendants Stuebgen indicated their interest in purchasing Plaintiffs’ horse (Jesse) for trail riding, but

indicated they did not have funds available to purchase a horse at that time.

20.

Plaintiff Alderman and Defendants Stuebgan discussed entering into an agreement that Plaintiff

would allow Defendants to purchase and use his horse (Jesse) for purposes of their trail riding business

in exchange for boarding of one of his horses (Pistol) for a period of three months at the Lincoln City

board facility. The boarding was valued at $200 per month. Plaintiff Alderman did not have

knowledge at that time that Defendant Green Acres was not legally permitted to operate a trail riding

business.

21.

Plaintiff Alderman and Defendants Stuebgan agreed that at the end of the three month period,

if Defendants wanted to purchase the horse (Jesse), they would trade the value of three months’

boarding for the horse, would continue to ensure that Jesse would remain boarded during the year with

Plaintiff’s other horses, and Plaintiff would then “sell” the horse to Defendants for the value of $600.00,

which was the equivalent amount that Plaintiff would owe for boarding of the horse Pistol during the

three month period.

22.

In early August, multiple employees of Defendants stated to Plaintiff their concerns about

Plaintiff’s horse, Cagey, and their observations that Defendants Stuebgen were overworking Plaintiff’s

horse. Defendants were allowing customers and employees who weighed more than 200 pounds to

ride Cagey, despite an agreement with Plaintiff that a restriction on riders over 200 pounds would be

enforced specifically for the horse, Cagey. Defendants’ written policies did not allow any riders over

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

240 pounds, and Plaintiff Alderman learned that Defendants were not weighing riders who they

believed to be over 200 pounds, as was outlined in their policies. The overworking of Cagey ultimately

led to the horse being transported to the Lincoln City boarding facility for a period of several days of

rest in late August 2019, at the discretion of Defendants’ employees.

23.

Defendants failed to provide properly fitted horse tack and equipment for Cagey which

endangered the horse’s health and safety, and the safety of riders during trail rides. When Plaintiff

Alderman learned of Defendants’ use of ill-fitting tack and equipment, Plaintiff was forced to purchase

properly fitting tack and equipment for the horse (Cagey). Defendants used Plaintiffs’ equipment for

their benefit in their trail riding business. When Plaintiff Alderman first learned of the actions by

Defendants, he obtained proper equipment for use by Defendants with his horse. Plaintiff, along with

other individuals, witnessed multiple horses in Defendants’ care and control with sores as a result of

ill-filling tack.

24.

Defendants Stuebgen, and /or their related entities leased the barn, pastures and a caretaker

home in which they resided on the property at 2915 S Hill Road, Otis Oregon 97368 pursuant to a lease

agreement with the owner.

25.

During the time that Plaintiff Alderman boarded his horses at Defendants’ boarding facility,

Plaintiff understood that Defendants Stuebgan breached their lease agreement with the owner of the

property at 2915 S Hill Road, Otis Oregon. In early August, 2019, Defendants provided notice to their

Landlord that they would be vacating the stables and the caretaker home where they lived which was

adjacent to the stable property, by September 1, 2019.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

26.

After Defendants provided notice that they were vacating the property to Gary Fromm, their

landlord and owner of the property, Mr. Fromm approached Plaintiff Alderman inquiring as to whether

he would be interested in purchasing the property at 2915 S Hill Road which had been listed for sale.

27.

Mr. Fromm and Plaintiff Alderman desired to ensure continuity of boarding services to the

current boarders and necessary care for the horses that were currently being boarded at the facility.

With this being their primary goal, in lieu of a purchase and sale agreement, Plaintiffs entered into a

lease with Green Acres Boarding LLC and Gary Fromm, for the barn and pasture on the property at

2915 S Hill Road, Otis OR 97368. The lease agreement provided that Plaintiffs would take possession

of the property on or about September 1, 2019. The caretaker home was excluded from the lease

between Plaintiff and Mr. Fromm.

28.

Defendants Stuebgen vacated the leased barn and pasture property, and on or about September

1, 2019, Plaintiffs took possession of the leased barn and pasture property and began maintenance of

the horse boarding facility for third party individuals and businesses. Defendants Stuebgen remained

in the caretaker home for approximately three weeks after Plaintiffs took possession of the boarding

facility.

29.

Defendants Green Acres, by and through Defendants Stuebgen, failed to timely notify all of

their existing customers who boarded customers at the facility that they would no longer be providing

boarding services. Because of Defendants’ failure to notify all customers, Plaintiffs arranged a meeting

with the current boarders on September 1, 2019.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

30.

Plaintiffs allowed current boarders a two-week grace period, during which time they could

determine whether they desired to continue boarding with Plaintiffs as the new operator of the facility

or whether they would prefer to seek a new facility to provide care for their horses. After discovering

that several boarders were not informed by Defendants in a timely manner about their intent to vacate,

Plaintiffs indicated they would not seek boarding fees or charges against any individual should they

leave the facility within the two-week period. All existing boarders elected to continue business with

Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs desired to ensure good-faith and fair dealings with all parties to ensure they had

reasonable time to decide whether to continue boarding through the transition.

31.

During this time Plaintiffs learned from several of the boarders who had also been employees

of Defendants Stuebgen, and/or one or more of their related entities that they had not been paid all of

their wages due by Defendants, and they would be unable to pay for boarding services to Plaintiffs

because of financial hardship. Defendants’ previous employees also disclosed to Plaintiff Alderman

various violations committed by Defendants during their employ. Because of Defendants’ violations

and failure to pay wages owed, Plaintiffs extended additional financial courtesies and arrangements in

a good-faith attempt to ease the transition, despite additional expense to Plaintiffs.

32.

Plaintiff Alderman learned from Defendant Green Acres’ previous employees that Defendants

had failed to order and stock enough hay for the current horses being boarded, despite agreements

which provided that Defendants would ensure enough hay would be readily available to provide

several days of feeding and responsible care for the horses during the transition. Plaintiff also learned

that the horses had been without hay for approximately one week before Plaintiffs began leasing the

boarding facility. Defendant Green Acres’ former employees indicated that Defendants had removed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

any remaining hay and transported it to an alternate boarding facility, requiring Plaintiffs to make

immediate emergency arrangements for a contingency supply of hay.

33.

Upon Defendants Green Acres’ vacating the property, Defendants were unable to continue to

provide boarding for Plaintiffs’ horse (Pistol) at the facility. At this time and in accordance with

Plaintiff Alderman’s agreement with the third-party seller of his horses and in good faith, Plaintiff

Alderman was unable to allow Defendants Stuebgan to purchase the horse Jesse because of previous

indications that Defendants could not properly care for the horse, and because Plaintiffs’ horses would

then not be kept together at the facility as had been a requirement of Plaintiffs’ agreement with the third

party. Being unable to enter into an anticipated purchase and sale agreement for the horse Jesse, and

despite the fact that Defendants had received two months gratis use of Plaintiff Alderman’s horse for

trail riding, Plaintiff Alderman indicated he would pay $200 for each month his horse had been boarded

by Defendants Stuebgan upon presentation with an invoice. To date, Plaintiffs have not received such

invoice. Defendants Stuebgen later posted defamatory statements and false statements on social media

claiming that Plaintiff Alderman had stolen the horse from them.

34.

After taking possession of the property on September 1, 2019, Plaintiffs discovered Defendants

had abandoned a horse (Gypsy) on the property. Defendants concealed the legal ownership of the horse

from the Plaintiffs by falsely and fraudulently stating that the horse had been adopted by an existing

boarder.

35.

Plaintiff Alderman later learned that the horse belonged to a horse rescue who had placed the

horse in the foster care of Defendants Green Acres and Defendants Stuebgen. Plaintiff Alderman also

learned from the rescue staff that Defendants stated that the horse had been adopted by a current boarder.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

When the boarder was asked whether she adopted the horse, Plaintiffs were informed she had not

adopted the horse, and had only agreed to assist Defendants with care for the horse.

36.

While Plaintiff Alderman was required to care for the abandoned horse until arrangements could

be made for retrieval by the rescue organization, it was discovered the horse had dangerous tendencies

as witnessed by the Plaintiffs, a fact also disclosed by others familiar with the horse. In addition, the

legal ownership disposition did not allow for Plaintiffs to provide any training or services beyond the

legal necessary care while the horse was in their custody. While Plaintiffs were open to providing

charitable services for a rescue horse, all of these facts posed serious liabilities and safety concerns for

the Plaintiffs, their employees, and clients.

37.

Plaintiff Alderman planned an event for the evening of September 1, 2019, the first evening

after Plaintiffs’ acquisition of the rental property, to become acquainted with the current boarders.

Defendant Theresa Stuebgen purposely attended the event, without invitation and without authority,

with an intent to portray Plaintiffs in a bad light to current and prospective boarders. Defendant Theresa

Stuebgen remained at the event, despite Plaintiff Alderman’s insistence that she leave. In order to

preserve a positive experience and to avoid confrontation with Defendant Theresa Stuebgan, Plaintiff

Alderman postponed presentation of his planned speech until Defendant exited the property. Several

of Plaintiffs’ guests left the event early, before Plaintiff Alderman was able to present his business plan,

causing loss of prospective customers and continued rental income from current boarders.

38.

On or about September 2, 2019, after Plaintiffs had exclusive possession of the leased property,

Defendant Theresa Stuebgen entered the property a second time, and refused multiple requests to leave

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

the property. Defendant Theresa Stuebgen threatened to take Plaintiffs’ horse (Jesse) and remove it

from the facility.

39.

On or about September 3, 2019, after Plaintiffs took possession of the leased property,

Defendant Daniel Stuebgen and Defendant Theresa Stuebgen again entered Plaintiffs’ leased property

without lawful authority or permission. Defendants claimed they were retrieving items of personal

property they had left behind when vacating the property, but Plaintiffs had previously indicated to

Defendants that it would be necessary for them to coordinate retrieval of any such items because of

their previous disruptive actions and threats against Plaintiff Alderman. Despite Plaintiffs’ requests to

leave the property, Defendants Stuebgen willfully trespassed onto the property and Defendant Daniel

Stuebgen demanded in a threatening manner that Plaintiff Alderman “return” the horse and claimed

ownership. Defendant Daniel Stuebgen harassed Plaintiff Alderman and made threatening comments

in a loud and forceful manner. Daniel Stuebgen continued to shout loud and threatening remarks

directed at Plaintiff Alderman and shouted “I’m going to [expletive removed] hang you, because that’s

what we do to you horse thieves around these parts.” Defendant Daniel Stuebgen and Defendant

Theresa Stuebgan also made loud and slanderous statements about Plaintiff Alderman and Plaintiff

Rock Creek in front of Plaintiffs’ customer boarders and guests. Defendants Stuebgen refused to leave

Plaintiffs’ property which they trespassed except by police orders. Plaintiff called the police and

Defendants were required to leave the premises at the direction of the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office.

40.

After abandoning the horse Gypsie when Defendants vacated the leased premises and Plaintiffs

were obligated to care for the horse, on September 6, 2019, Defendant Theresa Stuebgen posted

“anyone that had anything to do with Gypsie today had no right to touch her and could be liable for

abuse” on Facebook social media. Defendant Theresa Stuebgen statement characterized Justin

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

Alderman’s conduct as animal abuse. This statement was slanderous and defamatory in nature, and

directed to Plaintiffs. Defendant Theresa Stuebgen’s post was made with an intent to interfere and

injure Plaintiffs’ business reputation.

41.

On September 6, 2019, Defendant Theresa Stuebgen continued posting false statements on

Facebook, continuing with “You can’t beat all horses into submission” and “the farrier was appalled,”

implying that Plaintiffs had abused the abandoned horse. These statements were false, and were

intended to falsely characterize Justin Alderman as abusive to animals.

42.

Defendant Theresa Stuebgen posted a comment on a Facebook post regarding Rock Creek

Stables that said, “…Everyone should spread the word that this guy is not where you want your horse

or.kid.to be.” Such statements were false and defamatory.

43.

Defendants remained on the leased caretaker home which was adjacent to the boarding facility

leased by Plaintiffs until, as understood by Plaintiff Alderman, third-party owner Mr. Fromm was

forced to evict Defendants for breach of their lease agreement for the caretaker home.

44.

After Plaintiffs took possession of the property they discovered that the facility had not been

maintained as believed by the landlord and Plaintiffs and that Defendants Stuebgen and Green Acres

had misreported the state of the facility. Defendant Green Acres and Defendants Stuebgen failed to

properly maintain the electrical fencing, barn stalls, tack room, and other areas of the leased property

causing unsafe and hazardous conditions for Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ employees, and boarding customers,

and their horses.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

45.

Defendants had failed to maintain the electrical fencing in a prudent manner to safely contain

horses in the pasture and throughout the facility during the time period that they were leasing the

property. Plaintiffs were required to repair and replace fencing in order to protect the boarded horses.

46.

On or about February 5, 2020, Defendants Stuebgen arrived, without invitation, at Plaintiffs’

leased property driving a pickup truck and horse trailer used on behalf of the business Green Arces for

transporting horses. They trespassed onto Plaintiffs’ property by backing their vehicle off of the public

roadway and onto Plaintiffs’ property within a few feet of the barn building leased and maintained by

Plaintiffs. Defendants Stuebgen exited the vehicle and began interactions with Plaintiffs’ landlord, Gary

Fromm, Defendant Tina Cabal and her husband, Roy Cabal, and other customers and boarders at

Plaintiffs’ facility.

47.

Despite warnings from Plaintiff Alderman, and previous admissions by Defendants Stuebgen

that they were previously trespassed from Plaintiffs’ property, Defendants Stuebgen did not

immediately leave the premises.

48.

On that evening February 5, 2020, Defendant Theresa Stuebgen posted a negative Google

Business Page for Rock Creek Stables under an alias “T Jo.” The negative review stated, “Dishonest

business man. Be careful. Proceed with caution. Doesn’t know very much about horses, so has no

business operating a horse boarding facility.” The statement was false and intended defame Plaintiffs’

business.

///

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

49.

Similar negative reviews were posted by others connected with Defendants Stuebgen, including

Defendant Cabal. Defendant Cabal, without reason or basis, included a 1-star review for Rock Creek

Stables.

50.

After Plaintiffs leased the property and boarding facility, and Defendant Green Acres and

Defendants Stuebgen had vacated the leased boarding facility property, Defendants Stuebgen posted a

false and defamatory review without legitimate basis on the Google Business Page for Rock Creek

Stables. Defendants’ Stuebgen falsely alleged mistreatment of horses boarded by Plaintiffs.

51.

Defendants Stuebgen made defamatory statements to Gary Fromm, the owner of the leased

property, and made false and defamatory comments, including comments to several boarders under

contract with Rock Creek Stables and with whom Plaintiffs have an ongoing business relationship about

Plaintiff Alderman’s moral character and business operations.

52.

On or about February 5, 2020, Defendants Stuebgen posted false and defamatory statements

about Plaintiff Alderman and Rock Creek Stables on social media. The false and defamatory statements

posted to social media included statements that Plaintiff Alderman or Rock Creek Stables took

possession (stole) a horse Defendants claimed had been sold to them. The false and defamatory

statements also claimed that Mr. Alderman participated in the abuse of a horse, and the statements

called Plaintiff Alderman a “thief” and a “liar.”

53.

Defendant Theresa Stuebgen posted on Facebook on or about September 6, 2019, which made

false and defamatory statements regarding false claims of abuse of the horse which was in foster care

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

and had been abandoned at Plaintiffs’ facility. This led to unwanted and hostile communications being

made toward Plaintiff Alderman by Jillian Morris based on the false information.

54.

Defendant Theresa Stuebgen posted a comment on Facebook that said, “That sob should stop

trying to manage barns he is a liar and a hor azad e [sic] thief.”

55.

On or about February 5, 2020, Defendant Theresa Stuebgen continued with slanderous postings

making false claims and false statements against Plaintiff Rock Creek. Specifically, Defendant Theresa

Stuebgen posted a negative review on Google Review under an alias “T Jo” which said “Dishonest

business man. Be careful. Proceed with caution. Doesn’t know very much about horses, so has no

business operating a horse boarding facility.” The review remained posted and displaying the

slanderous and defamatory comments for an unknown amount of time, but was later deleted.

56.

Defendants Stuebgen continued communication with employees and customers of Defendant

Rock Creek Stables and continued false and defamatory statements claiming Defendant Rock Creek

retained Plaintiffs’ personal property and defamatory statements regarding Plaintiffs’ qualifications to

care for its boarded horses.

57.

At Defendants Stuebgens’ direction, suggestion or encouragement, employees and friends of

Defendants, not known to Plaintiffs, posted false and defamatory reviews of Plaintiff Rock Creek

Stables and defamatory statements on Google, Facebook and Trip Advisor, and directly on Plaintiff

Rock Creek’s business page. Defendant Cabal posted false and defamatory statements of Rock Creek

stables and commented with defamatory statements on Defendant Stuebgens’ posts.

58.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

By and through Defendants Stuebgen, Green Acres and Happy Trails made defamatory

statements and presented false information to customers who frequented their establishments regarding

Plaintiff Alderman, his business, character and his family, and regarding Plaintiff Rock Creek and how

the business was managed, and the care provided to the horses.

59.

On or about March 9, 2020, Defendant Daniel Stuebgen reposted a previously posted negative

review on Plaintiff Rock Creek’s Facebook page. This false and defamatory comment was originally

made in 2015 in regards to a news story in which Plaintiff Alderman commented on an unrelated matter

with no connection to the boarding facility or horses and was posted for the purpose of subjecting

Plaintiff Alderman to public ridicule and to negative public response.

60.

Defendants Stuebgen have directly or indirectly participated in actions causing family members

and/or employees of their related entities, to contact Plaintiff Alderman in a harassing manner and

without a legitimate basis. Defendants Stuebgen caused Defendant Theresa Stuebgen’s daughter,

Jordan Mori, to contact Plaintiff Alderman with the intent to deceive him as a potential boarder through

email. Despite the fact that the email was from Jordan Mori, she claim to be named “Jessica Young”

and made false statements indicating she was seeking horse boarding. Plaintiff Alderman scheduled

an in person meeting to show Rock Creek Stables to Jordan Mori as a potential customer, and took time

away from his business to commute to the stables. At the time of the meeting, Jordan Mori cancelled

the meeting and indicated she would not be boarding with Rock Creek Stables. Plaintiff learned that

Jordan Mori was in fact Defendant Theresa Stuebgen’s daughter, and had intentionally harassed and

interfered with Plaintiffs’ business by purporting to be a good-faith, potential boarder.

///

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

61.

On or about September 8, 2020, Rock Creek Stables was at risk of damage from Oregon

wildfires, and the safety of the horses being boarded at the stables was at risk. An evacuation was

planned for the horses at the stables and many volunteers arrived to assist with evacuation. The horses

remained under the care and control of Rock Creek Stables, under the supervision of Rock Creek

Stables’ manager, Kelli Versteeg, who also boards horses at Rock Creek Stables. Plaintiff Alderman

or/or Kelly Versteeg contacted each horse owner to confirm the intended care and evacuation plan.

Plaintiff Alderman and Kelli Versteeg directed that the horses should be evacuated to Newport Oregon

where an evacuation site had been set up and was accepting horses and livestock from neighboring

areas until the fire threat had passed.

62.

During the chaos of the evacuation due to wildfires approaching quickly, Defendant Cutler and

Defendant Cabal, individually and on behalf of Defendant Green Acres, interfered and purported to

assume control of the evacuation of the horses and the intended destination of the horses boarded at

Rock Creek Stables horses. Defendants Green Acres, Cutler, and Cabal wrongfully, and without

authority, directed volunteers to evacuate the horses to a facility in Benton County,Oregon instead of

to Newport, Oregon where Rock Creek staff directed the horses be taken. Benton County is much

further distant than Newport to Rock Creek Stables and at this point in the evacuation, a majority of

the horses had arrived at Newport where Plaintiffs intended. Plaintiff Alderman had arranged this

location so that customers could use their preferred local veterinarians if desired. The actions of

Defendants Green Acres, Cutler, and Cabal were not in good faith and were intended to cause confusion,

diminish the authority of Rock Creek staff, and improperly exert control over horses boarded at Rock

Creek.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

63.

Defendant Cutler and Defendant Cabal intentionally texted and notified boarders through social

media misleading them in the circumstances surrounding the evacuation and where the horses were

being transported. Defendants Cutler and Cabal, individually and on behalf of Defendant Green Acres,

intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ contractual relations with current boarders.

64.

After the horses arrived at Benton County, Defendant Cutler and Defendant Cabal caused chaos

and disturbance by falsely claiming that the horses were under their care. Defendant Cutler wrongfully

communicated with veterinary staff regarding a horse over which he had no authority.

65.

On or about September 12, 2020, Defendant Theresa Stuebgen posted on Facebook social media

false statements indicating that Defendant Green Acres, by and through Defendants Stuebgen, had

orchestrated the evacuation of Rock Creek Stables horses and falsely stated that Plaintiffs had done

nothing. Defendant Stuebgen’s statements falsely indicated that Plaintiffs had been negligent in the

care of the boarded horses.

66.

Defendant Cutler was previously employed by Plaintiff Rock Creek. After Defendant Cutler

left the employ of Plaintiff, he began working for Defendant Green Acres. Since that time, Defendant

Cutler, individually and/or on behalf of Defendant Green Acres, has entered and purchased business

supplies wrongfully using Plaintiff Rock Creek’s Wilco Farm Supply account, which is a negotiated

farm contract. Defendant Cutler’s use of Plaintiff’s account benefits causes confusion in the community

regarding who employs Defendant Cutler and who cares for the horses being boarded at Rock Creek

Stables. Defendant Cutler has been and continues to wrongfully use Plaintiff’s account without his

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

consent, for Defendant Cutler’s benefit, the benefit of Defendant Green Acres, and to the detriment of

Plaintiff Rock Creek.

67.

Defendant Cabal was previously employed by Plaintiff Rock Creek. After she left employment

with Plaintiff, Defendant Cabal filed an unemployment claim and Plaintiff was obligated to respond

and pay a portion of the unemployment benefits paid to Defendant Cabal. During the time of her

unemployment claims, she was employed with Defendant Green Acres but neither Defendant was

lawfully reporting her paid income.

68.

Defendant Lisa Bagby sold a horse “Bo” to Defendant Cutler and Kelli Versteeg, a boarder and

employee of Rock Creek and executed a bill of sale. Since that date, Kelli Versteeg has paid for all

boarding, care, and training for Bo. On or about October 11, 2020, Defendant Bagby falsely claimed

to law enforcement that she was the rightful owner of the horse, Bo, and made entry into Rock Creek

facilities to retrieve the horse. Defendant Cutler remained off Rock Creek property with a trailer to

remove the horse, Bo. Defendant Bagby, without right or permission, took Bo away from Rock Creek

Stables to be transported by Defendant Cutler. Bo was startled, and ran back to Rock Creek where he

was secured.

69.

Defendant Bagby repeatedly and without a legitimate basis sent text messages to Plaintiffs that

included false statements and posted false and defamatory statements online that Plaintiffs were

unethical and wrongfully held horses.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Defamation)

(Count 1 – Against Defendants Stuebgen)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

70.

Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 69 as though set forth fully herein.

71.

Defendants Stuebgen made defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s business,

Plaintiff’s character, and family.

72.

Defendants Stuebgen published defamatory material regarding Plaintiffs and their business on

social media, including but not limited to Facebook.

73.

Defendants Stuebgen published defamatory material regarding Plaintiffs and their business on

public websites, including but not limited to Google, Trip Advisor, and Plaintiffs’ business page.

74.

At the direction of Defendants Stuebgen, employees and friends of Defendants not known to

Plaintiffs published defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s business, including but

not limited to Facebook, Google, Trip Advisor and Plaintiffs’ business page. An individual, John

Bonander, who identified himself as a business associate of Defendants Stuebgen harassed Plaintiffs

and threatened Plaintiff Alderman.

75.

Defendants Stuebgens’ defamatory statements resulted in harm to Plaintiffs and were

defamation per se giving rise to a presumption of special harm as it related to Plaintiffs’ business and

moral character. Defendants’ false statements, which were published to third parties, subjected

Plaintiffs to contempt and ridicule, and tended to and did diminish the esteem, goodwill, or confidence

in which Plaintiff Alderman was otherwise held both as the operator of the boarding facility and as a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

business owner of a software company.

76.

Defendant Stuebgens’ defamatory statements resulted in specific harm to Plaintiff Alderman

and were defamation per se, damaging Plaintiff Alderman’s reputation as a CEO of a national software

company. The defamatory comments were personal attacks against Plaintiff Alderman regarding his

character and caused damages beyond the equine community.

77.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants Stuebgens’ conduct and defamation of Plaintiffs

and specifically Plaintiff Alderman, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount not less than $110,000.00,

or another amount to be proven at trial.

(Defamation)

(Count 2 – Against Defendants Green Acres and Happy Trails)

78.


79.

By and through Defendants Stuebgen and/or other agents or employees, Defendant Green Acres

and Defendant Happy Trails made defamatory statements and presented false information to customers

who frequented their business establishments regarding Plaintiff Alderman, his business, his character

and family, including that Plaintiffs were abusive to animals.

80.

By and through Defendants Stuebgen and/or other agents or employees, Defendant Green Acres

and Defendant Happy Trails made defamatory statements and presented false information to customers

who frequented their business establishments regarding Plaintiff regarding Rock Creek, how the

business was managed, and the care provided to the horses.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

81.

Defendants Stuebgens’ defamatory statements made on behalf of Defendant Green Acres and

Defendant Happy Trails resulted in harm to Plaintiffs and were defamation per se giving rise to a

presumption of special harm as it related to Plaintiff Rock Creek’s business and Plaintiff Alderman’s

moral character. Defendants’ false statements, which were stated to third parties, subjected Plaintiff

Alderman to contempt and ridicule, and tended to and did diminish the esteem, goodwill, or confidence

in which Plaintiff Alderman was otherwise held both as the operator of the boarding facility and as a

business owner of a software company.

82.

Defendants Stuebgens’ defamatory statements made on behalf of Defendant Green Acres and

Defendant Happy Trails resulted in specific harm to Plaintiff Alderman and were defamation per se,

damaging Plaintiff Alderman’s reputation as a CEO of a national software company. The defamatory

comments were personal attacks against Plaintiff Alderman regarding his character and caused

damages beyond the equine community.

83.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ Green Acres and Happy Trails’ (by and through

Defendants Stuebgens) conduct and defamation of Plaintiffs and specifically Plaintiff Alderman,

Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount not less than $110,000.00, or another amount to be proven at

trial.

(Defamation)

(Count 3 – Against Defendant Bagby)

84.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 as though set forth fully herein.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

85.

Defendants Bagby made defamatory and false statements regarding Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s

business, Plaintiff’s character, and family.

86.

Defendant Bagby’s defamatory statements to law enforcement resulted in specific harm to

Plaintiff Alderman and were defamation per se, damaging Plaintiff Alderman’s reputation as a CEO of

a national software company. The defamatory comments were personal attacks against Plaintiff

Alderman regarding his character and caused damages beyond the equine community.

87.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Bagby’s conduct and defamation of Plaintiffs and

specifically Plaintiff Alderman, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not

to exceed $50,000.00.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence)

(Count 1 – Against Defendants Stuebgen and Defendant Green Acres)

88.


89.

Defendants Stuebgen, individually and on behalf of Defendant Green Acres, had a duty to act

with reasonable diligence during transition of boarders, had a duty to transition the business in a

commercially reasonable manner, and had a duty to distinguish their operations from Plaintiffs’

operation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

90.


with reasonable diligence and care when providing guided trail rides using Plaintiffs’ horse.

Defendants had a duty to act with reasonable diligence and care while working Plaintiffs’ horse for

guided trail rides. Defendants neglected to use reasonable care and overworked Plaintiffs’ horse.

91.


with reasonable diligence when caring for the rescued horse, Gypsy, and to properly handle the custody

of the horse.

92.


with reasonable diligence when caring for the horses and properly supplying and fitting their tack.

93.


with reasonable diligence and care and to prevent foreseeable harm to person and property in

maintaining the building and tack rooms, electrical fencing, and in ensuring a safe and habitable

environment for individuals and horses.

94.


with reasonable diligence and care and to prevent a risk of foreseeable harm in maintaining the building

and outside areas, including fencing.

95.

Defendants Stuebgen, individually and on behalf of Defendant Green Acres, failed to use

reasonable care to avoid the risk of foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs’ property and horses, business

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

reputation and business interests in one or more of the following particulars:

a. In failing to proceed with reasonable diligence in the transition of the boarders;

b. In failing to proceed in such a manner that would implement a smooth transition of

operations;

c. In failing to distinguish Defendants’ operation from Plaintiff’s operation.

d. In failing to provide appropriate care for the rescued horse.

e. In failing to provide appropriately fitted tack and equipment for Plaintiff’s horse Jesse.

f. In failing to maintain the premises, including electrical fencing and power boxes, box stalls

and tack room,

g. In failing to act in the best interests of their employees and boarders,

h. In disseminating false and defamatory information that placed Plaintiffs in risk of physical

and financial harm, and caused Plaintiffs to modify facility operations with increased staff

and closure of business office,

i. In failing to keep property business and employment records, and

j. In causing confusion in the equine community regarding the management and operations

of the boarding facility.

96.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct and negligence, Plaintiffs’ property

and horses, operation of Plaintiffs’ business, business interests and business reputation were damaged,

resulting in damage to the Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $6,738.00.

97.

Because of Plaintiffs’ legal and moral obligation to provide the necessary care for the horse,

Gypsy, while in their custody, Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ negligent

abandonment of the horse. Plaintiffs were subjected to additional liabilities pertaining to the safety and

legal custody of Gypsy as further result of Defendants’ negligence.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

(Negligence)

(Count 2 – Against Defendant Cutler)

98.

Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 97 as though set forth fully herein.

99.

Defendant Cutler had a duty to act with reasonable diligence after leaving the employ of

Plaintiff, had a duty to conduct business in a commercially reasonable manner, and had a duty to

distinguish his operations and business transactions from Plaintiffs’ operation and business.

100.

Defendant Cutler failed to use reasonable care to avoid the risk of foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs’

business reputation and business interests in one or more of the following particulars:

a. In failing to proceed with reasonable diligence after leaving the employ of Plaintiff;

b. In failing to proceed in such a manner that would implement a smooth transition of his

employment;

c. In continuing use of Plaintiffs’ benefits at Wilco Farm Supply;

d. In failing to distinguish Defendants’ employment from Plaintiff’s operation;

e. In failing to distinguish Defendant’s transactions from Plaintiffs’;

f. In failing to act in the best interests of Plaintiffs.

101.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Cutler’s conduct and negligence, Plaintiffs’

property and horses, operation of Plaintiffs’ business, business interests and business reputation were

damaged, resulting in damage to the Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than

$1,788.76.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

(Negligence)

(Count 3 - Against Defendant Cabal and Defendant Green Acres)

102.


103.

Defendant Cabal and Defendant Green Acres had a duty to act with reasonable diligence after

Cabal leaving the employ of Plaintiff, and had a duty to report accurate income and payroll information

to the State of Oregon Employment Department.

104.

Defendant Cabal and Defendant Green Acres failed to use reasonable care to avoid the risk of

foreseeable harm to Plaintiffs’ business interests in one or more of the following particulars:

105.

a. In failing to proceed with reasonable diligence after leaving the employ of Plaintiff;

b. In failing to proceed in such a manner that would implement a lawful transition of

employment;

c. In failing to report accurate income and payroll information.

d. In failing to act in the best interests of Plaintiffs.

106.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Cabal’s and Defendant Green Acres’ conduct and

negligence, Plaintiffs’ business interests were damaged, resulting in damage to the Plaintiffs in an

amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $1,000.00.

///

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Interference with Economic Relations)

(Against All Defendants)

107.


108.

Plaintiff Alderman, as the owner of an equine facility, had existing contractual relationships as

well as a prospective economic advantage stemming from his reputation and goodwill in his community.

109.

Plaintiffs are in a contractual lease with third party Gary Fromm for possession and use of the

property at 2915 S Hill Road, Otis, Oregon. Plaintiffs have entered into Horse Boarding Agreements

with current customers and patrons of Rock Creek, and have prospective economic and business

relationships with individuals seeking boarding and equine-related services.

110.

Defendants are aware of Plaintiffs’ lease agreement with Gary Fromm and are aware of

Plaintiffs’ Horse Boarding Agreements with current customers and are aware of Plaintiffs’ prospective

economic relations with interested individuals. Defendant Jeff Cutler has intentionally interfered with

the lease agreement between Plaintiffs and Gary Fromm.

111.

Defendants Stuebgen have directly or indirectly participated in actions causing family members

to contact Plaintiff Alderman in a harassing manner and without a legitimate basis.

112.

Defendants, individually and on behalf of Defendant Green Acres and Defendant Happy Trails,

have intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ existing economic relationships and prospective economic

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

relations and advantage for an improper purpose and by improper means by publishing of false

statements that were damaging to Plaintiff Alderman’s reputation and hindered performance of

Plaintiff’s relationships. Defendants’ posts and comments on social medial and Plaintiffs’ business

pages were made with an intent to interfere and injure Plaintiffs’ business reputation.

113.

Defendants have intentionally interfered with customers in active Horse Boarding Agreements

with Plaintiffs, and have intentionally interfered with potential future customers which were motivated

by the purpose of inflicting injury to Plaintiff and his business.

114.

Defendants willfully approached Rock Creek customers, and potential customers, and made

defamatory statements regarding Plaintiffs with the intent to break their relationship with Plaintiffs.

115.

Plaintiffs’ contractual relationships and prospective economic relationships were harmed by

Defendants’ intentional interference and by Defendants’ improper means.

116.

Plaintiffs have been forced to cease utilization of public online forums for marketing and

advertising because of direct interference caused by Defendants.

117.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional interference, Plaintiffs have suffered

actual economic damages in the form of lost contracts, lost goodwill and reputation, and lost

prospective economic advantage.

///

///

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

118.

Defendants’ willful and purposeful defamatory statements made and published regarding

Plaintiffs was detrimental to Plaintiffs’ business and has caused damage in the way of loss of

prospective clients and prospective income.

119.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional interference, Plaintiffs suffered

actual damages in an amount not less than $50,256.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Injunctive Relief)

(Count 1 - Against Defendants Stuebgen, Defendant Cutler,

Defendant Cabal, and Defendant Bagby)

120.


121.

Defendants Stuebgen, Defendant Cabal and Defendant Bagby continue, through wrongful

means and for a wrongful purpose, to post defamatory comments on social media regarding Plaintiff

personally and Plaintiff’s businesses, which spreads falsehood, harms Plaintiff’s business and harms

Plaintiff’s good name.

122.

Defendants Stuebgen, Defendant Cabal and Defendant Bagby continue to post and not remove

defamatory content regarding the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s businesses on social media and on Google

reviews.

///

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

123.

Defendant Cutler continues to use Plaintiffs’ Wilco farm account to unlawfully obtain a

discount and which continually causes confusion in the business community.

124.

Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants Stuebgen from continuing to

post and failing to remove defamatory communications, postings and reviews.

(Injunctive Relief - Trespass)

(Count 2 - Against Defendants Stuebgen and Cutler )

125.


126.

Defendants Stuebgen and Defendant Cutler continue through wrongful means and for a

wrongful purpose, to trespass and enter upon Plaintiffs’ property, despite being trespassed from the

property.

127.

At such times as Defendants Stuebgen and Defendant Cutler trespass onto Plaintiffs’ property

they do so with wrongful purpose and wrongful means to create and cause disturbance, disruption, and

verbally harm Plaintiffs in the presence of employees and Plaintiffs’ boarders.

128.

Defendants Stuebgen and Defendant Cutler have been trespassed from Plaintiffs’ property

pursuant to orders of Lincoln County Police Department which remain in effect.

129.

Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants Stuebgen and Defendant Cutler

from continuing to trespass and enter upon Plaintiffs’ property.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

130.

(Injunctive Relief - Intentional Interference with Economic Relations)

(Count 3 - Against Defendant Cutler)

131.


132.

Defendant Cutler continues through wrongful means and for a wrongful purpose, to utilize and

make purchases using Plaintiffs’ Wilco Farm Supply account for Rock Creek Stables.

133.

At such times as Defendant Cutler uses Rock Creek’s account he does so with wrongful purpose

and wrongful means to create and cause confusion regarding who employs Defendant Cutler and who

cares for the horses being boarded at Rock Creek Stables.

134.

Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant Cutler from continuing to utilize

Plaintiffs’ Wilco Farm Supply rewards account.

135.

Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

1. On Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief, judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against

Defendants for special damages as follows:

a. Count 1 against Defendants Stuebgen in an amount not less than $110,000, or to be

determined at trial;

b. Count 2 against Defendants Green Acres and Happy Trails in an amount not less

than $110,000, or to be determined at trial;

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

c. Count 3 against Defendant Bagby in an amount not less than $50,000, or to be

determined at trial.

2. On Plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief, judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against

Defendants as follows:

a. Count 1 against Defendants Stuebgen and Defendant Green Acres in an amount

not less than $6,738.00, or to be determined at trial;

b. Count 2 against Defendant Cutler in an amount not less than $1,788.76, or to be

determined at trial, and.

c. Count 3 against Defendant Cabal and Defendant Green Acres in an amount not

less than $1,000.00.

3. On Plaintiffs’ Third Claim for Relief, judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against

Defendants in an amount not less than $50,256.00, or to be determined at trial;

4. On Plaintiffs’ Fourth Claim for Relief; judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against

Defendants :

a. Count 1: for injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing defamatory

comments against Plaintiffs;

b. Count 2: for injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants Stuebgen from continuing to

trespass onto Plaintiffs’ property; and

c. Count 3: for injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant Cutler from continuing to use

Plaintiffs’ Wilco Farm Supply benefits;

5. For Plaintiffs’ costs and disbursements incurred herein;

///

///

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

6. For Plaintiffs’ attorney fees incurred herein;

7. For any relief the Court may deem just and equitable.

DATED this 29th day of October, 2020.

CHURCHILL LEONARD LAWYERS

s/ Jill F. Foster

_______________________________

Jill F. Foster, OSB No. 943115

Email: [email protected]

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Ch

urc

hil

l L

eon

ard

Law

yer

s P

O B

ox 8

04, S

ale

m, O

R 97308

(503)

585-2

255

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing MOTION FOR ORDER ENLARGING TIME

WITHIN WHICH DEFENDANTS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A RESPONSE, DECLARATION OF

JILL F. FOSTER and ORDER ENLARGING TIME on the following:

Jack A. Wray

Andrews Ersolff & Zantello

2941 NW Highway 101

Lincoln City OR 97367


Of Attorney for Defendants Stuebgen

Simon Harding

Stephanie K. Rempel

Schulte, Anderson, Downes, Aronson & Bittner

811 SW Naito Parkway Suite 500

Portland Oregon 97204



Of Attorneys for Defendant Green Acres

Tomas Osborne

Brian B. Williams

Hitt Hiller Monfils Williams LLP

411 SW 2nd Avenue Suite 400

Portland Oregon 97204



Of Attorneys for Defendant Happy Trails

■ First-class mail, postage prepaid on October 30, 2020.

□ Facsimile, pursuant to ORCP 9 F

□ Hand-delivery

□ Overnight courier, delivery prepaid

□ E-mail, pursuant to ORCP 9 G

■ E-mail copy, as a courtesy only

□ Other: ___________________

DATED this 29th day of October, 2020.

CHURCHILL LEONARD LAWYERS

s/ Jill F. Foster

_______________________________

Jill F. Foster, OSB No. 943115


Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

mailto:[email protected]




page 1 first amended complaint - lincoln city homepage

Documents