STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
L 1NTHE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG
CHRIST(NCHISHOLM,
)
)
)
Plaintiff
VS.
TAUHEED EPPS, a/k/a 2CHAINZ, and
RO’ZAY RICHIE, a/k/a CAP 1,
)
)
Defendants
)
—
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Christina Chisholm, complaining of Defendants,
Tauheed Epps, and
Ro’Zay Richie, alleges and says:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
Plaintiff Christina Chisholm (hereinafter, “Mrs. Chishoim” or
“Plaintiff’) is
an adult citizen and resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
2.
Defendant Ta,uhe?d Epps a/k/a 2Chainz (hereinafter, “Epps”
) is an adult
citizen and resident of___________
3.
Defendant Ro’zay Richie a/k/a Cap-i (hereinafter, “Richi
e”) is an adult
citizen and resident of
4.
Venue of this action is proper in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina,
because this is where the causes of action arose and it is where
Plaintiff resides.
5.
Complaint.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims
in this
6.
This is an action to recover money damages resulting from Defend
ant’s
defamation of Plaintiff.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7.
At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Epps was
a rap
music artist known as “2Chainz.”
8.
On Tuesday, March 20, 2014,
Ms. Chishoim attended a show
illmore Theater in Chartotte, North
at the
Carolina.
9.
backstage.
Ms. Chishoim was invited to the
show by Richie, and was admitted
10.
White backstage Epps recorded a vide
o of Ms. Chisholm.
11.
Epps is heard referring to Ms. Chisholm
as a “THOT”, which Epps and his
intended audience understood to be an
acronym for “That Hoe Over There.”
12.
“Hoe” as used by Epps, and defined by
the Urban Dictionary, means a
“skank”, “whore”, or “promiscuous person.”
13.
Epps later posted the video to his blog and
other websites, including
creating the hashtag “#isthatyothot.”
14.
The video has been viewed on multiple webs
ites, with over 10 million
views on Youtube and over a million views Wor
ldstarhiphop.com, since the release of
the video the view numbers have been altered
and some videos with over 8 million
views or more have been deleted.
15.
There have been over a million comments posted by
viewers on Youtube
and over a milton views on Worldstarhiphop.com and
other numerous sites. Some of
the comments are:
a. “She was thirsty ass hell maaaaaan!?!How the
hell can you have
fuckin sympathy for this groupie hoe!?!?!?!And she was
DUMBI!!!”
b. “He was nicer to her than she deserved. The hoe
went there trying to
get some dick, instead she got downed for being a clow
n ass hoe and
told she should probably step before she downed som
e mote.”
c. “She deserved to be treated like that. A classless
hoe, showing how
desperate she is... Why should they show her
respect when she
doesn’t respect herself?”
d. “Real talk, why respect a women who don’t respe
ct herself... She
deserved it Dumb Bitch.”
e. “SHE A STUPID HOE LOL SHE
THOUGHT
#ISTHISYOTHOT.”
f.
“can tell by her lips she suck alotta dick.”
g. “This bitch dumb as fuck.”
2
h. “AHHHHHH, jus another THOT
that thought she was cute! Kill ursel
f
bitch!.”
1.
“@LUVTINAA IS HER ISTAGRAM LOL EVE
RYONE PUT HER ON
BLAST SHES TRYING TO SUE 2 CHA
INZ CHECK HER INSTAGRAM
#ISTHISYOTHOT.”
k.
16.
Ms. Chishoim had previously been employe
d as a front desk manager at
No Grease Barbershop in Charlotte.
17.
On April 3, 2014, Ms. Chishoim was told by her
manager at No Grease not
to come back to work. Her manager said the
video posted by Epps would cause
negative publicity for No Grease company beca
use the majority male clientele and
males working alongside Ms, Chishoim.
18.
As a direct result of the video being posted online,
Ms. Chisholm has been
subject to harassment and verbal abuse in public.
19.
20.
Epps’ publication of false and misleading statemen
ts concerning Ms.
Chishoim constitute slander.
21.
Epps’ made his statements willingly, with the
intention to defame,
degrade, and humiliate Ms. Chisholm.
22.
Epps made his statements in bad faith and with reck
less indifference to
the damages to Ms. Chisholm.
23.
Epps published his statement to the world.
24.
Epps’ statements were willful, wanton, and show a reck
less disregard for
the rights of Ms. Chishoim’s rights. As a result
Ms. Chishoim has suffered and
continues to suffer damages, including embarrassmen
t public ridicule, inability to find
employment, and mental anguish.
25.
Ms. Chisholm suffered financial loss and emotional dam
ages as a result of
Epps’ actions.
26.
3
27.
28.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Defamation perse Libel and Slander]
—
29.
Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set out.
30.
Defendants intentionally published false oral and written statements of and
concerning Plaintiff, as more specifically described above. Defendant’s defamatory
statements were published, transmitted, and/or viewed by countless third parties, both
known and unknown to Plaintiff
31.
disgrace.
Defendant’s statements subjected Plaintiff to ridicule, contempt and
32.
Defendant’s statements accuse Plaintiff of having low moral character and
repeatedly engaging in immoral and illegal activities.
33.
The statements made by Defendant’s have no reasonable basis in fact
and there was no justification for Defendant’s misconduct in publishing the statements.
34.
No privilege of any type protects the statements made by Defendants.
35.
Defendants published such statements with actual malice, that is, with
knowledge that they were false, or with a reckless disregard for their truth.
36.
Defendants published the statements willfully, wantonly and/or
maliciously, warranting an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish
them and to deter each of them and others similarly situated from engaging in such
misconduct in the future.
37.
Defendants statements constitute libel
per se
and slander per Se.
38.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s per se defamatory
statements, all of which are false, Plaintiff has suffered actual damages, including
without limitation metal suffering, injury to her reputation, and injury to her ability to carry
out her trade, business, or profession, in an amount not yet fully determined, but
believed to be in excess of ooo,ooojJV
4
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Defamation Libel and Slander]
—
39.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by refer
ence the preceding paragraphs
as if fully set forth herein.
40.
Defendants intentionally published false oral
and written statements of and
concerning Plaintiff, as more specifically
described above. Defendants defamatory
statements were published, transmitted, and/
or viewed by countless third parties, both
known and unknown to Plaintiff.
41.
Defendants’ statements impeach Plaintiff in
her trade or profession, and/or
otherwise subject Plaintiff to ridicule, contempt,
or disgrace.
42.
Defendants’ statements accuse Plaintiff of com
mitting a heinous crime or
one involving moral turpitude.
43.
The statements made by Defendants have no reaso
nable basis in fact and
there was no justification for Defendants’ miscondu
ct in publishing the statements.
44.
No privilege of any type protects the statements mad
e by Defendants.
45.
Defendants published such statements with actua
l malice, that is, with
knowledge that they were false or with a reckless disre
gard of their truth.
46.
Defendants published the statements willfully,
wantonly and/or
maliciously, warranting an award of punitive damages
in an amount sufficient to punish
them and to deter each of them and others similarly
situated from engaging in such
misconduct in the future.
47.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defa
matory statements, all
of which are false, Plaintiff has suffered actual dam
ages, including without limitation
mental suffering, injury to her reputation, and injury to
her ability to carry out her trade,
business, or profession, in an amount not yet finally
determined, but believed to be in
excess of $000,000.O
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[Punitive Damages]
48.
Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations contained
in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set out.
49.
Defendants’ actions described herein were maliciou
s, intentional, willful,
wanton, and done with a reckless disregard for the
rights of the Plaintiff. Pursuant to
N.C.G.S. § iD-i, et seq., to prevent Defendants from
future bad acts, and to prevent
5
others engaging in similar wrongful conduc
t, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive
damages from Defendants.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[INTENTIONAL!RECKLESS INFLICTION OF SEVE
RE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS]
50.
Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations contain
ed in the preceding
paragraphs as if fully set out.
51.
Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous in
that it exceeded all
bounds usually tolerated by decent society.
52.
Defendants’ conduct was intended to cause, or was reckles
sly indifferent
to the likelihood that it would cause, severe emotional distr
ess to Plaintiff.
53.
Defendants’ conduct in fact caused severe emotional distr
ess to Plaintiff.
54.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional or
reckless
infliction of severe emotional distress, Plaintiff suffered dam
ages, emotionally and
physically.
N.C. Gen. Stat
§
Fifth claim
75-1 .1: Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the Court:
1.
Award Plaintiff damages against Defendants, jointly and severally,
in an
amount to be proven at trial, for their assault, battery, false
imprisonment, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress of Plaintiff immediately.
2.
Grant Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendants for their malicious,
and
willful and wanton conduct, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 1 D-1, et seq immediately.
3.
That Plaintiff have and recover her attorneys’ fees to the fullest extent
allowed by law;
4.
Tax the costs of this action against Defendants; and
5.
Grant Plaintiff any other remedy which this Court deems just and equitable
under the circumstances.
6
I
C
I
F’