ernsuit
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 ERNSUIT
1/7
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
27
28
Hiawatha Hoeft-RossPO Box 6946Reno NV 89513(775) 626-0895IN PRO SE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross ))
Plaintiff, )
) COMPLAINTvs )
) NO.)
Ernestine Montgomery ))
Cornelius Montgomery )Defendants. )
________________________)
INTRODUCTION
1) This action seeks monetary relief from the defendants for the tort of outrageous conduct
and the intentional infliction of emotional distress and the loss of consortium between the Plaintiff
father, and his children who were hidden away until past the age of majority by the defendants.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2) The allegations in this complaint do not request the District Court to issue a divorce,
alimony, or child custody decree, the suit is appropriate for the exercise of 28 U.S.C. 1332
jurisdiction given the existence of diverse citizenship between petitioner and respondents and the
pleading of the relevant amount in controversy. Ankenbrandt v. Richards 504 U. S. 689 112 S. Ct
2206, 119 L. Ed. 2d 468, 60 U.S.L.W. The court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1367 to hear Plaintiffs state law claims because those claims are related to Plaintiffs federa
-
8/14/2019 ERNSUIT
2/7
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
27
28
- 2 -
law claims and arise out of a common nucleus of related facts. Plaintiffs state law claims are related
to Plaintiffs federal law claims such that those claims form part of the same case of controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution.
3) Venue is proper in that the claims alleged here arose due to the Plaintiffs residence within
the Northern District of Nevada
PARTIES
4) Plaintiff Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross is a black disabled American who resides in Reno, NV and
is a citizen of the United States.
5) Plaintiff Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross brings this action on behalf of himself pursuant to the Tort
of Outrageous Conduct and that loss of consortium by way of the Defendants actions of actively
concealing the Plaintiffs children in order to wantonly, recklessly and without regard to the mental
health of the children and of the Defendant concealed the children from the Plaintiff until past the
age of majority. Plaintiff had a right to reasonable visitation with the children.
6) Defendant Ernestine Montgomery is the Mother of the two children of Hiawatha Hoeft-
Ross: Shanina DOB 3-15-84 and Hiawatha James Ross DOB 9-27-79. Defendant Ernestine
Montgomery actively and with malice deliberately hid the children from the Plaintiff to frustrate
visitation.
6) Defendant Cornelius Montgomery is the new husband of Ernestine Montgomery and
exercises control over the children. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the defendant Cornelius
Montgomery aided and abetted in the concealment active of the children.
///
-
8/14/2019 ERNSUIT
3/7
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
27
28
- 3 -
FACTS
Plaintiff and Defendant Ernestine Montgomery were married on April 22 1979 and were
separated February 27 1987. Defendant Ernestine Montgomery frustrated visitation right from the
beginning by not letting Plaintiff see his children. Plaintiff was inseparable from his two children
since the date of their birth. Although Ernestine Montgomery stated in her dissolution (which was
filed in ex-parte) that there should be reasonable visitation, she never allowed it.
After her bankruptcy and loss of the house in 1988, she went to Washington State without
motioning the court for a move-away sometime in Late 1989 and returned in the summer of 1990
when she deposited the children with the Plaintiff for three months. For a short time thereafter
visitation was reasonable, until Defendant Cornelius Montgomery was In the picture, visitation then
stopped altogether. During the time between the forfeiture of the family residence and 1990, Plaintiff
did not know where Defendant Ernestine Montgomery was residing After the reasonable visitation
had stopped, Plaintiff had to use a service to locate Ernestine Montgomery by and through her new
husband Cornelius Montgomery. This was done so that papers could be served on him to stop
interfering in visitation.
In 1993 several calls were place to the Montgomery residence and calls were either
intercepted by and answering machine, or were terminated by Defendant Ernestine Montgomery
In October of 1993 special counsel for the children was ordered since visitation was not happening
It was determined that the children wanted 40% visitation with their father, but Ms. Montgomery
objected for several reasons and went so far as to bribe the children with a trip to Hawaii in exchange
for saying that they did not want to see their father any more. There is an extensive outline of the
years of frustration of visitation by the defendants.
Sometime in 1994, Defendants left the Fremont area and Plaintiff has not seen his children
since. He tried to initiate telephone contact with the daughter in 1997, but was cut short by the
Defendant Ernestine Montgomery in that she would file another restraining order against Plaintiff
if he tried to contact his daughter again. Plaintiff has not seen or heard of children since.
///
-
8/14/2019 ERNSUIT
4/7
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
27
28
- 4 -
INJURIES
7) By reason of defendants outrageous acts, and knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury
the would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including
but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and
increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly
plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
First claim
SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
8) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-7 of the complaint herein.
9) By reason of defendants outrageous acts, and knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury
that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish
including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness
and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss.
Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
Second claim
INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS DISREGARD
10) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-9 of the complaint herein.
11) Defendants acted with the intent to inflict injury and with the realization that an injury
was substantially certain to result from their conduct. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury tha
would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including
but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and
increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly
plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
-
8/14/2019 ERNSUIT
5/7
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
27
28
- 5 -
Third Claim
OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT
12) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-11 of the complaint herein.
13) By defendants concealing the children for almost 15 years the conduct is so outrageous
that it exceeds all bounds of common decency usually tolerated by a civilized society. Knowledge
of Plaintiffs closed head injury the would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical
injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss
feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and
appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
Fourth claim
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
14) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-13 of the complaint herein.
15) Injuries were proximately caused by the Defendants by their negligent conduct and
willful violation of a statutory standard. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed head injury that would cause
sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental anguish, including but not limited
to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of worthlessness and increase in
medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is
entitled to special damages.
Fifth Claim
ABUSE OF PROCESS
16) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-14 of the complaint herein.
17) Defendants, with malice, used the legal process to accomplish a purpose for which it was
not designated - that being keeping plaintiff apart from his children. Knowledge of Plaintiffs closed
-
8/14/2019 ERNSUIT
6/7
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
27
28
- 6 -
head injury that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical injury and mental
anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss, feelings of
worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and appetite
loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
Sixth Claim
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
18) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-17 of the complaint herein.
19) Plaintiff is of the state of mind that concealment of his children is worse than the death
of the children, that he has suffered a loss of love, advice, comfort, companionship and society. Such
concealment was done with malice and reckless disregard of the statutory scheme and knowledge
of Plaintiffs closed head injury that would cause sucseptibitly to emotional distress and physical
injury and mental anguish, including but not limited to bodily injury such as stomach aces, sleep loss
feelings of worthlessness and increase in medication, feelings of depression anger and irritability and
appetite loss. Accordingly plaintiff is entitled to special damages.
///
-
8/14/2019 ERNSUIT
7/7
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
27
28
- 7 -
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross prays for entry of judgement against the Defendants
that:
1) Compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000;
2) Special damages (punitive) in the amount of $100,000;
3) that all costs of suit herein be awarded;
4) such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted
This _____day of April 2002
____________________________
Hiawatha Hoeft-Ross
IN PRO PER