shelton mcelroy lawsuit against cordish, lmpd

NO. __________________ JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT

DIVISION __________

SHELTON MCELROY PLAINTIFF

v.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., DEFENDANTS

Service by Secretary of State to: 601 East Pratt Street

6th Floor Baltimore MD 21202 and LOUISVILLE IRISH, LLC Serve: S&H Frankfort, LLC 421 West Main Street, Frankfort, KY 40601 and ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL, LLC Service by Secretary of State to: 601 East Pratt Street 6th Floor Baltimore MD 21202 and CORDISH OPERATING VENTURES, LLC

Serve: Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service Co. 421 Main Street Frankfort, KY 40601 and LOUISVILLE GALLERIA, LLC Serve: CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service Company 421 West Main Street Frankfort, KY 40601 and

2

LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT d/b/a LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT Serve: Greg Fischer, Mayor Louisville Metro Hall 527 West Jefferson Street Louisville, KY 40202 and OFFICER CHRISTOPHER M. WHITE in his official and individual capacities Serve: Christopher M. White Louisville Metro Division of Police 633 West Jefferson St. Louisville, KY 40202 and UNKNOWN LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE OFFICERS In his or her official and individual capacities

Serve: Unknown Officers Louisville Metro Division of Police

633 West Jefferson St. Louisville, KY 40202 and UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS (JOHN DOE’S)

***** ***** *****

Comes now the Plaintiff, Shelton McElroy, by and through counsel, and for his

Complaint against Defendants, The Cordish Companies, Inc., Louisville Irish, LLC,

Louisville Galleria LLC, Entertainment Consulting International LLC, and Louisville

Metro Police, and defendants currently unknown, states the following:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

3

This is a cause of action for violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the Kentucky

Constitution, Kentucky statutory and common law, for the unlawful search and seizure

and malicious prosecution of, excessive force applied to, assault and battery,

discrimination, and other counts as alleged below against Defendants.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Shelton McElroy, (hereafter as “Plaintiff”) is a resident of

Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky, and has so resided in excess of six months prior

to the date upon which the subject cause of action arose.

2. Plaintiff is of African American descent.

3. Defendant, THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC. (hereafter “Cordish Inc.”),

is a Maryland corporation which, by and through its officers, owners/shareholder(s)

and/or affiliates or subsidiary companies, developed and today operates an

entertainment district known as “Fourth Street Live!” in downtown Louisville, Kentucky.

4. Defendant LOUISVILLE IRISH LLC is a Kentucky limited liability company

which does business under the name of “Sully’s Restaurant and Saloon” within “Fourth

Street Live!” at the location of 424 S. 4th Street, both presently and at the time of the

subject incident. LOUISVILLE IRISH will hereafter be referred to as “Sully’s”.

5. Upon information and belief, SULLY’S is owned and/or operated by

officers, owners/shareholder(s)/members of one or more of Cordish-related Defendants

named in this lawsuit, and one or more unnamed Cordish-related or affiliated entities.

6. Upon information and belief, ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING

INTERNATIONAL LLC (hereafter “ECI”) is party to a management contract with

SULLY’S under which ECI provides all upper management for SULLY’S, including but

4

not limited to, the food, style, genre of entertainment and music, desired clientele,

operating policies and procedures, and more.

7. Upon information and belief, CORDISH OPERATING VENTURES, LLC

(hereafter “CORDISH OPERATING”) is a foreign Limited Liability Company currently

listed on the Kentucky Secretary of State’s website as being in “Bad” standing in the

Commonwealth of Kentucky; its authority to do business in the Commonwealth of

Kentucky was revoked on November 2, 2010 by the Kentucky Secretary of State’s

Office; upon information and belief, CORDISH OPERATING is involved in, or exerts

influence upon, the ownership and/or management of one or more of the Defendants

named herein.

8. Upon information and belief, LOUISVILLE GALLERIA LLC (hereafter “4TH

STREET LIVE LANDLORD”) owns the real property upon which SULLY’S conducts

business, and upon which the “4TH STREET LIVE” area is located.

9. Upon information and belief, LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT (hereafter “LOUISVILLE METRO”) is the successor

government to the merged governments of the former city of Louisville and former

Jefferson County pursuant to KRS 67C.101. This entity is authorized to conduct

governmental business on behalf of the citizenry of the merged city and county, is sui

generis, and is real party in interest to each of its included agencies, including the

named LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereafter “LMPD”).

10. Upon information and belief, Officer Christopher M. White (herafter

“White”), was at all times relevant to this action a police officer employed by LMPD.

5

11. In addition, there may be additional unknown LMPD Officers (Unknown

Louisville Metro Police Officers) and unknown defendants (i.e., John Does) whose

identity and/or responsibility for the unlawful acts set forth below may be ascertained

during the course of this litigation.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This cause of action arose in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in and

around SULLY’S, in 4th Street Live.

13. This cause of action is brought pursuant Kentucky common law and to

Kentucky Revised Statutes (hereafter “KRS”) § 344, the civil rights statutes which

Plaintiff believes were violated in the incident described below; KRS § 344 mandates

the proper forum for this claim is the Circuit Court in which the cause of action arose.

14. This cause of action is also being brought pursuant to KRS § 15A.195.

15. The damages suffered by plaintiff are in excess of the minimum

requirements of the Jefferson Circuit Court and therefore the statutory jurisdictional

requirements have been met.

16. This cause of action arose on or about October 26, 2014.

17. Subject matter jurisdiction over this action exists under Section 112 of the

Kentucky Constitution because the amount in controversy, excluding interest, costs and

attorney’s fees, exceeds the jurisdictional prerequisites of this Court.

18. Venue is proper in the Jefferson Circuit Court because the Plaintiff resides

in Jefferson County, the Defendants reside, conduct business in, and/or performed their

official duties in Jefferson County, and the injuries sustained in the case occurred in

Jefferson County.

6

FACTS

19. Plaintiff is a responsible citizen and resident of the City of Louisville,

employed as a full-time College Instructor at “Jefferson Community Technical College”,

teaching and specializing in Leadership Development.

20. Prior to October 26, 2014, Plaintiff also was employed as a part-time

substance-abuse counselor for recently released parolees.

21. Plaintiff, today a 38 year old male of African descent, grew up in multiple

foster homes, was homeless from 16 to 18 years of age, and incarcerated from age 18

to 25 for trafficking marijuana.

22. Since approximately age 27, Plaintiff has worked tirelessly to raise himself

from his past, and devote himself to education, serving and bettering his community,

and other worthy and noble causes.

23. In particular, Plaintiff has devoted much of his adult life to coaching and

counseling young people who face the same early life challenges that he faced and

overcame.

24. On or about October 26, 2014, Plaintiff went to Fourth Street Live, dressed

neatly in a polo shirt, new cargo khakis, jacket, and suede boots.

25. The owners of businesses located in 4th STREET LIVE have a reputation

in the community for using dress code as a pretext to discriminate against black patrons

in or around 4th Street Live such that they encourage and/or require their employees,

agents, security firms, and the local police to target, harass, and discriminate against

blacks who try to patronize 4th Street Live.

7

26. After initial admission at the entry gates, Plaintiff walked to the entry of

Sully’s Restaurant and Saloon (hereafter “Sully’s”), where he was met by the manager,

a hostess, and a bouncer.

27. The manager checked Plaintiff’s ID and approved his attire.

28. Plaintiff then observed the manager make a head movement in the

direction of the Plaintiff, while looking at the bouncer.

29. The manager’s head movement appeared to Plaintiff as some type of

signal to the bouncer.

30. The hostess collected a $10 cover charge from Plaintiff.

31. Plaintiff walked through Sully’s, looking to see if any of his friends or

acquaintances were in the establishment.

32. “Hip hop” music was playing during this time.

33. About the time Plaintiff reached the back wall of the bar, the music

abruptly switched to “country”.

34. Seeing no one he knew, Plaintiff turned around and headed toward the

dance floor, hoping to hear the music change back to “hip hop”.

35. About the time Plaintiff reached the dance floor, the bouncer who had

admitted Plaintiff at the door intercepted him and instructed him to walk back to the front

door.

36. Plaintiff obediently followed the bouncer’s instructions, not knowing what

was happening. When Plaintiff and the bouncer reached the front door, Plaintiff asked

the bouncer what was going on.

8

37. The bouncer told Plaintiff that he had to leave Sully’s because he was not

in compliance with the dress code.

38. Plaintiff calmly pointed out that there were two white males dancing on top

of the bar wearing no shirts, and the DJ was also shirtless.

39. Plaintiff began video-taping the incident on his phone.

40. The bouncer told Plaintiff he had to leave because his pants “were

sagging”.

41. Plaintiff lifted his shirt to show that his pants were neatly fitted around his

waist, and that no part of them was sagging, as they were size 32” waist with 31”

inseam.

42. The bouncer’s demeanor remained forceful and menacing throughout the

exchange.

43. Observing the bouncer’s demeanor, Plaintiff stated he would leave, but

wished to have his $10 cover charge returned.

44. When the bouncer refused his request, Plaintiff calmly turned and looked

over his shoulder for the manager, finding him within an arm’s length of Plaintiff’s back.

45. The manager was positioned so he could enforce the bouncer’s ejection of

Plaintiff.

46. The manager raised his arm and waived to a LMPD officer outside the

door, gesturing that the officer should come, enter and give help.

47. The bouncer roughly grabbed at Plaintiff’s phone to try and block the

videotaping, simultaneously shoving Plaintiff toward the doorway with his other hand.

9

48. At that moment, an LMPD officer arrived and forcefully grabbed Plaintiff’s

arm, ordering him to step outside of Sully’s.

49. This LMPD officer said, “Come with me or I’ll arrest you”.

50. Plaintiff, surprised, asked, “Arrest me for what?”

51. Plaintiff observed another LMPD officer aggressively striding toward him.

52. By that time, one or both officers and the bouncer had shoved Plaintiff

several feet outside the door.

53. Fearing what might happen next, due to the history of treatment of blacks

in and around 4th Street Live, Plaintiff laid down, put his hands behind his hands over

his head to show he was not resisting arrest, and stated, “What am I being arrested

for?”

54. One of the police officers then cuffed Plaintiff, pulling Plaintiff’s phone out

of his hand so the officer could turn off the video.

55. Plaintiff stated, “You can’t have my phone”.

56. The officer then thrust the phone into Plaintiff’s pocket, and said, “You’re

about to be charged with resisting arrest”.

57. The police officers took Plaintiff to the alley behind Sully’s, ordered him to

“spread” against the squad car there, and patted him down.

58. A man wearing a “4th Street Live” polo shirt and headphones came over,

pulled out his clipboard and asked the officers, “What’s he going down for”.

59. Amongst other things, Plaintiff heard one of the officers say, “He laid down

on the ground, so he wanted to get arrested anyway.”

60. The man wearing the polo and headphones took notes on his clipboard.

10

61. LMPD took Plaintiff to jail in the squad car and charged him with second

degree criminal trespassing and disorderly conduct.

62. No bail option was given Plaintiff.

63. Plaintiff was detained for the night in jail with the general jail population.

64. Among the inmates present in his cell was a parolee who had been

Plaintiff’s counselee who Plaintiff had been required to report for flunking a drug

urinalysis test in violation of his parole a few months earlier.

65. Because he was in jail, Plaintiff was unable to pick up his ten-year-old

daughter as planned the following morning at 8 a.m.

66. Plaintiff was arraigned on the charges.

67. Plaintiff was released in late morning.

68. Under a legal obligation to report the charges to his employers, Plaintiff

made such report, and was immediately fired from his position as part-time substance

abuse counselor for parolees.

69. On November 10, 2014 a new issue of “Crime Times” was published,

listing Plaintiff’s name under his mug shot, along with his name in large letters, on the

page for “Disorderly Conduct”.

70. Listed right next to Plaintiff’s name and mug shot, in bold and large print,

were the words and phrases listed below:

ASSAULT-4TH DEGREE- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

KIDNAPPING-ADULT

POSSESSIONCONTROLLED

SUBSTANCE-COCAINE

11

TRAFFICKINGCONTROLLED

SUBSTANCE-COCAINE

POSSESSION MARIJUANA

PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER II 71. Plaintiff was forced to retain an attorney and defend himself in court.

72. Following an arraignment and multiple hearings over several months, the

charges were dismissed for lack of any evidence.

73. Plaintiff still suffers the damages caused by the conduct described herein.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

74. Plaintiff files this as a class action on behalf of all other persons who are of

African American descent and who suffered discrimination on the basis of their race in

and around 4th Street Live.

75. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class

action pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of Plaintiff and all

others similarly situated with the Class defined as below:

All individuals of African American descent who currently live in and/or around the Louisville metro area, who have not been allowed to enter, or who have been ejected from, the area known as 4th Street Live in Louisville, Kentucky, including each of the bars, restaurants and venues located within same, since the date of April 24, 2011, on the ground that their attire did not meet dress code when, in fact, their attire met dress code,

76. Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder is

impracticable. The proposed Class includes hundreds of current and former members.

The precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs, but upon information

and belief, it is in excess of several hundred. The true number of Class members is

12

likely “predictable” based upon the average number of annual visitors to 4th Street Live,

multiplied by the proportion of local population of African American descent, adjusted for

the applicable time period.

77. There is a well-defined community of interest among members of the

Class. The discrimination claim of the representative Plaintiff is typical of the claims of

the Class in that the representative Plaintiff and all Class members are persons of

African American descent who have been turned away or ejected from 4th Street Live

based on the “pretext” that their clothing did not meet dress code. The factual basis of

the Defendants’ conduct is common to all Class members and has resulted in injury to

all class members.

78. The questions of law and fact in this case are common to all Plaintiffs and

Class members and include the following:

a. Do Defendants engage in patterns, practices, and policies of turning African

Americans away from 4th Street Live on the basis of race?

b. Did Defendants turn away each Plaintiff on the basis of race, using “dress

code” as a pretext?

c. At the time, was each Plaintiff dressed in accordance with the dress code?

79. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

Plaintiff has retained Counsel with extensive experience in representing the “under-

represented”, and with extensive experience in Jefferson County Courts, and with a

career dedicated to serving interests such as this. Plaintiff and his counsel are

committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class they represent

13

and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor counsel have any

interest adverse to those of the Class.

80. Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered and will continue to

suffer harm and damage as a result of Defendants’ conduct. A class action is superior

to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

Absent a class action, the vast majority of the Class members would likely find the cost

of litigating their claims prohibitive and would have no effective remedy at law.

81. Treatment of common questions of law and fact is superior to multiple

individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that class treatment will conserve the

resources of the courts and litigants and promote consistency and efficiency of

adjudication.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to:

a. Certify the Plaintiff’s Class, appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative and

appoint the undersigned as counsel for the Class;

b. Grant trial by jury;

c. Award compensatory damages;

d. Award liquidated damages;

e. Award punitive damages;

f. Award attorney’s fees; and

g. Grant any and all other relief the Court determines appropriate, for Counts 1

and 2 below.

COUNT 1 – DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SULLY’S, ECI, LOUISVILLE GALLERIA, LLC,

CORDISH INC., CORDISH OPERATING

14

82. Under KRS 344, it is illegal for any business that provides goods and/or

services to the public to discriminate against any person on the basis of race.

83. SULLY’S is a business within Jefferson County that supplies goods and/or

services within the meaning of KRS 344.120.

84. The SULLY’S employees noted above targeted and ejected Plaintiff from

SULLY’S on the basis of race, using “dress code” as a pretext, even though his clothing

conformed to the dress code in every way.

85. SULLY’S employees further made false accusations against Plaintiff to

Metro police.

86. LMPD targeted and discriminated against Plaintiff, based on his race.

87. Each of the other named Defendants herein discriminated against Plaintiff

based on his race by creating, implementing, enforcing, and/or participating in practices,

patterns, and policies to exclude African Americans from patronizing 4th Street Live and

the bars, restaurants, and venues located there.

88. As a result of the discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation,

indignity, suffering, multiple fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to

reputation, discouragement, damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness,

shamefulness, shame upon his family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings,

expenditure of legal fees, costs, expenses, and more.

COUNT 2 – DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE, AND UNKNOWN OFFICER

89. Under Kentucky statutory law, it is illegal for any police officer acting under

color of law to discriminate against any person on the basis of race.

15

90. The police officers noted above detained, arrested, jailed, charged, and

prosecuted Plaintiff for second degree trespassing and disorderly conduct solely on the

basis of race.

91. As a result of the discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation,

indignity, suffering, multiple fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to

reputation, discouragement, damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness,

shamefulness, shame upon his family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings,

expenditure of legal fees, costs, expenses, and more.

COUNT 3 - ASSAULT AGAINST SULLY’S FOR MANAGER’S CONDUCT

92. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and

every averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this

Verified Complaint.

93. Sully’s manager behaved in a physically threatening and menacing

manner towards Plaintiff as described above.

94. Sully’s manager intended to intimidate and frighten Plaintiff.

95. Sully’s manager intended to cause Plaintiff to fear offensive physical

contact from him (said manager).

96. Sully’s manager was conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.

97. Plaintiff reasonably feared that the manager would offensively contact him

physically.

98. As a result of this conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer

damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, suffering,

16

multiple fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation,

discouragement, damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness,

shame upon his family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal

fees, costs, expenses, and more.

COUNT 4 - ASSAULT AGAINST SULLY’S FOR BOUNCER’S CONDUCT



Verified Complaint.

100. Sully’s bouncer behaved in a physically threatening manner towards

Plaintiff as described above.

101. Sully’s bouncer intended to physically intimidate and frighten Plaintiff.

102. Sully’s bouncer intended to cause Plaintiff to fear offensive and harmful

physical contact from him (said bouncer).

103. Sully’s bouncer was conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.

104. Plaintiff reasonably feared that the bouncer would offensively contact him

physically.







COUNT 5 – BATTERY AGAINST SULLY’S

17

FOR BOUNCER’S CONDUCT



Verified Complaint.

107. Sully’s bouncer roughly pushed and shoved Plaintiff as described above.

108. Sully’s bouncer grappled for Plaintiff’s phone in an effort to stop the video-

taping.

109. Sully’s bouncer was conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.

110. All of this physical contact from the bouncer was offensive and harmful to

Plaintiff.







COUNT 6 - ASSAULT BY LMPD, OFFICER WHITE, AND UNKNOWN OFFICER



Verified Complaint.

113. LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers behaved in a physically

threatening manner towards Plaintiff as described above.

18

114. LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers intended to physically

intimidate and frighten Plaintiff.

115. LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers intended to cause Plaintiff

to fear offensive and harmful physical contact.

116. Each officer was aware and conscious of the fact that his conduct was

wrongful.

117. Plaintiff reasonably feared that one or both officers would offensively

contact him physically.







COUNT 7 – BATTERY BY LMPD, OFFICER WHITE, AND UNKNOWN OFFICER



Verified Complaint.

120. LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers roughly pushed and

shoved Plaintiff as described above.

121. LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers roughly grabbed Plaintiff’s

phone out of his hand(s) in an effort to stop the videotaping.

19

122. LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers cuffed Plaintiff’s wrists so

that one was twisted, thereby inflicting great pain until Plaintiff was in jail and the cuffs

were removed.

123. LMPD, Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers forced Plaintiff to submit

to a search with his arms cuffed behind his back, one arm painfully twisted, chest

leaning against the squad car, and legs spread and extending backwards behind him.

124. Each officer was aware and conscious of the fact that his conduct was

wrongful.

125. This physical contact from each of the officers was offensive and harmful

to Plaintiff.







COUNT 8 – FALSE IMPRISONMENT AGAINST SULLY’S



Verified Complaint.

128. The words and actions by each of SULLY’S manager and bouncer

imposed physical restraints upon Plaintiff’s movement and actions.

20

129. Each of SULLY’S manager and bouncer intended to impose physical

restraints upon Plaintiff’s movements and actions.

130. Plaintiff reasonably feared physical reprisal if he did not submit to the

physical restraints the words and actions of each of the manager and bouncer imposed

upon him.

131. Plaintiff was deprived of freedom of action by the manager’s and

bouncer’s conduct as described above.







COUNT 9 - FALSE IMPRISONMENT AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE,

AND UNKNOWN OFFICER



Verified Complaint.

134. Officer WHITE and/or Unknown Officers , acting under color of law,

forcibly detained, arrested, charged/arraigned, and jailed Plaintiff.

135. Upon his arrival at jail, Plaintiff was required to pay $70 “administrative

fees”, which he obediently paid from the cash in his wallet.

21

136. The detainment, arrest, charges, $70 expense, and the jailing of Plaintiff

were wrongful.







COUNT 10 – PREMISES LIABILITY AGAINST 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD



Verified Complaint.

139. 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD knew or should have known that the

employees of SULLY’S, and/or other Cordish-related restaurants, bars, and venues

within 4th Street Live in general, and/or private security firms and/or off-duty police

officers under contract with 4th Street Live, and/or METRO POLICE officers rendering

services in and around 4th Street Live were engaging in discriminatory, negligent, and

tortious conduct against African American patrons and/or would-be patrons in and

around 4th Street Live.

140. 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD had a duty to take reasonable care to

prevent such ongoing discriminatory, negligent and tortious conduct against African-

American patrons or would-be patrons of SULLY’S and the Cordish-related restaurants

and bars within 4th Street Live or both.

22

141. A reasonably prudent landowner/landlord in 4th Street Live and/or Sully’s

would believe or anticipate that injury to a patron would be caused by such

discriminatory, negligent, and tortious conduct.

142. 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD failed to take reasonable steps to stop this

harmful conduct from occurring.

143. Plaintiff was injured by this discriminatory, negligent and tortious conduct.







COUNT 11 – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO HIRE, TRAIN AND/OR SUPERVISE AGAINST SULLY’S



Verified Complaint.

146. SULLY’S had a duty to hire, train and supervise employees as would the

reasonably prudent bar and restaurant in the community under the same and/or similar

circumstances.

147. SULLY’S knew or should have known that one or more of its employees

were targeting blacks from time to time and ejecting them from the premises without just

cause and based only on their skin color, in violation of their rights to be free from

discrimination in places of public accommodation.

23

148. SULLY’S failed to reasonably hire, train, and/or supervise its employees

so that they would refrain from targeting and/or ejecting black patrons without just

cause.







COUNT 12 – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO HIRE, TRAIN AND/OR SUPERVISE AGAINST Entertainment Consulting International (ECI)



Verified Complaint.

151. Upon information and belief, ECI is under contract with SULLY’S to

manage multiple aspects of SULLY’S business, including the training and supervision of

employees, the policies and procedures under which customers are handled and

treated, implementation and enforcement of dress code, and diversity and cultural

awareness training.

152. Plaintiff is a third party beneficiary of said managerial contract.

153. Under the managerial contract, ECI had a duty to hire, train and/or

supervise Sully’s employees and managers as would a reasonably prudent bar and

restaurant owner in the community under the same and/or similar circumstances.

24

154. ECI knew or should have known that one or more Sully’s employees

and/or managers were targeting blacks from time to time and ejecting them from the

premises without just cause and based only upon their race, and/or that one or more of

Sully’s employees needed to have racial sensitivity or other training designed to prevent

discriminatory conduct.

155. ECI failed to reasonably hire, train, and/or supervise Sully’s employees so

that they would refrain from discriminating against black patrons or would be patrons.







COUNT 13 – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO HIRE, TRAIN AND/OR SUPERVISE AGAINST LMPD



Verified Complaint.

158. LMPD is under a duty to hire, train, and supervise its police officers, as

would the reasonably prudent police force under the same or similar circumstances, in a

manner designed to reasonably prevent its police officers from engaging in

discrimination and/or tortious conduct.

25

159. LMPD failed in its duty to so hire, train and supervise its employees such

that its police officers involved in the subject incident engaged in the wrongful acts

described herein.







COUNT 14 – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO HIRE, TRAIN, AND SUPERVISE SECURITY OFFICERS AND/OR EMPLOYEES

AGAINST 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD 161. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and


Verified Complaint.

162. 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD is under a duty to hire, train, supervise

and monitor its own employees, and its third party security firms and off-duty police

officers, as would a reasonably prudent landlord under the same or similar

circumstances, in a manner designed to reasonably prevent its own employees, its third

party security firms, and its off-duty police officers from engaging in discriminatory,

negligent, and/or tortious conduct.

163. 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD failed in its duty to so hire, train,

supervise, and/or monitor such that one or more of its employees, security firms, off-

duty police officers and/or other agents involved in the subject incident (such as the

26

man wearing the “4th Street Live” shirt and carrying the clipboard), engaged in,

participated in, affirmed, validated, and/or failed to stop what should have been

apparent as discriminatory, negligent, and tortious conduct against Plaintiff as described

herein.

164. As a result of the this conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

suffer damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity,

suffering, multiple fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation,




COUNT 15 – INTENTIONAL/NEGLIGENT INFLICTION EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST EVERY DEFENDANT



Verified Complaint.

166. Each of the Defendants named in this lawsuit committed one or more acts

as described herein with intentional, reckless and/or negligent indifference to the

physical safety, civil rights and emotional well-being of Plaintiff.

167. The conduct of each of the Defendants as described herein is outrageous

and intolerable and offends the generally accepted standards of decency and morality in

this community.

168. As a result of the outrageous and intentional conduct by each of the

Defendants as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages

including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, suffering, multiple

27

fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement,

damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness, shame upon his

family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal fees, costs,

expenses, and more.

COUNT 16 – FALSE ARREST/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AGAINST SULLY’S



Verified Complaint.

170. The above facts constitute false arrest and malicious prosecution under

Kentucky law, under the state and federal constitutions, and under Kentucky common

law.

171. The actions of Sully’s and its employees, as described above, in initiating

contact, detaining, and continuing the prosecution against Plaintiff was done

maliciously, intentionally, wantonly and/or recklessly.

172. The malicious acts by SULLY’s and its employees were done with

reckless disregard for the truth and/or actual knowledge of the falsity of the charges.

COUNT 17 – FALSE ARREST/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE,

AND UNKNOWN OFFICER(S)



Verified Complaint.

28

174. The above facts constitute false arrest and malicious prosecution under

Kentucky law, under the state and federal constitutions, and under Kentucky common

law.

175. The actions of LMPD, OFFICER WHITE and/or Unknown Officer(s), as

described above, in initiating contact, detaining, and continuing the prosecution against

Plaintiff was done maliciously, intentionally, wantonly and/or recklessly.

176. The malicious acts by LMPD and its employees were done with reckless

disregard for the truth and/or actual knowledge of the falsity of the charges.

COUNT 17 – LIABILITY UNDER KRS 446.070

AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE AND UNKNOWN OFFICER(S)



Verified Complaint.

178. In addition, The actions of LMPD, OFFICER WHITE and/or Unknown

Officer(s), actions violated portions of the Kentucky penal code, including but not limited

to the following:

a) Official Misconduct (KRS 522.020-030);

b) Assault (KRS 508.030);

c) Perjury (KRS 523.020); and

d) Tampering with physical evidence (KRS 524.100).

179. Said actions of Defendants’, as described above, entitle Plaintiff to recover

damages under KRS 446.070.

COUNT 18 – ADDITIONAL STATE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

29

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS



Verified Complaint.

181. In addition, and by virtue of the facts as set forth above, Defendants’

knowingly, willfully and/or maliciously:

a) Violated the Plaintiff’s clearly established Kentucky Constitutional

rights, specifically, but not limited to, prohibition against unreasonable searches

and seizures, state equal protection guarantees, state due process guarantees,

and such provisions in the Kentucky Constitution including but not limited to §§ 1,

2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, and 14.

b) Unreasonably and unjustifiably seized the personal property of

Plaintiff;

c) Subjected Plaintiff to unreasonable and excessive force;

d) Violated clearly established standards and protocols of the police

profession;

e) Deprived Plaintiff of his substantive and procedural due process

rights;

f) Denied Plaintiff equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the

Kentucky State Constitution; and

g) Conspired to violate Plaintiff’s state constitutional rights.

182. In addition or alternatively, the Defendants’, as described above, acted

pursuant to an unconstitutional (under state law) and/or otherwise illegal policy, custom

or practice.

30

183. In addition or alternatively, the Defendants LMPD, OFFICER WHITE, AND

UKNOWN OFFICER(S), as described above, were not properly trained as to the proper

method to conduct searches and seizures of property and persons, or to otherwise

perform their duties.

Count 19: VIOLATION OF THE KENTUCKY RACIAL PROFILING ACT

AGAINST LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE, OFFICER WHITE,

AND UNKNOWN OFFICER(S)



Verified Complaint.

185. Defendants WHITE, LMPD and Unknown Officer(s)’ conduct as outlined

above was solely motivated by racial consideration, which constitutes a direct violation

of KRS §15A.195 (“Kentucky Racial Profiling Act”).

186. Accordingly, Defendants WHITE, LMPD and Unknown Officer(s), deprived

Plaintiff of rights secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and analogous provisions of the Kentucky Constitution.

COUNT 20 – ALTER EGO/PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL AGAINST ECI, 4TH STREET LIVE LANDLORD, SULLY’S

THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC., AND CORDISH OPERATING VENTURES



Verified Complaint.

188. Upon information and belief, each of these named Cordish-related entities

is owned, managed, operated and/or dominated by the same persons and/or entities.

31

189. Upon information and belief, each of these Cordish-related entities is an

instrumentality or alter ego of one or more of the owners, managers, and/or officers of

THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., or of THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC. itself, or of

one of the other of these named Cordish-related entities, or of one or more Cordish-

related entity(ies) whose identity(ies) is/are presently unknown.

190. Upon information and belief, the separate existence of these Cordish-

related entities is for the mere purpose of providing tax benefits and avoiding various

liabilities, all while hiding the identities of the real persons/entities in control of said

defendant entities.

191. Upon information and belief, one or more of these Cordish-related entities

are “asset-less” and “income-less” shells incapable of meeting the financial obligations

which would attach to liability for the damages suffered by Plaintiff in the event Plaintiff

prevails in this lawsuit.

192. Upon information and belief, one or more of these Cordish-related entities

derives virtually all of the benefits associated with operating SULLY’S, while controlling

and dominating the operations of SULLY’S, and/or withdrawing or spending the income,

appreciation, or other values/benefits generated by the operations of SULLY’S.

193. To allow one or more of the Cordish-related Defendants to escape

financial responsibility for the damages caused to Plaintiff by the agents and employees

of SULLY’S, ECI, CORDISH INC., CORDISH OPERATING, and 4TH STREET LIVE

LANDLORD and the agents and employees of each of them, would sanction a fraud

and promote substantial injustice.

COUNT 21 – CONSPIRACY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

32



Verified Complaint.

195. One or more of the Defendants has conspired with one or more of the

other Defendants to discriminate against blacks in and around Sully’s and in and around

4th STREET LIVE.

196. One or more of the Defendants conspired with one or more of the

Defendants to target, harass, eject, and/or arrest and prosecute Plaintiff based on his

race, all in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit illegal discrimination against blacks

in and around SULLY’S and/or in and around 4TH STREET LIVE.

197. As a result of this conspiracy, under the laws of the State of Kentucky,

each Defendant is liable for each act committed by any other member of the conspiracy,

in furtherance of the conspiracy, from which damages result.

198. As a result of the conspiracy and one or more acts committed in

furtherance of the conspiracy, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages

including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, suffering, multiple

fears, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement,

damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness, shame upon his

family and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal fees, costs,

expenses, and more.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

33

199. As described above, Defendants were malicious, negligent, oppressive,

wanton, reckless, and/or grossly negligent in their treatment of Plaintiff, thereby entitling

Plaintiff to punitive damages for all violations, constitutional and otherwise.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to:

a. Certify the Plaintiff’s Class, appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative and

appoint the undersigned as counsel for the Class;

b. Grant trial by jury on any and all issues triable;

c. Award of compensatory damages against Defendants jointly and severally for

the lost wages, lost good will and reputation value, embarrassment,

humiliation, and mental anguish suffered by Plaintiff, all according to proof;

d. Award liquidated damages;

e. Award punitive damages;

f. Pierce the Corporate Veil and issue its Judgment that the separate corporate

existence of THE CORDISH COMPANIES INC., ECI, 4TH STREET LIVE

LANDLORD, CORDISH OPERATING, AND SULLY’S is pierced and

disregarded pursuant to Kentucky law for the purposes of this lawsuit, such

that each of these entities is liable for any and all of the damages awarded to

Plaintiff in this case.

g. Award attorney’s fees and expenses incurred herein and the costs of this

action as the law may permit; and

h. Grant any and all other relief the Court determines appropriate, for Counts 1

and 2 below.

34

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________ DANIEL M. ALVAREZ ADAMS & ALVAREZ, PLLC 539 West Market Street Suite 300 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 272-2006 Counsel for Plaintiff

35

VERIFICATION

I, Shelton McElroy, do hereby verify that I have read the foregoing Verified

Complaint and the statements contained therein are true and accurate to the best of my

belief and knowledge.

____________________________ SHELTON MCELROY

STATE OF )

) SS.

COUNTY OF )

On this day of , 2015, before me personally appeared

Shelton McElroy, to me known to be the person described herein, and who executed

the foregoing instrument and she acknowledges that she voluntarily executed the same.

My Commission Expires: .

NOTARY PUBLIC

shelton mcelroy lawsuit against cordish, lmpd

Documents

louisville galleria

resident of louisville

downtown louisville

defendant louisville

llc service

mayor louisville metro

defendants service

street live