How To Get A Court Order To Let A Customer Account From Gorter To Minecraft To Be Transferred To A Customer Of Kfoi

Transcription

1 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 1 of 19 PageID #: 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION NORMAN H. MEYER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vs. ) ) Cause No.: 4:13-cv HEA BRIGGS AND MORGAN, PA, ) ) Serve: 2200 IDS Center ) 80 South 8th Street ) Minneapolis, MN ) ) and ) ) FRANK A. TAYLOR, ) ) Serve: 2200 IDS Center ) 80 South 8th Street ) Minneapolis, MN ) AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, Norman H. Meyer, by and through his undersigned counsel, and for his Amended Complaint against Briggs and Morgan, PA, and Frank A. Taylor, states as follows: ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Norman H. Meyer ( Meyer ) is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen of the State of Missouri, wherein he resides at Pinhook Hollow Drive, Pacific, Missouri, Defendant Briggs and Morgan, PA, ( Briggs ) is a law firm with offices located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and St. Paul, Minnesota. Briggs is a Professional Association and is 1

2 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 2 of 19 PageID #: 50 registered as Business Corporation with the State of Minnesota. Briggs registered office address is 332 Minnesota Street, W st National Bank Bldg., St Paul, MN Defendant Frank A. Taylor ( Taylor ) is an attorney and shareholder of Briggs. Taylor is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen of the State of Minnesota, who is licensed to practice law in Minnesota and practices law out of Briggs Minneapolis, Minnesota office. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Taylor was an agent and employee of Defendant Briggs, and in taking the actions alleged in this Amended Complaint Defendant Taylor was acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment, acting in the interest of and on behalf of Defendant Briggs. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the cause of action asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C Specifically, Plaintiff Meyer is a citizen of the State of Missouri, Defendants Briggs and Taylor are citizens of the state of Minnesota, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants because: (1) they transacted business within this state; and (2) they committed a tortious act within this state. 7. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff s causes of action herein occurred and had an effect in St. Louis County, Missouri. III. FACTS IN SUPPORT 8. Meyer has worked in the financial services industry since

3 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 3 of 19 PageID #: From 2002 to 2008, Meyer was a registered representative of Questar Capital Corporation ( QCC ), a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority member firm. 10. QCC s principal office is in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and it is a fully owned subsidiary of US Allianz Life 11. Meyer was also an investment advisor representative from 2005 to 2008 for Questar Asset Management ( QAM ), an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 12. QAM s principal office is also in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and it is a fully owned subsidiary of US Allianz Life 13. During all times relevant to this Complaint, Briggs and Taylor served as outside legal counsel for QCC and QAM. 14. On or about September 28, 2007, the Securities Division of the Kentucky Office of Financial Institutions ( KOFI ) conducted a routine examination of a branch office affiliated with QCC and QAM located at 3830 Taylorsville Road, Louisville, Kentucky Thomas Gorter, a registered representative of QCC and, at the time, a registered investment advisor representative of QAM, worked out of the Taylorsville Road office. 16. On October 31, 2007, the Division issued written Statements of Findings indicating areas of concern as a result of the September 2007 examination. 17. One of the Division s concerns was the fact that Gorter was holding himself out as a registered investment advisor representative of QAM without being properly registered. 18. In response, QCC and QAM agreed to meet with KOFI officials in Frankfort, Kentucky on December 10,

4 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 4 of 19 PageID #: Meyer was informed that he would have to attend the meeting with KOFI due to the fact that he was purportedly Gorter s designated supervisor for QCC. 20. In early December 2007, Briggs and Taylor agreed to serve as legal counsel for Meyer regarding the KOFI examination and investigation. 21. Briggs and Taylor were also to serve as QCC and QAM s legal counsel in the meeting with KOFI officials. 22. In addition to Meyer, QAM President Matthew Fries, QCC Chief Compliance Officer Ruth Howell, QCC Corporate Legal Counsel Kristine Lord-Krahn, and Taylor would also attend the meeting with KOFI. 23. The day before the meeting with KOFI, Meyer met with Taylor at a hotel conference room in Louisville, Kentucky. 24. Taylor urged Meyer that he should be the one to take responsibility for QCC and QAM with regard to the Gorter situation. 25. Specifically, Taylor advised Meyer to not mention that it was QAM who signed off on the advisory client paperwork as QAM was accepting clients brought in by Gorter without being properly licensed. 26. Taylor informed Meyer that if he answered that it was QAM who was signing off on these clients as they received the paperwork from Gorter, Briggs and Taylor would not represent him. 27. At the meeting the next day, the KOFI officials in attendance were Ms. Carmen Bishop and Mr. William Owsley, Esq. 28. When being questioned by these KOFI representatives, Meyer refused to take the blame for the situation. 4

5 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 5 of 19 PageID #: At one point, Ms. Bishop asked Meyer, who was under oath, who signed off on the business. Meyer answered truthfully, that QAM signed off on the business. 30. Taylor kicked Meyer under the table when Meyer answered this question in this manner. 31. Ultimately, KOFI, QCC, and QAM agreed that Gorter would have to pass the series 65 exam to become an investment advisor representative in order to take his clients back. 32. It was also agreed that QAM was going to transfer Gorter s clients to Meyer, who was an investment advisor representative of QAM. 33. Initially QAM informed Meyer that QAM was going to internally transfer the Gorter client accounts to him. 34. QAM shortly thereafter changed course and informed Meyer that Gorter would have to get client authorization in the form of new documents for the transfer. These documents would also need to be executed by Meyer. 35. Also around the time of the December 2007 meeting, QCC and QAM learned that in or around November 2007, Meyer began to explore leaving QCC and QAM. 36. Around Christmas 2007, Meyer received a box of documents from Gorter with client signatures. 37. The documents appeared to be in disarray, and Meyer noticed that some of the documents had white out on them. 38. In reaction to the receipt of these documents, Meyer contacted QAM President Matthew Fries for direction. 39. Fries informed Meyer to sign the documents and send them to QAM. 40. Once received, QAM found documents which purportedly appeared to be altered. 5

6 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 6 of 19 PageID #: On information and belief, QAM then contacted Taylor regarding the receipt of the purportedly altered documents from Meyer and requested legal advice on what action to take with regard to the documents received from Meyer. 42. Taylor had an ethical and fiduciary duty of loyalty to Meyer to keep Meyer informed of anything bearing on his representation that might affect Meyer s interests. Despite this unequivocal duty, Taylor did not inform Meyer of QAM s concerns. 43. Instead, Taylor intentionally concealed this information from his client Meyer and initiated a surreptitious plan to terminate Meyer. 44. The plan, devised by Taylor, began with the generation and execution of affidavits by QAM employees that were detrimental to Meyer on January 11, Then, On January 15, 2008, Taylor sent a letter to Meyer notifying him that he was retroactively terminating the attorney-client relationship between Briggs and Meyer as of January 11, Taylor undertook this retroactive termination in an attempt to relieve himself of his duty to communicate information related to his representation of Meyer. 47. However, Taylor would owe continuing duties with respect to confidentiality and conflicts of interest to Meyer, even as a former client. 48. Because Taylor had represented QAM, QCC, and Meyer before KOFI, he could not then represent one of these clients against the others in the same or a substantially related matter, unless all three gave informed consent. Informed consent would require that Taylor disclose to Meyer the facts and circumstances giving rise to the situation, any explanation reasonably necessary to inform Meyer of the material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of conduct, and a discussion of Meyer s options and alternatives. 6

7 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 7 of 19 PageID #: Despite Briggs and Taylor s duties owed to Meyer both before and after the purported retroactive termination of the attorney-client relationship, Taylor, without informing Meyer of the underlying facts and circumstances or of Taylor s course of conduct, then contacted KOFI on behalf of QAM in order to report the situation with regard to the account transfer documentation. 50. Then, on or about January 22, 2008, without ever informing Meyer, Taylor flew to Frankfort, Kentucky to meet with KOFI officials. 51. Taylor presented the documents to KOFI officials, and stated that QCC and QAM had concerns about the manner in which the account documents necessary for transfer of customer accounts from Gorter to Meyer were executed. 52. Taylor also informed KOFI that QCC and QAM were having difficulty obtaining documents from Mr. Gorter related to the accounts being transferred. 53. As a result, KOFI agreed to secure documents from Gorter by subpoena the next day. 54. In addition, KOFI staff agreed to contact the Securities Division of the State of Missouri Secretary of State s office in order to secure documents from Meyer so that QCC, QAM and KOFI could obtain those documents. 55. Also on January 22, other QCC and QAM employees were in St. Louis at Mr. Taylor s direction for the purpose of interrogating and firing Meyer because of the account transfer documentation. 56. Taylor knew and participated in the planning of the visit to Meyer s office by QCC and QAM employees. However, Taylor did not inform Meyer of the visit or its intended purpose, depriving Meyer of the opportunity to obtain different counsel. 7

8 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 8 of 19 PageID #: Had Meyer been adequately informed by Taylor of QAM s purported concerns regarding the account documentation, he would have obtained alternate counsel, the January 22, 2008, interrogation never would have taken place, and Meyer would not have been terminated from QAM and QCC. 58. The next day, on January 23, 2008, Taylor, along with QCC s President Michael Jorgensen and QCC s Corporate Legal Counsel Kristine Lord-Krahn, met with members of FINRA s Kansas City District staff to report the situation with regard to the account transfer documentation. Taylor never informed Meyer of this visit. 59. At no time during the course of these events did Taylor advise Meyer of his actions, advise Meyer to obtain new counsel, obtain Meyer s informed consent, or terminate his representation of QCC and QAM. 60. As a direct result of the FINRA visit, Meyer was investigated by FINRA. 61. Meyer was forced to obtain counsel in defending himself against accusations made at the January 23, 2008 meeting between Talyor and FINRA s Kansas City District staff. 62. The purported reason for Meyer s firing was set forth by QCC on the Form U-5 submitted to the CRD on January 25, The reason alleged by QCC was Meyer s supposed failure to follow QCC and QAM procedures related to customer account documentation, and failure to follow instructions of the affiliated firm concerning the transfer of customer accounts. 64. Meyer eventually was able to associate with Silver Oak Securities as a registered representative. 65. Meyer was also able to associate with Cuttingedge Advisors as an investment advisor representative. 8

9 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 9 of 19 PageID #: Meyer lost significant portions of his client base as a result of his termination by QCC and QAM. Meyer also suffered substantial emotional distress that required, among other things, psychological counseling for him and his wife. 67. Subsequent to his termination, Meyer filed claims for damages against QCC and QAM in arbitration sponsored by FINRA for the defamation and tortious interference orchestrated by Taylor. 68. Despite Briggs and Taylor s fiduciary duties owed to Meyer as a former client, Briggs and Taylor represented QCC and QAM in the arbitration against their former client Meyer. 69. The arbitration took place in St. Louis, Missouri, from approximately April 2009 to September Meyer did not learn of any of Taylor s conduct, nor could he have learned of this conduct due to Taylor s affirmative actions taken as set forth above in order to deceive Meyer, until during the discovery process in preparation for the FINRA arbitration hearings. 71. Meyer spent significant resources in attorneys fees and expert witness fees in order to prosecute his case against QCC and QAM. 72. QCC and QAM were ultimately found liable to Meyer by the FINRA arbitration panel in September QCC and QAM terminated Taylor and Briggs representation during the arbitration proceedings with Meyer. Upon information and belief, Briggs and Taylor continued to act adversely Meyer by assisting the new counsel retained by QCC and QAM s during Meyer s arbitration. 9

10 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 10 of 19 PageID #: 58 CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I Breach of Fiduciary Duty COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned counsel, and for Count I for Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Defendants Briggs and Taylor, states as follows: 74. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference, as if the same were fully stated herein, each and every one of his allegations from Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Three (73). duties. 75. As the attorneys for Meyer, Defendants Briggs and Taylor owed Meyer fiduciary 76. These fiduciary duties include the duties of confidentiality and of loyalty. 77. Even after the purported retroactive termination of the attorney client relationship by Briggs and Taylor on January 15, 2008, Briggs and Taylor continued at all times and to this day to have the duties of confidentiality and loyalty to Meyer as their former client. 78. As recognized by Rule 1.4(a) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client s informed consent,..., is required by these rules;... [and] (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; As recognized by Rule 1.9(a) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. 80. Despite his duty to promptly inform Meyer of any circumstance with respect o which Meyer s informed consent was required and despite his duty to keep Meyer reasonably 10

11 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 11 of 19 PageID #: 59 informed about the status of the matter involving KOFI, Taylor, while he was still serving as Meyer s attorney and with the intent to deceive him, purposefully concealed from Meyer that QAM had contacted him about its purported concerns regarding the account transfer documentation. 81. Moreover, Taylor never requested and Meyer never provided informed consent for Taylor to in any manner represent anyone in any matter in which that other person s interests would be materially adverse to Meyer s interests. 82. Taylor and Briggs had a duty to inform Meyer of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the situation, to provide any explanation reasonably necessary to inform Meyer of the material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of conduct, and to have a discussion of Meyer s options and alternatives. Taylor and Briggs failed to comply with any of these duties. 83. Instead, Taylor and Briggs purposefully concealed all relevant facts and circumstances from Meyer by their silence and by attempting to retroactively terminate Meyer through the January 15, 2008 correspondence. By this conduct, Taylor and Briggs also concealed their subsequent conduct and breaches of fiduciary duty after being contacted by QAM regarding the account transfer documentation. 84. Due to this intentional, fraudulent concealment, Meyer was prevented from inquiring or making investigation regarding the conduct of Taylor and Briggs, and could not have discovered Taylor and Briggs conduct because of their intentional concealment and because of the lack of any means of acquiring this knowledge, which was in the exclusive control of Taylor, Briggs, QCC and QAM. 11

12 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 12 of 19 PageID #: Meyer did not discover any of Taylor and Briggs deceit and wrongful conduct until during the discovery process well after Meyer had filed the arbitration claim against QCC and QAM in April Despite these absolute and unequivocal fiduciary duties, Taylor and Briggs breached their duties of loyalty and confidentiality owed to Meyer both during their representation of him and after their retroactive termination of representation of him in the following ways: a. Advising QCC and QAM on Meyer s termination during and after Taylor s representation of Meyer before KOFI. b. Concealing from Meyer QAM s purported concerns regarding the account transfer documentation in order to advance and protect their own interests and those of QAM and QCC. c. Failing to obtain Meyer s informed consent prior to attempting to retroactively terminate Meyer and continuing to represent the adverse interests of QCC and QAM in the same matter. d. Traveling to Frankfort, Kentucky, in order to meet with KOFI officials to report purported deficiencies in the manner in which Meyer submitted documents provided to him by Gorter. e. Continuing, after the January 22, 2008 meeting with KOFI officials, to feed information from QCC and QAM to KOFI materially adverse to Meyer s professional career and interests. 12

13 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 13 of 19 PageID #: 61 f. Traveling to Kansas City, Missouri, in order to meet with FINRA officials to report purported deficiencies in the manner in which Meyer submitted documents provided to him by Gorter. g. Representing QCC and QAM in a FINRA arbitration lasting from April 2009 to September 2012 against their former client Meyer on the same matter in which they previously represented Meyer. 87. By their conduct as set forth above, Briggs and Taylor acted willfully and in reckless and wanton disregard for their obligations bestowed upon them as members of the Minnesota Bar and, more importantly, for the rights and well-being of Meyer. 88. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing breaches of fiduciary duty by Briggs and Taylor, Meyer suffered damages as follows: a. damages incurred in the form of attorneys fees in defending his conduct in investigations by FINRA, which investigation was set in motion by the trip to Kansas City orchestrated by Taylor and attended by Taylor, Jorgensen and Lord-Krahn; b. damages incurred in the form of the lost business income Meyer suffered due to his termination from QCC and QAM on January 22, 2008, as a consequence of an interview conducted by Fries without warning from Taylor and without the opportunity to obtain alternate counsel; c. damages incurred in the form of attorneys fees and expert witness fees incurred in prosecuting his claims against QCC and QAM resulting from Meyer s termination, which would not have occurred had Taylor not concealed material facts from Meyer and had Taylor fulfilled his duty to 13

14 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 14 of 19 PageID #: 62 communicate the facts and circumstances regarding Taylor s representation of Meyer; and d. emotional distress caused by the willful, wanton, and malicious betrayal of Meyer and their conduct in invading Meyer s rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant judgment in his favor and against Defendants Briggs and Taylor for an amount that is fair and in excess of $1,000, in compensation for damages to Mr. Meyer, for a forfeiture of the fees gained by Defendants Briggs and Taylor as a result of and during the course of their breaches of fiduciary duties, and for additional punitive damages, together with interest, attorneys fees and costs. Plaintiff further requests such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. COUNT II Fraud/Fraudulent Concealment COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned counsel, and for Count II for Fraud/Fraudulent Concealment against Defendants Briggs and Taylor, states as follows: 89. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference, as if the same were fully stated herein, each and every one of his allegations from Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Three (73), Seventy Eight (78), and Seventy Nine (79). 90. In the January 15, 2008 correspondence from Taylor to Meyer, Taylor represented to Meyer that Taylor and Briggs representation of Meyer was being terminated because the matter before KOFI had concluded. 91. This representation was false when made, as the documentation sent by Meyer to QAM pursuant to the agreement arrived at with KOFI at the December 10, 2007 meeting in Lexington was not complete. 14

15 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 15 of 19 PageID #: Taylor and Briggs knew this representation to be false, as QAM had contacted Taylor prior to January 11, 2008, to inform him of their purported concerns regarding the manner in which the account documentation was delivered by Meyer to QAM. 93. Taylor and Briggs sent the January 15, 2008 letter to Meyer in order to throw him off his guard and lull him into a sense of security so that he would not take steps to inquire or make an investigation regarding the conduct of Taylor and Briggs, to obtain alternate counsel, or to otherwise protect himself and his interests. 94. Meyer had no knowledge that this representation was false at the time it was made. 95. Meyer did in fact rely upon this statement and had the right to do so since it came from his attorney. 96. Meyer had no knowledge that QAM had any concerns regarding his involvement with the account transfer paperwork, and the letter from Taylor led him to believe that the matter was concluded. 97. Meyer relied upon this letter in that he did not seek out alternate counsel so that he would have had continuous representation while the matter with KOFI proceeded. 98. In addition to the affirmatively made, false misrepresentation contained in the January 15, 2008 letter, Taylor and Briggs also concealed material facts from Meyer with the intent to mislead and create a false impression. 99. Taylor and Briggs, despite their duty to promptly inform Meyer of any circumstance with respect to which Meyer s informed consent would be required, including Taylor and Briggs continued representation of QAM and QCC, and despite their duty to keep Meyer reasonably informed about the status of the matter, concealed from Meyer: 1) that QAM 15

16 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 16 of 19 PageID #: 64 had concerns regarding the account transfer paperwork; 2) the material advantages and disadvantages of Briggs and Taylor s continued representation of QAM and QCC despite the conflict of interest between Meyer and QCC and QAM; 3) Meyer s options and alternatives in light of Taylor and Briggs termination of the attorney client relationship; 4) Taylor s role in planning the termination of Meyer; 5) Taylor s plans to travel to KOFI and FINRA to report QCC s and QAM s purported concerns regarding the account transfer paperwork; and 6) QAM President Matthew Fries planned trip to St. Louis to interview Meyer about QAM s purported concerns regarding the account transfer paperwork Taylor and Briggs intentionally concealed this information from Meyer in order to throw him off his guard and lull him into a sense of security so that he would not take steps to inquire or make an investigation regarding the conduct of Taylor and Briggs, to obtain alternate counsel, or to otherwise protect himself and his interests Meyer did in fact rely upon the silence of Taylor and Briggs and had the right to do so because he had the right to have this information communicated to him by his attorneys As a consequence of his reliance, Meyer he did not seek out alternate counsel so that he would have had continuous representation while the matter with KOFI proceeded Due to the intentional, fraudulent concealment as set forth above, Meyer was prevented from inquiring or making an investigation of Taylor and Briggs conduct, and could not have discovered Taylor and Briggs conduct because of their intentional concealment and because of the lack of any means of acquiring this knowledge, which was in the exclusive control of Taylor, Briggs, QCC and QAM. 16

17 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 17 of 19 PageID #: Meyer did not discover any of Taylor and Briggs deceit and wrongful conduct until during the discovery process after Meyer had filed the arbitration claim against QCC and QAM in April By their conduct as set forth above, Briggs and Taylor acted willfully and in reckless and wanton disregard for their obligations bestowed upon them as members of the Minnesota Bar and, more importantly, for the rights and well-being of Meyer As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing fraudulent conduct by Briggs and Taylor, Meyer suffered damages as follows: a. damages incurred in the form of attorneys' fees in defending his conduct in investigations by FINRA, which investigation was set in motion by the trip to Kansas City orchestrated by Taylor and attended by Taylor, Jorgensen and Lord-Krahn; b. damages incurred in the form of the lost business income Meyer suffered due to his termination from QCC and QAM on January 22, 2008, as a consequence of an interview conducted by Fries without warning from Taylor and without the opportunity to obtain alternate counsel; c. damages incurred in the form of attorneys' fees and expert witness fees incurred in prosecuting his claims against QCC and QAM resulting from Meyer s termination, which would not have occurred had Taylor not concealed material facts from Meyer and had Taylor fulfilled his duty to communicate the facts and circumstances regarding Taylor s representation of Meyer; and 17

18 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 18 of 19 PageID #: 66 d. emotional distress caused by the willful, wanton, and malicious betrayal of Meyer and their conduct in invading Meyer's rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant judgment in his favor and against Defendants Briggs and Taylor for an amount that is fair and in excess of $1,000, in compensation for damages to Mr. Meyer, and for additional punitive damages, together with interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff further requests such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a jury trial on the merits. Respectfully submitted, COSGROVE LAW GROUP, LLC /s/ Kurt J. Schafers David B. Cosgrove, Fed# MO40980 Kurt J. Schafers, Fed# MO Forsyth Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri Telephone: (314) Facsimile: (314) dcosgrove@cosgrovelawllc.com kschafers@cosgrovelawllc.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 18

19 Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 11 Filed: 11/12/13 Page: 19 of 19 PageID #: 67 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically via the Court s CM/ECF system, on this 12 th day of November, 2013, and served via the Court s electronic case filing system upon the following attorneys of record: Jeffrey B. Jensen Jeffrey.Jensen@huschblackwell.com David R. Dyroff Dave.Dyroff@huschblackwell.com Matthew P. Diehr Matthew.Diehr@huschblackwell.com HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, Missouri Attorneys for Defendants Briggs & Morgan, PA, and Frank A. Taylor /s/ Kurt J. Schafers 19