- 6 -
Goodman was aware of a North Carolina dealer’s case against
SET where a State administrative law judge had issued extensive
findings of fact, and Goodman relied on the findings and record
in that case as a source for the allegations in petitioner’s
complaint against SET, et al. Kilborn and Goodman worked
together to draft the final complaint, which was filed in the
Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, on or about September
27, 1990. Because the complaint was designed to replicate the
approach used in other suits, it focused on the commercial losses
of the dealership attributable to the defendants’ misconduct.
The complaint is 60 pages in length and contains 123
jurisdictional and factual allegations and 13 counts, broadly
categorized as follows: Count I, breach of contract; count II,
promissory fraud; counts III to V, violations of the Alabama
Motor Vehicle Franchise Act; count VI, felonious injury; count
VII, interference with business relations; count VIII, willful
misrepresentation; count IX, reckless misrepresentation; count X,
suppression of material fact; count XI, promissory fraud; count
XII, conspiracy; and count XIII, violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.
sections 1961 and 1964(c). The factual allegations do not
contain a claim or allegation that petitioner suffered any mental
stress or depression. The allegations in the complaint address
the business relationship and the improper and unfair tactics and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011